Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I say................prove it.

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

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....

In all honest, I believe fully in the former existence of thylacines, and fully believe they could still actually exist.

End of statement. I believe.

That said, you still have nothing more than Roger Patterson had........photos.

...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....

That's right. You "believe the number to be 0...."

End of statement.

...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....

Correct.

However, we do have three partial mandibles and hundreds of teeth of a huge primate from eastern Asia.

We also have reports of sasquatch creatures from that region.

...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?!?!

No.

...Are you going to continue down this "prove it" path just to contradict me Fudd?...

I might.

...Or do you honestly still believe that Bigfeet and Thylacine proof is similiar in any way?....

...Bigfoot and thylacine photography is of a similar nature.

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...

Fair score.

...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.

Thanks for that acknowledgement.

Don't forget the footprint casts, scat, and nests.

...Given what we know which one is more likely to exist today?...

Both.

...Hell for that matter which one is more likely to have EVER existed Fudd??...

Both.

...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.

Pop used to tell me that it "takes two to tangle".

There's also that old saying about wrassling in the mud with hogs.

How smart are you?

 

[LTC8K6]

You cannot say that you have footprint cast of sasquatch. Period.
Well, you can say it, but it means nada.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support the claim. You have no standard to compare to. You don't even have similar footprints, but widely differing ones.

There is zero evidence that any footprint cast is from sasquatch. Zero.

Add to this the idea that sasquatch has a mid-tarsal break, and the idea of all these different casts, most of which show no sign of this marvelous MTB, begins to look really farcical.

Not to mention that Patty's foot shows no sign of any mid-tarsal break, no matter how many times I see her movie.

And yet, scientists still use time and money on it.....
And yet, footers claim they don't.....

You cannot even link any footprints to the PGF with any certainty at all.

There is no hair, and no scat either, except in people's imaginations.

Without knowns to compare to, it's silly to say you have a bigfoot footprint cast, or bigfoot hairs, or bigfoot scat.

Frustrating for the believers, but still silly.

The DNA testing available today is very good. It's so good that merely touching a hair can cause it to return as human. Keep that in mind as you see the BFRO, etc., bumbling around with their "evidence", and think how they would use a "human" return on a sample.

 

[Mad Hom]

In all honest, I believe fully in the former existence of thylacines, and fully believe they could still actually exist.

End of statement. I believe.

That said, you still have nothing more than Roger Patterson had........photos.

Fudd I produced more than photos or weren't you paying attention?

That's right. You "believe the number to be 0...."

End of statement.



Correct.

However, we do have three partial mandibles and hundreds of teeth of a huge primate from eastern Asia.

We also have reports of sasquatch creatures from that region.

Fudd we have reports of sasquatch creatures from EVERY region yet no evidence anywhere in the ballpark of what we have for Thylacines

No.



I might.



...Bigfoot and thylacine photography is of a similar nature.



Fair score.



Thanks for that acknowledgement.

Don't forget the footprint casts, scat, and nests.

Nests?!?! Ok Fudd I just have to do this...

Prove they are Hairy Biped nests....go ahead make my day.

Both.



Both.



Pop used to tell me that it "takes two to tangle".

There's also that old saying about wrassling in the mud with hogs.

How smart are you?

Well Pa Fudster was wrong actually it's Two to Tango Fudley....Two to Tango,and you know what else it takes? it takes much,much,much more than what you've proffered as evidence to prove the existence of a giant hairy Biped....yet you still keep trying though. You are a persistent one...I'll give ya that.

Fudd everything........and I do mean everything you have is dubious and inconclusive...nothing of what we have for Thylacines is though,you know bones,preserved specimens,many videos of OBVIOUSLY real animals,DNA,careful study,autopsy reports etc etc

If you and the rest of rank and file Bigfoot fan could even come close to what we have for Thylacines we wouldn't even be arguing about this at all.

 

[Huntster]

You cannot say that you have footprint cast of sasquatch. Period.
Well, you can say it, but it means nada.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support the claim. You have no standard to compare to. You don't even have similar footprints, but widely differing ones.

There is zero evidence that any footprint cast is from sasquatch. Zero....

That isn't "skepticism". It's denial.

You cannot even link any footprints to the PGF with any certainty at all.

More of the same.

There is no hair, and no scat either, except in people's imaginations.

Denial. All of it.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
....Pop used to tell me that it "takes two to tangle".

There's also that old saying about wrassling in the mud with hogs.

How smart are you?

Well Pa Fudster was wrong actually it's Two to Tango Fudley....Two to Tango,....

You're dancing.

I'm tangling.

Fudd everything........and I do mean everything you have is dubious and inconclusive...

It is not dubious, but yes, it is inconclusive.

 

[LTC8K6]

Show me proof that any of the evidence anyone has collected is from bigfoot, Huntster.

You can't.

Therefore, you can't say you have footprints,scat,hair, etc., from bigfoot.

The best you can say is that you have something you can't identify.

Anyone claiming to have a cast of a sasquatch footprint is exaggerating at best. They're really lying, actually.

Same for hair, scat, etc.

I can't stand claims that are made and just allowed to hang there as if they are the accepted truth.

This is what bigfoot is, and it's gone on for far too long, imo. This is why the subject has trouble going mainstream, imo.

When you really look into all of the accepted "facts" of bigfootery, you find nothing to back any of it up whatsoever. Nothing.

You have the whole layout of bigfoot available. Where it lives, what it eats, how it walks, when it mates, and on and on and on. How? It's idiotic to the extreme.

You have 2 professors who talk all about the structure of the foot, the bones, muscles, etc., in the foot, how the foot articulates, how the toes work, etc.

Based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.

When you read up on where Krantz started this from, it's unbelievable!

This is the kind of crap that plagues sasquatch, and until it is rooted out, sasquatch will forever remain a joke, imo.

As soon as a true objective scientist looks at the subject and what is passing as research by the likes of Meldrum, it's no wonder they aren't interested.

They never really will be until the silly folderol is dropped, and real research can be started properly.

You always end up with the footer making the same basic useless claim that will get neither believer nor skeptic anywhere.

"I know what I'm talking about."

 

[Huntster]

Show me proof that any of the evidence anyone has collected is from bigfoot, Huntster.

You can't.

Therefore, you can't say you have footprints,scat,hair, etc., from bigfoot.

The best you can say is that you have something you can't identify.

How profound, Mr. Scientific Fundamentalist.

"I know what I'm talking about."

So, Professor Meldrum doesn't know what he's talking about, but of course, you do, even though he has gone to sites where footprints have been found, he has made, held, and studied casts, he is an acreditted university professor, and you are?.............................

And, of course, you will deny that you're being arrogant?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Scientific fundamentalist?! LMAO!! What is that? A person who really, really adheres to scientific methods when doing science?

 

[Huntster]

Scientific fundamentalist?! LMAO!! What is that? A person who really, really adheres to scientific methods when doing science?

It can be.

It can also be the kind of person who says something like:

Therefore, you can't say you have footprints,scat,hair, etc., from bigfoot.

The best you can say is that you have something you can't identify.

or:

Nothing can be proven.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So basically, a scientific fundamentalist is a very rational person. Thanks for that clarification.

 

[Huntster]

So basically, a scientific fundamentalist is a very rational person. Thanks for that clarification.

Like every other type of person, yes, a scientific fundamentalist can be a very rational person.

They can also be fools.

It all depends on what they say or do.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So far, you've only pointed out very rational statements as examples of "scientific fundamentalism."

 

[Huntster]

They may be rational, but a couple of them are also, effectively, meaningless.

You may be able to correctly say that, since sasquatch hasn't been "officially" declared "existent" (as if there is someone, somewhere, whose official job is to make such pontifications), all sasquatch tracks you find cannot be claimed to be sasquatch finds.

So what the hell is that supposed to mean? It's a damned footprint, either a hoax or made a huge, bipedal creature, and likely to be from a creature that is commonly and repeatedly reported as being seen, and which is commonly called "sasquatch".

 

[LTC8K6]

You always end up with the footer making the same basic useless claim that will get neither believer nor skeptic anywhere.

"I know what I'm talking about."

Since it's footers who use the line, as I said, I am baffled by Huntster's response. I certainly would never use that line to cover for the fact that I am lying about bigfoot.

Oh, and yes, Meldrum knows nothing about sasquatch feet.

Absolutely nothing at all. Just like everybody else.

He doesn't know the skeletal structure of the foot.
He doesn't know the musculature of the foot.
He doesn't know the motion of the foot.
He doesn't know if it has a MTB or not.
He doesn't know anything about the toes of the foot.
He has absolutely no knowledge of sasquatch feet whatsoever.
There is no such knowledge to be had.

He cannot know any of this. Period.

 

[Huntster]

You always end up with the footer making the same basic useless claim that will get neither believer nor skeptic anywhere.

"I know what I'm talking about."

Since it's footers who use the line, as I said, I am baffled by Huntster's response. I certainly would never use that line to cover for the fact that I am lying about bigfoot.

Oh, I see. Another Correa Neto type of quote.

Since it's footers who use the line...

See how that quote thingy works? I used your words. I didn't make a stupid statement, put it within quotation marks, then attribute it to someone else.

See all those stupid statements in my sig line? They're even linked so the clown who wrote them couldn't deny what he did.

Now, since you stated that "it's footers who use the line", and since you couldn't possibly be lying, why don't you link us to where a "footer" stated "I know what I'm talking about".

 

[LTC8K6]

It's a generic line, not an exact line. A dismissive line to avoid further discussion of the fact that they can't back up their claim. A general claim that they know all about bigfoot and how dare anyone point out that they actually have no factual info.

You make the same claims of facts, but they aren't really facts. Such as this one you just made recently:

However, we do have three partial mandibles and hundreds of teeth of a huge primate from eastern Asia.

No one actually knows how big this creature may be. Claiming it's a huge primate is done deliberately to foster the sasquatch idea.

It may well be a huge primate, but we don't really know.

Just like the claims that it was bipedal, and the big silly statues of it that look like bigfoot.

It goes over well in the choir, but not so well when an impartial scientist gets a load of it.

Bigfoot may well exist, and it may well be discovered somewhere someday.

That will not change the facts of the pseudoscientific BS that is pushed today by footers and professors like Meldrum.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So what the hell is that supposed to mean?

It means that you don't really know what you have.

 

[Huntster]

...You make the same claims of facts, but they aren't really facts. Such as this one you just made recently:

However, we do have three partial mandibles and hundreds of teeth of a huge primate from eastern Asia.

No one actually knows how big this creature may be. Claiming it's a huge primate is done deliberately to foster the sasquatch idea.....

Do you claim that the size of the mandible does not correspond to the size of the creature?

Are you claiming that Gigantopithecus was not larger than today's gorillas?

 

[RayG]

Now, since you stated that "it's footers who use the line", and since you couldn't possibly be lying, why don't you link us to where a "footer" stated "I know what I'm talking about".

It's a generic line, not an exact line. A dismissive line to avoid further discussion of the fact that they can't back up their claim. A general claim that they know all about bigfoot and how dare anyone point out that they actually have no factual info.

If you substitute "I know what I SAW..." you'll certainly find no shortage of people saying THAT when it comes to bigfoot.

I've told very few people about it because they always look at me like I'm crazy, but I know what I saw.

"If somebody was to tell me a story like this, I would figure they were full of bull," he says, "but I know what I saw. I was 21 years old when I saw that thing and that's too old to be scared by nothing."

"I know what I saw, and I know what I heard," he said.

I told her that I know what I smelled, heard, and saw. In between the tears and my shaking, I told her that I saw Bigfoot.

"I know what I saw," Hale said.

"I know what I saw," she said, visibly shaken after having tried to forget the experience for three decades.

As for Jones, the sasquatch has become mainstream. "I'd always had that thought, but never thought I'd see anything. I'm not a fool, I know what I saw."

My brother thinks i'm crazy but i know what i saw. I saw the creature in a heavily wooded area on top of a large hill.

Everyone thought I was nuts but I know what I saw.

Many people laugh in disbelief, but I know what I saw and it could only be one of two things. Either someone dressed in a Bigfoot costume, or it was Bigfoot himself.

I know what I saw and no longer question what it was or my sanity.

..."I know what I saw, and it was no man in a suit."

Now days I know what I saw and don't care what anyone else may think it is not important to me.

I know what we saw was a bigfoot ... theres no other explanation..

RayG

 

[Huntster]

If you substitute "I know what I SAW..." you'll certainly find no shortage of people saying THAT when it comes to bigfoot....

Oh, indeed. I can say that myself with regard to the trackway I found.

The people who have seen something might be able to say "I know what I saw".

People who haven't seen, but think they know something about the phenomenon anyway, can only say "I know what I'm talking about".

I believe LTC fits into that latter category.