Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[UrsulaV]

Hmm, so far as I know, no reports of Bigfoot have listed them as being cornflower, so I think I'll err on the side of science and go for Burnt Sienna...

 

[Hitch]

Hmm, so far as I know, no reports of Bigfoot have listed them as being cornflower, so I think I'll err on the side of science and go for Burnt Sienna...

Save the cornflower for the Alaskan Blue Giraffe.

 

[LTC8K6]

I am starting a new bigfoot research organization.

Our goal will be to actually capture a live sasquatch and then release it without obtaining any evidence whatsoever that we have done so.

 

[Yeah_Right]

Thanks for the compliment.

The PGF isn't what convinced me, but I have to ask if you've read what Krantz and Meldrum have to say or did you reach your conclusion without actually doing that?

I haven't read Krantz nor Meldrum, but I have read your posts with his quotes and have seen Krantz on a few specials about bigfoot. True it's not detailed information, and I might just go to the library some day to take those books out. Actually that recreation that you posted looks pretty close to the original. I should really say that it is possible for the creature to exist, but dubious footprints and a questionable bit of film ain't gonna cut it. I am quite honestly suprised the thing (Patty) wasn't shot and given over to the scientific community for examination. Hmmm, it could be they didn't want to shoot Bob. And I won't buy into an argument that they didn't want to shoot a rare species. And to comment on what Huntster said, a hunter won't shoot a bigfoot because he's hunting for deer or whatever, and not bigfoot? That is a rather poor excuse. I'd certainly take aim and fire and drag the thing back to civlization. Yeah I'd take my chances, if it were only to solve this mystery once and for all.

 

[Aepervius]

If the US hunter are the same as the EU one...

The majority will shoot at everything which move in the underbush, even if it has bright blue color (true story of somebody which got shoot at while going on in the wood during hunt season). So that hunter will not shoot at big foot is PURE BUNK. Especially in regard of cheney shooting other human (sorry could not resist this one). For me the fact that no hunter brought a big foot back is FAR MORE suspicious than anything else in this story, more suspicious than a blurry film or bad foot imprint cast. Heck, look at the overgrown cat story. If big foot was so prevalent as the story make it, it would have been shot down many time. I am sure some hickbillies have already searched week long for it, in hope to get a carpet-skin out of it. Think of this : *some* BF believer will want to hunt and kill it for fame ! Still this elusive animal has a high enough population to reproduce and have so many form and color, and be sighted so much, but not enough to be hunted ??? Hello ??? The only rational explanation I can think of , is that in reality those are not BF, but human with costume wanting to take no risk at being shot at.

 

[LTC8K6]

Silly! Bigfoot is impervious to any gun a hunter might carry. Even guns that will drop a Grizzly or a Moose. Ol' foot just shakes off all of that energy delivered by those bullets and keeps on strolling away....

Hunters will need to carry Korean War surplus 75mm Recoilless Rifles to take down bigfoot.

That way, you will get the foot in front of you, and the other one sneaking up behind you at the same time.

 

[Thitical Crinker]

The majority will shoot at everything which move in the underbush,

I would like to see evidence for this. Please do not put the majority of us hunters in with a group of irresponsible idiots (sorry Mr. VP).

Sorry for the derail. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[RayG]

Wait!!!

That's It!!!

Ursula, you're BRILLIANT!!!

Don't you see? It expalins everything, why you can't find them yet they're still seen by people, why track paths seem to dissappear, even the human footprints near bigfoot tracks, and even the non-bigfoot hair and trace...


My God...we've made a breakthrough..

There is no Bigfoot.

There are no werwolves.

They're WERE-FEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

I must hurry and write my paper for submission to Nature.

Huntsman runs off, cackling madly, crayon scribbling furiously on the back of an empty Burger King bag.

Nice Appeal to Ridicule you got going there Huntsman. Not sure how it addresses the arguments being discussed.

RayG

 

[UrsulaV]

Nice Appeal to Ridicule you got going there Huntsman.

Is that really technically an appeal to ridicule? At no point does he call the notion of Bigfeet ridiculous or laughable or whatever, he just proposes an absurd alternate explanation. An appeal to ridicule would presumably look like "Bigfoot!? Laughable!" whereas at no point does he ridicule Bigfoot believers, he just suggests the existence of were-feet.

Call it an appeal to absurdity, perhaps, but all the examples of appeal to ridicule at that link don't look terribly similiar.

Also, gee, did someone have a whimsy-ectomy this morning? Sense 'o humor, where art thou?

 

[Aepervius]

True I was exagerating

I would like to see evidence for this. Please do not put the majority of us hunters in with a group of irresponsible idiots (sorry Mr. VP).

Sorry for the derail. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

.

But here around there is an accident for about 1 out of 15000 hunter, involving human being wounded/killed. That does not change the point nobody seem to be able to kill that things.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The majority will shoot at everything which move in the underbush, even if it has bright blue color (true story of somebody which got shoot at while going on in the wood during hunt season). So that hunter will not shoot at big foot is PURE BUNK. Especially in regard of cheney shooting other human (sorry could not resist this one). For me the fact that no hunter brought a big foot back is FAR MORE suspicious than anything else in this story, more suspicious than a blurry film or bad foot imprint cast. Heck, look at the overgrown cat story. If big foot was so prevalent as the story make it, it would have been shot down many time. I am sure some hickbillies have already searched week long for it, in hope to get a carpet-skin out of it. Think of this : *some* BF believer will want to hunt and kill it for fame ! Still this elusive animal has a high enough population to reproduce and have so many form and color, and be sighted so much, but not enough to be hunted ??? Hello ??? The only rational explanation I can think of , is that in reality those are not BF, but human with costume wanting to take no risk at being shot at.

While a sore spot among those who consider themselves responsible hunters, this is an excellent observation.. Gets kind of lost in all the fluff..

 

[LAL]

My opinion is that it is all ABSOLUTE CODSWALLOP!

Bolding and capitalising your words does not alter the fact that they are just your opinion, unsupported here by any evidence.

 

[LAL]

Dfoot, you stated DeAtley stated Heironimus wore the suit. Do you have a source for that? All he said in Long's book was that he always thought it was a hoax. He offered no substantiation for it being a hoax, and the only discussion of Heironimus that I recall was about whether or not Heironimus approached Patterson at a restaurant about the $1000.

 

[Correa Neto]

By now, someone might think:

"Lets suppose there is indeed a material basis for the sasquatch myth- a real animal. What else could fit with the description other than an unknown bipedal primate?"

I say google for hypertrichosis.

Primate?
Yes.
Bipedal?
Sure.
Unknown to science?
Hardly.

Also, note this is another example of what may happen once you take a myth -or parts of it- out of it's original context and interpretate it according to a completely different cultural background.

So, use myths as evidence to back the existence of cryptos -bigfoot in the present case- is IMHO a faulty approach.

And sometimes Architeuthis and Coelacanth were remembered by footers as examples that could provide some extra validity to their claims. I say they jus provided footers some extra shots in the feet. Why?

Check the differences between these animals and bigfeet (besides bigfeet most likely being immaginary creatures):

-Architeuthis corpses are every now and then found in beaches, despite the fact that they live in a territory much wider and less populated than North America.

-Architeuthis and Coelacanth were not found after any dedicated scientific search, expedition, etc.

-At last, but not least, check the Wikipedia article on the kraken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraken
You will see that the original description:

Kraken, also called the Crab-fish, which [according to the pilots of Norway] is not that huge, for heads and tails counted, he is no larger than our Öland is wide [i.e. less than 16 km] ... He stays at the sea floor, constantly surrounded by innumerable small fishes, who serve as his food and is fed by him in return: for his meal...snip...Gradually, Kraken ascends to the surface, and when he is at ten to twelve fathoms, the boats had better move out of his vicinity, as he will shortly thereafter burst up, like a floating island, spurting water from his dreadful nostrils and making ring waves around him, which can reach many miles.

Is hardly similar to a squid or octopus. The current version of the kraken myth as a giant octopus or squid dates from the XVIII century. Yet another example of the dangers regarding the interpretation of myths outside their original context.

How much twisting has happened to the original description sasquatch?

 

[RayG]

Is that really technically an appeal to ridicule? At no point does he call the notion of Bigfeet ridiculous or laughable or whatever, he just proposes an absurd alternate explanation.

But an absurd alternate explanation IS an appeal to ridicule.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Call it an appeal to absurdity, perhaps, but all the examples of appeal to ridicule at that link don't look terribly similiar.

Look up 'appeal to absurdity' in Google and the first link points to 'Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule'.

Also, gee, did someone have a whimsy-ectomy this morning? Sense 'o humor, where art thou?

I have a VERY good sense of humor, it just doesn't seem to solve any arguments.

RayG

 

[UrsulaV]

But an absurd alternate explanation IS an appeal to ridicule.

I have a VERY good sense of humor, it just doesn't seem to solve any arguments.

Oh, well, if you have any hope of solving the Bigfoot argument through this discussion, I may hopefully be forgiven for resorting to a bit of ridicule myself! And seriously, if you can't have a little fun in a sixty-page thread, what good is it?

Still, that link you provided still doesn't seem to be the same thing as Hunstman's post to me. I mean, if proposing an absurd alternate explanation is an appeal to ridicule, than all of Beckjord's posts are also an appeal to ridicule! (Now, I suggest they're flawed for other reasons, but not this one.) The examples posted in your link were all "Ha, those wacky X, their ideas are laughable!" Hunstman's post, while deeply silly, did not attack the ideas of Footers as laughable. None of the phrases in your example have a direct echo in Hunstman's joke. While you SAY that "an absurd alternate explanation IS an appeal to ridicule" it doesn't say that anywhere at the link.

The reason it comes up in Google, I daresay, is because the words "absurdity" and "appeal" both appear in it, but in two different sentences, one of which is under a discussion of what IS a legitimate debate tactic, "reducing to absurdity." Googling "appeal to absurdity" as a single phrase doesn't turn up the same site.

 

[Dfoot]

Dfoot, you stated DeAtley stated Heironimus wore the suit. Do you have a source for that? All he said in Long's book was that he always thought it was a hoax. He offered no substantiation for it being a hoax, and the only discussion of Heironimus that I recall was about whether or not Heironimus approached Patterson at a restaurant about the $1000.

LAL -- Guess you'd better re-read what I said.

I said it was Patty Patterson's brother (who lives in the house next to Gimlin between Gimlin and Heironimus) who stated that Roger Patterson told him about his method for faking footprints and he also stated that Heironimus did, in fact, wear the suit.

About DeAtley: I said that he admitted he had regrets about participating in a hoax.

Bruce Mondor (Patty's brother) has no stake in this at all. He could care less. He's simply telling it like it is.

Al DeAtley seems to recall every dime they made, how they made it, what the editor of the film smelled like, etc... yet he has no recall about how he actually developed this important film.

DeAtley recalls very well going to New York to promote the flick - yet he says he knows nothing about Gimlin dressing up as an "Indian Tracker" complete with long-haired wig during this event. That is an odd thing since the publicist who set up the event (who also says Patterson was a hoaxer) vividly recalls DeAtley standing right next to Gimlin who was in his full-on 'Indian Tracker Companion' get-up*.

(*For a glimpse of what this image might have looked like simply take a gander of the carefully posed cover shot of Patterson and Gimlin on horseback for their article in ARGOSY describing how they "tracked and filmed the creature".)

At least we have motion picture film and this photo of Gimlin and Heironimus together as they participated in Roger's "documentary" in the summer of '67. Supposedly they were chasing a Bigfoot in this film using dogs. Now THAT would have made for more interesting footage than simply walking down the logging road; Bob Heironimus trying to run in the suit from dogs... priceless footage.

- Dfoot

 

[RayG]

Oh, well, if you have any hope of solving the Bigfoot argument through this discussion, I may hopefully be forgiven for resorting to a bit of ridicule myself!

I like to have as much fun as the next person, but I've never understood the need to resort to ridicule when presenting a point of view. Reminds me of the Elbert Hubbard quote, "If you can't address a man's arguments, all is not lost, you can still call him names." Neither name-calling or ridicule are valid forms of argument. I wish that arguments could be presented (by both sides) without resorting to fallacious tactics. I guess that's just wishful-thinking though.

And seriously, if you can't have a little fun in a sixty-page thread, what good is it?

Well, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye isn't it?

Still, that link you provided still doesn't seem to be the same thing as Hunstman's post to me. I mean, if proposing an absurd alternate explanation is an appeal to ridicule, than all of Beckjord's posts are also an appeal to ridicule! (Now, I suggest they're flawed for other reasons, but not this one.)

No, Beckjord's arguments aren't appeals to ridicule, because HE truly seems to believe that what he's claiming is true. It's a fair bet that the same could not be said about Hunstman's post. You seem to think if the post doesn't contain the specific words 'ridiculous' or 'laughable', that it's not an appeal to ridicule.

The examples posted in your link were all "Ha, those wacky X, their ideas are laughable!" Hunstman's post, while deeply silly, did not attack the ideas of Footers as laughable. None of the phrases in your example have a direct echo in Hunstman's joke.

ri·dic·u·lous Deserving or inspiring ridicule; absurd, preposterous, or silly.

You've described/suggested Huntsman's post as 'an absurd alternate explanation', 'deeply silly', and 'an appeal to absurdity'. Since the meaning of ridiculous IS absurd or silly, I don't quite get your point.

While you SAY that "an absurd alternate explanation IS an appeal to ridicule" it doesn't say that anywhere at the link.

Nor does it have to when ridiculous = absurd.

Try these to see if any sound like better explanations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_ridicule.htm
http://www.ramdac.org/fallacies.php?fallacy=Appeal to Ridicule

The reason it comes up in Google, I daresay, is because the words "absurdity" and "appeal" both appear in it, but in two different sentences, one of which is under a discussion of what IS a legitimate debate tactic, "reducing to absurdity." Googling "appeal to absurdity" as a single phrase doesn't turn up the same site.

Can you provide a link to a formal fallacy described as "an appeal to absurdity", I haven't found one yet.

RayG

 

[William Parcher]

Dfoot, your postings on the relationships of Patterson, Gimlin & Heironimus are priceless. From my perspective, the only one who isn't really a hoaxer is Heironimus (putting aside that he agreed to wear the costume). Gimlin was and still is, a hoaxer. He plays Bigfooters like a fiddle. But they want to be played that way. It goes with the "belief package" of those who think the PGF is authentic.

DeAtley's known role, behavior and testimonies scream out that he had funded and promoted a grand hoax.

Dfoot, do you know if Gimlin has said anything about wearing the Indian wig for Patterson? It even seems funny to me to say "for Patterson", because it looks like Gimlin was a working partner in the hoaxing who went way beyond the 60-second bit that Heironimus did (wearing the costume for the film). Patterson/DeAtley ditched Gimlin fairly early on. I think that Gimlin's ongoing reluctance to reveal that he was part of a hoax is all about his desire to save face. It would have hurt his personal reputation to admit to orchestrating a hoax in late 1967 just as much as it would now. Maybe even worse now, given the great elapsed time and opportunities for "coming clean" at any point.

In many ways, Bob Gimlin is like OJ Simpson.

 

[UrsulaV]

Try these to see if any sound like better explanations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_ridicule.htm
http://www.ramdac.org/fallacies.php?fallacy=Appeal to Ridicule

Can you provide a link to a formal fallacy described as "an appeal to absurdity", I haven't found one yet.

RayG

Sorry, dude, I still don't see it. Those are all basically the same thing, and involve specifically mocking the claim--i.e. "Bigfoot? That's ridiculous!" But at no point did Huntsman ever claim that the belief in Bigfoot was ridiculous, nor did he mock those who hold it. He said "There's no bigfoot," and then went on to provide an alternate explanation. No example corresponding to the actual joke appears in any of those links! In fact, Wikipedia claims it's "a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous" and yet Huntsman did not present the opponent's argument at all. You can call him on dismissing it out of hand, sure, but not present it--he started off by saying there was no Bigfoot, in fact!

As for a formal logical fallacy, so far as I know, there isn't one called "appeal to absurdity." I was making an off-the-cuff suggestion, which was hopefully obvious from the phrasing--"call it an appeal to absurdity, perhaps"--not claiming that this was, in fact, an example of a specific recognized fallacy.

...god help me, this thread is so thin on amusement these days, I'm arguing over what particular form of logical fallacy a profoundly obvious joke about were-feet might be, with someone apparently determined not to let a joke be funny.

In conclusion, were-feet = pure comedy gold.