Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Aepervius]

Fools

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.

Fooled people always say "I know what I saw". Cue to people fooled by magician for entertainement, fooled by con man for money, fooled by hoaxer for a prank. Seeing, you see, is one of those sense for human which I think sometimes is a curse for people. You know, our brain make a LOT of interpretation. Cue to illusion threads somewhere around. You know what paraedolia (or whatever the spelling is). Cue also to witness seeing a lot of stuff which did not exists, like a dead panda. People saying "i know what I saw" do not realize that reality can be far far away from "what the brain see". "i know what my brain saw, which might not have been real" is nearer t the truth.

Sorry huntster, but if after 105+ page all you have is unidentified multimorphic foot print, a few hypothese, and not much more than "I know what i saw", for 50 years of "sightings" then clearly all your fundation and discussion about sasq are as solid as a sandcastle. Beware of the rising tide .

 

[kitakaze]

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..

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....

LTC and Diogenes, I see where you guys are coming from and I'll agree that with out any corroboration (there was a single mention of tracks that I could find no further info on) in conjunction with certain elements of the report (such as the location being a tourist site) leaves the report highly in doubt. I for one at first found the breathless 'they're real!' tone of the report to be off-putting but I guess I could be a little more understanding considering the report was made and sent to as many media outlets and websites as he could think of a mere five hours after the alleged encounter. What interests me about this case is that unlike say, William Roe, Dr. Matthew Johnson is easily available to be put under the magnifying glass and has submitted himself to do so (though countless media and biased footer organization interviews don't really qualify as being under the magnifying glass, IMO). After googling 'Dr. Matthew Johnson bigfoot' I was able to find a fair bit of personal info on him that gave me the impression that he truly believed what he saw but the people that were talking to him weren't really asking the hard questions that he would be subjected to if he were to pop in say, here or at the BFF (for anyone that may doubt that, sightings reports over at the BFF tend to get jumped on pretty quick). As for the poop thing, while I too have never been scared literally $#!tless, I don't think anyone doubts that many have or that it's a well know biological phenomenom. I would just like to see the guy get some tough questions and see what happens. I think to accept the anecdotes as proof of nothing as wise, to highly doubt claims of bigfoot as rational, but to dismiss all claims as ludicrous without examination as rash. That said, for many skeptics to roll their eyes at the thought of wading through a bunch of crap is understandable. IMHO, in the spirit of Ray G and Diogenes' post I feel this case warrants a fair shakedown.

 

[RayG]

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

Using the above list, what is the number one thing that you find most convincing about each? For example, the single most convincing thing about the PGF is ..... the depth of the footprints... the flexing of the calf muscle... the stride length... etc. etc.

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

Ok, why is it extremely unlikely that the above reports are misidentifications or manufactured? Because the participants claim they had these encounters?

Looking at these from a skeptical perspective...

Can't say I'm intimately familiar with all on the list, but I remain unconvinced based on those I am familiar with. What makes the Logger's stories more truthful than say, those of Mary Green/Janice Coy? In both instances we are given detailed physical descriptions, activities, and behavior. Similarly, neither party have any verifiable evidence to support their stories, so what exactly is being used as a yardstick for measuring the truthfulness of these accounts?

The Matthew Johnson account gained a lot of attention and was heralded as a sincere bigfoot encounter, until someone digging around apparently found the date of registration for his bigfoot website preceeded the date of his actual sighting. (can't find the reference to that now, or even if the accusation was true, but I remember reading it, and the Johnson account seemed to be subsequently shoved to the back burner.)

I'm not convinced the subject captured in the PGF is a real live squatch, as much as I'd like to believe otherwise.

The William Roe account is anecdotal at best, regardless of his sworn statement. We seem no closer to solving this mystery today than we were 50 years ago when Roe had his chance encounter.

The Bossburg incident is filled with questionable characters, egotistical attitudes, and mischievous activities. Though tons of footprints were being found all over the place, the only glimpse of the gimpy critter was the one provided by Marx and his fur suit.

Mionczynski watched from inside his tent as a silhouette collapsed it. Wasn't able to find much of a detailed account about his encounter, but it sounds like he didn't exactly get a first-hand peek at the creature if he only saw its shadow.

While both the Chapman and Mack stories are entertaining, both stories are retold after the fact, and without any other supportive evidence.

That leaves us with your trackway. Can you provide some further details about what you found?

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

The Matthew Johnson account gained a lot of attention and was heralded as a sincere bigfoot encounter, until someone digging around apparently found the date of registration for his bigfoot website preceeded the date of his actual sighting. (can't find the reference to that now, or even if the accusation was true, but I remember reading it, and the Johnson account seemed to be subsequently shoved to the back burner.)

Ray, I'm not doubting that but you gotta link? That'd be very interesting if it's true.

 

[Mad Hom]

How profound, Mr. Scientific Fundamentalist.



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?

Fudd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Casts???? They mean basically dick!!

He has never seen a Bigfeet foot. No one ever has...that's the point.I don't care if Meldrum was the President,The Pope or the last foot expert left on the planet Earth No one can know anything about the bones and the general makeup of a foot that no one has ever,even seen.

That's what LTC is trying to say,but of course you continue to be an obtuse arse about it. Which is what you do best sooooo by all means continue with the denial.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

After googling 'Dr. Matthew Johnson bigfoot' I was able to find a fair bit of personal info on him that gave me the impression that he truly believed what he saw but the people that were talking to him weren't really asking the hard questions that he would be subjected to if he were to pop in say, here or at the BFF (for anyone that may doubt that, sightings reports over at the BFF tend to get jumped on pretty quick). As for the poop thing, while I too have never been scared literally $#!tless, I don't think anyone doubts that many have or that it's a well know biological phenomenom. I would just like to see the guy get some tough questions and see what happens.

Being the skeptical kind of guy I am, I would say a sincere, intelligent well credentialed ( history of honesty ) with a fertile imagination, guy like Johnson, with a reasonable amount of resources and leisure time available, would be a prime suspect as a hoaxer ...

I know people will hammer me for not being objective and open minded ( not a TRUE skeptic ), but with the total lack of veracible evidence where Bigfoot is concerned,
I consider any encounter ( without a body ) a hoax by default.

When it comes to anecdotes, it doesn’t matter how intelligent, honest and sincere the
story teller is.. Such people have claimed to have been abducted by aliens..

 

[RayG]

Ray, I'm not doubting that but you gotta link? That'd be very interesting if it's true.

Oh-mah, I wish I did, can't find that reference anymore, but, I know what I saw.

RayG

 

[Huntster]

Fooled people always say "I know what I saw"...

And what about those who haven't seen anything, opine with great conviction, and reject what those who have seen say?

Sorry huntster, but if after 105+ page all you have is unidentified multimorphic foot print, a few hypothese, and not much more than "I know what i saw", for 50 years of "sightings" then clearly all your fundation and discussion about sasq are as solid as a sandcastle. Beware of the rising tide .

And what do you have?

 

[RayG]

This is about the quickest thing I can find Googling...

Johnson was catapulted to the summit of the Bigfoot community within days. He conducted upward of 100 interviews with newspapers and TV stations. No more than a week after the sighting, he posted a Web site explaining the alleged event. He was, in this community, an overnight sensation.

Two weeks after Johnson's sighting, someone posted an inquiry on one of the more active Bigfoot chat rooms. The question was subversive: "When did Dr. Johnson register his URL?" The insinuation was that Johnson might have requested the domain name before his encounter with Bigfoot.

A barrage of messages jumped to Johnson's defense, proclaiming that his Web site was testimony to the new inductee's desire to help validate Bigfoot sightings. "He wants to create a paradigm shift," said one supporter. "He wants to get rid of the stigma and get credibility."

Without proof and despite this outpouring of support, the damage was done; Johnson's reputation in the Bigfoot community had been sabotaged.

I don't recall if it was ever officially determined whether the registration of his website predated his encounter.

On another website, a fellow bigfoot-searcher is not so convinced about Johnson's encounter.

Despite Johnson's literate manner and straightforward emotions, Herriot is only half-sure Johnson saw a Bigfoot.

Herriot points out that Johnson saw the creature only for a few seconds, and had Bigfoot on his mind. Herriot also is considering a local ranger's theory that the sound Johnson heard may have been a blue grouse, a native bird.

"I think he's earnest, but I wouldn't put it up there with one of the great sightings of all time," Herriot says. "Overall I'd give it a 50-50."

Concerning the call of the blue grouse:

During the spring the male blue grouse selects a 'hooting' location, usually a stump, log or tree, from which they will call the females. The call has been referred to as a "ventriloquistic courtship call," and can be heard for miles when conditions are right. Anyone who has been in the vicinity during this period can recall, yes, even feel the vibrations of this deep low resonant sound of the cock bird.

Now I'm not saying that Johnson heard a blue grouse and not a bigfoot, but we know that blue grouse exist, they inhabit that particular area of the world, and they occasionally make deep, low resonant, repetitive calls during that time of year.

Compare what Johnson says here:

We continued to hike up the trail and the trail started to switch back to the right as we climbed the mountain. There were plenty of tall trees and brush. I heard a faint sound (i.e., "Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!). At first I thought it was the blood vessels pounding in my head because it was a constant sound/rhythm and I'm out of shape (i.e., it was a big mountain and we were constantly walking up, up, up,up).

We kept walking up the trail. I heard the sound again except it was louder. Then I thought, "This sound is external - not internal." We all stopped and I asked, "Do you guys here that sound?" Rochelle, Levi, Hannah, and Micah looked at me and nodded their heads in affirmation.

Don't ask me why but we continued to walk up the mountain through the very tall trees and brush. The sound continued in cycles of five to six repetitions (i.e., Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa). Louder and louder. Now the sounds were behind us.

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).

To what is heard here:

At first, the sound is faint.

"Whoa, whoa, whoa!"

A few minutes later it's clear. There's something in the woods of Oregon
Caves National Park.

Johnson and the hikers bend a bit into a crouch, stopping every few hundred
feet to listen.

"If we run into anything," Johnson whispers, "don't split off."

Those with binoculars and telephoto lenses scan the trees. There's talk of
breaking into groups 50 feet apart and heading down the mountain, to flank
whatever is making the noise.

"Whoa, whoa, whoa!"

Moving much more quietly than before, the group sticks to the zigging and
zagging trail, following the noise up, then back down the mountain...

The "Whoa, whoa!" can still be heard more than an hour after it started, but
everyone has stopped sneaking around...

It's getting late, and most of the group heads back to the Oregon Caves
parking lot. With the "Whoa!" sound still in the distance, the departing
hikers shake the doctor's hand and say goodbye.

Is it possible, in both instances, the mystery culprit is the lowly blue grouse?

RayG

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
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

Using the above list, what is the number one thing that you find most convincing about each?...

* The PG event:
Corroboration (quick independent investigation), multiple types of evidence (film, testimony, footprints), multiple witnesses

* William Roe:
In depth description, conviction enough to legally swear his testimony, description of vocal "chattering"

*Clayton Mack
Qualified hunting guide, ultimate familiarity judging bears, multiple sightings over the years

*Chapman Family
Multiple witnesses, corroboration of sign later, abandonment of home

*Matthew Johnson
More to lose than gain by notority, some familiarity with bears

*Bossburg story
Unique nature of prints, high number of prints, description of where prints went

* John Mionczynski
Experienced biologist, active sasquatch researcher after encounter

*Logger story
Logistics of moving those rocks

*My own trackway find
Clarity of a few of the prints, stride length, remote trackway location, difficulty of terrain where prints were found

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

Ok, why is it extremely unlikely that the above reports are misidentifications or manufactured? Because the participants claim they had these encounters?

Not "the above reports", but all reports.

There are thousands of reports of sightings and footprint finds. Furthermore, the density and locations of these reports are not uniform. You are well aware of my thread at BFF regarding the disparity of reports between Kodiak Island and Prince of Wales Island.

That's not to mention the indigenous experience.

All of them are manufactured or misidentified?

Looking at these from a skeptical perspective...

Can't say I'm intimately familiar with all on the list, but I remain unconvinced based on those I am familiar with. What makes the Logger's stories more truthful than say, those of Mary Green/Janice Coy? In both instances we are given detailed physical descriptions, activities, and behavior. Similarly, neither party have any verifiable evidence to support their stories, so what exactly is being used as a yardstick for measuring the truthfulness of these accounts?

There was verifiable, physical evidence with regard to the logger story:

With René and my daughter Kathryn and son Jim I went with this man to the spot where he had seen the three creatures. We found piles of rocks just as he said, not only at the spot he showed us but on almost every area of broken rock we came upon in a couple of hours scrambling around the mountain. They were obviously piles manufactured by someone or something, there was no way the rock could have come to rest In that way naturally, and there were dozens of them.
The hole he saw the male sasquatch dig was about five feet deep and almost as steep-sided as a well. No bear or anything else without hands could have lifted out the rocks. A man could undoubtedly figure out a way to do it if he had a reason to, and could also have made all the rock piles, but it would have been a great deal of work for no apparent purpose.

More:

INVESTIGATING SASQUATCH EVIDENCE IN THE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST

By James A. Hewkin, Retired Dept of Fish & Wildlife, 1983

.......On June 23, 1978, I located a different arrangement of rock piles in a canyon. This work also was old and covered with lichens and moss. However, the rocks were quite large (5 to 100+ pounds), had been piled in heaps, and were associated with trenches. There were 22 rock piles of various sizes (36 feet high). Some of these rocks were too large for a human to handle....

 

[Huntster]

....with the total lack of veracible evidence where Bigfoot is concerned,
I consider any encounter ( without a body ) a hoax by default......

And even when verifiable evidence is offered, you spend effort to devalue it.

The default is your requirement for a carcass. Nothing else will do, and I'm not sure if even that will be good enough.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And even when verifiable evidence is offered, you spend effort to devalue it.

Is that a bad thing?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

And even when verifiable evidence is offered, you spend effort to devalue it.

I missed something .. What verifiable evidence are you talking about?

Or is this some semantical gymnastics, like:

The evidence was verifiable in your opinion, but no one bothered to verify it ?

Or how about :

Someone found some tracks, and another person verified that ‘ they were tracks alright ‘ ?


Oh, and I don't require a carcass .. Not a whole one anyway, or a live one would work ...

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
And even when verifiable evidence is offered, you spend effort to devalue it.

Is that a bad thing?

Yes.

It's quite fine, necessary, and expected to analyze it.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
And even when verifiable evidence is offered, you spend effort to devalue it.

I missed something .. What verifiable evidence are you talking about?

The PG evidence, for example.

Or is this some semantical gymnastics, like:

The evidence was verifiable in your opinion, but no one bothered to verify it ?

Or how about :

Someone found some tracks, and another person verified that ‘ they were tracks alright ‘ ?

Yes, it is.

Each and everytime somebody devalues the language in their zeal to devalue evidence, I will react.

Oh, and I don't require a carcass .. Not a whole one anyway, or a live one would work ...

I stand corrected.

"Carcass" can be replaced with "body".

 

[Aepervius]

reverse logic, he ?

And what about those who haven't seen anything, opine with great conviction, and reject what those who have seen say?



And what do you have?

Huntster, may I remind you , YOU are the one purporting the existence of a cryptzoid. YOU are the one which has to proove everything. I do not have to proove anything. I do not have to proove a negative. YOU are to be the one prooving a positive. And again I do not need to "see" anything to be convinced by logic. I can assure you the correct equation+experience convinced me to go into quantum physic, I did not NEED to "see" a wave of an electron. Cadaver and other evidence convinced me of the existence of the existence of extinct specy. I did not need to have a personal experience encounter. YOU say you have *SEEN* something but have squat as evidence.

You are always trying to reverse the standard of logic and proof, always trying to yell you have strong evidence, but you are the one with NADA, despite being the one which has to bring something to prove the existence of your pet cryptozoid.

This is getting stupid. The last 20 page was a loop-over without anything new. have fun debatting, I think from now on I will leave this thread unless somebody bring a body.

 

[Aepervius]

BTW another remark

We have a lot of skeleton of homnideus. We can follow family branch back in the past. We dug up everywhere and had archeological found that were analyzed.

But Sasquash lack not only of skeleton and corpse today, but ALSO in the past. Unless you are a creationist you will have to have an evolutionary ancestry for sasquash, which split frm homnideus in the past (unless you are purporting it ain#t even an homnideus....). Where is its lineage ? Where are the OLD skeleton and rest of sasquash ? IMO it is also quite a good question.

 

[Huntster]

Huntster, may I remind you , YOU are the one purporting the existence of a cryptzoid.

No, I'm the one who has accepted some of the evidence in support of the possibility of the existence of these creatures.

YOU are the one which has to proove everything.

No, I don't have to prove squat ◊◊◊◊ to you or anyone else.

I do not have to proove anything.

Correct, however you do so almost every time you post.

I do not have to proove a negative.

Correct. If you did, you'd be in a difficult situation.

YOU are to be the one prooving a positive.

Why?

And again I do not need to "see" anything to be convinced by logic.

Your logic is nothing more than opinion.

I can assure you the correct equation+experience convinced me to go into quantum physic, I did not NEED to "see" a wave of an electron. Cadaver and other evidence convinced me of the existence of the existence of extinct specy. I did not need to have a personal experience encounter.

That's good, because you apparently didn't get them.

YOU say you have *SEEN* something but have squat as evidence.

Correct. I know of it, and you may or may not believe it as you wish.

...I think from now on I will leave this thread unless somebody bring a body.

Thank you.

 

[Huntster]

Hey, I thought you were gone.

Did someone bring in a body?

We have a lot of skeleton of homnideus.

Really?:

....The reality is that by 1976 approximately 4000 hominid fossil individuals had already been unearthed. The period since that time has seen the most intensive and successful search for hominid fossils in the history of paleoanthropology. No one knows exactly how many have been found to date, however a conservative estimate exceeds 6000.

The implication of this argument is that paleoanthropologists have no reason to complain about a lack of fossil evidence. While the number of fossils is indeed large, quantity is not the same as quality. Most fossils are of small fragments of bone or teeth which can often not even be firmly assigned to a species. Also, the fossil record is heavily weighted towards more recent periods. Quantity is also not the same as completeness. For most hominid species, many bones of the skeleton are not known.....

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes.

It's quite fine, necessary, and expected to analyze it.

That evidence has been devalued because it was analyzed and found to be valueless.