Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

....Now Huntster, go ahead and make my day: say I'm behaving like a lawyer!...

Okay:

You're behaving like a lawyer.

...Hey, at last I can write "Huntster, you are correct"!....

Thank you.

...I am -very proudly- one of those annoying persons who like evidences. Reliable pieces of evidence, BTW. One of those annoying skeptics who check sources, verify the falsifiability of a proposal, etc....

Therefore, you have verified that all the sightings reported are hoaxes or misidentifications and have evidence of that?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think I remember statements that there were prints from more than one individual seen in the area during that timeframe.



I think I remember statements about Gimlin covering tracks with bark.

Don't you remember such statements?

So, the bark was carved to match the print precisely ?

 

[Huntster]

So, the bark was carved to match the print precisely ?

Do you have any evidence to support such a ridiculous statement?

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, we know foots have several different types of feet, so the fact that Laverty's pic doesn't match Patty's foot is not surprising.

Maybe someone touched up the track to be sure we could see all the features well in the photos. That's okay, right?

 

[LTC8K6]

Do you have any evidence to support such a ridiculous statement?

Yeah, it's usually referred to as the Laverty photo.....

 

[Huntster]

Well, we know foots have several different types of feet, so the fact that Laverty's pic doesn't match Patty's foot is not surprising. ......

Well, we know humans and bears have several different types of feet, so the fact that Laverty's pic doesn't match Patty's foot is not surprising.

...Maybe someone touched up the track to be sure we could see all the features well in the photos...

Evidence, please?

... That's okay, right?...

Nope.

Neither is the desperate injection of unwarranted doubt (what is also known as 20th/21st Century "Skepticism").

Both extremes can be called "foolish".

 

[RayG]

Well, it's ISU's site and Meldrum's page.

You mean the one here: http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/crypto.html

The one that looks like this:

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Huntster, the "touched up" remark was a very obvious crack/joke at Dr. Meldrum, who said he thinks it's okay.

Note to self: Stop trying out humor on the bigfooters.

Bears and humans do not have several different types of feet in the manner that sasquatch has to.....

 

[LTC8K6]

Yep, Ray. Curiously, the Cryptozoology page is the only research page with anything on it. The other two, Primate Functional Morphology, and Paleontology, are blank.

 

[LTC8K6]

In order for the bark to have only affected the raindrops inside the print, the bark would have had to be carved in the shape of the print, rather than just yanked off a tree and set over the print.

The area that looks different should be "random hunk of bark" shaped, not sasquatch foot shaped and sized.

 

[LTC8K6]

The fact that it was raining could easily acount for the lack of claw marks in Meldrum's bearfoot trackway, so why the big deal about their absence?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think I remember statements about Gimlin covering tracks with bark.

Don't you remember such statements?

So, the bark was carved to match the print precisely ?

Do you have any evidence to support such a ridiculous statement?

If you are insisting the reason there is less rain splatter inside the print than out, is because it was covered with bark, I do ...

The evidence is the photo of the print, which you are free to examine yourself; or I will prepare an analysis and point out the evidence for you, if your Footer filters are causing a problem for you...

Should I waste my time, or do you want to reconsider your hypothesis ?

 

[RayG]

Yep, Ray. Curiously, the Cryptozoology page is the only research page with anything on it. The other two, Primate Functional Morphology, and Paleontology, are blank.

Not to mention the Skookum cast press release link. I just banged out an email to ISU asking where I might find the info on their website.

I also wanted to seek clarification from Dr. Meldrum regarding his 'compelling' comments about the cast, and was intending to send it to him as a private message via the BFF, but the PM feature doesn't seem to be working for me at present. Since the PM function wasn't working, and I wasn't sure I'd get a response to an email, I've posted it to the BFF

RayG

 

[Correa Neto]

Okay:

You're behaving like a lawyer.

Thanks for taking the bait.

One of the most common complains from some footers (as well as UFOlogists, ghost "researchers", crytptozoologists, etc.) is related to the fact that skeptics question the valitidy of sighting reports as reliable evidence. The argument is somehow like "if you don't accept eyewitnesses' reports, then all our legal system is flawed, since these are its very basis".

However, it is conveniently forgotten that eyewitnesses are interrogated, questioned, if you preffer, in court. The accuracy and validity of teir testimonies are -or at least are supposed to be- checked with other sources when possible, evaluated, and contradictions in the reports are searched. Why? To avoid innacuracies, errors, mistakes, lies and hoaxes.

But what happens when a skeptic starts to check the report for innacuracies and contradictions? The creduloid usually says something like:

"[Add eyewitness name here] has no reason to lie! How can you question him/her?"
"[Add eyewitness name here] is an experienced [add profession here, sometimes related to law enforcement]! How can you question him/her?"
"Are you calling [Add eyewitness name here] a liar?"

Double standards, to say the least.

Therefore, you have verified that all the sightings reported are hoaxes or misidentifications and have evidence of that?

Of course I have not verified all of them.
Have you?
Has anyone?

But I think there's a good possibility that all bigfoot sightings are hoaxes, misidentifications, "daydreams", etc.

Can you say its not a real possibility?

 

[Starrman]

Therefore, you have verified that all the sightings reported are hoaxes or misidentifications and have evidence of that?

If all sightings and stories have the be debunked before you believe in something, then you believe in EVERYTHING.

Fairies
Aliens
Psychics
Santa
Tooth Fairy

...The list goes on. This is why the burden of proof is on the one claiming a large, undiscovered primate lives in the PNW or anywhere else.

And yes, there is evidence that they are all hoaxes and misidentification. I call it the 'lack of a specimen problem.'

 

[Dfoot]

They might see it as a hoax, but I see it as a valid experiment.. He made it too easy for them, and showed his hand too soon.

You make people mad when you make fools out of them.. That's the inevitable mistake he made..

True... but what I did wasn't a hoax. It was a test to see if people would be able to look at any suit I made with an unbiased eye. It's a lot of work for someone with no skills (like me) to build a suit and I wanted to be sure that I would be presenting it to people who could understand what they were looking at. I think I got my answer.

I was actually trying to make it obvious that this WAS simply Patty with a different background and a little Gimlinese language - nothing more. I was surprised that I had to keep trying to make it more obvious.

I just tried to post in answer to Huntster's request at BFF to show why that was actually Patty walking in front of my house and in my backyard (as well as respond to the others) but it seems I'm not allowed to do that.

Not only has the thread been locked, but now I'm informed that I'm on some sort of moderator watch or something and cannot post at all. Hopefully that won't be a permanent thing as that's why I left Communist China in the first place.

Apparently I can be yelled at all day for daring to say Patty is a suit and that there's evidence for this. But it appears that testing our perceptions on this film by pretending an image of Patty is not an image of Patty to gauge our potential bias is something akin to being a name caller. I wasn't aware of that one.

An "open discussion of the Patterson-Gimlin Film" may not be that precisely. I must have wandered into the "Patty worshippers only" room by mistake. The funny thing is that the guy running the site is supposed to be a private investigator. You'd think that he would welcome well-investigated info and experiments to be certain that what we think we are seeing is actually what is there...

Unless... we've drifted away from allowing reality-based unbiased research and fallen into a cultish group-think mode. (I know those kinds of terms are upsetting, but it does sometimes appear to apply in this case)

You are right about the hoaxing thing. I could make tracks or films if I wanted. All it would take is a "Surgeon's photo" type accomplice who is not connected to this mess. In fact, several long time Bigfoot hunters lament the loss of certain people like Freeman and others due to the fact that since these people passed away it's been very, very quiet on the Bigfoot front. Perhaps some incredible video or tracks found that cannot possibly be faked (like the cripple foot tracks) would stir up the world of Sasquatchery.

I've spent most of my time trying to show that I was wrong earlier when I was 90% convinced the film was real. After really investigating it I found that it was impossible for it to be anything other than a suit and (incredibly) the experts in putting suits on film seem to know more about what a suit on film consists of than those who have no experience in such work.

No ape or man has a sharp-edged thigh pad encircling his upper leg. No ape or man's head separates from his upper spine just because he attempts to look over his shoulder. Patty does this. So did many ape suits of the time period. It's a suit.

- Dfoot (the excommunicated heretic)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Dfoot,

You revealed the bias ( understandably ? ) that exists over there ..


They can't allow free speech when it constitutes treason..

Rather than welcoming hoaxes ( which they should ), analysing them and exposing them for what they are, they just ban those they feel are engaging in them.. " Whoa, don't you dare try to trick us.. You will make us look stupid .. It's hard enough not to look that way as it is .. Yuk, Yuk .. "

It shows they are a religious site and not a scientific one...

Here is aother place you can get banned real fast..

http://www.raptureready.com/

Just start using reason and logic, and you are out of there...


Hey, you have got a good excuse to spend more time over here...

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, I totally disagree with any sort of ban for dfoot. While I think he shouldn't have tried to pull one over on them, banning him will not help anyone.

However, I suspect that he is effectively banned anyway. He will no longer be allowed to discuss much over there without this being brought up every time as a question of his credibility. That will probably last a while.

Whatever he says, someone is going to reply with the credibility question and a link to the thread. I can understand that.

Your credibility is precious and not to be risked lightly. It's very difficult to get it back if you lose it.

How is a mod going to watch you if you can't post though? What is he going to watch?

 

[Huntster]

Huntster, the "touched up" remark was a very obvious crack/joke at Dr. Meldrum, who said he thinks it's okay.

Note to self: Stop trying out humor on the bigfooters......

Sorry. I don't want to throw lead on the lighter side here.

...Bears and humans do not have several different types of feet in the manner that sasquatch has to

I'm not sure what you mean, but I can assure you that even within my own immediate family, we have feet that are remarkably different:

My foot features the big toe and 2nd toe of the same length, is 12" long, and is very wide (I need "wide" sized shoes).

My lovely wife has a foot that features the 2nd toe which is longer than the big toe, and she has the uncanny ability to manipulate her toes like nothing I've ever seen before. (I think her foot and toes are sexy )

My oldest daughter was born with feet that looked like skis. They're very long and narrow. The first comment out of my mouth and the midwife's mouth were identical, and simultaneous: "Look at those feet!"

My son's and other daughter's feet aren't so remarkable (at least in my mind).

Now, shall I continue about toenails?

 

[Huntster]

In order for the bark to have only affected the raindrops inside the print, the bark would have had to be carved in the shape of the print, rather than just yanked off a tree and set over the print.

The area that looks different should be "random hunk of bark" shaped, not sasquatch foot shaped and sized.

Is this line of debate trying to insinuate that the print photographed by Laverty is a hoax, or are we just nitpicking?