Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
On this same forum...

kitakaze said:
Yeah, just as prone, no argument there but they are supposedto be better equiped to record accurately details of a given situation but yeah, there as fallible as the rest of us. Anyway, some says thirty cops saw BF, I say show me.
Click to expand...

On this same forum somewhere there is a link to an article made by a cop surveying "how much cop use psychics and describe the situation". You should read the summary. So much for accuratly recording details.

Furthermore ask any good cops about the reliability of eye witness. Now think again. We are not speaking of something most witness saw a few feet away, most sighting are in wood or its fringe, at a very great distance, under various condition of lighting. Ever heard of paradeilia (sp?) ? I would bet most witness in reality saw a bear on their hind and mistaked it for a great ape.

Well anyway at best such witnessing is only again circumstancial evidence. To convince anybody you would need a real evidence.

BTW as for DNA analysis, it ain't the crack evidence you might think it is, depending on the DNA quality, specy, and other factor. This is why unknown specy and inconclusive can comes so often, without a reference at hands. imagine all the freaking specy there is on earth, only even counting the big family. Don't forget in addition to animals, insects. And variation within family.
DNA matching might be this nice perky 100% sure method in CSI, but it ain#t so in reality.
 
Some things I've learned since I joined this board. 1. In keeping an open mind to the facts it's pretty hard not to be skeptical of the existence of sasquatches. 2. Saying that skeptics do not carefully consider the facts is a falsehood. 3. As it stands, there truly is no sufficient evidence to support the existence of sasquatches. 4. All the evidence pertaining to sasquatch is insufficient but not all the evidence has been fully debunked (yet all of it remains in doubt and it doesn't make sasquatches any more likely). 5. Supporting the existence of sasquatches is a matter of belief, being doubtful is a matter of fact. 6. Sasquatch-type creatures are (really) unlikely, not impossible. 7. Huntster never gives up (I hope he doesn't). 8. Ursula is smarter than me. 9. Where there is smoke there most certainly is not always fire. 10. I'm still on the fence and it sucks. ...There's my top ten.
 
Aepervius said:
On this same forum somewhere there is a link to an article made by a cop surveying "how much cop use psychics and describe the situation". You should read the summary. So much for accuratly recording details.
Click to expand...
Such things were in mind when I put the word 'supposed' in italics.
I would bet most witness in reality saw a bear on their hind and mistaked it for a great ape.
Click to expand...
This is just an opinion, but I think the majority of reports are inaccurate in the key details or the report itself is fabricated but I doubt a bear on it's hind legs accounts for most. Again, JMHO.
BTW as for DNA analysis, it ain't the crack evidence you might think it is...
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of the short comings of DNA analysis in relation to BF but I still think two samples matching to a high degree found under separate, reliable circumstances from far afield locations would be a significant event.
 
Last edited:
Correcting myself

kitakaze said:
I'm well aware of the short comings of DNA analysis in relation to BF but I still think two samples found under separate, reliable circumstances from far afield locations would be a significant event.
Click to expand...

Actually I was talking out of my a... Hu, I was talking out of my domain of expertise. After googling I found out that it really depend on the test which was made.

For example the difference between specy can be really be made easy by counting chromosome :
some example with common animals

When you look within a "family" this looks more iffy, example great ape, but still should be quite clear. Heck even within that family there is a lot fo ressemblence :
ape family, 24 and 23 chromosomes

Now as correa said, it should not for big foot say unknown specy. It should be quite apparented to ape family. if itsn't then it is even stranger. And this evidence is more a case against BF than for it...

But we do not know because I certainly can't find *ANY* published result of those "DNA" test, so no way to know why it was deemed to be an "unknown specy". Does anyone know if it is published and available publicly ?
 
kitakaze said:
Hey Madness, this might not be exactly what you're looking for but I remember over at the BFF they had this best evidence for bigfoot top ten list that was extended quite a bit. If it hasn't been posted here before it might be a good idea to link it and see how it looks after going through it. I'd be interested to see that and I've thought of posting it here to see what people think but everytime I looked for it I couldn't find it. Hey Huntster, you know what I'm talking about, right?
Click to expand...

Yes I'm familar with that thread...I have it bookmarked somewhere.

Anyway,seems you guys discussed it at length,good points one and all and everything BUT..

What I was shooting for was compiling a list of some Anti-Evidence and putting it all together as sort of the Prosecution's case sort of thing.

IMO,Bigfoot Fan does a reasonably good job tackling Anti-Evidence one issue at a time,but roll it all together in a bundle and hit them with combos and I believe they're arguments would crumble like a stack of dimes.

You know like Patterson's proclivity for shiestiness + his incredible luck + the natural anomaly of breasts and sagittal crest + no decent video in the ensuing 40 years + the film development conundrum + and on and on and on..
 
Just in case anyone remembers this picture.

buttcomp.gif


I was under the impression that this was from "Africa Screams" with Abbott and Costello but it clearly can't be as the ape from "Africa Screams" was way, way fatter. While, of course, it's a slapstick comedy it's hard to tell if they made any effort to make their "orangutan gargatuan" realistic in any way or if they were just playing it for laughs. It is, of course, a gorilla suit with a man inside but some valid comparisons can be made. First, as shown in the image above, there is a "diaper" look to the groin area. Second, and it comes across better in the movie than in the screen shots I took, there is a "ring muscle" around the upper arm.

One last thing, this ape gets some air time and moves around a lot and you can see where the various parts of the suit fit together. For instance, in one scene he rotates his hand and you can see the fur on his arm rotate right up to where the "glove" must end and the fur on the main part of the suit stays static, so you can plainly see the seam. But this is a GOOD thing, because after watching this then going back to the stabalized version of the PG film I can spot similarities, especially in the diaper area.

I'm glad I pulled out this move, as for me you can compare a cut-rate ape suit to the PG film and see many similarities. The PG film looks like a man in suit more than ever to me now.

Stabalized gif: http://artistfirst.com/Alargewalkcreaturecenteredhighcontrast18fpssmall.gif

Some stills I took from the movie.

as.jpg


Again, I'm not saying these suits are even close, I'm just saying, that after seeing an older suit and seeing how they put it together it makes you look at the PG film in a different way and I can see suit "parts" in more clarity now.
 
Mad Hom said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I have a high degree of confidence in the prints I saw. You didn't even see them, so you have a low confidence (if any at all).

I haven't seen the skookum cast in person. Neither have you. Others have, some are scientists. Some believe it's significant. My opinion is that I will give their opinion a higher rating than yours or mine.

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?
Click to expand...

No. A lake is a confined space. The PNW forests are not.
 
Aepervius said:
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....
Click to expand...

I don't know, but I believe it is remotely possible.

Unless you bring science something to bite on, you will be ignored. ....
Click to expand...

I really don't give much of a damn if science ignores me or not, and I have no responsibility to bring them lunch.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I really don't give much of a damn if science ignores me or not, and I have no responsibility to bring them lunch.
Click to expand...
Then you really shouldn't complain about scientists not looking at the idea of sasquatch.
Click to expand...

Is that advice sound for those who arent't religious, don't give a damn about the church, but still have loud opinions about church policy?
 
Is that advice sound for those who arent't religious, don't give a damn about the church, but still have loud opinions about church policy?
Click to expand...

Does the church policy affect them? I think that would be pertinent.

Does the church believe in bigfoot, for example? Does it say the idea is heresy, for example?
 
LTC8K6 said:
Does the church believe in bigfoot, for example? Does it say the idea is heresy, for example?
Click to expand...

Presumably there were a pair of Bigfeet (that would be 4 big feet) on Noah's Ark. If only they could get the Turkish Government to allow a thorough inspection of mount Arrarat definitive proof for Bigfoot could be produced!

Edited because I have thick fingers.
 
Curses Foiled Again

bruto said:
Thick, eh? And Hairy? Odd dermal ridges? We've been infiltrated! After him!
Click to expand...

Drat; I've been caught. Yes I am from the woods of Oregon and Northern California. Not particularly hairy (and less so as the years go by), not nine feet tall, not 900 lbs, size nine shoes. Yes, I admit it, I am a member of the rare hairless pigmy bigfoot species.
As to dermal ridges and DNA, try the military archives, they have both on file. If they refuse to release them to you it will be proof the government is involved in the coverup.

Robert "Miniature Bigfoot" Klaus
 
LTC8K6 said:
Is that advice sound for those who arent't religious, don't give a damn about the church, but still have loud opinions about church policy?
Click to expand...
Does the church policy affect them? I think that would be pertinent.
Click to expand...

Does the policy of science affect you? I think that an appropriate respond from science to sasquatchery would be pertinent to everybody.

Does the church believe in bigfoot, for example? Does it say the idea is heresy, for example?
Click to expand...

Neither.

The matter is completely a matter of science. Yet, science fails to adequately address it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom