Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

Sounds like a branch broke and something fell out of the tree to me....

 

[LTC8K6]

A second fresh footprint proved impossible to find but recent damage to a rotting log, located a couple of strides away, suggested it had might have borne a prodigious weight.

Sounds very familiar...

Was the BFRO there?

 

[LTC8K6]

Even the sceptics, including this reporter, were secretly impressed.....

That is too funny. Secretly impressed? How does anyone know?

 

[cpolk]

All I've got to say about Big Foot is, "Photographing Faeries". Google it.

While you're at it, Google: "alien" "Mexico" "cell phone"

To find the debunker, add the word "hoax" to the search.

You'll see a perfect example of how any type of image media can be manipulated.

 

[Huntster]

Ever heard of smuggling and unlawful hunting?....

Yup.

So?

... People using unlawful trick to hunt game ? And do not get me started on people which will do ANYTHING to earn a bit of money...

So where are all these nasty folks today?

....Do you realize HOW MUCH would be worth a dead sasquash?...

Nope.

Do you?

..."He attacked me ! I shooted in defense" And now the burden of proof is on the prosecution side to prove the sash did not attack the poor hunter. Good luck on that.....

I don't need luck on that, cause I ain't shooting one unless I'm attacked. Then I'm legal.

And, with the way the law appears to be written, ownership of the carcass will be in question.

... Law against hunting big game is with CERTAINTY not an obstacle for the sort of people hunting after money....

Laws are not an obstacle for criminals engaging in all manner of criminal acts.

So?

...This sash things is about the same veracity/process as UFO : blurry film which could very well be using the trick of the epoch, non existant corpse and physical proof, and an extrem variety in the sighting (which would mean many many different specy in the case of sash, or in the case of UFO, that we are the center of an intergalactic UFO-crossway). And I would bet that since the first legend / sighting way before PGF, the popular "form" of bigfoot evolved just like typical alien evolved in popular conscience.
This above has the same quality as "counter proof of existence" than the proof offered by bigfooter : none and thus as much valid....

So, after reading that (at least giving it an honest try), I suppose you'd agree that there's little danger of a sasquatch being illegally killed, because they don't exist.

Is that what I'm reading there?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..At first glance it might have seemed like nothing. A four-inch impression in the mud of the Malaysian rainforest. On closer inspection, however, it seemed as if it might be the astounding find the expedition had been hoping for.

Hmmm.. Sounds familiar...

Noll, Randles, and Fish notice an unusual impression in the transition mud at the edge of the muddy pool area. The three trackers discuss the strange imprint, then suddenly it dawns what animal caused it.

 

[LTC8K6]

with the way the law appears to be written, ownership of the carcass will be in question.

You, of course, will have already taken plenty of samples from said corpse for it not to matter. Not to mention the pictures you will have to corroborate where you got the samples.

The BFRO would handle things differently. The BFRO naturally has enough plaster along to do an entire body cast. Whereupon they will leave the carcass to mother nature and hope the cast convinces "science".

 

[LTC8K6]

Message to bigfoot:

Hiding your tracks by stepping on rotting logs is not working.

You are not fooling anybody. Not even the skeptics.

That is all.

 

[Correa Neto]

I am wrong?

What you mean is that the dictionary is wrong. I simply quoted to you the defininition that was in the dictionary, complete with link.

(BTW, you spell it like this: proper. Maybe you should spend a bit more time studying the dictionary rather than pompously declaring it "wrong".)

Huntster, I am sorry to say it, but you are wrong, again.
Note that I wrote

Here's the propper meaning of the word "woo" within the current context:

So, typos apart, I was pointing to the meaning of the word "woo" in the current context -a thread at JREF- and pointed a source (Skepticwiki). But it seems you have failed to understand this. It should be pretty obvious to anyone with basic text intrepretation skills that the use of the word "woo" here at JREF is not compatible with the definition you quoted, repeated below.

1. To seek the affection of with intent to romance.
2.
a. To seek to achieve; try to gain.
b. To tempt or invite.
3. To entreat, solicit, or importune.

Perhaps you should get yourself some text interpretation lessons.

Myths regarding hairy men living in the woods are common, but the repeated discovery of giant footprints and even a videotape of such a creature are not.

Know of any giant footprints found on a regular basis in, say, Romania?

Do you know any footprint that can without doubt be attributed to a bigfoot in North America?

Actually, do you know any footprint that can, without doubt, be attributed to an yeti, woodwoose, amas, yowie, [add alleged unknown primate here] anywhere in the world?

And where´s the unchallenged videotape of a bigfoot?

 

[LTC8K6]

even a videotape of such a creature are not.

There's a videotape of bigfoot? Where?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I am wrong?

What you mean is that the dictionary is wrong. I simply quoted to you the defininition that was in the dictionary, complete with link.

(BTW, you spell it like this: proper. Maybe you should spend a bit more time studying the dictionary rather than pompously declaring it "wrong".)

Huntster, I am sorry to say it, but you are wrong, again.

Actually, I doubt that "you're sorry to say it".

...Note that I wrote

Here's the propper meaning of the word "woo" within the current context:

So, typos apart, I was pointing to the meaning of the word "woo" in the current context -a thread at JREF- and pointed a source (Skepticwiki). But it seems you have failed to understand this. It should be pretty obvious to anyone with basic text intrepretation skills that the use of the word "woo" here at JREF is not compatible with the definition you quoted, repeated below.

1. To seek the affection of with intent to romance.
2.
a. To seek to achieve; try to gain.
b. To tempt or invite.
3. To entreat, solicit, or importune.

Perhaps you should get yourself some text interpretation lessons.....

Perhaps you're right. Lessons in interpretation might improve my communication skills.

But wouldn't it be even better for someone like yourself to write and publish your own dictionary? People who have their own meaning for words need to get that message out to the rest of us who still use the English language (admittedly, we are getting more rare here in the good ole' U S of A).

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Myths regarding hairy men living in the woods are common, but the repeated discovery of giant footprints and even a videotape of such a creature are not.

Know of any giant footprints found on a regular basis in, say, Romania?

Do you know any footprint that can without doubt be attributed to a bigfoot in North America?

Actually, do you know any footprint that can, without doubt, be attributed to an yeti, woodwoose, amas, yowie, [add alleged unknown primate here] anywhere in the world?

Back to the old spin, are we?

You mentioned werewolves, etc. I asked if there were supporting evidence like footprints or a PG quality film associated with werewolf legends like there is with sasquatchery. You go back to trying to degrade sasquatch evidence.

Around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around we go.

And I'm not even dizzy yet.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

 

[Complexity]

http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

Wonderful! Should get JREF to add it to links.

 

[Correa Neto]

Actually, I doubt that "you're sorry to say it".



Perhaps you're right. Lessons in interpretation might improve my communication skills.

But wouldn't it be even better for someone like yourself to write and publish your own dictionary? People who have their own meaning for words need to get that message out to the rest of us who still use the English language (admittedly, we are getting more rare here in the good ole' U S of A).

You really should get that course. Probably you will also have the opportunity to learn something about language dynamics. And understand that what you wrote above is incorrect. Languages (except the dead ones) are not static. Dictionaries usually mention this fact, BTW...

Back to the old spin, are we?

You mentioned werewolves, etc. I asked if there were supporting evidence like footprints or a PG quality film associated with werewolf legends like there is with sasquatchery. You go back to trying to degrade sasquatch evidence.
...snip...

Trying to degrade? ROFLMAOL!!!
That was funny!!!
It's already degraded. Very degraded, since the begining, and in many cases due to the actions of creduloids who desperately try to validate it, ignoring hoaxes and misidentifications.

BTW, werewolves footprints:
http://www.prairieghosts.com/werewolves.html
http://www.ufoinfo.com/roundup/v09/rnd0920.shtml

 

[UrsulaV]

You mentioned werewolves, etc. I asked if there were supporting evidence like footprints or a PG quality film associated with werewolf legends like there is with sasquatchery. You go back to trying to degrade sasquatch evidence.

Remember, if a skeptic mentions mythology, they're degrading evidence!

Only Footers can use mythology as supporting evidence! Footers own mythology!

I suppose to be fair, skeptics should get a human cultural construction in return, like poetry, or the Broadway musical, which only they get to use. Fear our searing sonnets! Cower before the anti-PGF ghost of Irving Berlin! WE WILL BURY YOU!

 

[LTC8K6]

That Lon Chaney Jr. movie was way better than the PGF.

Much clearer, and the suit looked exactly like a werewolf.

 

[Huntster]

...BTW, werewolves footprints:
http://www.prairieghosts.com/werewolves.html

You call this footprint evidence supporting werewolf sightings?:

...A footprint left behind was more than a foot long. Bigfoot investigators dismissed the report, saying that a Sasquatch would never be that aggressive. But what about a werewolf?....

And you call the evidence brought forward by sasquatch researchers weak?

 

[Huntster]

That Lon Chaney Jr. movie was way better than the PGF.

Much clearer, and the suit looked exactly like a werewolf.

And how do you know what a werewolf looks like?

Got a corpse?

 

[LTC8K6]

Huntster:

And how do you know what a werewolf looks like?

I knew you'd take that bait....

 

[Pope130]

Have you seen the commercials for "Mythbusters" on Discovery Channel that feature a French Canadian Sasquatch? I find the suit (and the actors movements) much more convincing than the PGF.

Robert