Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does the policy of science affect you? I think that an appropriate respond from science to sasquatchery would be pertinent to everybody.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. I have no objection to the response of science to sasquatch. Plenty of scientists have looked at the issue over the years and plenty are looking into it now.

The idea that scientists are not looking into sasquatch is a total fabrication, as I have already shown with a list of scientists who are working on sasquatch, or have worked on sasquatch.
 
Yay! I'm at work and I can properly space so now for improper spacing...

If

there's

something

to

be

found,

it

will

be

found.
(Sorry, it just felt too good.):D
 
LTC8K6 said:
Of course it does. I have no objection to the response of science to sasquatch. Plenty of scientists have looked at the issue over the years and plenty are looking into it now.

The idea that scientists are not looking into sasquatch is a total fabrication, as I have already shown with a list of scientists who are working on sasquatch, or have worked on sasquatch.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is one Footer argument that seems peculiarly unresponsive to argument.

If one starts with the premise that there's a Bigfoot, then surely one could find a Bigfoot. Somebody should be looking (but not me, because I have a job/my wife would get pissed if I kept spending weekends in the PNW with a truckload of plaster/dog won't hunt) It's somebody's job to be looking for Bigfoot, probably a scientist. If we haven't found a Bigfoot, it means the scientists aren't looking hard enough.

And the thing is, it's actually a pretty logical argument, IF you start on the assumption that there is, in fact, a Bigfoot to be found, as many Footers are doing. If there was, indeed, a large primate stomping through the PNW, then there should be so much evidence, so irrefutable, that the failure to locate one by now would almost have to indicate a total lack of interest by not only scientistics but park rangers and tourism boards and conservationists and everybody else. Loggers should be scraping the things off their grilles and muttering about anothergoddamnsquatch in traffic. Hippies roaming the woods seeking to gain enlightment via recreational pharmacueticals should be grumbling when instead of God, they only meet Bigfoot. Girl Scout troops should be getting their merit badges setting out Foot Feeders of elderly fruit and Purina Primate Chow For Large Breeds.

It really doesn't matter how many scientists DO look into Bigfoot--if one's working on the assumption that there's a Bigfoot, and scientists don't turn one up, then they must not be looking hard enough, no matter how many are doing it, or what they're doing.

It's only when somebody's willing to say "Okay, maybe there isn't a Bigfoot?" that the numbers of scientists looking becomes significant. Otherwise, unless they actually find one, it'll always be too little.
 
It really doesn't matter how many scientists DO look into Bigfoot--if one's working on the assumption that there's a Bigfoot, and scientists don't turn one up, then they must not be looking hard enough, no matter how many are doing it, or what they're doing.
Click to expand...



You been nominated UrsulaV !


I hope to find a way to inject some of this over at BFF.. It shouldn't be too hard..
 
Huntster said:
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).
Click to expand...

I guess the major difference between you and I Fudster is that had I seen the prints that you saw I wouldn't have suddenly said..."Bigfeet are real" No,my first thought would have been..."Alright who's pulling my chain"

A hoax just makes more sense than a huge,nocturnal,bipedal ape to me.

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.
Click to expand...

I don't need to see the arseprint in person. I already know what I need to know and none of it is any good

a.) The BFRO found and cast the thing ...oh and by the way..........BFRO = Red Flag

b.) They didn't bother to mount much of a search for an animal who only had but a few hour headstart.

c.) There are Elk prints all around the thing

D.) The rolling over it's balls just to grab an apple thing makes no sense,why not just walk up...bend over...and grab the apple!?!?

E.) Once again I repeat it's just a cast,not the arse that made the print,just a cast that something or someone made an impression in the mud.

Bigfoot Fan really needs to stop settling for casts and start trying to get something science can actually use.


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

Every Lake has a monster just like every state seems to have Bigfeet,seems Even Steven to me Fudley.
 
UrsulaV said:
It really doesn't matter how many scientists DO look into Bigfoot--if one's working on the assumption that there's a Bigfoot, and scientists don't turn one up, then they must not be looking hard enough, no matter how many are doing it, or what they're doing.

It's only when somebody's willing to say "Okay, maybe there isn't a Bigfoot?" that the numbers of scientists looking becomes significant. Otherwise, unless they actually find one, it'll always be too little.
Click to expand...

Hairy Bipeds are just such a mystery,wrapped in an enigma,bundled up in a puzzle aren't they?

I mean they're rare yet widespread.

If science looks and finds none they aren't looking hard enough.If they don't look at all they're ignoring the issue.

They have no competition for food yet aren't proliferating like rabbits on fertility drugs.

They have any number of toes,and their Mid Tarsals break whenever they want them to.

Females have hairy breasts and sagittal crests,an anomaly.

Hairy breasts are unique to them and only them

They're conveniently nocturnal,an anomaly in primates outside of say...us.

Their only vague relative is Gigantopithecus whose important possible bipedalism is foiled by having their fossils be about as easy to find as a clean toilet in downtown Calcutta.

Carcasses of naturally dead Bigfeet are disposed of nicely by mother nature.

Hunting laws being what they are,park rangers unknowingly are keeping the heavily armed from bagging us that single Hairy Biped that would end this once and for all.

and so on and so on and...
 
I totally and utterly disagree

Mad Hom said:
Their only vague relative is Gigantopithecus whose important possible bipedalism is foiled by having their fossils be about as easy to find as a clean toilet in downtown Calcutta.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but I found clean toilet in downtown calcuta, well at least clean enough...
 
Mad Hom said:
Every Lake has a monster just like every state seems to have Bigfeet,seems Even Steven to me Fudley.
Click to expand...

Actually Vermont has more lake monsters than bigfeet, even sporting monsters in at least two different lakes (Champ and Memphry). The excuse for not actually finding a sample of a lake monster, or a body, etc., is better for lake monsters, because lakes are deep, the monsters do not go abroad and get caught on the road, etc., they cannot be tracked to their lairs, and can be presumed to sink to the bottom when they die. Of course the best and easiest to accept excuse for not finding a sample of a lake monster is nonexistence, but if I were betting on critters, I think it as good a bet that there is something unusually big and unexpected at the bottom of Lake Champlain than that there are sasquatches sneaking around the periphery of our civilization.
 
Huntster said:
You can say that again.
Click to expand...

My Fudley,now aren't you just clever as a toilet lever. I don't care who you are that's just funny right there.

Here's the thing Fudd...how about you ignore my post and instead try and be hysterical with a pithy one liner.....oh you already tried to do that didn't you?? Uggghh!!
 
Last edited:
buffalocust said:
A Bigfoot Exhibit at an Idaho museum will feature the Patterson-Gimlin film.
Click to expand...

Of course they will "feature" it. I mean it's basically the only shred of evidence they have that's worth a hoot why wouldn't they.

I wouldn't imagine the exhibit will be very big though based on that fact that everything they have that's definitive about Hairy Bipeds could basically be scribbled on a cocktail napkin.
 
Mad Hom said:
Of course they will "feature" it. I mean it's basically the only shred of evidence they have that's worth a hoot why wouldn't they.

I wouldn't imagine the exhibit will be very big though based on that fact that everything they have that's definitive about Hairy Bipeds could basically be scribbled on a cocktail napkin.
Click to expand...

Also on display is a flannel jacket worn by the late Rene Dahinden, who spend 40 years in search of Bigfoot. He wore the jacket during a series of commercials for Kokanee beer.
Click to expand...


I understand there is such an overwhelming response to view this jacket, there will be tickets with viewing times issued..
They are beefing up security to deal with the expected pressing crowds....


Update: The above plans have been scratched.. There was a misunderstanding about free beer, or something..:D
 
Diogenes said:
I understand there is such an overwhelming response to view this jacket, there will be tickets with viewing times issued..
They are beefing up security to deal with the expected pressing crowds....


Update: The above plans have been scratched.. There was a misunderstanding about free beer, or something..:D
Click to expand...

Scratched!?!?!?

So there's no free beer than?? Darn and I've got a flight to Pocatello booked already and everything. Got a room reserved at the Red Roof Inn I was going all in on this. Too bad about the free beer being cancelled,I guess I'll have to just........check out the museum!?!?
 
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