Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

]...And can you think of any creature at all that cryptozoology has posited and then produced?...

Only one: the giant squid.

How could I be so forgetful?

Two creatures of cryptolzoology/myth have been established as real:

The giant squid, and the gorilla.

 

[Huntster]

But... didn't you just compare squatch to humans, regarding the "diaper butt" appearance, a page or so ago? Why is it OK for you to make that comparison on this topic, but not OK for Correa Neto?....

My objection to Correa Neto was his/her blanket "no, gorillas and bears don't count".

Comparing sasquatch bipedalism is naturally compared to humans, since humans are bipedal, and bears and gorillas are not.

Comparing fat deposits to humans (while simultaneously excluding other wild animals) is an immature denialist strategy, not honest debate.

...would you be OK with another comparison to humans if it included one to gorillas as well...

If it was appropriate, of course.

 

[Huntster]

Could you please show me exactly where I twisted the original statement?

This claim of your is quite simple to defend, if you can.

If you can't, remove it.

My post, in it's entirety:

Originally Posted by Correa Neto :

Diogenes, its better to say that some myths have a basis in truth.

Huntster, myths can not be used as reliable evidence for cryptos and I have already discussed posted examples on the problems that arise from this "research methodology".

Tell me, what other Native American myths you think are real? And please, tell me why.

If you accept this particular pice of their lore, why not others such as their creation myths?

Twisting and spinning again, I see.

The quote was well linked to both the entire article and Wikipedia's entry on it's originator:

Henry Gee, editor of the prestigious journal Nature.

Now, can we go back and discuss that, or are you and Diogenes going to continue to twist his statement by pulling the word "myth" out of context?

It will not be pulled. Again, if you have a problem with my post, take it up with a moderator. That's what they're there for.

I have respect for authority. If a moderator determines I screwed up, I will conform, even if I respectfully challenge their determination within the confines of the law/regulations/guidelines.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

For instance, in the frames just before Patty's right leg disappears behind the stump, I can see what looks like her calf muscle bulging out. The only problem is, it looks out of place and it bulges out mid-stride, way before Patty's foot gets near the ground. If I just let the film run, it looks just like her calf muscle working. When I look closer and pay attention, it appears the "calf muscle" is working backwards for this particular stride. Well, to me anyway.

Is it just a calf muscle working? If so, it's really bulging out there.
Is it just an artifact from a lot of processing? Could be.
Is it part of a suit flapping or coming loose? Could be.
Is it my imagination? I don't think so since I can see it in every version of the film.

Good catch.. I haven't noticed that before.. I'll have to take a closer look..

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

...and let us not forget the Ceolocanth either, a genuine 100% honest to goodness prehistoric survivor from the very depths of the ocean. Yet they found it, proved it and have even to a large extent mapped out their distribution and filmed them in the wild.

Not a myth, I grant you, but still an amazing creature shown to exist that no one knew anything about. Kinda makes finding a large, widespread population of wookies seem reasonable and easy by comparison, yet still nothing is found.

Oh, and while I'm back on this nonsense, the bit about that EVERY "suit flaw" that Dfoot claimed HE saw on Patty has been demonstrated to exist on REAL living animals", did he ever find ALL those faults on ONE creature? I think the public should be told.

 

[Huntster]

Man, you MUST go to an eye doctor.

Seriously.

I actually have spent quite a bit of time with eye doctors, especially after being shot in the head. My eyesight returned even better than 20/20, but as I age I find the need for reading glasses much more regularly.

Like I posted, I even put my reading glasses on to review what you see.

I see lots of anomolies in the PG film, but instead of pointing out things as proof of a hoax, I look for signs of a hoax, and signs of reality.

I still think the film depicts a real, live animal, because I don't believe that is a man in a suit. There have been many "men in suits" offered as pictures or films of a sasquatch. This is the only one that defies attempts to show a man in a suit.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

My eyesight returned even better than 20/20 ......

How does that work ? Do you see things that are not visible to others ?

That would explain a lot..

 

[Huntster]

Cultural -or social- anthropologists quite often "fall in love" with the culture they study.....

Of course that happens. That's what "woo" is, isn't it?: Falling in love with your views/ideology/opinion/statements?

I suggest that Nelson didn't let his experience woo him. He clearly states that he didn't loose his agnosticism. He ends his book with this:

...I stood beneath the tall timber and watched a raven fly above me, vanishing and reappearing as it passed behind the treetops. And I wondered what, or who, it really was. Certainty is for those who have learned and believed only one truth. Where I came from, the raven is just a bird - an interesting and beautiful one perhaps, even an intelligent one - but it is a bird, and that is all. But where I am now, the raven is many other things first, its form and existence as a bird almost the least significant of its qualities. It is a person and a power, God in a clown's suit, incarnation of a once-omnipotent spirit. The raven sees, hears, understands, reveals ... determines.

What is the raven? Bird-watchers and biologists know. Koyukon elders and their children who listen know.

But those like me, who have heard and accepted them both, are left to watch and wonder.

The raven tucked a wing and went topsy-turvy in the sky, then flew away toward the river, its resonating croaks pouring down into the forest. I turned awkwardly away, almost fearing a question: Was it laughing?

Nelson has exposed with that statement that which so frutstrates me with many on this forum. He does not explicitly deny that which his Koyukon teachers revealed to him, nor does he reject that which he learned from his roots in Western science. He reports what he has learned, and is left in wonder.

He doesn't even form his own pompous theories, and then spends the rest of his life defending them. He is clearly too wise for that.

Too bad there aren't more Richard Nelsons out there.

...I worked many years in Northern Brazil -Amazonia included. I stayed in the field for at least 20 days each month. I am reasonably well aware of Brazilian lore (Native Brazilian included). Some studies I read are very interesting, and I had the opportunity to help people doing some also (much less than I would like to). This does not mean I think the mapinguari, caipora, boitata, etc. are real beasts....

Did you ever see plaster casts of footprints, photographs, or films of mapinguari, caipora, or boitata?

We have of sasquatches.

...There MAY be a real basis for bigfoot myth. But this basis MAY NOT be a real unknown primate lurking in North America's forests....

That is correct.

And that basis MIGHT be because a real, uncatalogued (not unknown) primate may be lurking in North America's forests.

...In the saquatch case, it would be nice to check:
What the original legend says?
What parts of it are considered as "usefull"?...

In the case of Nelson's Koyukon study, the Koyukon taught him that woodsmen were formerly human who had committed grave sins, and were relegated to the forests, where they turned into what they are today.

The part that I find useful today is the part where they are recognized to exist.

The Koyukon, apparently, aren't into denial. They may not have the origin of the woodsmen perfect (and I can't say that they don't, either), but at least they're leaps and bounds ahead of Western science, which is largely still in denial.

...From what I see, only a small part of the myth was used, and interpreted according to the cultural background of the interpreter, completely detached from the original.

That's the part I like the best.

Take the good and work with it.

Set the bad aside for future reference, but don't waste a whole lot of time on it unless evidence comes in to bring it into relevance.

It beats "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

 

[Huntster]

Edited after completely reading the cited post.

Shooting from the hip, here.

I tend to do that when the bullets fill the air.

 

[Hitch]

Never mind, missed a page break.

I editted out my post.

 

[Huntster]

Should I bring up dragons?
Big, flying, fire breathing lizards.....

Of course. We wouldn't expect any less from you, sir.

Throw the point to the left, or the right. Spin it on it's head. Throw in some loose nuts and bolts.

That won't change the fact that western science found 1 meter tall bipedal skeletons in an area that is rife with aboriginal legends of 1 meter tall bipedal, apelike creatures that are still running around in the forest.

...They pretty much had to be real with all of the documentation of them, right?...

Maybe. It's my position that myths like that often have a basis in truth.

...All of the myths, legends, stories, statues, and pictures mean that these beasties had to be actual living beings, right?...

Maybe.

Maybe not.

...People wouldn't make up something like breathing fire, or flight, would they?...

Maybe.

Maybe not.

...They had to have actually seen dragons, or something very close, didn't they?...

Maybe.

Maybe not.

...Today's lizards have just lost a couple of talents and gotten smaller, right?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

We won't know unless and until we find some evidence to support or destroy the legends.

And we won't find that evidence if we don't look.

And we won't look if everybody denies the possibilities with pure opinion and prejudice.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :

My eyesight returned even better than 20/20 ......

How does that work ? Do you see things that are not visible to others ?

That would explain a lot..

I don't know. I didn't query the eye doctor (because I didn't think I'd understand his answer, anyway), and I have no knowledge or skill in optometry.

Perhaps if you're knowledgable about eyes, you can explain it to me.

If not, perhaps you should go to your eye doctor. They can work wonders today, you know.

 

[Hellbound]

Actually, you can have vision greater than 20/20. The scale is how your vision at 20 feet compares to the average level of detail seen at 20 feet. I never remember which number goes on top*, but as an example 20/200 vision means the level of detail you see at 20 feet is comparable to what the average person sees at 200 feet. My vision (with my glasses) is actually 20/15, meaning I see as much detail at 20 feet as the average sees at 15.

Of course, this is a rather subjective scale, and questionable in it's accuracy. Among optometrists, they'll look at sphere, cylinder, and axis numbers, and you'll see measurements such at "-2.50" or "-3.75". These are more accurate measures of the eyes function, with 0.00 being normal sight.

*-As I said, I may have it backwards (confusing 20/200 with 200/20), but the main point is correct.

 

[LTC8K6]

Better eyes won't increase the resolution of the film either.

You still can't really see anything in the PGF smaller than about 2".

 

[Aepervius]

Might be correct.

I don't know. I didn't query the eye doctor (because I didn't think I'd understand his answer, anyway), and I have no knowledge or skill in optometry.

Perhaps if you're knowledgable about eyes, you can explain it to me.

If not, perhaps you should go to your eye doctor. They can work wonders today, you know.

As far as the explanation I got from somebody is correct (he could have told me bunk) this go this way : the eyeball lens focus is never quite centered 100% on the retina. It is a bit before or a bit after by a small measure. Now for somebody having 20/20 this means they are focussing within a certain distance -d to +d of the retina position (0) , but this still make a normal/clear eyesight. Having less than -d in negatif make you presbyte or more than +d short sighted. Now the test are made so that you are with a range of d where you can consider you can see everything reasonably well and can't really detect anything wrong. But if you are really even nearer the retina (or accidentally spot on) then you can see "better" than somebody at the end of the range (near d). Thus some people having "more" than 20/20.

Now this could be completly bunkun, but as I relate to my optic course, I can imagine this to be correct , that focussing 100% on the retina probably never happens in a growing human, but this d is probably very small that the difference between 20/20 and more make NO FREAKING difference on a badly digitalised film...

It would be nice to know if this is correct or not from a biologist...

PS: I am shortsighted , but frankly, I see the same detail on the flap, and my first thougth was "looks like a costume". But hey, opinion are just that...

 

[LTC8K6]

The same "calf flap" frame from the MK Davis animated gif.

 

[Huntster]

Better eyes won't increase the resolution of the film either....

I like the way Nelson described "seeing" in "Make Prayers to the Raven":

...Reality is not the world as it is perceived directly by the senses; reality is the world as it is perceived by the mind through the medium of the senses. Thus reality in nature is not just what we see, but what we have learned to see. In other words, my Koyukon teachers had learned through their own traditions about dimensions in nature that I, as a Euro-American, had either not learned to perceive or had been explicitly taught do not exist...

If you have already determined that sasquatches don't exist, nothing will convince you otherwise.

If you are open to the possibility, you can judge each piece of evidence prudently: thus the Freeman film can be suspect, the "Cat Chaser" film is a hoax, and the PG film is quite convincing.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Actually, you can have vision greater than 20/20. The scale is how your vision at 20 feet compares to the average level of detail seen at 20 feet. I never remember which number goes on top*, but as an example 20/200 vision means the level of detail you see at 20 feet is comparable to what the average person sees at 200 feet. My vision (with my glasses) is actually 20/15, meaning I see as much detail at 20 feet as the average sees at 15.

Of course, this is a rather subjective scale, and questionable in it's accuracy. Among optometrists, they'll look at sphere, cylinder, and axis numbers, and you'll see measurements such at "-2.50" or "-3.75". These are more accurate measures of the eyes function, with 0.00 being normal sight.

*-As I said, I may have it backwards (confusing 20/200 with 200/20), but the main point is correct.

That's good to know Huntsman.. Another myth that I had fallen prey to..

My snide remark was out of order Huntster..
I apologize...

 

[Correa Neto]

My post, in it's entirety:



It will not be pulled. Again, if you have a problem with my post, take it up with a moderator. That's what they're there for.

I have respect for authority. If a moderator determines I screwed up, I will conform, even if I respectfully challenge their determination within the confines of the law/regulations/guidelines.

Huntster, again, show me where I distorted your -or anybody ele's- statements.

Or its just regular behavior of some footers to make claims and accusations and later not being able to back them with evidence?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Better eyes won't increase the resolution of the film either.

You still can't really see anything in the PGF smaller than about 2".

Keep in mind; 2" is the ' optimistic ' lower limit ..

Due to focus, lighting and movement, it's avery forgiving lower limit...

However, this film has some very forgiving optical qualities..

Muscle movement, eyes,teeth, fingers & etc somehow overcome the limitations that unnatural looking lines, bulges folds and flaps fall victim to...

It's a special ' Sasquatch ' physics that us skeptics can't understand...