Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[cloudshipsrule]

What, because there are hoaxers out there, that means that there cannot be such a thing as a sasquatch?

Is that "critical thinking"?

I never said that it means there CANNOT be such a thing based on the number of inconsistencies. I said "Doesn't that make it even more difficult to believe in ANY bigfoot at all with a little critical thinking?"

There is a difference.

Take the lovable, humble jackalope for instance.

http://images.google.com/images?q=jackalope&hl=en

Many variations are out there stuffed and in print; some with deer horns, some with antelope, etc. If every jackalope specimen and/or photograph depicted the exact same type of horn it would lend a little more credence to their existence, correct? It seems harder to believe that there could be numerous species, all with different horn types, correct?

Make more sense now? Hey, it was about critical thinking after all.


Sorry for misspelling 'squirrel' in my previous post.

 

[Mad Hom]

You don't seem to get it, do you?

How much time have you spent in the woods?

What do you think your chances are of, say, "catching" a bear?

Divide those chances by 200 (that's a guess; it might be 100, and it might be 1,000).

There are your chances of one encounter.

Double it for two.

Do the math, genius....................

Who gives a flying one legged ◊◊◊◊◊ how much time I have spent in the woods Fudley,it has no bearing...WHATSOEVER on what I'm saying.

The fact is he never went back....at all....ever.

I'm not saying he had to luck into a another Hairy Biped sighting,I'm saying one would think given his luck and assuming thats what it was "luck", he would have tried again.

Your statement...."He had the goods" is accurate it only needs to be elaborated on.

They bought it the first time. Hook,Line and Sinker....why bother faking it again? Right?

Seems to me that Patterson would have tried to take it to the next level if he were really that interested in solving the mystery. I don't know maybe capture a Patty in the flesh rather than just on film.

Seems this afflicts alot of researchers...take the case of the Skookum arse print. Why not look for the arse instead. I mean the arse print wasn't going anywhere was it? Leave a few people behind to cast the thing and go look for the actual arse. It only had a couple hour lead and was probably nearby.

Butttttt nooooooooo....let's just cast the arse and break camp.

Then again why should "researchers" look for actual creatures when moving pictures and plaster prints seem to satisfy most of your rank and file Tru-Bleevers. If Bigfoot Fan is willing to settle for things that are that easy to hoax or misidentify than why bother trying any harder.

You can do math on the odds of encountering a Hairy Biped twice till you're blue in the face Fudster.What I'm saying is...

What are your chances of success if you never go out looking again?

Now divide those chances by 1,000,000 (that's a guess; it might be 10,000,000 and it might be 100,000,000).

There are your chances.

Do the math yourself genius.

 

[Mad Hom]

I never said that it means there CANNOT be such a thing based on the number of inconsistencies. I said "Doesn't that make it even more difficult to believe in ANY bigfoot at all with a little critical thinking?"

There is a difference.

Take the lovable, humble jackalope for instance.

http://images.google.com/images?q=jackalope&hl=en

Many variations are out there stuffed and in print; some with deer horns, some with antelope, etc. If every jackalope specimen and/or photograph depicted the exact same type of horn it would lend a little more credence to their existence, correct? It seems harder to believe that there could be numerous species, all with different horn types, correct?

Make more sense now? Hey, it was about critical thinking after all.


Sorry for misspelling 'squirrel' in my previous post.

Are there people trying to hoax Ivory Billed Woodpecker sightings?

Thylacines? Where are my Hoaxed thylacine photos?

Name me an actual docmented creature that was ever hoaxed to the extant that Bigfoot has if at all.

Were gorillas hoaxed? Were there people hoaxing gorilla sightings in every corner of Africa back in the day? Like people are here in the US for hairy Bipeds?

If this has happened than fine I'll stand corrected,no biggie.To my knowledge though it hasn't happened.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Hey Mad,

I'm confused as to what you're trying to refute.

I do not believe in bigfoot, and I'm saying that the number of variants among the supposed bigfoot footprint castings helps to discredit the notion that a bigfoot exists.

Am I confused about what you're arguing?

 

[Mad Hom]

Hey Mad,

I'm confused as to what you're trying to refute.

I do not believe in bigfoot, and I'm saying that the number of variants among the supposed bigfoot footprint castings helps to discredit the notion that a bigfoot exists.

Am I confused about what you're arguing?

I wasn't arguing...I should have been more clear. I was adding on,embellishing sort of. Actually I may have quoted the wrong guy. Sorry there Cloudship.

 

[Correa Neto]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/ny-bf-photos-update/

More pics of the NY bigfoot. You can see it's not photoshopped, just a really awful effort at hoaxing people.

Not so sure about that.

Compare with the tires. You can see how light is reflecting from them, despite tires being black. Now, when it comes to the creature, the only place that seems to reflect light is the hand... I would expect to see some lighter shades or reflections at least around some parts of the critter´s outline. Light should be reflected from the top of its head, shoulders and arms. Compare with the John Deere. The only areas without reflections are it´s innermost lower parts.

Something looks pretty wrong regarding the lightining of the figure and the vehicle. I still suspect photoshopping. Maybe some tampering to make the flaws in the costume less obvious. Another thing that annoys me is that the figure just changes its pose, remaining almost at the same spot behind the vehicle. Quite convenient.

 

[Ausmerican]

I've only known one person with a bigfoot pet/buddy.

Huntsy of course has forgotton the most famous example, the Jane Goodall/ Diane Fosseys of bigfootism, the family known worldwide as, simply, the Hendersons.

 

[LTC8K6]

I just saw a show called "On The Trail of Bigfoot".

I got a good look at Chilcutt's "friction ridges" on the sides of a cast.

I was stunned.

I'm no expert, but I seriously doubt they were friction ridges. They were huge, for one thing. They should show in nearly every footprint.

They were just thick rounded lines running up and down the sides of the cast.

 

[LTC8K6]

Pictures of a dead flying squirrel in Washington, and a dead bear killed in a flood in California.

No dead sasquatches, though...

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah Correa, you could still be right. Even synthetic fur should be reflecting some light.

 

[Mad Hom]

I just saw a show called "On The Trail of Bigfoot".

I got a good look at Chilcutt's "friction ridges" on the sides of a cast.

I was stunned.

I'm no expert, but I seriously doubt they were friction ridges. They were huge, for one thing. They should show in nearly every footprint.

They were just thick rounded lines running up and down the sides of the cast.

Yeah they call that.......wood grain!

 

[tube]

No, I don't think it's wood grain, at least in the Onion Mountain cast, which I suspect was the one shown on the TV show.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11363

 

[Mad Hom]

No, I don't think it's wood grain, at least in the Onion Mountain cast, which I suspect was the one shown on the TV show.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=11363

Sorry I was being flippant. So these ridges are from the casting process than?

What a downer for Bigfoot Fan. The process of casting Hairy Biped footprints itself even conspires against them.

 

[bruto]

Yup. And seen about as often.



Yeah, they did laugh. They also doubted. (That's why I linked #1 and #2)

Regardless, it's true. Despite living a long time in the woods in flying squirrel country, I'd never seen one until Mrs. Huntster's cat dragged one home.

That was after reading about how plentiful they are, and commented on that on BFF.

Lucky, I guess. Like Patterson.

I haven't seen a flying squirrel carcass since, have never seen a live specimen, probably never will, and will bet that none of you ever have/will.



And probably figured that he "had the goods".



You don't seem to get it, do you?

How much time have you spent in the woods?

What do you think your chances are of, say, "catching" a bear?

Divide those chances by 200 (that's a guess; it might be 100, and it might be 1,000).

There are your chances of one encounter.

Double it for two.

Do the math, genius....................

there's a little problem with your examples here, though, Huntster. Even if the odds of an individual meeting a bear are fairly small, the odds of NO individual among the millions out there ever meeting a bear are ridiculously small if there really are bears in existence. After all, it only takes one good specimen to prove that the critter exists, and that has been done abundantly with other animals. The fact that a sasquatch is, say, 1000 or even a million times rarer than a bear or a flying squirrel is insignificant in the total context. If you divided the number of confirmed scientifically valid specimens of flying squirrels caught by a million I am willing to bet that they would still be proven. Rare as bear encounters are, many thousands of us have had them, and many thousands have photographed them, and many more thousands have shot, eaten and stuffed them, etc. etc. Yet not one single sasquatch has been well photographed, shot or stuffed.

I've met a few bears, and seen flying squirrels alive and dead. Flying squirrels are shy but hardly in the cryptozoological domain.

 

[Huntster]

.....Your analogy would hold up beautifully if there weren't hundreds of flying squirrels in zoos, museum mounts, excellent video footage--perhaps it was a Very Very Tiny Man In A Suit?--etc, etc....

My analogy still holds up beautifully. There are many thousands of flying squirrels for each sasquatch, and you still haven't seen one in the wild. The reason most folks don't is because they are nocturnal, and is less active in the winter.

 

[Huntster]

....Take the lovable, humble jackalope for instance.

Many variations are out there stuffed and in print; some with deer horns, some with antelope, etc. If every jackalope specimen and/or photograph depicted the exact same type of horn it would lend a little more credence to their existence, correct? It seems harder to believe that there could be numerous species, all with different horn types, correct?

Make more sense now? Hey, it was about critical thinking after all......

Does this "critical thinking" lend you to believe that there are live jackalopes out there in the wild?

We've all seen them for sale in gift shops, but have you heard or read of any reports from witnesses saying they've seen them in the wild?

Any native american legends about them?

 

[Huntster]

......The fact is he never went back....at all....ever....

That's not necessarily true. He went to Bossburg after the reports there, and was very active there.

He never went back to Bluff Creek? Correct, as far as I know.

Frankly, I'm not sure why he even bothered at all after his filming event. I'd have been so tired of the naysayers after that, I'd forget the whole thing.

He'd gotten the goods, and they weren't good enough, for science (despite their "a photo would be good enough" b******t) or for people like you.

Your statement...."He had the goods" is accurate it only needs to be elaborated on.

They bought it the first time. Hook,Line and Sinker....why bother faking it again? Right?

No, they didn't "buy it". Science was teased a little, but what "they" want is the carcass. They won't spend money on it themselves, they won't bother seeking grants, etc. They want the Roger Pattersons of the world to deliver it to their lecture rooms.

Seems to me that Patterson would have tried to take it to the next level if he were really that interested in solving the mystery.

"Take it to the next level."

Kill it. Kill it so Horny can "accept" the situation, and so science has their slab of meat to dissect.

Yeah, right............

Seems this afflicts alot of researchers...take the case of the Skookum arse print. Why not look for the arse instead. I mean the arse print wasn't going anywhere was it? Leave a few people behind to cast the thing and go look for the actual arse. It only had a couple hour lead and was probably nearby.

Butttttt nooooooooo....let's just cast the arse and break camp.

If you think it's so easy, why don't you go give it a try.

In fact, go out there and "catch" a bear (without a guide).

Show us how easy it is.

You can do math on the odds of encountering a Hairy Biped twice till you're blue in the face Fudster.What I'm saying is...

What are your chances of success if you never go out looking again?

Almost zip. Just like mine.

You know why I'm not hunting for them?

Because I don't have the time and the money, nobody is going to give me either, and I know how hard it is to catch a bear, even with all the information and knowledge I have about them.

Same with moose. We have twice as many moose in Alaska as bears. We see moose all the time.

You know what the state success rate for moose hunters in Alaska averages?

Less than 25%.

Now divide those chances by 1,000,000 (that's a guess; it might be 10,000,000 and it might be 100,000,000).

There are your chances.

Do the math yourself genius.

I've done it. You haven't.

 

[Huntster]

Pictures of a dead flying squirrel in Washington, and a dead bear killed in a flood in California.

No dead sasquatches, though...

Too rare.

 

[Huntster]

there's a little problem with your examples here, though, Huntster. Even if the odds of an individual meeting a bear are fairly small, the odds of NO individual among the millions out there ever meeting a bear are ridiculously small if there really are bears in existence.

And there are reports of people meeting sasquatches.

After all, it only takes one good specimen to prove that the critter exists, and that has been done abundantly with other animals.

That is the difference.

...Rare as bear encounters are, many thousands of us have had them, and many thousands have photographed them, and many more thousands have shot, eaten and stuffed them, etc. etc. Yet not one single sasquatch has been well photographed, shot or stuffed.

All true, and that's what most who don't believe they exist eventually hang their hats on.

I don't.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

My analogy still holds up beautifully. There are many thousands of flying squirrels for each sasquatch, and you still haven't seen one in the wild. The reason most folks don't is because they are nocturnal, and is less active in the winter.

But if Sas doesn't exist, you don't need any other reason for not seeing one...