Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

If you forget suit bulges, dark bands, moving fingers, and everything else you can't see. All you have to do is look at a clear copy of the film and see that the legs are not attached to the buttocks. It's there in plain sight and we can all see it clearly. No second guessing, the backside does not move with the legs at all, it's static, it's part of a costume and it's game over.

Tell that to these guys..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446

They make a weak case that they can show the same discontinuity on a gorilla butt, but ignore that a subject that walks upright as in the film, would not have a butt like a gorilla ..

 

[William Parcher]

Tell that to these guys..

Bigfoot Forums sure isn't JREF, is it?

 

[Starthinker]

Okay, I just was looking at this: http://artistfirst.com/Alargewalkcreaturecenteredhighcontrast18fpssmall.gif which is really, really cool. I tried to do that with my own PGF but it took a lot of effort. Anyway, look directly at it's eyes. It turns to look over it's shoulder, looks past the camera, looks directly into the camera (or at the photographer), then quickly turns back forward. Look at it a few times and you'll see what I mean. If you save this GIF, and have WinXP, use the Windows Preview to watch it (not a web browser) and magnify it several times. You can almost see the eyes moving, but you can at least see which way he is looking, past the camera, at the camera, forward.

Why look at this? I think the man in the suit turned to see if the camera was still rolling, didn't spot right off, turned to see Patterson still rolling, then quickly looked forward and kept walking like the script said to. I think the intention was for him to walk the path without ever looking, but they got it in one take so the footage stood as-is. I think the intention would have been to spot a creature and record it without it knowing. At least that's what they would have wanted ideally.

To clarify, he knew the camera was rolling somewhere over his right shoulder, turned to look, took a split second to spot it, the quickly turned forward. To me a real creature would have paused in it's tracks to assess the danger, then, if it decided to continue, would have left quicker. Even if it didn't determine the men and horses were a danger.

It's true, I don't know what was going through their minds at the time, or what a real creature would do, but I think it deserves a think.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, if you think about it awhile, things just don't add up.

At first Patty might have just started walking away. I can buy that. She began to walk away when P/G came into view and they were still fairly far away and not necessarily going to bother her.

But then Patterson's horse rears, the pack horse runs away, Gimlin's horse is spooked, and Patterson gets off his horse and comes running toward Patty with this noisy camera.

Patty's response is minimal to what would have to be considered a threatening pursuit of her.

Just try to run towards any wild animal with a noisy 16mm movie camera running. See if any other animal reacts the way Patty does.

There is one other problem here as well. Why does Patterson stop running after Patty? He can easily get much closer to her since she is just strolling along, yet he doesn't. He stops his pursuit and lets her get away as his film runs out.

Patty shows no sign of menace, makes no threat display, takes no notice of P/G other than walking away and looking back.

If the excuse is that Patty was sick, then it should have been all the easier to catch her, or Patty should have been much more defensive.

Even a dog will give you a clear warning if it doesn't want you to come any closer.

Patty's look was likely just to make sure Patterson was getting the shot, imo.

One other possibility about the look occurs to me. The actor in the suit may have been unaware that Gimlin would be there with a rifle. That would explain the double take, wouldn't it?

 

[Correa Neto]

One or more Barred Owls regularly flew low over the end of my driveway where it joined the very lightly travelled county road. Seemed to part of the flight plan.

And?

Not where I lived. Scarcity of wolves and roads may have been factors.

Well, at several places where I´ve had worked in Central and Southeastern Brazil, there´s a canid called manned wolf. They live in very small packs (male + female + 1 to 3 cubs) and have large territories. Territories do not have great overlaps. And they are rare. And guess what else? 2 and a 1/2 year ago a I saw one dead by the road.

So, what´s this proves other than where you lived may not be a good statistical sample of all possible habitats?

Again referring to Skamania County, which seems to have a viable Sasquatch population, the human population was mostly concentrated in a few small towns along the river. The total pop. is only about 10,000. 86% of the county is in National Forest. It has Mt. St. Helens and two traffic lights.

We had this discussion before. But I´ll refresh your memory.
Are bigfeet restricted to this place?
Human population and road densities are the the same for the whole geographic span of the creature?

I guess not. Thus, it is a biased reasoning.

The finger movement can be seen even on blurry stills. There's an interesting debate on teeth flashing on BFF with time estimates.

Blurred stills are the sort of thing where you will find anything your want. As I wrote before, the change of lightining in blurred pictures can create this impression. Note that the bloke in the gorilla suit was walking and swinging his arms, what creates changes in the light incidence.

Do you belive in the teeth flashing stuff? Even when the text by Fahrenbach you posted shows there´s not enough resolution in PGF to show such issue?

Gimlin stated on tape two weeks ago in Yakima that Bob H was not with them in any way in 1967 at Bluff Creek. He's stood by his story for thirty- eight years, possibly because it's the truth.

Even if Patterson had a suit, which he may have had for a scene in his documentary, that's not what's seen in the film.

No. Its just an evidence that he´s been telling the same story since the late 60s. That´s far from being an evidence that he´s telling the truth.

And nothing has been shown so far that proves that what´s in PGF is not a bloke in a suit. You just can´t prove PGF does not show a bloke in a gorilla suit, since there´s not enough detail.

Some researchers are using these. The Skookum Expedition tested infra red. They found the batteries ran down too quickly for it to be of much use, but they did find some heat prints on rock.

Batteries can be recharged. Some camera traps use IR sensors and can stay "ready for action" for a long time. Heat prints on rock mean nothing. Researchers must provide sharp footage or stills without suspect of hoaxing.

BTW, last night I saw "King Kong X Godzilla". A prime example of trash movie. Kong looked quite like patty. The diaper-butt, the way it walked, the long arms, and yes, the fingers moved. Oh, and it flashed teeth. Sure, that was a horrible gorilla suit, but could pass for Patty easilly if one were to remake PGF.

If you knew nothing of elephants and someone described one to you would you think such a creature could be real? Or would you tend to disbelieve the story? Camels aren't very probable either, and I'm not so sure about ostriches. We've already had story about the reception Platypuses got, haven't we?

Invalid analogy. Elephants have fossil remains, there are countless meters of sharp footage and pictures from elephants without any lingering shadow of hoax. Same for platypus.

According to some who have examined it, it's compelling.

Note that you sentence does not means most people who examined it agree that it´s compelling. What about the others? Perhaps it would be more correct if you wrote "few" instead of some.

How does any of that require paranormal explanations?

According to some, tweaking of probabilities would be a paranormal manifestation. Bigfoot is so improbable that some might think they have some sort of paranormal skills to avoid producing reliable evidence.

Rigid arches seem to be the exception in the primate world. Midtarsal flexibilty seems to be the rule.

Again, feet flexibility is a must-have if you are a tree-dweller. Since most primates are tree-dwellers, its quite reasonable that most primates show such feature. However, bigfeet -assuming they are real- are biped terrestrial primates adapted to walk long distances. And an extra flexibility becomes an undesirable trait. The species from the genus Homo have such flexibility? Oh, australopithecines had. However, it seems they still spent a long time in trees, thus the adaptation is still usefull.

Can you imagine a 3m-tall ape spending a lot of time in trees? Is it reasonable?

Not to mention that the position of the toes in the feet of primates that have such flexibility is quite different from the very human-like one shown by bigfoot footprints. Primates with flexible feet don´t have the toes located at the front of the feet. They are located at the side, closer to the middle of the foot, near the articulation, what makes sense if you are going to to grab a tree branch with your foot, for example.

That´s just another bit of inconsistency in bigfoot anatomy. And another reason why Krantz at al. do not convince me.

 

[LTC8K6]

but they did find some heat prints on rock.

What is that supposed to mean? Heat prints on rock?

Do you mean where the sun shining through a gap had warmed a rock?

Or, are you trying to spin this to make people think they were so close behind sasquatch that his foot prints were still warm?

 

[LAL]

And in all those cases, somebody provided a body or live specimen, and our counterparts in that era went "Well, will you look at that?"

Like the noble platypus, it's an issue easily resolved. Go get us a body, and watch how quickly we say "Well, will you look at that?"

Looks like some of the active researchers will have to abandon the "no kill" policy. Krantz (who was roundly criticized for being pro-kill) listed some of the problems with trying to tranquillize or even shoot one with conventional hunting weapons such as a 30.06. 'Taint that easy.

 

[LAL]

What is that supposed to mean? Heat prints on rock?

Do you mean where the sun shining through a gap had warmed a rock?

Or, are you trying to spin this to make people think they were so close behind sasquatch that his foot prints were still warm?

We've already discussed this, including why three of them. The notes didn't state what they were, only what they weren't.

"The term "Skookum" was commonly used by both Native Americans and early settlers to describe a large, hairy, and often putrid smelling "Man of the Woods" that allegedly dwelled in the remote forested regions of the Pacific Northwest. The Skookum Meadow area is purportedly one of the more frequented locales for these unknown primates. Several reports of sightings and unrecognized vocalizations have been reported from this area over the last few years.

BFRO researchers, in consultation with scientists, surmised that an expeditionary team staying in this area for several days and using several types of attractants should have a reasonable chance of luring a large primate close enough to record thermal or infrared images."

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/ThermalExpedMain.htm

Note they weren't equipped for a capture. There have been a few cases of people being hot on the trail of one only to stop when it occured to them "Who would be capturing whom?" Others have run out of time or food. Why not ask Noll why no pursuit? You know where to find him.

"Powell manned the radio while he filmed the proceeding with his Sony Night Shot camcorder. Lemley and Searle inched their way down the hill, homing in on the heat source thanks to directions relayed from camp. Finally, the word came that "you're right on top of it!!" Lemley and Searle could find nothing. After looking around a bit, they noticed some lichens and moss on the face of a large rock at ground zero. It was possible that either heat was being generated by the decomposing foliage, or the rock had managed to retain heat from the daylight hours. Everyone was quite impressed that the thermal unit was sensitive enough to detect such a small temperature difference at such a great distance. Powell, Searle, and Lemley returned to camp.


Back at camp, the group decided to take the thermal imager and try to do some filming from Noll's truck while driving the surrounding roads. Searle went along to do the filming, accompanied by Moneymaker and Noll. Fish was left in charge of broadcast calls at 45 minute intervals. The group hoped that they may be able to catch a glimpse of an animal or sasquatch moving along the roads in the direction of the broadcasted calls. Noll, Moneymaker and Searle (the mobile thermal team) departed camp just before midnight.


Fish proceeded with the call broadcasting a few minutes later. Powell, Lemley, Bambenek, Terry, Randles and Lee remained in camp, as did Pugsley and Mort. The mobile thermal team stopped at the gravel pit located at the start of the road that base camp was located on. Searle sliced open a melon and placed it on the dirt embankment next to the road, careful not to leave any footprints. They then continued on towards the southwest, driving very slowly and with the headlights off. Searle was standing up in the vehicle, so that he could film with the thermal unit from the cartop, via Noll's sunroof.

Just after passing the road that lead to Ridgetop (about 1 mile from base camp) Searle noticed a series of hotspots on the righthand side embankment. Noll stopped the vehicle, and stepped out to investigate by flashlight. Searle used the thermal unit to guide Noll to the location of the heat sources, as Noll was unable to see hot spots. Upon zeroing in on the spots, Noll was able to discern scrape marks and impressions that denoted something having travelled along that path, but they were very light and inconclusive. There were 3 heat spots total, 1 on the road, and 2 in the embankment. We had been informed prior to the trip that the thermal unit was capable of detecting the residual heat left by a footstep, provided it was a bare foot. Of course, a hooved mammal, such as an elk or deer, could not have left a detectable level of residual heat. A bear, on the other hand, could have left large, residual heat prints. However, the heat prints that were found were a large distance apart, although an exact measurement was not obtained. Noll cut another melon in half and left it at this location. They then continued on towards Lone Butte."

http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/daysix.htm

Tracks were found earlier in the area from which the volcalizations seemed to emanate.

Sun doesn't leave scrape marks.

 

[Z]

Still doesn't explain what these so-called 'heat spots' were - in fact, the whole of this story is about as fishy as it gets, to someone who has used infra-red and night-vision equipment in the past. However, I will agree with the possibility of the equipment picking up a discernable heat signature from decomposing foliage.

The suspicious thing here is that thermal imaging of footprints would have caught more than just three spots, and the creature that had left them would have been in the immediate area. Further, a warm-bodied creature capable of leaving hot prints would have been far more obvious than the prints themselves.

There's "more of gravy than of grave" about this story...

 

[LAL]

And?



Well, at several places where I´ve had worked in Central and Southeastern Brazil, there´s a canid called manned wolf. They live in very small packs (male + female + 1 to 3 cubs) and have large territories. Territories do not have great overlaps. And they are rare. And guess what else? 2 and a 1/2 year ago a I saw one dead by the road.

So, what´s this proves other than where you lived may not be a good statistical sample of all possible habitats?

It's been mentioned Wolves are being "rediscovered" in the Southern Cascades. I'm going to stop trying to be humorous. If it weren't for the "fairy" story, I'd think you have no sense of humor at all, at least in English.

I don't think it follows that all living species must eventually become roadkill.

We had this discussion before. But I´ll refresh your memory.
Are bigfeet restricted to this place?
Human population and road densities are the the same for the whole geographic span of the creature?

I guess not. Thus, it is a biased reasoning.

Evidently they prefer a habitat with ample rainfall and cover, such as temperate forests, preferably montane. I got your point on this months ago; must you keep harping on it? We've had most of these discussions before and virtually all your points, except possibly for roadkill, were covered by Krantz. Makes me wonder if you really read him.

Blurred stills are the sort of thing where you will find anything your want. As I wrote before, the change of lightining in blurred pictures can create this impression. Note that the bloke in the gorilla suit was walking and swinging his arms, what creates changes in the light incidence.

Or an actual hominid primate was doing that. You have no evidence for a "bloke in a suit", of course.

Do you belive in the teeth flashing stuff? Even when the text by Fahrenbach you posted shows there´s not enough resolution in PGF to show such issue?

I thought it was an interesting debate. The question of whether a reflex could be that fast was especially intriguing. I disagree with Zenor on a number of issues, but he posts good graphics.

No. Its just an evidence that he´s been telling the same story since the late 60s. That´s far from being an evidence that he´s telling the truth.

He above all had reason to expose a hoax if there was one after Patterson cut him out, but he never has.

And nothing has been shown so far that proves that what´s in PGF is not a bloke in a suit. You just can´t prove PGF does not show a bloke in a gorilla suit, since there´s not enough detail.

There's more than enough. There are measurements, proportions.....There's enough detail for some of the scoftics here to see folds and bunches on a supposed costume. Is that pareidolia?

Batteries can be recharged. Some camera traps use IR sensors and can stay "ready for action" for a long time. Heat prints on rock mean nothing. Researchers must provide sharp footage or stills without suspect of hoaxing.

I just posted more on this. They did use both infra red and thermal. I'll have to read the notes again (or you can: http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/ThermalExpedMain.htm)
to determine which exactly was taking too much juice. I remember thermal, but I could be wrong.

BTW, last night I saw "King Kong X Godzilla". A prime example of trash movie. Kong looked quite like patty. The diaper-butt, the way it walked, the long arms, and yes, the fingers moved. Oh, and it flashed teeth. Sure, that was a horrible gorilla suit, but could pass for Patty easilly if one were to remake PGF.

Oh, good grief. Speaking of bias...........Incidently there's no "diaper butt" on the PGF creature. The cleft is clearly visible in some frames.

Invalid analogy. Elephants have fossil remains, there are countless meters of sharp footage and pictures from elephants without any lingering shadow of hoax. Same for platypus.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. Many "improbable" animals do exist. Evolution doesn't restrict itself to animals we consider "probable".

Note that you sentence does not means most people who examined it agree that it´s compelling. What about the others? Perhaps it would be more correct if you wrote "few" instead of some.

And how many have examined it, altogether? Krantz noted scientists who dismissed evidence and then proclaimed they hadn't looked at it.

Fingerprint experts seemed more willing to investigate, partly because successful faking of dermal ridges had implications for their field.

According to some, tweaking of probabilities would be a paranormal manifestation. Bigfoot is so improbable that some might think they have some sort of paranormal skills to avoid producing reliable evidence.

You took Beckjord seriously? OMG.

They're a flesh and blood unidentified hominid primate, in Swindler's phrase, that has largely escaped "detection" due to a lack of concerted scientific efforts at "detection".

Again, feet flexibility is a must-have if you are a tree-dweller. Since most primates are tree-dwellers, its quite reasonable that most primates show such feature. However, bigfeet -assuming they are real- are biped terrestrial primates adapted to walk long distances. And an extra flexibility becomes an undesirable trait. The species from the genus Homo have such flexibility? Oh, australopithecines had. However, it seems they still spent a long time in trees, thus the adaptation is still usefull.

Adaptations that no longer have a particular use are often retained. Why would extra flexibility be an undesirable trait, especially in rugged terrain? Assuming they evolved from a non-Homo bipedal ancestor, acquiring a rigid arch wouldn't be useful with the great weight. Ligaments don't hold up well even in exceptionally heavy humans.

Can you imagine a 3m-tall ape spending a lot of time in trees? Is it reasonable?

Why would they need to spend time in trees (the young might)? Our ancestors did; did we lose our hands when they were no longer needed for brachiation?

Not to mention that the position of the toes in the feet of primates that have such flexibility is quite different from the very human-like one shown by bigfoot footprints. Primates with flexible feet don´t have the toes located at the front of the feet. They are located at the side, closer to the middle of the foot, near the articulation, what makes sense if you are going to to grab a tree branch with your foot, for example.

That´s just another bit of inconsistency in bigfoot anatomy. And another reason why Krantz at al. do not convince me.

The footprints don't show very humanlike feet. They are much wider, proportionately, e.g.. (Hoaxers tend to enlarge their own feet, BTW.)Afarensis tracks look to be closer to human than Sasquatch tracks, IMO.

 

[LAL]

Bigfoot Forums sure isn't JREF, is it?

That's one of the nice things about it. This is the thread, if anyone's interested.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=ST&f=35&t=12993

I thought "Monkey's Uncle" did a rather neat job of answering Greg/Diogenes' points without resorting to the ad hominems which often seem to be the accepted style of reply on this board:

"- They can't be anything else but shoulders. Even Apeman describes a bulge that "is relatively fixed to the shoulder rather than the arm."

"We haven't had the benefit of that nice full frontal shot like your anatomy illustrations."

- I agree, but there are enough frames where you can make a determination of the mouth vs shoulder levels (see attached frame 352).

"I also believe the position of the Gorilla's mouth has a lot to do with quadrapedal locomotion. This would not apply to the Patterson subject."

- I agree regarding the position of the Gorilla's mouth to shoulder level and it's quadrapedal locomotion. As Patty is bipedal we should expect a higher mouth to shoulder level than that of a Gorilla.

"The shoulder height mouth on the Patterson subject is not morphologically sound."

- Not for a human, especially a human in a suit. But having a mouth to shoulder height in between that of a bipedal human and a quadrapedal ape does not seem to me unsound."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12993&st=120

 

[Correa Neto]

It's been mentioned Wolves are being "rediscovered" in the Southern Cascades. I'm going to stop trying to be humorous. If it weren't for the "fairy" story, I'd think you have no sense of humor at all, at least in English.

Hehe, you should know what I made with UFO guys a couple of times... Not to mention constant misuse of paranormal skills decades ago to impress woo chicks.

I don't think it follows that all living species must eventually become roadkill.

The point is- the "species" has been avoiding producing corpses for too long. No roadkill, no shooting by hunters, no death by disease, natural accidents, traps, etc. No body! That´s the issue. Roadkill is -unfortunately- just one of the easiest ways of getting an animal -almost any terrestrial animal- body nowdays. Probably the easiest one would be poaching, but I´m really not sure.

Evidently they prefer a habitat with ample rainfall and cover, such as temperate forests, preferably montane. I got your point on this months ago; must you keep harping on it? We've had most of these discussions before and virtually all your points, except possibly for roadkill, were covered by Krantz. Makes me wonder if you really read him.

What makes you belive that reading Krantz has the power to convince anyone? I´ll write it again anyway why it is not convincing.
(I) His raw data, used for his conclusions. Sighting reports, low-quality stills and footage and dubious footprints. Thse are not valid evidence.
(II) Over a lot of the evidence (even the best ones) there are lingering shadows of misinterpretation and/or hoaxes.
(III) There are problems in his interpretations of the creature´s anatomy and behavior, some of which I have already pointed out.

Perhaps you should wonder why people are convinced by him. Nah, forget it. Even Beckjord convinces some people.

Or an actual hominid primate was doing that. You have no evidence for a "bloke in a suit", of course.

You have evidence it was not a fraud? No, the same worn-out arguments are not producing any effect. Please provide new reliable evidence. PGF is useless.

I thought it was an interesting debate. The question of whether a reflex could be that fast was especially intriguing. I disagree with Zenor on a number of issues, but he posts good graphics.

Do you agree or not that these can not be teeth? Do you agree ot not that the guys who see such detail level are just stretching it too much beyond any reasonable definition limits of the stills?

He above all had reason to expose a hoax if there was one after Patterson cut him out, but he never has.

No. He -and a lot of other people- still can make money (and have big laughs) by keeping the story.

There's more than enough. There are measurements, proportions.....There's enough detail for some of the scoftics here to see folds and bunches on a supposed costume. Is that pareidolia?

Again, measurements and proportions are useless, since the gorilla suit was made to have proportions different from a human. If the folds and bunches are larger than fingers, for example, thus they can be seen. PGF is a dead-end as reliable evidence for bigfeet´existence.

I just posted more on this. They did use both infra red and thermal. I'll have to read the notes again (or you can: http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/pnw_newsletter003/ThermalExpedMain.htm)
to determine which exactly was taking too much juice. I remember thermal, but I could be wrong.

You know, there are a lot of cheap camcorders with IR or low-light capacity. You can even buy IR spotlights to increase their range. Check Sony´s HR40 series, for example. These things can be used to set traps and film animals even without light. I´ve done it a lot of times in caves to film bats. Not as good as film, anyway.

Oh, good grief. Speaking of bias...........Incidently there's no "diaper butt" on the PGF creature. The cleft is clearly visible in some frames.

Oh, yes, there is that big butt that we have already discussed. A btt that by the way is another anatomic inconsistency of Patty.

You seem to have missed my point entirely. Many "improbable" animals do exist. Evolution doesn't restrict itself to animals we consider "probable".

I still see no problems with elephants anatomy. Check their feet, for example. A classic solution for structures that have to withstand great weigths. In bigfeet´s case, the devil lies at the details. Toe position, big butts, etc.

You took Beckjord seriously? OMG.

LAL, in case you have not noticed I am just showing you what would be the reasoning that someone could use to render bigfeet as paranormal.

They're a flesh and blood unidentified hominid primate, in Swindler's phrase, that has largely escaped "detection" due to a lack of concerted scientific efforts at "detection".

Swindler is just plainly wrong in his reasoning or providing a lame excuse. Given the number of researchers of several fields and wildlife photographers that work (and worked) in North America, an accidental detection of such a large animal is perfectly plausible -assuming it exists, of course). One would not need to be looking for bigfeet to find it. Someone researching or taking pictures bears, for example, could get lucky.

There´s no need for a dedicated team. There will be no dedicated team unless reliable evidence is provided.

Adaptations that no longer have a particular use are often retained. Why would extra flexibility be an undesirable trait, especially in rugged terrain? Assuming they evolved from a non-Homo bipedal ancestor, acquiring a rigid arch wouldn't be useful with the great weight. Ligaments don't hold up well even in exceptionally heavy humans.

The extra ligaments and articulations are an extra opportunity for problems. Please note that the heavier land animals don´t have such flexibility at their feet. Please also note that many animals dapted to rugged terrain so not have any flexibility at their feet.

Why would they need to spend time in trees (the young might)? Our ancestors did; did we lose our hands when they were no longer needed for brachiation?

Bigfeet mums would not be able to stay up there with they younglings for too long, given their weights. Since primate younglings are always very close to their mothers, bigfeet younglings staying in the trees is not consistent with what we know from primates.

Please note that hands are quite usefull, therefore they were retained and perfected during the evolutionary process. The analogy is invalid.

The footprints don't show very humanlike feet. They are much wider, proportionately, e.g.. (Hoaxers tend to enlarge their own feet, BTW.)Afarensis tracks look to be closer to human than Sasquatch tracks, IMO.

So, do you claim that toe position is not similar to humans in the many "genuine doubtless" pics of bigfoot footrints you posted? Have you noticed where are the toes in australopithecines feet shown at that French site you linked? Completely different from humans, and much closer to gorillas and chimps.

 

[LAL]

Hehe, you should know what I made with UFO guys a couple of times... Not to mention constant misuse of paranormal skills decades ago to impress woo chicks.

I can't imagine why. And what, pray tell, is a "woo chick"?

<snip>
Probably the easiest one would be poaching, but I´m really not sure.

How long is too long? Poachers might stand a good chance, but they'd need to pack something more than a 30.06, and go out at night.

What makes you belive that reading Krantz has the power to convince anyone? I´ll write it again anyway why it is not convincing.
<snip>

He studied casts, primarily, called in other expets, and examined tracks in situ on several occasions. When he was asked to examine the Bossburg casts he gave them only a 10% chance of being real.

You've examined what evidence firsthand? Interviewed what witnesses? Viewed what first generation copy (x10) PGF and calculated what measurements?

"He was born Nov. 5, 1931, in Salt Lake City, and he studied at universities in Utah, California and Minnesota, earning his doctorate in 1971. He joined the WSU faculty in 1968 as a physical anthropologist, and he published works on race, human evolution and the geographical development of languages, in addition to his "Sasquatchery."

http://www.rense.com/general20/foot.htm

Perhaps you should wonder why people are convinced by him.

Because he makes sense? Just a guess.......I've read Daegling and Long as well. Have you?

Nah, forget it. Even Beckjord convinces some people.

He's e-mailed me recently; he got my real e-mail address somehow. I'm thrilled (heavy sarcasm). Hey, some people believe in Urban Fairies; who am I to wonder why some people think the way they do? (A woman I know molested her son, but it was all right because God told her it was actually a ritual circumcision. She was off her meds at the time.)

You have evidence it was not a fraud? No, the same worn-out arguments are not producing any effect. Please provide new reliable evidence. PGF is useless.

Worn out arguments? What about "All the evidence is inconclusive and those who think otherwise are crackpots"? Seems I've seen little else on this board, except "It's all a hoax, therefore the evidence must be hoaxed, unless it's an elk." They're beyond worn out; they're threadbare.

Do you agree or not that these can not be teeth? Do you agree ot not that the guys who see such detail level are just stretching it too much beyond any reasonable definition limits of the stills?

I think the time argues against it, but it's certainly possible she gave Patterson a little lip lift in the "That's far enough" look she gave him.

Why aren't you bringing up some of the things people on this board are seeing that the resolution doesn't allow for, such as a rectangular hole in the "face mask"?

No. He -and a lot of other people- still can make money (and have big laughs) by keeping the story.

He could have made a lot more money exposing Patterson and getting Long to write a book about it. Look how far Bob Heironimus got with that. Gimlin made no money off the film. I don't know what money he's made off appearences, but Krantz usually wasn't paid and, when he was, it didn't cover expenses. Despite some of the unsubstantiated claims on this board, researchers don't make money off the effort; they spend it.

Again, measurements and proportions are useless, since the gorilla suit was made to have proportions different from a human. If the folds and bunches are larger than fingers, for example, thus they can be seen. PGF is a dead-end as reliable evidence for bigfeet´existence.

In your opinion, and you discount the opinions of those who've made a study of it. Who would use a Gorilla suit for a Sasquatch anyway? Even the nose would be wrong.

You know, there are a lot of cheap camcorders with IR or low-light capacity.

Yep. Bobby Clarke used one in Manitoba. It auto-focused on branches.

You can even buy IR spotlights to increase their range. Check Sony´s HR40 series, for example. These things can be used to set traps and film animals even without light. I´ve done it a lot of times in caves to film bats. Not as good as film, anyway.

I believe they are being used in some places.

Oh, yes, there is that big butt that we have already discussed. A btt that by the way is another anatomic inconsistency of Patty.

Looks just fine to me for a furry bipedal butt on a 6'6" hominid primate. What is it supposed to look like?

"On the same page is another brief piece about some research indicating that human's large gluteus maximus muscles are a product of our bipedal locomotion. Apes have smaller "butts" (as the article puts it) with the gluteus maximus attached to the ischium. Such a muscle and attachment can't keep apes in an erect posture for long. The human muscle is larger and attached higher up, on the ilium."

http://www.anthropology.ccsu.edu/faculty/park/latebreaking.htm

I still see no problems with elephants anatomy. Check their feet, for example. A classic solution for structures that have to withstand great weigths. In bigfeet´s case, the devil lies at the details. Toe position, big butts, etc.

Evidently there are anatomical adaptations for great weight, the "mountain gait", e.g..

Just read the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant if you still don't see what I'm getting at.

LAL, in case you have not noticed I am just showing you what would be the reasoning that someone could use to render bigfeet as paranormal.

When you mentioned photos without shadows, I thought for a moment you meant photos without shadows, like on the ground. I would suspect Photoshop, not paranormal. I really don't care what the lunatic fringe, as exemplified by Beckjord, thinks, in case you hadn't noticed.

Swindler is just plainly wrong in his reasoning or providing a lame excuse.

I may have to put this in my sig line so I don't have to type it so often. Dr. Swindler was a sceptic for thirty years, but one who took time to view the PGF repeatedly, interview witnesses and appear as the obligatory skeptical scientist in documentaries. He's a leading primate anatomist, a giant in the field before his retirement, and the writer of the standard text on primate anatomy. He examined the Skookum Cast four times before coming to his conclusions.

You've examined it how many times? And you're an expert in primatology? Yet you say he was "just plainly wrong in his reasoning or providing a lame excuse"? Excuse for what?

If someone comes up with a clear picture will you declare it a fake because it's too clear?

There´s no need for a dedicated team. There will be no dedicated team unless reliable evidence is provided.

There's a new organization forming from the ashes of the BFRO. It will be interesting to see how they progress.

The extra ligaments and articulations are an extra opportunity for problems. Please note that the heavier land animals don´t have such flexibility at their feet. Please also note that many animals dapted to rugged terrain so not have any flexibility at their feet.

Such as Bears and Elk? What other bipedal primate gets to such a size? What extra ligaments?

Bigfeet mums would not be able to stay up there with they younglings for too long, given their weights. Since primate younglings are always very close to their mothers, bigfeet younglings staying in the trees is not consistent with what we know from primates.

Bears do it, and Mama don't climb up there too.

I've never said they're arboreal, have I? That was your idea. Putting a young one in a tree for safekeping isn't too much of a reach. (They can reach pretty high.)

Human infants have a relic grasping reflex evidently from a time when mums had hair on their backs. The hair has vanished, but not the reflex.

Please note that hands are quite usefull, therefore they were retained and perfected during the evolutionary process. The analogy is invalid.

It's your opinion midtarsal flexibility wouldn't be useful and would be lost, but I don't agree. It would seem to be very useful for traversing rugged terrain; better grip on rocks, e.g.. Australopiths had it and it didn't seem to harm them any. Traits can be retained and be neutral or beneficial in another context.

Hands were "perfected"? You mean they can't get any better? Some of your phrasing makes me wonder if you really understand evolution.

So, do you claim that toe position is not similar to humans in the many "genuine doubtless" pics of bigfoot footrints you posted? Have you noticed where are the toes in australopithecines feet shown at that French site you linked? Completely different from humans, and much closer to gorillas and chimps.

Hardly. You mean Deloison, I assume. We're talking about tracks, not the bones. Of course, there's debate on this too:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005C9B3-03AE-12D8-BDFD83414B7F0000

Sasquatch toes are evidently longer and more prehensile than those of humans and tend to be straighter across and more nearly equal in size.

 

[LTC8K6]

Lu, what did you mean by "heat prints on rock"?

We don't need reprints of BFRO reports. You said they found "heat prints on rock". What did you mean? Or are you confusing your reports?

Incidentally, there is no mention of the three heat spots in this version of the BFRO report for that expedition on that day. We know it's the exact same expedition and the same incidents, so which report should I believe?

Why didn't you quote it?

Thermal camera scanning of clearcuts yielded a warm spot below the rock pinnacle overlook on the steep hillside west of base camp. Powell, Lemley and Searle drive to the west ridge and climbed down the hillslope to investigate the warm spot about 1/3 mile from the base camp. The approach to the warm spot filmed by Pugsley through the thermal camera at the base camp. The group is seen through the thermal camera approaching the warm spot. Moneymaker directs the group closer. Powell radios back that the warm spot is beneath an rock overhang. The Australian, Searle, volunteers to jump down to to opening of the overhang with a flashlight. The others don't object. Searle jumps down to the opening and finds the cavity empty. The thermal camera sees that nothing has run away. The warm spot is still there. It is three times the size of Searle, and Searle is standing right in front of it. Searle puts his hand on the slanted wall of the overhang. It's warm, having been heated by the morning sun. Searle radios back that the rock wall under the overhang had not cooled by the rain that came later that day, hence the temperature differential seen through the thermal camera.

After the trio returns, Powell seeks volunteers to help put out the fruit that was brought along for bait. Noll takes a batch of melons for baiting. Moneymaker asks for volunteers to drive the roads to scan for animal with the thermal camera. Noll, Searle and Moneymaker go in Noll's vehicle. Searle uses the thermal camera from the sunroof. At various points Noll stops and cuts open fruit and leaves it along roads.

Back at the camp, Fish broadcasts Tahoe screams at 45 intervals. About 20 minutes after the second scream broadcast, Randles and Fish both hear a distant return call coming from south of base camp. No further sounds heard.

http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/expedition_details.asp

 

[LTC8K6]

Lu, have you ever checked the range of Sony's Nightshot system? I have a 2 year old Sony Hi8 camera with it, and it's not all that much.

 

[Correa Neto]

Sony cameras need a small spotlight to provide extra "lightning". I own a DCR HC 40, and its range, relying just on it´s IR emmiter, in truly dark conditions (a cave, for example) is somewhere around 3 meters. Depending on the hue of the subject its even less. However, even a small LED headlamp (such as a Petzel with three diodes) can be very helpfull. I´ve got some nice footage bats and cave critters (pseudoscorpions, daddy-long legs, spiders) using this "composite illumination".

Despite not having a great range, these camcorders can be handy as camera traps. Also, at night, even a half-moon can increase their range. If my memory does not fail, there are commercially avaliable IR spotlights (not from Sony)that could increase a lot their range.

Professional low-light cameras, nowdays used for wildlife studies and documentaries are truly sensitive. A moonless night becomes clear. What leaves even less space for bigfeet to hide from biologists and wildlife photographers.

Oh, fake UFO shots are also great with nightshot camcorders!

 

[LAL]

Lu, what did you mean by "heat prints on rock"?

Same thing I meant last time when this was discussed with much hoohahing about three-footed bears.

We don't need reprints of BFRO reports.

Then why did you post one?

You said they found "heat prints on rock". What did you mean? Or are you confusing your reports?

Already answered. I don't use the short version.

Incidentally, there is no mention of the three heat spots in this version of the BFRO report for that expedition on that day. We know it's the exact same expedition and the same incidents, so which report should I believe?

Why didn't you quote it?

I've told you why. It's a synopsis. I prefer the longer, more detailed version I've never been able to access from the website. I found it on a search during a debate on an AOL board.

 

[LAL]

Lu, have you ever checked the range of Sony's Nightshot system? I have a 2 year old Sony Hi8 camera with it, and it's not all that much.

Rick Noll can answer all this better than I:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-hunter/why-havenâ??t-we-discovered-sasquatch-yet/

 

[God]

If there was such an animal, it would have to reproduce and there would be many. Science would have discovered it as they have discovered millions of other species. It would be just another dam animal in the wild, and there would'nt be mile long forums about it, or endless debate over it's existence for 37 years! duh.....

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip... And what, pray tell, is a "woo chick"?

A chick that belives in all sorts of woo nonsense.

How long is too long? Poachers might stand a good chance, but they'd need to pack something more than a 30.06, and go out at night.

Well, when was North America colonized? Since then, no hunter ever managed to bring a bigfoot body to any biologist or naturalist. And never underestimate a poacher.

You've examined what evidence firsthand? Interviewed what witnesses? Viewed what first generation copy (x10) PGF and calculated what measurements?...snip...

Have you? Its the old "garbage in, garbage out principle". Not to mention that some of his conclusions are debatable at least.

Because he makes sense? Just a guess.......I've read Daegling and Long as well. Have you?

He makes sense for those who belive bigfoot is real. You should ask yourself why not many mainstream people are convinced if he´s so good.

He's e-mailed me recently; he got my real e-mail address somehow. I'm thrilled (heavy sarcasm). Hey, some people believe in Urban Fairies; who am I to wonder why some people think the way they do? ...snip...

Yep, some people even belive in bigfeet

Worn out arguments? What about "All the evidence is inconclusive and those who think otherwise are crackpots"? Seems I've seen little else on this board...snip...

The above statement is not true. Evidence and reasoning againt PGF and bigfeet have been posted here. If you disagree, please convince us that the avaliable evidences pro bigfeet are not inconclusive.

I think the time argues against it, but it's certainly possible she gave Patterson a little lip lift in the "That's far enough" look she gave him.

Time, resolution and illumination argue against the definition of such detail level.

Why aren't you bringing up some of the things people on this board are seeing that the resolution doesn't allow for, such as a rectangular hole in the "face mask"?

Is the rectangular hole bigger than the resolution?

He could have made a lot more money exposing Patterson and getting Long to write a book about it. Look how far Bob Heironimus got with that. Gimlin made no money off the film. I don't know what money he's made off appearences...snip...

Can you back the claim that "Gimlin made no money off the film"? Heck, if I were P, G or F, I would never tell the truth just for the sake of laughing at the believer´s attempts to prove its real.

In your opinion, and you discount the opinions of those who've made a study of it.

I don´t think I am the only one who think its a hoax or that there are very good reasons to belive it is a hoax.

Who would use a Gorilla suit for a Sasquatch anyway? Even the nose would be wrong.

Who would use a gorilla suit for bigfoot anyway? P, G & F.
A suit can be made to have a nose that is different than those from humans and to have longer forearms than humans have.

Yep. Bobby Clarke used one in Manitoba. It auto-focused on branches.

And the conclusion is?

Looks just fine to me for a furry bipedal butt on a 6'6" hominid primate. What is it supposed to look like?
...snip...

Looks like a diaper, to me. If that were a real animal, Patty would be quite fat. But we have already discussed this haven´t we?

Evidently there are anatomical adaptations for great weight, the "mountain gait", e.g..

That are not seen in any other mountain animal?

Just read the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant if you still don't see what I'm getting at.

Of course I can see- a dead end.

...snip...Dr. Swindler was a sceptic for thirty years,...snip...

You see, LAL, two days ago I saw at NGC a documentary on the sea serpent an lake monsters... A biologist from some uni that I can´t remember the name claimed they were serpentiform reptiles that could breathe under water. Compare with Krantz, Swindler et al. They may also be wrong, you know. Even a PhD grade can not avoid you to be wrong.

You've examined it how many times? And you're an expert in primatology? Yet you say he was "just plainly wrong in his reasoning or providing a lame excuse"? Excuse for what?

Are you an expert?
Why you team with him when most other experts say bigfoot is a myth?
He is providing a lame excuse for the absence of reliable evidence – a living or dead specimen or sharp footage.

If someone comes up with a clear picture will you declare it a fake because it's too clear?

In case you have not noticed, we all here at JREF will immeadiately say "WOW! COOL! WE WERE WRONG!". The opposite of the reaction that footers have when faced with evidence against their existence.

There's a new organization forming from the ashes of the BFRO. It will be interesting to see how they progress.

If they follow the same methodology used by BRFO “experts”...

Such as Bears and Elk? What other bipedal primate gets to such a size? What extra ligaments?

Elk and moose have mid tarsal breaks?
The species of rams that live in steep cliffs have mid tarsal breaks?
Really heavy mammals have mid tarsal breaks?
Bigfeet live only in mountainous terrain that would require special adaptations for climbing?

See, the claims that (i) extra feet flexibility is an adaptation for living in steep terrain and (ii) mid tarsal breaks are an adaptation to sustain the animal´s weight have no backing either from existing animals examples or from bigfoot´s alleged habitats.

Bears do it, and Mama don't climb up there too.

I've never said they're arboreal, have I? That was your idea. Putting a young one in a tree for safekeping isn't too much of a reach. (They can reach pretty high.)

I wrote that such feet flexibility is useless since they are bipedal primates adapted to walk long distances AND they are just too big and heavy to spent as much time in trees as gorillas. Thus, flexible feet would be removed in the evolutionary process.

I the said that one could suppose they retained the feature because their younglings stay in trees for protection. But this, I say, is against what we know about primates, since primate females keep their younglings very close most of the time. Thus, again, extra feet flexibility has no reason to be there.

It's your opinion midtarsal flexibility wouldn't be useful and would be lost, but I don't agree. It would seem to be very useful for traversing rugged terrain; better grip on rocks, e.g.. Australopiths had it and it didn't seem to harm them any. Traits can be retained and be neutral or beneficial in another context.

Then please explain why animals that live in rocky cliffs have not developed a similar feature. Also explain why bigfeet would retain such feature if they do not live solely at rocky cliffs, since their habitats encompass an enormous range of terrain types, most of which can not be called rough.

Regarding australopithecines note that the genus was more primitive when it comes to adaptations to bipedalism, and they still spent a lot of time in trees, possibly using them to sleep at night, etc.

There´s a single genus of bipedal primates adapted to walk long distances that can be used for any comparsion with what bigfeet´s feet should look like – the homo genus.

Hands were "perfected"? You mean they can't get any better? ...snip...

Here´s my sentence:

Please note that hands are quite usefull, therefore they were retained and perfected during the evolutionary process.

How can it be interpreted as a statement that our hands can no longer be improved? To say something was perfected is far from to say that it became perfect.

Hardly. You mean Deloison, I assume. We're talking about tracks, not the bones. ...snip...

LAL, we ARE talking about bones. A footprint will own its shape to the bones that compose the structural framework of the foot that created it. Alleged bigfeet´s toe (toes are composed by bones, aren´t they?) position is inconsistent with a great degree of feet flexibility. Toe would have to be at least a bit more gorilla- or chimp-like, for example.

Sasquatch toes are evidently longer and more prehensile than those of humans and tend to be straighter across and more nearly equal in size.

What do you mean by “evidently”? Could you please provide a link backing this claim?