Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LAL]

Yep, the LMS DVD is a promotional aid for bigfoot, not a scientific look at bigfoot evidence.

And you know this without seeing it. Amazing.

 

[LAL]

Well, I am not going to bother with the LMS DVD at all.
Judging by this pdf file about the DVD, I will only get flaming mad at the ridiculous liberties they have undoubtedly taken.

It's very straightforward. Inconclusive evidence is presented as just that.....inconclusive.

I suspect that you can't see much of anything at all in the original P/G film other than a vague dark hairy thing walking, and that most of what we have seen is considerably cleaned up.

And you'd be wrong. There's muscle definition, tendons, fluid motion, articulating fingers........

Look at the blowup of frame 352. Nothing but reddish brown vaguely head shaped thing. How did Patty get red anyway.

http://www.hancockhouse.com/products/pdfs/MeeSasSC.pdf

That's an M.K. Davis blow-up if I'm not mistaken. He removed some color layers. There's a lengthy discussion of this on BFF.

The blowup of the head is not shown on the DVD. It was used to model a digital face.

Thanks for posting the link. It's five pages of Meet the Sasquatch by Chris Murphy, one of the books I keep referring to. I had the link at one time but hadn't been able to find it in the last couple of days. Funny you should inadvertantly do me a favor by posting it. I just paraphrased some of the first page shown (pg. 90). Read pg. 92.

 

[LAL]

More about fossils:

QUOTE (Former_Northwester @ Jun 25 2005, 06:33 PM)

Found this interesting tidbit in "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson:



It is estimated that 1 bone in a billion is fossilized. Of all the 270 million people currently living in the United States, each with 206 bones, about 50 of those bones will eventually become a fossil (only enough to make a quarter of a skeleton). Since the United States has 3.6 million sqare miles, the odds of anyone ever finding one of those 50 fossils is extremely small.



Also....



There are 250,000 species so far known in the fossil record. Depending on estimates of the total number of species that have ever lived, that means between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 120,000 species have been found in the fossil record. Furthermore, 95% of the 250,000 fossilized species were marine creatures.



And just to be clear, I'm talking fossils here, not bones. That would be another interesting estimation.


Found another interesting tidbit in Bryson's book that can explain why no Bigfoot fossils have been found, if it exists.

He noted after talking to Ian Tattersall (American Museum Natural History) that the complete collection of hominid fossils every discovered (this includes Gorilla, Chimps, Neanderthal, Australopithecines, Homo Erectus, Gigantopithecus, Humans, etc) consists of parts of only 5,000 individuals. This is out of billions that have ever lived. They could all fit in the back of a pickup truck.

So if BF exists, the odds of anyone having ever found a fossil of it are overwhelming low, it is much much more likely to have never been found.



http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11553&st=100&#entry255822entry255822

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Right, that's another ten or so pages of stuff so time for a reality check once again...

There is absolutely no hard evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot at all.

argue all you want about one highly dubious movie clip and some conflicting footprint evidence but if that's all you have then you have nothing even remotely concrete. We'd all love for him to be real, to be proven that monsters really do exists in the modern scientific world, but the odds are that it's not going to happen.

 

[Yeah_Right]

So if BF exists, the odds of anyone having ever found a fossil of it are overwhelming low, it is much much more likely to have never been found.


It is difficult to find a fossil of something that doesn't exist.

 

[LAL]

Right, that's another ten or so pages of stuff so time for a reality check once again...

There is absolutely no hard evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot at all.

There's hard evidence. Continual insistence that there is none doesn't make that statement true.

argue all you want about one highly dubious movie clip and some conflicting footprint evidence but if that's all you have then you have nothing even remotely concrete. We'd all love for him to be real, to be proven that monsters really do exists in the modern scientific world, but the odds are that it's not going to happen.

Monsters? They seem to be retiring rather gentle creatures. There are very few reports of aggressive behavior and that seems to have been retaliatory.

Gorillas were once thought to be a native myth. The first platypus specimen examined by scientists in London was dismissed as a clever Chinese fake.

Give it time.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Gorillas were once thought to be a native myth. The first platypus specimen examined by scientists in London was dismissed as a clever Chinese fake.

We're waiting..

 

[bruto]

There's hard evidence. Continual insistence that there is none doesn't make that statement true.

Monsters? They seem to be retiring rather gentle creatures. There are very few reports of aggressive behavior and that seems to have been retaliatory.

Gorillas were once thought to be a native myth. The first platypus specimen examined by scientists in London was dismissed as a clever Chinese fake.

Give it time.

Whoa there! I'm not going to go back through all your posts right now, LAL, but I could have sworn back there somewhere you characterized these guys as very dangerous. I know somewhere back there you reported that they tear dogs to pieces! So are they shy and retiring, or are they very dangerous?

Gorillas were once thought to be a myth, but we know where to find them now, don't we? They've been found, confirmed, shot, photographed, documented and tamed. The first platypus may have been dismissed as a fake, but subsequent platypusses/platypi have settled the issue. These examples are of little worth in the bigfoot question. The technology for finding things has marched on, time has passed, and still, no bigfoot.

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

You have hard evidence? Lets see it then, and we'll get this guy classified and studied. Show me the live specimen, the corpse even, the skeletal remains, the 'never before encountered' DNA.

Oh, wait. Are you talking about footprints and blurry pictures again? Are you reading this and about to launch into another 1000 word essay about how someone somewhere claims to have seen something and professor so-and-so says there could be loads of em, and this guy who chases imaginary animals for a living says he smelled one once, and......etc, etc.

Hard evidence is not here-say, learned speculation, eyewitness reports or the occasional footprint that could have come from anything (cue enormous diatribe concerning how some of the footprints look real). The other cases you mentioned were in then unihabited continents and yet were still quite quickly verified. They did not go on for 100's of years without one shred of hard evidence in many of the most populace continents in the world. I say again, if all you have is word of mouth and some footprints then you have precisely nothing.

 

[UrsulaV]

Gorillas were once thought to be a native myth. The first platypus specimen examined by scientists in London was dismissed as a clever Chinese fake.

And elephant skulls were once thought to belong to cyclops, and dinosaur bones were believed to belong to griffins or dragons killed during the flood, and Mongolian entrepeneurs sold fake vegetable lambs to European tourists and Barnum's Feejee Mermaid was a monkey taxidermied to a salmon and don't get me started on the barnacle goose.

Unless you wish to argue that cyclops, griffins, the vegetable lamb and the mermaid are also all real and awaiting discovery, that particular argument is worthless. There are at least as many cases--if not far more--of people believing in fantastical beasts on evidence that turned out to be misinterpreted or completely nonexistant.

And hell, every one the examples listed above actually had bodies (or at least bones) that people could study! Which means that Bigfoot has significantly less credibility than the vegetable lamb (and doubtless had there been internet in those days, we would have the VLForum, in which people demand that anybody claiming the vegetable lamb is a hoax carve one themselves using the technology available in the 60's, and blurry photos of cotton plants would be waved about as incontrovertible evidence, and we'd be arguing about whether those teeny little marks are the result of lines from carving, or unfakeable vegetable ridges. Etc, etc, ad nauseum.)

Baaa!

 

[Correa Neto]

Good points, Ursula.

However, I don´t think LAL will accept them, since she has been making the same mistakes since the start of the bigfeet wars, I mean, threads.

But its not just her fault. Cryptozoologists tend to be very unskilled when it comes to data handling. For example, they claim that the absence of fossil remains of animals related to bigfeet is not an evidence against their existence due to the alleged poor chances of fossilization. However, they say Gigantopithecus is a relative and even claim bigfeet is a species of this genus. Some others will even use the fossil register to back the existence of the sea serpent and nessie. See the lack of logic?

We can expect the same level of arguments and evidence from defenders of nessie, the sea serpent, bigfoot, ghosts and UFOs. When the debate started, with a bigfoot defender not of the same caliber as Erickbeckjord, I (probably it was quite naive of my part) expected something other than the regular poor data handling, baseless speculations and questionable evidence.

 

[WildCat]

Well, this is all going to be academic shortly, as it has been announced that a sasquatch has been captured:

The second hour featured a brief update by Bigfoot hunter Tom Biscardi, who announced that he has "a Bigfoot in captivity right now." Biscardi said the Bigfoot has been at an undisclosed compound for about a week, where it is receiving medical treatment for several injuries. He described the creature as a huge, hairy primate-like animal, standing over eight feet tall. Biscardi promised to post video footage of it at findingbigfoot.com as soon as possible.

I'm sure that this is 100% legit, and there's no chance of the bigfoot escaping, or being let go, or abducted by space aliens before the media and science verifies it. No siree, no way. Biscardi is just going to sit on the biggest find ever, and bide his time. Nothing suspicious about that at all...

 

[bruto]

Well, this is all going to be academic shortly, as it has been announced that a sasquatch has been captured:

I'm sure that this is 100% legit, and there's no chance of the bigfoot escaping, or being let go, or abducted by space aliens before the media and science verifies it. No siree, no way. Biscardi is just going to sit on the biggest find ever, and bide his time. Nothing suspicious about that at all...

Yes, we keep forgetting to bring cameras, but we're arranging to take pictures of it tomorrow or the day after. It's a female sasquatch, affectionately nicknamed "cupcake." Come over here, and I'll show you. Right around this cor...well, she was there a minute ago. That's funny.....

No, actually, in true sasquatch-scientific form, the links lead you to a pay site. $14.95 a week (or a bargain $59.95 for the whole expotition), and you can follow the hunt LIVE!

 

[LAL]

I was really hoping the testicle print would give this thread some new life..


I'm trying to imagine how it was made, when this is supposed to be how the Skookum print was made..

This must be one hung dude...

That was the position when it reached for the fruit. It sat first, then leaned. The print indicates small testicles for such a large creature. I've already mentioned this could indicate a monogamous species.

But you were just trying to be funny, I suppose.........

 

[LAL]

Yes, we keep forgetting to bring cameras, but we're arranging to take pictures of it tomorrow or the day after. It's a female sasquatch, affectionately nicknamed "cupcake." Come over here, and I'll show you. Right around this cor...well, she was there a minute ago. That's funny.....

No, actually, in true sasquatch-scientific form, the links lead you to a pay site. $14.95 a week (or a bargain $59.95 for the whole expotition), and you can follow the hunt LIVE!

I hope you don't think any researchers take Tom Biscardi seriously. The cop-out was that he was scammed by a lady in Nevada.

Yeah, sure, after he claimed he had doctors examining it and they were fighting........nationally broadcast on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory.

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

It's a shame he never caught one actually, since it's the only way anyone rational is going to believe such a thing exists. Apart from Lal and a few others who believe in a few seconds of fake footage and footprints, of course. No offence meant Lal, all you actually have is faith and no real evidence.

 

[LTC8K6]

Biscardi is no worse than Moneymaker. Moneymaker is just not as obvious.

 

[LTC8K6]

It sat first, then leaned.

Then got up, all without a single track. With heelprints yet.

Why is anyone even taking this seriously?

It's got to be a joke.

 

[Thurkon]

Then got up, all without a single track. With heelprints yet.

Why is anyone even taking this seriously?

It's got to be a joke.

From the picture of the site that was posted, it seems to be the area was pretty open.

Where are the footprints?

Why is Foot doing the Worm in the sand?

Why didn't he just walk up and pick up the danged fruit?

Various other animals prints are found, yet these crack researchers conclude it's Foot?

Ahhh...I'm dying laughing over here.

 

[Thurkon]

Be advised, oh unenlightened one, that Doug Hajicek was a sceptic until he and others members of his crew discovered a trackway in Northwest Territories, Canada, while on a standard filming mission. The forensic animator he hired for the documentary, Reuben Steindorf, was an "unbeliever" as well.

Since the computer animation was of the creature in the film, why not use the casts of her feet? What other casts should have been used? Bossburg, maybe?

Yeah, everyone's initially a skeptic until they run across the irrefutable Bigfoot evidence...which is...what, exactly?

Reminds me of the proselytizers on religious forums who start out with that dubious argument from authority: "You know, I used to be an Atheist..."

Yeah, whatever.

LAL, they constructed a skeleton of the "creature" from a blurry video in which the proportions of the creature are anything but certain, because it might just be a guy in a gorilla suit constructed to exaggerate proportions.

They use the castings and the length between the tracks to recreate the feet and the "inhuman" gait of Patty, when the tracks themselves might have been faked after the fact.

In other words, they approach this re-creation as though it is definitely a creature, and everything Patterson and Co. said about the encounter was undeniably true.

That's not very scientific.