Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

Yep, if there had been "all those eyewitnesses and reports of tracks", the wolverines would have been located long ago.

 

[UrsulaV]

This would be a great article in support of Bigfoot, if only they hadn't actually found the wolverine.

 

[Huntster]

...So, we can find a little tiny wolverine in the vastness of the PNW, but not a sasquatch?....

Yup; obviously so.

Now your homework assignment is to figure out why that is. Here are some clues:

...We can even find genuine wolverine tracks in the vast PNW, despite the fact that there aren't many wolverines in the area....

We have also found genuine sasquatch tracks in the vast PNW, despite the fact that there aren't many sasquatches, the problem is that most folks ridicule the evidence, so the tracks go either unreported or reported to people who pohh-pooh them.

....Fortunately, we can say whether or not a track was made by a wolverine, whether hair came from a wolverine, etc. Solid evidence...

The same is not true with sasquatch evidence. When tracks, hair, feces, etc are submitted and found unidentifiable, they are ruled "inconclusive".

Finally, there might be a difference in finding a rare weasel (known for a propensity to be destructive and marauding) and finding a rare ape (known for shyness).

 

[Huntster]

What are you talking about anyway? All what eyewitnesses and track reports? The article says there were few sightings and few tracks.

I'm talking about all those "few sightings and few tracks".

 

[Huntster]

Linky no workie?

Sorry about that. Musta' linked it wrong.

Thanks, LTC8K6, for relinking that.

 

[Huntster]

Yep, if there had been "all those eyewitnesses and reports of tracks", the wolverines would have been located long ago.

Still don't get it, do you?

They were located long ago; by the people who saw them and their sign. It's just that science (like usual) wasn't in the game.

They were "located" (according to LTC8K6) when the U.S. Forest Service actually funded a "study":

..."It's historic," says Keith Aubry, a carnivore expert and research wildlife biologist heading up a pilot study of wolverines in the state from his office at the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Research Station in Olympia....

Now, if that's "historic", I'd propose that the U.S. Forest Service funding a study on sasquatch would be "Earth Shattering".

 

[LTC8K6]

We have also found genuine sasquatch tracks in the vast PNW

This is a lie, until you back it up, and you can't back it up.

When tracks, hair, feces, etc are submitted and found unidentifiable, they are ruled "inconclusive".

That's because no conclusion can be drawn. This is proper and it is hard to understand objections to it.

They were located long ago; by the people who saw them and their sign.

You can definitively ID wolverine tracks and sign....it is possible to look a t tracks and sign and say with certainty, "These are from a wolverine."
This is impossible with sasquatch to anyone who is objective.

They were "located" (according to LTC8K6) when the U.S. Forest Service actually funded a "study":

There have been lots of studies of bigfoot, with probably orders of magnitude more money spent. Just because they were privately funded studies doesn't mean you can pretend they didn't occur.

 

[Hitch]

Still don't get it, do you?

They were located long ago; by the people who saw them and their sign. It's just that science (like usual) wasn't in the game.

They were "located" (according to LTC8K6) when the U.S. Forest Service actually funded a "study":



Now, if that's "historic", I'd propose that the U.S. Forest Service funding a study on sasquatch would be "Earth Shattering".

So why don't you get the U.S. Forest Service to fund a study of sasqatch? (And I'll give you a hint -- it's not because the big, bad "scofftics" won't let them.)

 

[LTC8K6]

so the tracks go either unreported

Ahhhh...the vast number of unreported tracks. Scientists should consider the number of unreported tracks, I guess.... huh?

How many unreported wolverine tracks did this study consider, Huntster?

or reported to people who pohh-pooh them.

It seems to me that nearly all bigfoot tracks are reported to bigfoot believers.

This would be a great article in support of Bigfoot, if only they hadn't actually found the wolverine.

Exactly..... and Brilliant!

 

[bruto]

Yup; obviously so.

Now your homework assignment is to figure out why that is. Here are some clues:
We have also found genuine sasquatch tracks in the vast PNW, despite the fact that there aren't many sasquatches, the problem is that most folks ridicule the evidence, so the tracks go either unreported or reported to people who pohh-pooh them.

But it's still putative whether or not they are genuine. Whether or not they turn out to be genuine or not, this is a vast difference. Wolverines are known to exist somewhere. Bodies, skins, bones, captive animals, photographs, all confirm, and have long confirmed, that there is such an animal somewhere. Its presence in the PNW was unusual, and even arguable until now, but there was never any doubt that there was such a critter.

So now, you're even giving evidentiary weight to unreported tracks? And who reported them to you?

Finally, there might be a difference in finding a rare weasel (known for a propensity to be destructive and marauding) and finding a rare ape (known for shyness).

A few pages ago, you were reporting squatches peeking into people's windows, and rummaging in their tents. Are they all that shy, then? Are they actually as rare as wolverines seem to be in the PNW? It seems from the evidence, if it is really evidence, that you cannot say that. If the article cited is to be trusted, you also have to acknowledge that the wolverine is not only rare but elusive, shy, and very rarely actually seen. Again, if the evidence you usually cite is actually evidence, then it would appear that sasquatches are seen a good deal more frequently than wolverines, and leave more tracks, closer to civilization. This might be thought to imply that they are less rare, and less elusive. That is, if the evidence is actually evidence.

We keep running into the problem that bigfoot is considered a sure thing by bigfoot believers because evidence is so good and so abundant, and the inability of anyone to confirm its existence is excused because evidence is so rare and so rarely clear.

Meanwhile, elusive and rare as it is, the wolverine is tracked and caught. The sasquatch, for whatever reason, is not.

edited to remove passage based on misreading of Huntster's post...

 

[LTC8K6]

There is no history of hoaxing wolverine tracks, pictures, or movies, or profiting from the elusive PNW wolverine. There is no crypto-wolverine industry.

 

[Huntster]

This is a lie, until you back it up, and you can't back it up.....

Well, you're close. It was a poor choice of words, and used in a courtroom full of hungry lawyer-types. Stupid on my part.

Sorry. I'll be more careful next time.

...You can definitively ID wolverine tracks and sign....it is possible to look a t tracks and sign and say with certainty, "These are from a wolverine."
This is impossible with sasquatch to anyone who is objective....

So why did it take the U.S. Forest Service 80 years to "definitively ID wolverine tracks and sign"?

I'll let you answer that before I suggest anything......

And, regarding objectivism, when an event which includes footprints, hair samples, feces, and a nest of woven branches (that resembles an African gorilla nest) is discovered, and the hair and feces examination comes up "inconclusive", don't you think an "objective" U.S. Forest Service employee and a state fish and game biologist might want to investigate further?

(Go ahead; ask.........)

There have been lots of studies of bigfoot, with probably orders of magnitude more money spent. Just because they were privately funded studies doesn't mean you can pretend they didn't occur.

I'm aware of the Slick expedition. Meldrum spends a few weekends per year in the field. I'm not sure of the "magnitudes" of money he has spent. Byrne spent some time in the field.

Perhaps you can fill me in some more on this?

 

[Huntster]

There is no history of hoaxing wolverine tracks, pictures, or movies, or profiting from the elusive PNW wolverine. There is no crypto-wolverine industry.

I suggest that the environmental industry will profit quite handsomely by the discovery of this wolverine.

 

[Dfoot]

Here's a Bigfoot print I made in under 2 minutes.

I stepped in some plaster and then shaped it with my finger, thumb and heel. I found I could make dermal ridges in any direction, or no prints at all. Whatever I liked.

I was going for more of a Patterson '64 style rather than the '67 version.

Still... it's good enough to fool the likes of me. Dermal ridges run vertically down the side of the foot. Scar tissue in evidence. I'd say this is a real print... except for the fact that I made it in my garage.

- Dfoot

 

[Roger Knights]

Does the statue include the massive calf protrusion/suit flap with the leg raised?

No, because it was representing frame 352 (except the head, based on 344), not this frame.

Like most other weird Patty-protrusions (i.e., zipper-tag, egg-shaped hip-blob, arm-Donuts, possible "tumor") this protrusion doesn't seem like the sort of thing one would expect on a suit. I doubt that any such blob-like items like zipper tags, etc. have ever been visible on a suit. (Except ONE Donut above the wrist where a gauntlet-type or folded-over glove would end. (But Heironimus said the hands were integral with the arms, so there'd have been no glove-edge in that case.)) Especially not on one like this, which some knowledgeable people (Dfoot?) have speculated was made of an elasticized material. So I don't view it as suspicious.

But these blobs don't seem natural either. That leaves me to speculate that Edson's body-paste-for-camouflage theory (or for some other purpose) could be the explanation. It would be wild if these suspicious features turn out on pondering to be more likely to be authenticating ones.

 

[Roger Knights]

So why don't you get the U.S. Forest Service to fund a study of sasqatch? (And I'll give you a hint -- it's not because the big, bad "scofftics" won't let them.)

That extra "f" means a year-end Google search for "scoftic" won't find your post, which possibly might make me lose my bet with tube! (On scoftic's use-count compared to "creduloid.")

 

[Roger Knights]

I'm aware of the Slick expedition. Meldrum spends a few weekends per year in the field. I'm not sure of the "magnitudes" of money he has spent. Byrne spent some time in the field. Perhaps you can fill me in some more on this?

Byrne was well-funded twice, but his initial headquarter-area (The Dalles, OR) was not good bigfoot territory (Daegling, 37). Dahinden questioned the effectiveness of his overall effort: "Byrne loved the search and the notoriety that surrounded it, and Dahinden suspected that the quary itself was practially irrelevant to him." (Daegling, 38) One other fundee was Robert Morgan, "one of the few people who was ever able to raise money to put a substantial number of people in the field." (Green, Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us (1978), 275)

 

[Roger Knights]

My understanding is that Chambers built a freestanding gaff and not one to be encased in a block of ice.

He definitely claimed, in the quote I remember (probably one that was taken from a public statement by von Puttkamer), to have made a suit for the Iceman guy. In an e-mail to me of 2/17, von Puttkamer stated, "But he [Chambers] did own up to creating the suit for a carnival operator- who was at the time, parading the Minnesota Iceman around the country; ..." Unfortunately, this statement was not captured on tape. (I wonder if he (Chambers) privately told his friends he'd done this suit--or if maybe they confused this suit with the Patty suit, or he allowed them to do so?)

Chambers also built the Burbank bigfoot statue.

 

[Huntster]

....A few pages ago, you were reporting squatches peeking into people's windows, and rummaging in their tents. Are they all that shy, then?...

Other people reported them peeking into windows and rummaging through tents. I do believe this is possible, even from a shy creature.

Indeed, I’ve seen porcupines doing the same thing (well, not the window thing – it was caught chewing it's way right through the wall!)

Are they actually as rare as wolverines seem to be in the PNW? It seems from the evidence, if it is really evidence, that you cannot say that.

I think it’s pretty close. While Krantz and others theorize that there might be up to 20,000 of these creatures on the continent, I doubt that. I suspect there are just a couple thousand, continent wide. While I believe the highest density is in the PNW, I still don’t think the numbers are very high. I have no idea how many wolverines there are in the same area (N. Calif, Oregon, Washington, and BC), I don’t think sasquatch numbers are a whole lot higher.

If the article cited is to be trusted, you also have to acknowledge that the wolverine is not only rare but elusive, shy, and very rarely actually seen.

I know that to be generally true from personal experience as an outdoorsman and hobby trapper.

Again, if the evidence you usually cite is actually evidence, then it would appear that sasquatches are seen a good deal more frequently than wolverines, and leave more tracks, closer to civilization.

I disagree with that. First, there are people collecting information on sasquatch sightings and footprints. The article indicates that there have been a few sightings and reports over the past 80 years, but doesn’t inform us who collected those reports, who submitted them, or what spurred the U.S. Forest Service to actually perform their study. Also, the media’s role in this must be considered. I doubt many wolverine reports in Washington made the news over the past 80 years, where conversely, the media loves to print sasquatch reports.

We keep running into the problem that bigfoot is considered a sure thing by bigfoot believers because evidence is so good and so abundant, and the inability of anyone to confirm its existence is excused because evidence is so rare and so rarely clear.

I’m not of the “sure thing” camp. I’m more into degrees of certainty. Personally, I’m 90% to 95% certain that sasquatches existed until recently, or still exist. I also think that as few as .5% and only as many as 5% of all current sasquatch reports are accurate. I will also speculate that a low percentage of encounters or footprint finds are reported to someone who records the report.

Meanwhile, elusive and rare as it is, the wolverine is tracked and caught. The sasquatch, for whatever reason, is not.

Correct. Many on this board believe the reason that sasquatch is not tracked and caught are because they don’t exist.

I’m more of the belief that they aren’t tracked and caught because the folks who are in the best position to track and catch one don’t believe they exist, and so don’t bother to invest any time, effort, or investment to give it a try.

 

[Dfoot]

He definitely claimed, in the quote I remember (probably one that was taken from a public statement by von Puttkamer), to have made a suit for the Iceman guy. In an e-mail to me of 2/17, von Puttkamer stated, "But he [Chambers] did own up to creating the suit for a carnival operator- who was at the time, parading the Minnesota Iceman around the country; ..." Unfortunately, this statement was not captured on tape. (I wonder if he (Chambers) privately told his friends he'd done this suit--or if maybe they confused this suit with the Patty suit, or he allowed them to do so?)

Chambers also built the Burbank bigfoot statue.

This is from an interview with VERNE LANGDON (who ran the Don Post Studio and worked with Chambers on PLANET OF THE APES as well as other shows) --

"John Chambers was interested in the direction I was going with the Studios and became involved in a couple of our projects, specifically creating or advising "prehistoric men" for showmen Jerry Malone (John created his dead Neanderthal) and Frank Hansen.

We referred Frank to La Brea Ta Pit/Natural History Museum sculptor Howard Ball who cast this figure in hot melt. John joined us in consultation of the project."

So there you have it. Verne says he knows this because FRANK HANSEN originally asked him (Langdon) to do it and he brought in Chambers and Ball and introduced them to Hansen.

No second hand info. Just the straight poop from the first guy in Hollywood Hansen contacted.

- Dfoot