Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Hellbound]

If all you have is a pile of manure, the size of the pile is not relevant.

Well, it does let you determine a minimum number of bulls***ters that must be in the area.

 

[Huntster]

Well that is the point of my post. You seem to sorely oversee that in all case, there is no data which are scientifically usable. There is as much sighting and photo for UFO. Do you belive in UFO ?

I believe it is arrogant to state that, with all the stars and planets out there, that we are the only life in the universe. Are there visitors from other planets flying here? I don't know. We travel to other celestial bodies, and send unmanned craft to far flung areas.

Why not?

The point is quite clear, I may not speak a very good englisch but here is it :
If for you PGF and some terribly inconsistent footprint and description are proof enough, then you should believe in a lot more than Sasquash.

Not necessarily. I have personally seen footprints which I believe were left by one of these creatures. That, for me, is compelling evidence. For you it's not.

I have not seen a lake monster, nor have I seen an extraterrestrial vehicle (I have seen "unidentified flying objects", but I don't believe they were extraterrestrial vehicles), nor have I seen a sasquatch.

I simply accept what evidence I reason as valid, and reject that which I reason is not, just like you and everybody else.

And one thing I don't consider "valid evidence" is the uninformed or prejudiced opinions of others.

You should also believe in UFO for which we have as much proof and film. You should believe in fairy (lot of stills. And thousand of year of legend and sighting!). You should believe in loch ness monster. Do you ?

Maybe, no, and doubtful.

And this is my point. What you hold as standard for proof is not scientifically acceptable for proof of existence of animals.

Yup. However, it is my opinion that the existing evidence of sasquatch is enough for science to invest a little more resources and interest in to.

if you keep ignoring that, then fine with me. I will leave you with your belief.
But pelase at least eb consistent and start believing in all other mythological animals and sighting with the same proof standard.

I will believe what I reason worthy of belief, regardless what others opine. I refuse to accept rigid standards placed on me by others.

 

[kitakaze]

Woooh! A hundred pages, baby! Beer anyone? Bigfoot? No? Just with Ken, eh? Suit yourself. *Stares at the drummer*

I simply accept what evidence I reason as valid, and reject that which I reason is not, just like you and everybody else.

I know that's where the fallibility sticker is for me.

 

[Mad Hom]

I believe it is arrogant to state that, with all the stars and planets out there, that we are the only life in the universe. Are there visitors from other planets flying here? I don't know. We travel to other celestial bodies, and send unmanned craft to far flung areas.

Why not?

Holy fecal matter Batman, Fudd and I agree on yet another issue. Thats two things and counting Fudster wow someday we may get three...who knows.

Not necessarily. I have personally seen footprints which I believe were left by one of these creatures. That, for me, is compelling evidence. For you it's not.

::::sigh:::::: and Fudd believes himself to damn smart in the ways of the wild to have been hoaxed by someone,even if it's the simpler explanation. I mean We have "someones" and we have a long history of hoaxes,what we don't have is any decent evidence of a Hairy Biped of Unusual Size. Hmmm which one would be more plausible?

I have not seen a lake monster, nor have I seen an extraterrestrial vehicle (I have seen "unidentified flying objects", but I don't believe they were extraterrestrial vehicles), nor have I seen a sasquatch.

I simply accept what evidence I reason as valid, and reject that which I reason is not, just like you and everybody else.

No Fudley, you simply have a far more lenient acceptance level than us that's what is at work here. Feetprints,arsecasts,and plausibly hoaxed films from the 60's won't cut it with us,apparently it works for you though.

And one thing I don't consider "valid evidence" is the uninformed or prejudiced opinions of others.

Yeah and guys like Loren Coleman aren't prejudiced in any way are they? He's only basically built a career around gullible Bleevers buying into the possibility of mermen,mandogs,the Jersey Devil,Chupacabras and Bigfeet. Geeeeeesh!!

Maybe, no, and doubtful.

I don't get why Lake Monsters are doubtful and Bigfeet are plausible to you Fuddnik? Lake Monsters have just as mush anecdotal evidence,and people have wasted basically just as much film on them. Maybe it's because you haven't seen any flipper prints with your own eyes. Flipper prints that couldn't possibly be hoaxed. Is that it?

Yup. However, it is my opinion that the existing evidence of sasquatch is enough for science to invest a little more resources and interest in to.

I will believe what I reason worthy of belief, regardless what others opine. I refuse to accept rigid standards placed on me by others.

Creed of the Footer:

Raise your right hand and repeat after me....

I will bleev in Bigfeet despite the lack of anything definitive and in the face of all plausibilty. I will do so vehemently.I will disregard human ingenuity with regards to hoaxes as will I feel that hoaxers probably wouldn't bother hoaxing in remote areas.I will hold eyewitness accounts as scientifically usable evidence because there is just so damn much of it to all be BS.I will also doggedly defend a plausibly hoaxed film because without it I have nothing but feetprints and stories. I will deflect the passage of time without anything definitive by simply stating that science is ignoring the issue and above all else I will not waiver in this bleef despite the painful inevitability of it all being utter bullshyte.

Amen!

 

[RayG]

Well, it does let you determine a minimum number of bulls***ters that must be in the area.

Maybe, but to the optimist it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there's a pony under that pile of sh**.

RayG

 

[Hellbound]

Maybe, but to the optimist it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there's a pony under that pile of sh**.

RayG

Great, thanks.

Now, I'll be walking around giggling all day and getting funny looks.

"What the heck are you giggling about, Huntsman?"

"Hehe...little kid...*snicker*...cowboy outfit...*chuckle*...saddle...*snort snort*...huge manure pile...swinging his arms and yelling 'Yippi-Ki-Aye!'...*Falls over rolling on the carpet*"

"Um, why don't you take the rest of next week off?" *aside* "Bob, call security!"

 

[Aepervius]

UFO Huntster, UFO

I believe it is arrogant to state that, with all the stars and planets out there, that we are the only life in the universe. Are there visitors from other planets flying here? I don't know. We travel to other celestial bodies, and send unmanned craft to far flung areas.

Why not?

Oh, I never asked whether you believe there is intelligent life or not. After all depending on drake equation parameter the universe is briming of life out there. What I asked you is if you believe there is UFO around containing extra terrestrial being.

Now let us compare apple and orange. The farthest we went in the last 40 years is at the door of our own solar system. You ae speaking of going at a distance which is waaaaaay beyond that.

First time of travel : even if they travel at near c speed (not even counting the amount of energy required to accelerate a mass m to a speed near c) the nearest star is 4 year away at best at c speed. Sub c would be worst. And with remote system that would be worst. So we are speaking of looooooong travel time here.

PS: using newtonian mecannic because I do not want to bother with relativity, a mass m of 10 ton (small UFO) at c speed require a kinetic energy of 4.5*10^20 joules to decelerate to speed zero. IF wiki is to be believed, The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce 1.8×10^17 J. So now for our acceleration/deceleration no matter how much time it takes we need 5 tons of anti matter. I leave to the imagination of the reader on what containement would be needed (need more energy !).

Travel effect.
I would hate to imagine the effect of constant bombardement of the interstellar medium (yeah space is NOT empty) on a vessel at sub c speed. Now I would assume they would need the energy also t maintain themselves, even with minimal energy (hibernation) they would have to have a system constantly watching for meteor/debris/whatnot (which would have en even more catastrophal effect than some molecule at c speed). Other solution is automated vessel which would supress the hibernation. But we are not speaking of automated vessel, most people say there is alien in those (at least the eye witness). So on top add the energy needed for hibernation/life maintenance. So let us imagine their hibernation system consume only energy, but no water, oxygen and whatnot.... That is still a freaking amount of energy to spend and have a reserve. oh you might want to have anti matter or something really energy packing which add other problem like containement.

Another problem is the deceleration.
FYI with our knowledge of physic and propulsion, that would be quite a spectacle to accelerate or decelerate brutaly to sub light speed (over 0.01c) in term of energy dissipated. I ai't even speaking of near c. So they must be really slowly accelerating and decelerating (add more travel time).

So unless you imagine something really science fiction or are on LSD trip (wormhole or whatnot, but AFAIK even wormhole are theoretised to be in the fermi scale) we will certainly not see alien being landing on our planet without a veeerrry long travel. this means they would probably rather use hibernation/big vessel. Small size would be stupid and with big vessel you can have more fuel/material. Funny things is all UFO are relatively small (when was the last time one was kilometer long, except in V, Independance day and other sf film).

So in other word due to physic, that UFO with alien being are landing on our planet to anal probe people and kidnap/slaughter cow is.... Doubtful is the nicest word I can imagine. Still photo seems to cut it out for you. IMO arrogance is that imagining flimsy evidence is enough to proove existence. that is QUITE arrogant.

On my side I'll start beieving in alien when I start dissecting one and/or shaking his hand (maybe in the other order ).

Still you are free to believe in UFO, based on film/photo evidence. but those are not of scientific value.

Well, due to statistic, population biology, incredible variation in morphology, the fact we are speaking of north america (which isn't like , amazona), no bones, no corpse, many proof of hoax and so on.... Well IMO all of low scientific value, the same shadow of doubt (STRONG doubt) can be cast on sasq.

If you want scientific to start inquire on SASQ, it is your job to bring the scientific something which can interrest them, something with scientific value which cannot be hoaxed. Print can be hoaxed. Film can be, especially if blurry enough or/and old. Photo can be hoaxed. DNA can't (well not by amateur). Bones is difficult. Corpse would be impossible.

Unless you bring science something to bite on, you will be ignored. Mind you this might be what you wish : if science start inquiry, this might destroy fantasy of sasq being a real creature. As long as science ignore sasq you can still hold on hope and belief.

 

[UrsulaV]

Woooh! A hundred pages, baby! Beer anyone? Bigfoot? No? Just with Ken, eh? Suit yourself. *Stares at the drummer*

Party at Bigfoot's place!

 

[Mad Hom]

Party at Bigfoot's place!

I'm all for it....that is of course if we can FIND his place.

All I have seen of it is a plaster "cave" cast, a few grainy photos of the entrance,and a mail box made out of bark and tree limbs inexplicably placed out in the middle of Nowhere,PNW.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm all for it....that is of course if we can FIND his place.

All I have seen of it is a plaster "cave" cast, a few grainy photos of the entrance,and a mail box made out of bark and tree limbs inexplicably placed out in the middle of Nowhere,PNW.

Just follow the trail of twisted saplings and rock cairns..

Oh, and did I mentiontion the horrible stench ?

Guess I have now...

 

[UrsulaV]

I'm all for it....that is of course if we can FIND his place.

All I have seen of it is a plaster "cave" cast, a few grainy photos of the entrance,and a mail box made out of bark and tree limbs inexplicably placed out in the middle of Nowhere,PNW.

I'm there, as long as the evening doesn't progress to the point where we're casting testicle prints. That's generally when I decide it's time to head home.

 

[bruto]

Just follow the trail of twisted saplings and rock cairns..

Oh, and did I mentiontion the horrible stench ?

Guess I have now...

Just leave your dog at home. I hear they're rough on doggies.

 

[demonologist]

Question for bigfooters:

In my experience the most common reason given for why we don't find bodies or bones is that they live deep in the woods where humans don't go. Now, aside from the fact that this is speculation based on 0 evidence (we don't know the living habits of creatures we don't even know exist), my question is, assuming that is correct, why don't Sasquatches ever have accidents? Because of all of hte alleged accounters we know they travel to places were humans frequent for some reason. Why don't they ever fall off a cliff or break a leg and die before someone finds them? Why hasn't a single Sasquatch gotten hit by a car (since they are often spotted crossing roads)? Where are the accidents?

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's because the gub'ment has gps microchips implanted into sasquatch, so that if there is ever an accident, they can haul the bodies off to Area 51.

 

[kitakaze]

Question for bigfooters:

In my experience the most common reason given for why we don't find bodies or bones is that they live deep in the woods where humans don't go. Now, aside from the fact that this is speculation based on 0 evidence (we don't know the living habits of creatures we don't even know exist), my question is, assuming that is correct, why don't Sasquatches ever have accidents? Because of all of hte alleged accounters we know they travel to places were humans frequent for some reason. Why don't they ever fall off a cliff or break a leg and die before someone finds them? Why hasn't a single Sasquatch gotten hit by a car (since they are often spotted crossing roads)? Where are the accidents?

*slaps forehead* Man, those are a couple of stumpers, there! Sheezuz, you'd think someone woulda brought that up at some point. ...Heh? What's that? *mumbling in background* ...Really? That much, eh? Well, I didn't know I was actually supposed to remember stuff! OK, demonologist, I've just consulted with the infinite universe(s) and here's the deal. It would appear Bigfoot does not have accidents because they are not insured for them. Case closed, next question.

 

[kitakaze]

So no testicle prints and no doggies? Man, where I come from we cast our nads and punt a few mutts around right after we take our coats off. Yeah, screw this. I'm going over to Chupacabra's place, I hear they do all sorts of wild crap over there.

 

[UrsulaV]

Why hasn't a single Sasquatch gotten hit by a car (since they are often spotted crossing roads)? Where are the accidents?

It's a good question, demonologist, and one we've hashed out at great length a coupla types. The short answer is "Unfortunately, they've had an amazing run of luck."

The longer answer is sort of a confusing jumble goes something like: Since bears don't get hit by cars as often as, say, deer, and Bigfoot are more like bears than deer, but rarer than bears, the fact that there aren't many roadkilled bears means that there should be even fewer roadkilled Bigfoot, and so it's okay that there are no roadkilled Bigfoot.

Any attempt to point out areas where big, and even rare mammals are routinely hit by cars--bears, for example, do get whalloped regularly across the country, and cars are one of the major causes of mortality in the hyper-rare Florida panther--is shouted down on the premise that none of those statistics could possibly be from the Pacific Northwest, or at least a Bigfoot heavy area of the PNW.

If you then point out that damnit, we don't need hundreds and hundreds of roadkilled Bigfoot, just one stinkin' one mashed on a grille will be plenty, more than enough, all you could hope for, the Footer will then usually say "Hey, I'd like to see one too, believe me!"

Some of them will then mention reports, usually sans bibliography, of how someone claims they DID hit a Bigfoot with a car, although no body or sample was recovered. Attempts to track these reports back to a source often makes the Footer grumpy and inclined to sulk.

At the end of the day, the skeptic yells "But you haven't answered my question!" and then the Footer yells "Your question can't be answered! You won't be satisfied with anything but a body, you lousy cynic, because every time I say something, you ask more questions!" and the skeptic yells "But we have to ask questions! What the hell is science if we don't ask questions?!" and then they glare at each other across the room for awhile and retire to their respective corners and David Attenborough does the voice over about the cycle of forum life being complete for another day and somebody rolls the credits.

 

[RayG]

At the end of the day, the skeptic yells "But you haven't answered my question!" and then the Footer yells "Your question can't be answered! You won't be satisfied with anything but a body, you lousy cynic, because every time I say something, you ask more questions!" and the skeptic yells "But we have to ask questions! What the hell is science if we don't ask questions?!" and then they glare at each other across the room for awhile and retire to their respective corners and David Attenborough does the voice over about the cycle of forum life being complete for another day and somebody rolls the credits.

Damn, dat be quoteable stuff. May I?

You should visit the BFF for some interesting debate.

RayG

 

[UrsulaV]

*laugh* Quote freely and at will.

 

[demonologist]

*slaps forehead* Man, those are a couple of stumpers, there! Sheezuz, you'd think someone woulda brought that up at some point. ...Heh? What's that? *mumbling in background* ...Really? That much, eh? Well, I didn't know I was actually supposed to remember stuff! OK, demonologist, I've just consulted with the infinite universe(s) and here's the deal. It would appear Bigfoot does not have accidents because they are not insured for them. Case closed, next question.

If you just wanted to dodge the question you should have simply ignored it. A sarcastic goofy reply doesn't help your case.