Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Mad Hom]

My point is that it is unlikely that all the reports are false

This is in reference to your Law of Averages take isn't it Fudley?

You're basically saying that out of the vast expanse that is the Bigfeet Anecdotal Evidence Mound that they can't all be Hoaxes,Lies,or Misidentification. Right Fudd?

I say why not?

Here's an example posted by Judacalla over at the Bigfoot Think Tank...I know you've read this before Fudster....

"Neither are untrained observers very good at identifying known, living animals. A red or "lesser" panda escaped from the zoo in Rotterdam, Holland, in December 1978. Red pandas are very rare animals and are indigenous to India, not Holland. They are distinctive in appearance and cannot be readily mistaken for any other sort of animal. The zoo informed the press that the panda was missing, hoping the publicity would alert people in the area of the zoo and aid in its return. Just when the newspapers came out with the panda story, it was found, quite dead, along some railroad tracks adjacent to the zoo. Nevertheless, over one hundred sightings of the panda alive were reported to the zoo from all over the Netherlands after the animal was obviously already dead. These reports did not stop until several days after the newspapers announced the discovery of the dead panda (van Kampen 1979). So much for the absolute reliability of firsthand observation."

http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/anthro/SCP50/archaeology/epistemology.htm

Over one hundred reports saying they saw an obviously dead animal over the course of several days? Wow,I wonder how many sightings would occur over the course of say....oh I don't know 50 years? Things that make you go Hmmmmmm.

Say we have 10,000 sightings.Surely they can't all be legit so how many would you throw out as obviously hoaxed or lied about? Hmm Fudd? Than let's throw out all the obvious misidentifications which were found to be such by investigators. How many we have now Fudd?

My guess is we're going to get real close to a number that falls in line with the story from Holland especially given the huge disparity in time frame..........so spare me the "Law of Averages" Bullshyt ok Fudd?

 

[Correa Neto]

You posted a "quote", didn't attribute it to anyone, and had to be prod to admit that it was your "interpretation" of the attitude of "bleevers".

Lie?

It's the kind of crap one expects from lawyers and politicians.

Obfuscation, diversion, ad hominem attack.
Prove its was not a typicall behavior of a believer...
Prod? By whom? You?

Please, Huntster, you don't want any of us to conclude you are so poor at text interpretation.

You are excelling at each post on the art of making a fool of yourself...

Oh, you have not answered the question, as always:
You suspect I am a liar or you think (belive, whatever) I am a liar?
If the answer is "yes", tell me why and you'd better be able prove it.

A liar, lawyer, or politician.

How would you react if someone showed you evidence you made an accusation and never provided evidence for it? Ever considered you might fit within the above?

Any of the above is fine.

What about starting a debate?
Can you?

No, I didn't notice. I thought this was a "fighting" forum.

Oh, disorientation. It happens.
Now you know it, What about starting a real debate?
Can you?

1) Because it's wrong.

Prove it then. Just saying "because it is" ad nausean won't make it right...

2) It is.

Well, at least we agree your conclusions are supect...

3) When it's done with the intend to portray a falsehood (which, IMO, you already did)

Prove it. Or its yet another empty claim, of perhaps, who knows, maybe even a... a... A lie? Huntster, is it possible that you are a liar?

Thanks for the "sporting chance". I'm game.

Prove it. Start by offering something worthy to the debate. Can you?
Stop making a fool of yourself and drop the trolling attitude.

No. I stand by my statement.

It is incredibly unlikely that all the reports are misidentifications or manufactured.

Was that you original stament? Are you sure?

Confront bullspit.

Sure?
Prove it.

I can bring a fight.

Can you? And can you withstand it without making a fool of yourself? At least use the correct forum for that.

That's quite fine. I have no intention whatsoever to "fit in" around here.

That's because I don't "fit" with people like you.

And I'm damned glad for that.

Look! Another flame! Another ad hominem attack!
Here's a suggestion: what about changing your nick to Hamster? It would fit better with your fighting "skills"...

 

[RayG]

It is incredibly unlikely that all the reports are misidentifications or manufactured.

That's sounds very much like the 'bundle of sticks' argument. Any one stick (bigfoot encounter) by itself is very weak, and in most cases not able to withstand intense scrutiny, but taken together, the whole bundle of bigfoot encounters somehow proves the critter real. Quantity doesn't equate to quality, so what can be done to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak?

Huntster, from your perspective, what are the best individual encounters that form the central core of this bundle of encounters? And, why is it impossible for these 'best' individual encounters to be misidentifications or manufactured?

RayG

 

[Yeah_Right]

Another reason all those sightings are questionable? Any idiot can make up a Bigfoot sighting to get his or her 15 minutes of fame. Same goes for UFOs, Nessie or other nonsense that people have made up over the years.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

No. I stand by my statement.
It is incredibly unlikely that all the reports are misidentifications or manufactured.

I agree. But the unlikelyhood of something doesn't eliminate it as a possibility.

If the creature doesn't exist, then all of the reports are indeed misidentifications or manufactured.

As Ray suggested why don't you bring us the best of the best, and we can look at them one at a time..

Just start with one..

Bring us the very best report of a Bigfoot encounter, and we will see how it can be dismissed, if it so deserves...

 

[thaiboxerken]

It is incredibly unlikely that all the reports are misidentifications or manufactured.

What do you base this revelation on?

 

[Aepervius]

It is incredibly unlikely that all the reports are misidentifications or manufactured.

You sir just have justified the existence of :
* gnome
* goblin
* mystical tanuki
* Oni
* demon
* angel
* dragons
* chupakabra
* jaberwocki
* chimera
* licorn
* sasqash
* nessie
* man on the moon
* ghost
* ufo
* banshee
* faery
* djinn
* whatever monster was "observed" and "encountered" during the history of humanity

And before you jump up and down on whining about misquote and misinterpretation, at any time in history even recent one, a bunch of people would tell about an encounter with the above list. Heck some of the above list are on the SAME footing as sasquash due to abundance of photographic and film evidence. In your own word faery, nessie, ufo, ghost have the same existence proof as sasquash.

 

[kitakaze]

I agree. But the unlikelyhood of something doesn't eliminate it as a possibility.

If the creature doesn't exist, then all of the reports are indeed misidentifications or manufactured.

As Ray suggested why don't you bring us the best of the best, and we can look at them one at a time..

Just start with one..

Bring us the very best report of a Bigfoot encounter, and we will see how it can be dismissed, if it so deserves...

This and Ray's related post are the best I've seen in this thread for a while. If it's poop, it's poop. If it's not so poopy then let's have a look. I'll offer the one about the Alaskan psychologist in Oregon, as it's something I've mentioned a few times before as being not utterly dismissable...http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/07/10/national/main213678.shtml orwww.oregonbigfoot.com/report_detail.php?id=00234Of course I will stress that it's no reason for anyone to start believing in bigfoot but I would like to see it go under the magnifying glass regardless of the outcome.

 

[LTC8K6]

I started putting one and one together in my mind and my biological “fight or flight” responses kicked in. I stopped my family on the trail. I told them to stay quiet. I hiked up the hill to our left because I had to go poop ASAP (i.e., this happens when the biological “fight or flight” response kicks in). While I was doing my duty, I was scanning the woods down the mountain on the other side of the trail my family was standing on. That’s when I saw it. I saw it come out from behind one tree to the left and walk to another tree to the right. Then it looked back and was watching my family while they were standing on the trail.

I think I've figured out what the smell was....

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :

Really?

Okay, Mr. Scientist............

Prove it..............


Ok there Mr.Smarty Pants how's this.....

Here's some film from 1912...a living,breathing Thylacine...whats that you say?...

I say................prove it.

You have nothing more than what Patterson offered. A film that he stated was a specific creature.

Now I'm sure you're already drooling all over your keyboard preparing for a..."It might be a Dingo with stripes painted on it's backside" comeback. Feel free to suppress that urge lest you want to reveal yourself for what you truly are Fudd ......an obtuse,contrarian ass.

I already have.............I asked for "proof".

The animals depicted in these films clearly aren't Dingos or German Shepherds or guys in suits for that matter. They were filmed doing all kinds of things that real animals do....you know eating,running,lying down,opening their mouths etc.

Now having seen these videos I am more open to the possibility that a few may have survived extinction soooo if I see a Modern Thylacine video...oh say...tomorrow I won't shyt all over whoever brings said video forward based on the fact that we have studied,cut open,classified,filmed numerous times and held in captivity many actual honest to goodness Thylacines.

Some "skeptic" you are.

Damned selective.............

 

[Huntster]

Obfuscation, diversion, ad hominem attack.
Prove its was not a typicall behavior of a believer......

Please, Huntster, you don't want any of us to conclude you are so poor at text interpretation..........

...Huntster, is it possible that you are a liar?

.........Here's a suggestion: what about changing your nick to Hamster? It would fit better with your fighting "skills"...

Kiss my ass, Neto. You're "quote" is reprinted below, in it's entirety, and linked:

"If science can't find bigfoot, its must be science's own fault, because *I* can't possibly be wrong."

Amazing.

Its always someone else's blame. Believers are never wrong or mistaken.

Bigfoot, lake monsters, UFOs, ghosts, conspiracy theories, homeopathy, its aways the same behavior. They are right and science, the system, the stabilhsment is wrong...

There are quotation marks there. Nobody is attributed with the statement, and it is not linked.

I don't give a damn how you squirm, that was intended to be attributed to me, yet you claim otherwise.

You're a liar.

 

[kitakaze]

Bring us the very best report of a Bigfoot encounter, and we will see how it can be dismissed, if it so deserves...

Now that's a fair proposal.

I think I've figured out what the smell was....

LTC, while Huntster may disagree, I think there are, including yourself, quite enough astute people around here to give it a better punt than that. I never said it was golden but I would like to see it given at least a little more than a brush off.

 

[kitakaze]

BTW, Correa and Huntster, if you were to step back a pace might you feel that in the tone of your engagements of late your integrity suffers as opposed to your regular style of debate? Not a jab, just think it's getting a little too much. JMHO.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
It is incredibly unlikely that all the reports are misidentifications or manufactured.

....Huntster, from your perspective, what are the best individual encounters that form the central core of this bundle of encounters?...

Right off the top of my pointy head, I'd say that the best individual encounters would include (not in any particular order of importance):

* The PG encounter
* The William Roe story
* The Clayton Mack stories
* The Chapman family story
* The Matthew Johnson story
* The Bossburg story
* The John Mionczynski story
* The "Logger's Story"
* My own trackway find

....And, why is it impossible for these 'best' individual encounters to be misidentifications or manufactured?

It is not "impossible". Like I wrote (emboldend above), it is extremely unlikely that all reports are misidentifications or manufactured.

 

[kitakaze]

Huntster, I'm compelled to say that my experience was of far mor substance than yours and yet without having seen the animal with my own two eyes I still have to submit to another explanation however unlikely it may seem to me. Let's take it slow and deal with one thing at a time. In the interest of the discussion how about, excluding the PGF, you choose one of the reports you've listed above and see if we can shed some light on it.

 

[Huntster]

Huntster, I'm compelled to say that my experience was of far mor substance than yours and yet without having seen the animal with my own two eyes I still have to submit to another explanation however unlikely it may seem to me....

Your own experience (like with all people who actually live through something) is much more relevant to you than anybody else.

That's how it was with my trackway find. There were only three possibilities:

1) A bear left the prints (I cannot see how that could have been)
2) A hoaxer manufactured the prints (I cannot see how or why that was done there, either)
3) A sasquatch left the prints

I think it was #3, because it appeared to be the most likely explanation, and I have no duty to accept somebody else's reasoning that it wasn't so (especially since they weren't there to see what I saw).

Let's take it slow and deal with one thing at a time. In the interest of the discussion how about, excluding the PGF, you choose one of the reports you've listed above and see if we can shed some light on it.

In order, how about #2, the William Roe story?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

This and Ray's related post are the best I've seen in this thread for a while. If it's poop, it's poop. If it's not so poopy then let's have a look. I'll offer the one about the Alaskan psychologist in Oregon, as it's something I've mentioned a few times before as being not utterly dismissable...http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/07/10/national/main213678.shtml orwww.oregonbigfoot.com/report_detail.php?id=00234Of course I will stress that it's no reason for anyone to start believing in bigfoot but I would like to see it go under the magnifying glass regardless of the outcome.

The big problem is that it is just a story with no corroboration.. No physical evidence, etc...
Where was his camera during this encounter ?

There is nothing to examine except one man's story.. His being confident about being able to distinguish bears, is believable but it doesn't prove he was not mistaken... Believability does not science make..

He was in a public, relatively accessible area.. It doesn't seem reasonable that the monster he described in his story could remain undetected for any length of time.

There is not a lot you can argue with when it comes to first person accounts, unless they start claiming they have one in the basement..

A thousand such stories are no more than what RayG suggested. A bundle of sticks...

I hope it doesn't seem I am dismissing the story out of hand, but the bottom line is, that a story is just a story, without evidence to support it.. ( .. And that doesn't mean another story..

 

[LTC8K6]

Kitty, the quote debunks the story, imo. Ridiculous, imo.

He had to go because he thought bigfoot was nearby? I don't recall bigfoot inducing bowel movements. I have been scared out of my wits a few times to the point of running away. I never had to go, nor would I have stopped to.

He goes upslope, and leaves his family downslope with bigfoot? He doesn't tell his wife to take the kids on up the hill, away from bigfoot, while he does his business?

He is presumably squatting to do his business and he still sees bigfoot downslope beyond his family, but his family doesn't see it? Even though it was making rustling noises and "whoops" in the woods, and it was watching his family?

The part about the smell was just joke filler....

 

[Huntster]

The big problem is that it is just a story with no corroboration.. No physical evidence, etc...
Where was his camera during this encounter ?...

Who says he had a camera? Are we required to carry cameras everywhere we go? Where's your camera?

There is nothing to examine except one man's story.. His being confident about being able to distinguish bears, is believable but it doesn't prove he was not mistaken... Believability does not science make..

That's the arguing point I suspect we will repeatedly see during this exercise........

He was in a public, relatively accessible area.. It doesn't seem reasonable that the monster he described in his story could remain undetected for any length of time.

It didn't "remain undetected". He detected it.

There is not a lot you can argue with when it comes to first person accounts, unless they start claiming they have one in the basement..

Which he didn't do.

A thousand such stories are no more than what RayG suggested. A bundle of sticks...

A bundle of sticks is a bundle of sticks.

The claims are there.

I hope it doesn't seem I am dismissing the story out of hand, but the bottom line is, that a story is just a story, without evidence to support it.. ( .. And that doesn't mean another story..

There were centuries of "stories" about "half-man, half-apes" from equatorial Africa before DuChaillu brought back a gorilla carcass. Even after he did so, there were people like yourself who joked about it, and refused to accept it.

There were centuries of stories from mariners about giant squids. It is now "quietly" accepted.

That may not be science, but it's history.

 

[Mad Hom]

I say................prove it.

You have nothing more than what Patterson offered. A film that he stated was a specific creature.



I already have.............I asked for "proof".



Some "skeptic" you are.

Damned selective.............

Like I said an obtuse,contrarian ass...."nothing more than what Patterson offered" you say?

Well first off if you can actually sit there and say that the PGF compares with any of the Thylacine video I provided in terms of conclusiveness than there's obviously no helping you but....since you asked for more proof...

Let's start with a Thylacine skull...

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/naturalhistory/anatomy/skull.htm

Holy hassenfeffer it would appear they've dissected one...

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/naturalhistory/anatomy/internal_anatomy_1.htm

What's that you say....they have actual FEET and not just FEETPRINTS?

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/naturalhistory/anatomy/external_anatomy_1.htm

Oh well lookee here a Thylacine in a jar...

http://http://aetiology.blogspot.com/2005/11/video-time-capsule.html

Ok so let's tally this up...

How many honest to gosh videos,that no one but the most contrarian of arseholes could deny depicts a Thylacine do we have? I believe the number was 8.

How many honest to gosh Bigfeet videos do we have,that are anything but inconclusive? I believe the number to be 0,goose egg,nada,nichts.

How many Thylacine skulls do we have? Well bare minimum we at least have one,surely there are more in museums but I only produced one so one is what we have. It's still more than what Bigfeet have...which are none,0,goose egg,nada,zilch.

Preserved individuals in jars or otherwise? Well I produced links to at least two of these. Bigfeet? Again they have nothing...I'm sensing a pattern here Fudd.

DNA? Scientific observations? Actual autopsied animals? Studies of it's habits? What it ate? Size of litters? Lifespan?

Does Bigfeet have any of those Fudster?...It's an important question...so I'll repeat it.......Does Bigfeet have ANY of those Fudd?!?!

Are you going to continue down this "prove it" path just to contradict me Fudd? Or do you honestly still believe that Bigfeet and Thylacine proof is similiar in any way?

The only thing Bigfeet does have more of is eyewitless tesimony ok so whats the final score here?

Thylacine:

Bones? Check
Autopsied animals? Check
Conclusive Video? Check
Eyewitness reports? Check
DNA? Check
Exhaustive study of live animals? Check

Bigfeet:

Eyewitness accounts? Check

::::chirp chirp chirp::::::

Hmmm...doesn't seem to be much here...oh wait a minute.. here we go..

A butt cast,some unknown primate hair (alledgedly), and some footprints.

Given what we know which one is more likely to exist today? Hell for that matter which one is more likely to have EVER existed Fudd??

Fudd I know youre smarter than how you portray yourself here so try not to make an ass of yourself in response with by continuing to implore that I prove Thylacines existed. It makes you look stupid...really.