Bigfoot - serious, not follies

LTC8K6 said:
Not only that, but you've got folks like Melvin Skahan who can do the bigfoot yowl all by himself.
From the same story..

Jones first saw a sasquatch while on a hunting trip as a teenager in 1967. "I watched him for almost 40 minutes through a nine-power rifle scope, so I knew it wasn't a bear or any other known creature," he recalls," A herd of elk passed by this animal, which had squatted down in the grass to be unobserved, and the elk never sensed his presence. Then a couple of hunters came on the scene, and they, too, walked within feet of him. After they passed, he moved away so quickly and stealthily that it was hard to believe what I'd seen." Fearing ridicule, Jones told no one about his encounter, not even his father, but the image has remained vivid in his memory. When he discovered the BFRO web site, he decided to share his experience—and to dedicate much of his spare time to the pursuit of Bigfoot. "I went down to New Mexico last year to verify some information from a Jicarilla Apache who had reported a close encounter that he'd had almost two years earlier," says Jones. "We'd gone out to the location to reenact the circumstances he described, and as we were walking back to our car, one of our party spotted a huge creature just yards from her in the brush. I went right in, chasing it up the side of the mountain almost 350 yards. When I finally stopped on a saddle where I could see, he was about 75 feet away, peeking around a tree, staring at me. We looked at each other, eye to eye, for almost a minute, and then he snapped a branch, turned, and disappeared. Since it was getting dark, and I couldn't get anyone to go back in there with me, I waited until the next day and went down with another guide to check for prints. There was nothing good enough to cast, but we could see where he'd scrambled up a 60-foot cliff, tearing away the moss as he climbed."
What's wrong with this story ? I mean really wrong...


I've got a $1.00 off coupon for RightGuard, for the correct ansewer.. ( this really should be in the Puzzles forum )
 
Moneymaker says the film's veracity has been endorsed by several noted primatologists, including Daris Swindler, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Washington.

From that same BFRO page.

Again the claim that the film has been endorsed as true.
 
Bobo Fay, a regular on BFRO expeditions...
I thought he was an Intergalactic bounty hunter.

The above quotes from the BFRO really show the brilliance of mythmaking. Bigfoot is a wonderful American myth. It fun, exciting and relatively safe (as long as nobody shoots anyone going for a pee behind a tree). The myth makes superb campfire stories.

Any imaginable excuse is given why Bigfoot cannot be photographed, captured or found. None of them have to be rational. They only have to be acceptable to the Bigfoot crowd. Since this is a mostly isolated subculture, the excuses only bounce around within this self-contained reality world. Bigfoot believers are from Mars. Everyone else is from Venus.

Do not forget the most genius excuse of all... from the father of this thread. Beckjord makes an end run around everything and just concedes that Bigfoot is paranormal. This 'electric ape' appears and disappears. It even changes shapes while it is visible.

Bigfoot has infrared vision? Lordy, that is paranormal. No animal on earth has infrared vision. Some have the capacity to sense infrared emission very close to them, but they don't use their eyes. Pit vipers and other snakes are the classic example.

The Bigfoot myth is cool until one of the supportive folks decides to carry their medicine show outside of the subculture. When Beckjord and LAL showed up here they took a spaceship from Mars to Venus. Then Lu complains about softball hostilities and recommends medication for me? Puhleeeze!
 
Lu probably thinks it's guys like Beckjord that are making bigfoot research look silly.

I submit that it's not really Beckjord or his kind at all.

It's the people Lu keeps citing as experts, and the people at TBRC and the BFRO that are making bigfoot research look silly.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Lu probably thinks it's guys like Beckjord that are making bigfoot research look silly.

I submit that it's not really Beckjord or his kind at all.

It's the people Lu keeps citing as experts, and the people at TBRC and the BFRO that are making bigfoot research look silly.

Agreed. But ironically, the reverse is true. Beckjord is so far outside of Bigfoot subculture that he appeals to me in weird ways. The line between pure paranormal entity and pure myth is much small than between irreconcilably improbable natural creatures and myth. That might not make sense to you. I mean, Beckjord's description of the ape is much closer to mythical (which Bigfoot is) than trying to explain it in completely ridiculous naturalistic ways.

Obviously, I'm convinced that Bigfoot does not exist. But because LAL (and her like) will argue all day long about Bigfoot as a real giant stinky American ape, I am compelled to give counterarguments all day long. I suspect that I would stop arguing against Beckjord quickly, because his position claims that Bigfoot cannot be evaluated in naturalistic terms.

If LAL wants to argue for a nocturnal bipedal ape, I've got my gloves on. When Beckjord argues for a thing that appears, disappears and morphs, I have no functional argument.

When you are out in the woods with LAL and she hears a Bigfoot sound, you can run over there and show her it was a coyote. With Beckjord, even pointing at the coyote won't work because he can say that that is Bigfoot. Then what do you say?

Truth is, I want to camp out in Bigfoot country with LAL and Beckjord and have fat cheeseburgers and beer around the campfire. But ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, not together. I want them to immerse me in the myth and talk to me for hours about it.

LAL, I don't hate you. I don't think I even pity you. I just think you are completely wrong about the existence of Bigfoot as a real animal outside of myth. You seem to be persistent and possibly enjoying your prolonged debate here. That is something worthy, even if you are 100% incorrect.

Lu, when I tell you to 'stuff it', I'm telling you that you are taking this myth outside the boundaries that a myth should be taken. I love you, you little deluded thing you.
 
LTC8K6 said:
And sometimes they just stroll off nonchalantly on camera as if they couldn't care less about their territory or anything else. :D

I guess these expeditions need to try to run across Patty again.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=448

They only stroll nonchalantly for movies. They defend their territories with ferocious displays and vocalizations only when they know that a squatchhunter has once again traipsed out into the woods without a camera.
 
Well, I just dismiss Beckjord outright and don't bother to listen after the first few sentences.

I don't count Beckjord against the rational folks who genuinely believe in sasquatch.

They do need to weed those folks out of their conferences and symposiums though.

If I decided to attend one to learn about bigfoot and the state of bigfoot research, and had to listen to any of those lunatics, I would be mighty upset. If I had paid any money, I would demand it back.
 
Diogenes said:
That makes sense.. Thanks for setting me strait.. Need to have a slice of humble pie on that one..

Nah, asking when one doesn't know is nothing to apologize for...now if you still insisted they didn't emit that'd be a different story ;)


However, in light of the IR signature of a bunch of people in the first place ( it doesn't say they were wearing thermal camo ), it doesn't seem that the use of IR goggles would be the deciding factor in keeping ol' Mr. Infrared vision, Sasquatch at bay..

Probably not, but also you need to remember not to confuse IR with thermographic. IR is not necessarily "heat vision" or "infravision" in the typical sense. Using NVGs, the IR signature of a person is a brighter spot, but can still be blocked by most anything in between (such as weeds, trees, bushes, etc). With the active IR on, it's a beam that would shine out from their hiding place, and (since it shines in the direction you are looking...it's mounted on the goggles) into BF's eyes/orafices/IR sensing gonads.

Not that I think these people have any grounding in reality, but the active IR is a concern, even in groups of people, because it's like the difference between the glow of a small campfire and the beam of a large flashilight. If you are facing an enemy that has NVGs (or other infrared capability), you do NOT turn your active mode on.

Of course, I'm also considering this from the view of trained soldiers facing trained soldiers, or night-time sniping, so what I might or might not consider acceptible risk may vary from the average person, as well :)
 
Why would you use up most of your film, anyway?

You don't have much in the first place.

You are trying to document an unknown creature.

Why use up most of the roll and ride around with hardly any film left?

On Thursday evening, October 19, 1967, the men set up their camp close to Bluff Creek itself.

Gimlin arose early the next morning and rode out of the camp site while Patterson slept-in. Gimlin arrived back at the camp at about 10:00 a.m. Patterson was not at the camp at this time. He returned after a little while and asked Gimlin what area he had covered on his early ride. Gimlin told him where he had been after which Patterson suggested they re-explore an area they had previously explored. Gimlin agreed and the men left at about twelve noon.

Gimlin comes back that morning and finds Patterson gone.

Patterson was out early that morning by himself, then he comes back to camp and wants to know where Gimlin has been exploring. Patterson then tells Gimlin where to look next, which was where both of them had been before.

Suspicious, if you ask me.

On October 26, 1967, the film was shown at the University of British Columbia (U.B.C.). Two screenings were conducted. The first screening was given to University scientists only. The second screening was to university scientists and Don Abbott and Frank Beebe (both of the British Columbia Provincial Museum). Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were at both sessions to answer questions. They also showed the audience the casts of the footprints found at the film site. Whether or not the second film roll was shown at these sessions is not clear. John Green, who was present, states this roll was shown; Ren&eacut; Dahinden, also present, says it was not shown. Unfortunately, this roll vanished in the early 1970s.

The university scientists were under strict orders not to comment one way or the other on the authenticity of the film. To this day, there has been no official comment from this group. The museum people, Frank Beebe and Don Abbott, however, were not restrained. Frank Beebe, although impressed with the film, implied the strong likelihood of a hoax. Don Abbott did not give a personal opinion at this time. A press screening and conference was held later the same day. Subsequent newspaper reports were given very high profile.

Because the scientific community, as it were, was either silent, non-committal, generally negative or vague, public interest in the new evidence quickly diminished. Hopes held by Dahinden and Green for government backing to further research the Bigfoot phenomenon also rapidly faded.

Why would you give strict orders not to comment on the film's authenticity?

Why would you then wonder why the scientific community reacted the way they did?

Very odd.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm
 
Patterson was eager to get his film of the creature developed to ensure that he had in fact caught the creature on the film. On this point, Gimlin has stated, "We weren't sure from Roger stumbling and falling down on the sandbar and getting up and running...we didn't even have an idea that we had anything on the film at that time...in fact it was doubtful that we did have anything."

This is just BS. Patterson knew damn well he had captured Patty on film. His comments in the Argosy magazine article and elsewhere make it clear that he knew for sure he had the creature on film.

Why make the heroic, and presumably expensive effort to get the film developed so quickly if it was doubtful anything was on the film?

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

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy68.htm
 
Thurkon said:
How about sixty seconds?




What research? By whom?

Drs. Meldrum and Nelson. See LMS.

The film speed was 18 fps. That rules out human even according to Grieve. Krantz found some flaws in Grieve's analysis. I'm still reading about this.
 
bruto said:
Proportions are relevant, and a superimposed image that shows this much similarity to human proportions means that the bigfoot in question has human proportions, as simple as that.

How do you see a similarity in proportions? Even at the same scale they are clearly very different.

Follow the lines nightwing supplied, especially in the leg area.
 
Diogenes said:
Approx how long is the PGF footage in LMS ?

I can't give you a time, but it apparently has all 953 frames, from the time Roger started trying to get the camera on her to when she is no longer visible behind trees.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I can't even get an answer as to whether a couple of stills are in the video on LMS...


Of course they are. I thought you were sending out a call for a clip online. I don't know of one. You could try joining BFF and asking someone there to post it. I don't have the software to do it. They may block you if you have an AOL or a couple of other e-mail addresses because Beckjord tries to sneak in under different SNs. A cyber friend had this problem until I vouched for him to the moderators.

You know, I would probably buy a DVD copy of the P/G film itself. Especially if I were sure it was the whole film.



It is.

Of course I think we'd all love to see everything that Patterson shot on those 2 rolls. Well, maybe Lu wouldn't. :D


Sure I would. Northern California is really nice. The footprint section was clipped and included in old documentaries, so it's not like it's gone.

I do not think I want to purchase all of the other claptrap that I am certain the LMS DVD is full of.

The thought of paying for BFRO "research" on video makes me nauseous.

You'd be paying Whitewolf Productions. The BFRO didn't produce this. Doug Hajilek did. It was shown on the Discovery Channel and used to be available as a free download from their website. Actually, it's not full of claptrap, and how could you be certain of that without seeing it? It has the call analysis at Texas A&M, the reenactment of the MD film with Richard Noll, Drs. Meldrum and Nelson on the gait and tissue anomaly, Chillcut on the footprints, Meldrum, Sarmiento and Swindler on the Skookum Cast, Nelson on biomechanics, the computer analysis (done by a sceptic, BTW), peels, hair and scat (that didn't yield DNA). The only eyewitnesses interviewed are the people who were involved in the MD filming.

Maybe your library would purchase it if you think there's some thing wrong with ordering it through the BFRO. I know of no other place to get it, but perhaps the library would. MM aside, there are still many good people left in the organization. I'd hate to see them all painted with the same brush.
 
Diogenes said:
It shouldn't take all that long to read this..

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=586

I've sailed through it several times , making sure I didn't miss the disclaimer that said " We just made all this stuff up.. ) But no, it wasn't there...

What's to respond to? What are you asking them... Maybe something like:

" Do you realize this stuff makes your claim to be ' scientific ' downright ridiculous, makes a laughing stock of serious Bigfoot researchers, and ruins any chances we have for acquiring any credibility ? "

Have you tried to get their attention by saying you are interested in joining an expedition?

I understand the fascination with Bigfoot. I understand that some people want to believe in it, and will go so far as to organize scientific expeditions, and attempt to scientifically evaluate the evidence available.

What I don’t understand is when those same individuals allow nonsense like the BFRO website to go unchallenged. I mean, where are your standards? Is this some kind of indication of the lack of scientific understanding within the Bigfoot community in general? That’s all I can imagine when this garbage is on a website of one of the more “reputable” Bigfoot sites on the net.

I’ve read quite a few reports of Bigfoot encounters. Did I miss the one where there was observed mating? Observed births? If there were no such reports, Moneymaker and crew are outright lying. From what I’ve gathered, the bulk…if not all…of Bigfoot encounters are at the maximum a few minutes in duration. How would this allow a researcher to establish such things as gestation periods, average lifespans, and such? Is the BFRO merely guessing? What kind of serious scientist would make blind guesses about such things?
 
The film speed was 18 fps.

How is it possible to say this with any certainty? The K-100 had a tolerance of 10% in this regard. It is highly unlikely that the film speed was actually 18fps, imo.

It's really too bad that we can't see any more examples of the film taken with that camera.

Really too bad...

How much of bigfoot's details were created by the restoration's use of filters to enhance the P/G film? Would the actual film look as good? Would any opinions change today if the unaltered film could be viewed?

The image restorations involved motion and focal blur removal which was performed using FIR and IIR filters. Image enhancement included Wallis enhancements, homomorphic equalization, histogram equalization and curve adjustments.

It appears none of us, owners of the LMS DVD included, are looking at the actual P/G film at all, really. We are looking at an altered version of the film.
 
Diogenes said:
I wouldn't hesitate to plunk down $30 if I thought I would be getting something objective.



It's pretty objective. It sticks to the best evidence; no "gee whiz" reports. The producer was sceptical, at least until he found some tracks himself.

I would like to know the source of LMS's PGF footage.. How was it mastered.. What is the length of the footage..


I'll see what I can find out.
It's 953 frames.

Supposedly, the encounter that was filmed lasted about two minutes.. I have never seen more than a few seconds...


The encounter may have, but Roger had to get the camera out of the saddlebag (on a badly spooked, if not falling, horse) and aim. By my watch, the film on LMS is about a minute.

The missing footage alone, is reason to consider the PGF inadmissible as evidence for anything..


The missing footage, if we're talking about the second reel, wasn't important. It wasn't returned to Patterson, as I've already posted.

The Bigfoot creduloids see all this amazing detail, but the facial features remain a blob, as do the soles of the feet.


The nose is pretty clear. The soles may be coated in damp sand.
"Scofftics" see suits. I suppose that makes me a "creduloid". Beats being a "woo", but I fail to see how name-calling really accomplishes anything.

I have heard there is a part of the film where Patty is seen moving right to left.. Has anyone else this...


In one of the analyses, the film was viewed in reverse, for some reason. Krantz mentions this. Perhaps that's where that comes from. At no time does she move that way.

I have heard there is a clip where she is seen standing still , and then steps off, to begin her famous walk..


Gimlin says on A&E she was standing by the stream when they first saw her, but that's not on the film that I can see.

It seems obvious that the owner of the film could stand to gain a great deal by putting it in the right hands, whether it is a hoax or not.. The fact that they don't is suspicious in itself..

That would be Patricia Patterson, Roger's widow. She owns the copyright. If she finally has a chance to make a little money off it, I don't begrudge her that. I have no idea what her plans are. Some of the people on BFF know her. Perhaps something's been posted about that. I'll do a search when I get caught up here (if ever).

Oh, and did I mention there is nothing funny or unusual about the walk ?

Did you mention you're an expert in biomechanics and primate locomotion? I didn't know that.
 
Lu, I am no longer sure it's worth anything to look at LMS given the enhancements made to the P/G film.

If the focal and motion blur had not been removed, would you still see muscle movement? Would that shoulder motion look as good to you?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom