Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LAL]

It sure read like you were chastising me for leaving out irrelevant quotes, Lu.

Be that as it may, the only relevant item was Hill's opinion, which I quoted in it's entirety.

All of the quotes together still do not "authenticate" the P/G film anyway. Nor do they come anywhere near to backing up the claim that the film was authenticated.

Nor do they indicate anyone was able to show it was a hoax. Taken as a whole, they were favorable.

On the cover of Tattersal's The Fossil Trail (© 1995 and terribly out-of-date in light of new evidence) is a photo of two Australopithecus afarensis from the Museum of Natural History in New York (I just got an excellent copy for $3.02). The female has hairy breasts. Of course, they hadn't been discovered in 1967, but it would seem no one doing the display thought hairy breasts were unlikely for bipedal primates. So much for that objection. Sillier still was the opinion the breasts must have been air sacs because the figure in the PGF must have been male. As one scientist put it, we don't know what a Sasquatch breast looks like, so how would we know what a Sasquatch breast is supposed to look like?

 

[LTC8K6]

Taken as a whole, they were favorable.

I disagree, and you should make it clear when you are giving your opinion.

A newcomer might read that and get the impression that your statement is factual.

Just put "imo" in there somewhere when you are giving your opinion.

I will take that quote as a sign of defeat on your part anyway. It's a hell of a comedown from authenticated.

Nor do they indicate anyone was able to show it was a hoax.

Were they trying to show it was a hoax?

Irrelevant anyway. Sceptics do not have to show it was a hoax.

Believers do have to show it was sasquatch before they can tell me it's gestation period.

I'll tell you this, if the P/G film begins with sasquatch standing still, then I will shift from "I don't know" to "hoax".

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195109813/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-2698447-7404140#reader-link

I don't think the cover photo shows hairy breasts.

That exhibit photo is available elsewhere in a brighter version which is more revealing.

http://brattahlid.tripod.com/Image130.jpg

 

[bruto]

bruto, the NASI report gives quite a bit of detail about the camera and the film and the copy that was made.

This is not the full report, though.

It may answer some of diogenes questions.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

Interesting, in that the attempt to measure the subject appears to have been done without reference to the focal length of the lens. An attempt to set a scale by comparing a person or a bigfoot with another object in the background will never be accurate unless one knows the focal length of the lens, because the perspective will vary considerably. counting pixels won't help. I think the person doing this confuses precision with accuracy.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Nor do they indicate anyone was able to show it was a hoax. Taken as a whole, they were favorable.

On the cover of Tattersal's The Fossil Trail (© 1995 and terribly out-of-date in light of new evidence) is a photo of two Australopithecus afarensis from the Museum of Natural History in New York (I just got an excellent copy for $3.02). The female has hairy breasts. Of course, they hadn't been discovered in 1967, but it would seem no one doing the display thought hairy breasts were unlikely for bipedal primates. So much for that objection. Sillier still was the opinion the breasts must have been air sacs because the figure in the PGF must have been male. As one scientist put it, we don't know what a Sasquatch breast looks like, so how would we know what a Sasquatch breast is supposed to look like?

So you are supporting your position with cover art from a book you are proclaiming to be " terribly out-of-date in light of new evidence "... ?


Of course we know what Sasquatch breasts look like!

We have the PGF .. Not to mention the description at BFRO ...

 

[RayG]

You wouldn't be into throwing me a little support here, would you?

Support? Not sure I understand. I support evidence, if and when it's presented.

What's your take on Wrinkle Foot?

Well, if you drag in the actual foot then I'm all for it. Footprints just don't do much to prove anything.

RayG

 

[RayG]

Radford can see it with the rest of the public.

Noll has already stated he will not allow Radford to examine the cast, so I have to wonder why he [Radford] would waste money travelling to the West Coast just so he could be told he can't see the cast.

I would think the more people (especially scientists) examining the cast the better.

RayG

 

[RayG]

...the skeptics need to have access to the best evidence available.

I agree. All the more puzzling why Noll refuses to allow Radford access to the Skookum cast. Radford has called the cast "the most significant [Bigfoot-related] find in the past two decades", if authenticated.

RayG

 

[LAL]

I disagree, and you should make it clear when you are giving your opinion.

A newcomer might read that and get the impression that your statement is factual.

Just put "imo" in there somewhere when you are giving your opinion.

Overall, the quotes were favorable, IMO. Of course, a newcomer should be able to determine that just by reading them.

I will take that quote as a sign of defeat on your part anyway. It's a hell of a comedown from authenticated.

When did I say authenticated, and how does one opinion reflect the opinions of everyone who saw the film at Yerkes?

Were they trying to show it was a hoax?

Evidently they just viewed it. They certainly didn't show it was a hoax.

Irrelevant anyway. Sceptics do not have to show it was a hoax.

Of course not. All they have to do is say "bosh" and "bunk" and that settles it. Is "sceptic" a synonym for "scientist"?

Believers do have to show it was sasquatch before they can tell me it's gestation period.

I'll tell you this, if the P/G film begins with sasquatch standing still, then I will shift from "I don't know" to "hoax".

It doesn't. It starts with a lot of smears as Roger ran after it, but it's possible to see she was already in motion. (It was possible to determine the film speed from this. There's a detailed explanation of how this was done in Krantz' book.) The camera points down as he was trying for a better vantage point (after she turned)and ran out of film after she goes into the forest. Roger got into the heavy brush, but they decided not to pursue her into the forest. Her stride had lengthened by then and she was way ahead of them. The second roll was taken later, with shots of tracks and scenery.

I've been trying to find your earlier post on this. I lost my reply twice bring up articles, and couldn't find the post again searching from the profile page and then I ran out of time, so I'll just answer it here.

At no time does she stop.

No, he didn't change rolls while he was filming her. There was no time.

There were three individuals (alleged Sasquatches, not people) in the area at the time. This was the medium-sized one. Gimlin said he was wondering at the time what they would do if the big one showed up.

 

[Hitch]

There were three individuals (alleged Sasquatches, not people) in the area at the time. This was the medium-sized one. Gimlin said he was wondering at the time what they would do if the big one showed up.

What!!!

There were two other Bigfoots that Patterson DIDN'T film??? Why does no one ever mention this?

Why does it feel like you're just making stuff up?

Why do I get the feeling you're ignoring me?

 

[RayG]

Have you looked into a study of critical thinking?

There's a thread on critical thinking over at the BFF. It used to be pinned, but now it's not so easy to find.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=4948&st=0

RayG

 

[Thurkon]

There were three individuals (alleged Sasquatches, not people) in the area at the time. This was the medium-sized one. Gimlin said he was wondering at the time what they would do if the big one showed up.

This is actually correct.

1.Patterson
2.Gimlin
3.Hieronimous

Although…of the three…I’m not sure Bob H. was the medium-sized one.

 

[LAL]

What!!!

There were two other Bigfoots that Patterson DIDN'T film??? Why does no one ever mention this?

It's gets mentioned. There were tracks of three in the area. They didn't see the others. Patterson and Gimlin didn't just show up and get the film (that idea seems to have come from a reporter error in the The Times Standard article. They were in the area for three weeks prior to the filming (Meet the Sasquatch, pg.45)

Why does it feel like you're just making stuff up?

Could be because you haven't done much reading on this and aren't familiar with the subject, and I'm having trouble finding a source. (I'm begginning to think it was De Atley in Long's book. That might explain why it doesn't seem to be matching with some other accounts. Back to the library.)

Why do I get the feeling you're ignoring me?

I'm not. I just haven't had time to answer all the posts. I'm doing the best I can to get caught up. I do have a life, you know.

 

[Thurkon]

LAL,

I'm interested in your take on the BFRO stuff we've posted. Do you support that kind of unscientific gobbledygook? You seem more rational than that.

 

[RayG]

The BFRO apparently knows as much about bigfoot as the rest of the world knows about tigers, or elephants, or gorillas, or humans.

You should see the stuff they 'know' but left out.

Go here and click on 'View' --> 'Page Source', for example.

RayG

 

[LAL]

I agree. All the more puzzling why Noll refuses to allow Radford access to the Skookum cast. Radford has called the cast "the most significant [Bigfoot-related] find in the past two decades", if authenticated.

RayG

It's open to scientists in a relevant field; Radford isn't a scientist.

I remember a thread on this on BFF. Did you ask Noll?

 

[LAL]

Support? Not sure I understand. I support evidence, if and when it's presented.

Well, if you drag in the actual foot then I'm all for it. Footprints just don't do much to prove anything.

RayG

Then on what do you base your 90% certainty that they're real?
And what makes you think they don't do much to prove anything?

 

[LAL]

This is actually correct.

1.Patterson
2.Gimlin
3.Hieronimous

Although…of the three…I’m not sure Bob H. was the medium-sized one.

I specified Sasquatches because I knew someone would try this.

Actually, Heironimus wasn't there.

 

[RayG]

What!!!

There were two other Bigfoots that Patterson DIDN'T film??? Why does no one ever mention this?

It HAS been mentioned on the BFF a number of times. I personally have pointed it out a few times over there.

"They had been seeing occasional tracks of three sasquatches in the area, of different sizes, and they assumed that they were looking at the medium-sized ones."

Source: Krantz, Grover. 1992.Big Footprints. Johnson Books. pg. 91

RayG

 

[LAL]

LAL,

I'm interested in your take on the BFRO stuff we've posted. Do you support that kind of unscientific gobbledygook? You seem more rational than that.

I'll let you know when I've had time to read it. I don't use the site much, except for the Skookum Cast, Green, the Denver Post article and the BBC's costume.

In addition to "Web site not responding....." and disappearing replys (that really gets me when it's one I've spent hours on, only to lose it by bringing up one two many articles for linking) I'm getting AOL errors and have to restart the computer when I try to close out the automaic virus scan results. Get's frustrating.