Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[thaiboxerken]

The PG evidence, for example.

Video of a guy in costume isn't evidence of bigfoot. Sorry, you lose.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://web.archive.org/web/20001018204207/http://www.sasquatchsite.com/

Johnson had quite a site up pretty quickly. The name was registered in July of 2000.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
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.

By whom?

 

[kitakaze]

http://web.archive.org/web/20001018204207/http://www.sasquatchsite.com/

Johnson had quite a site up pretty quickly. The name was registered in July of 2000.

Well, we don't seem to have anything solid yet that we could call evidence that Johnson registered the sight prior to the alleged encounter. This interview with Johnson provides a bit of insight into what he was doing just prior to the events and how that July 2000 month played out. Concerning the creation of his website there's this...

Johnson: I am developing a web site for tonight's radio show because I was asked, "So, what am I going to do to take all these hits?" (his answer) Well, I'll give out my e-mail address. "Well, your e-mail address is not going to be able to take all these hits."

So what kind of hits are you talking about? " Well, we're talking about anywhere from 50 to 100 thousand hits."

Jim: A day

Johnson: Yeah! It was like, Dang! So, I've been working with a friend for the last two weeks to get a web site up and running and so we're going to go to the web site. I want you to hear the sound, just in case we might hear something somewhere.

On a side note, it's pretty funny how utterly woo the people conducting the interview with him are. I liked this bit...

Jim: It's a great world we are moving into, I think. We're finally reaching the age of Aquarius.

 

[thaiboxerken]

By whom?

Real scientists, those people that matter in such cases.

You only have conspiracy theory, anecdotes and delusions as justification for your belief that bigfoot exists.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
By whom?

Real scientists, those people that matter in such cases.

Whom? Do they have names?

You only have conspiracy theory, anecdotes and delusions as justification for your belief that bigfoot exists.

Without the names of "real scientists, those people that matter in such cases" with regard to "that evidence has been devalued because it was analyzed and found to be valueless", all you have is "conspiracy theory, anecdotes and delusions as justification for your belief that bigfoot" does not exist.

You lose.

And, I suppose, you "won?"

What was it you won, Mr. Winner?

 

[kitakaze]

Video of a guy in costume isn't evidence of bigfoot. Sorry, you lose.

*groan* OK, sorry for the nit-pick Ken, but you know the 'video' is a 16mm film, but of actual worth mentioning is the fact that your evidence of a man in a suit is as anecdotal as you claim evidence supporting the contrary to be. In which case nobody loses, nobody wins, we call it inconclusive and unusable, and hopefully we move on. You thinking it's a man in a suit or me or Huntster considering the possibility it may be otherwise simply becomes beside the point.

 

[Correa Neto]

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

Oh, hamster, I've already told you I am straight... Sorry.
Now, if you were Catherine Zeta Jones, I would be very happy to do so.

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

Aaaaah, so the shoe fitted, Hamster?
That's why you are so grumpy, eh?
Could have fitted in anyone's foot, baby, but you just had to swallow the bait eh?

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.

Hamster, you've just called me a liar. Prove it. You say it was aimed at you. Prove it.

Now, I will call you are a liar. Check it out:
Huntster, you are a liar. Here's why I am calling you a liar:
You accused me of stalking you.

You searched for my posts. You're stalking me. You're not interested in the issue. You're interested in me.

Post 630 at the Injured by religion; gay marriage; minorities thread started by Complexity. Here's a link to refresh your mind.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1484691&postcount=630
Remember? I challenged you to prove your accusation. You backed your claim? No. I even told you stalking is not taken easilly around here, and challeged you not only to back the claim but also to tell the mods about it, so they could check my posts looking for evidence on your accusation.

You backed the claim? No. It was a false accusation. It was a lie.
This makes you a liar, a politician, a lawyer. Exactly what you accuse me of being. Yet another lie from you.

You are the one using diffamatory tactics after running out of arguments (what happens quite soon with you). And here, baby, here it is against you. Your own poison. Tasty?

I can show more lies and offences from you, if I want. Anyone can. You've offended plenty of people here.

Now, once again, if you can't contribute to the debate, shut up. Unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself. Ever considered you might not helping the image and the cause of those who think bigfeet might be real?

You should consider the possibility that your approach is wrong, if your goal here is to do something other than just trolling. Or you are among those who think they are never wrong?

You really should be able to look depper within my last posts directed to you and see what are they real goal. In case you either can't or don't want to, the above paragraphs should make it clear.

Now, this put, whenever you have something valuable to offer for a debate, and behave in a polite manner, I will happily consider you game and join. But I will ignore any posts of yours along the ad hominem attacks line from now on. As I've been ignoring your posts -those directed at me included- since you made the stalking accusation and failed to back it.

 

[Correa Neto]

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 may be a nice opportunity to remind any possible new arrival that avaliable data indicates Giganthopitecus was not like bigfoot, and by no means looked like PGF's star...
Also, the diet and geographic span does not match. The very way of preservation of their fossils is not helping bigfoot's cause anyway.

The following quote, from the lowermost link, by the person who studied it, sums it all:

Gigantopithecus is gone. Or is it? Following the publicity about our research in Vietnam, I have received several letters from veterans who say that they came face to face with huge, hairy apes in the Southeast Asian jungle when they were posted in Vietnam. And of all the theories advanced to provide a zoological identity for Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, and other elusive creatures, perhaps the most popular is that they are none other than Gigantopithecus, still alive in relict populations (relict populations of Neanderthal man run a close second). While these contemporary reports are probably false, we can contemplate the time when our remote ancestors did encounter the giant of all apes in the tropical rainforests of Southeast Asia.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~nathist/Site/giganto.html
http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html

Saying Gigathopitecus = bigfoot is a shot in the foot.

Those who defend the claim will rely on arguments on ignorance "we can not be sure it was not bipedal since we don't have a complete skeleton" and similar. This is a rather silly line of reasoning, for we also could not be sure it had no wings. Yep, that was reductio ad absurdum...

 

[kitakaze]

OK, now don't everybody pull out the whooping sticks at once but with Gigantopithecus it seems that the evidence indicates that it ate fruit and what was most likely bamboo given it's abundance. A footer would claim that between the age of the Giganto fossils we have and something more modern, it could have made the dietary adaptions required were bigfoot to be a real animal. Correa, would I be out on a limb in saying that though a quadrapedal gait seems likely with Giganto, we really don't have any hard evidence of it? *ducks* On a different note, I'm a big suck when I look at the paucity of ape fossils, finds like Homo Floresiensis, and wonder what kinda weird primates may have been strolling around that we don't know of. Super suck, I know- but at least I know bigfoot is a veeeeery hard sell.

 

[kitakaze]

OMFG, I got it! why didn't I think of this before? Bob Gimlin or Dr. Matthew Johnson, your choice, five minutes in a locked room with Jack Bauer... BOOM, case closed.

 

[Correa Neto]

OK, now don't everybody pull out the whooping sticks at once but with Gigantopithecus it seems that the evidence indicates that it ate fruit and what was most likely bamboo given it's abundance. A footer would claim that between the age of the Giganto fossils we have and something more modern, it could have made the dietary adaptions required were bigfoot to be a real animal. Correa, would I be out on a limb in saying that though a quadrapedal gait seems likely with Giganto, we really don't have any hard evidence of it? *ducks* On a different note, I'm a big suck when I look at the paucity of ape fossils, finds like Homo Floresiensis, and wonder what kinda weird primates may have been strolling around that we don't know of. Super suck, I know- but at least I know bigfoot is a veeeeery hard sell.

What's hard for some to grasp is that there's a (sometimes very thin) line between speculation based on solid grounds and wild speculation. The hard evidence, in this case, is the similarity between avaliable bones from fossil and living genus. Do we have the bones needed to completely back the bipedal or the knuckle-walking positions? Nope. But the hard evidence we have indicates it most likely was not bipedal. Bipedal is the weak position.

To say it may have changed diet is just wild speculation, and the same is valid when it comes to saying its geographic span was (much) greater. What actually backs these ideas?

As for the paucity of fossils, well, consider this: Bigfeet and similar animals are supposed to have a very big geographic span, covering a large area of the globe. A sizeable chunk of timespan, also, if you say bigfeet=Giganthopitecus. Thus, there are plenty of chances for a find.

We've already been on this topic before. I asked why there are no bigfeet bones in some cave. LAL said its most likely because they don't like spending some times in caves. I told her many (if not most) animals whose bones are found in caves are not cave dwellers neither use them for shelter, but die outside and have their remains carried to the caves by water, fall inside them by accident, get trapped while looking for water at droughts, etc. LAL then said there are no dry periods in PNW, neither caves capable of preserving the bones, neither fossils of the right age, bigfeet numbers have always been small. Aside the obvious wild speculation regarding the number of specimens, two things missfire in the above reasoning: Bigfeet are not supposed to be or have been endemic to PNW and the fact that Giganthopitecus bones were found inside a cave...

Are there bones of bigfeet-like creatures awaiting to be discovered at some cave or at some sedimentary bed? Maybe yes. But maybe not. Given the avaliable information, I would say most likely not. And even if I tought bigfeet are real, I would not support the Giganthopitecus-bigfoot connection given the avalible data. All Giganthopitecus indicates is that there were "giant" primates related to orang-utangs in China in the past.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
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.

Hamster, you've just called me a liar. Prove it. You say it was aimed at you. Prove it.

Now, I will call you are a liar. Check it out:
Huntster, you are a liar. Here's why I am calling you a liar:
You accused me of stalking you.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You searched for my posts. You're stalking me. You're not interested in the issue. You're interested in me.

Post 630 at the Injured by religion; gay marriage; minorities thread started by Complexity. Here's a link to refresh your mind.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=630
Remember?..

Oh, my, yes. I remember.

...I challenged you to prove your accusation. You backed your claim? No. I even told you stalking is not taken easilly around here, and challeged you not only to back the claim but also to tell the mods about it, so they could check my posts looking for evidence on your accusation.

You backed the claim? No. It was a false accusation. It was a lie....[/QUOTE]

It wasn't a lie. It was an accusation. And, although I can't prove what is in your heart and what your intentions are/were, I am convinced you were looking for every opportunity to confront me. And you are free to do so.

I am also free to ignore you, or return your words with words of my own.

This makes you a liar, a politician, a lawyer. Exactly what you accuse me of being. Yet another lie from you.

No, this doesn't make me a liar, politician, or lawyer. It makes me confrontational.

You are the one using diffamatory tactics after running out of arguments (what happens quite soon with you). And here, baby, here it is against you. Your own poison. Tasty?

Yes, actually. You resorting to such vitriol and false quoting is exactly what I expect, exactly what I'm used to, and par for the course.

I can show more lies and offences from you, if I want....

Show where I have lied.

...You've offended plenty of people here....

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Now, once again, if you can't contribute to the debate, shut up.

No.

The bulk of my posts in this thread are replies to drivel like yours.

Ever considered you might not helping the image and the cause of those who think bigfeet might be real?

My exchanges with people like you have absolutely nothing to do with whether sasquatches exist or not.

It's amazing that I have to point that out to "a scientist".

You should consider the possibility that your approach is wrong, if your goal here is to do something other than just trolling.

My approach is wrong, scientist?

My position is that the search for this creature should be about biology, not psychology.

Or you are among those who think they are never wrong?

Of course not. However, with regard to sasquatch, I'm very careful to use words such as "possibility", "perhaps", "maybe", etc.

It's difficult to be "wrong" when using words that avoid absolutes. When dealing with a subject like this, there are no absolutes (on either side, BTW).

You really should be able to look depper within my last posts directed to you and see what are they real goal. In case you either can't or don't want to, the above paragraphs should make it clear.

I guess I'm dense. They're not clear to me.

Now, this put, whenever you have something valuable to offer for a debate, and behave in a polite manner, I will happily consider you game and join. But I will ignore any posts of yours along the ad hominem attacks line from now on.

Somehow, I doubt that.

 

[kitakaze]

What's hard for some to grasp is that there's a (sometimes very thin) line between speculation based on solid grounds and wild speculation.

Sorry for the side flop, Correa, but wild speculation has led to many advances and joys in human civilization but more entertainingly gives skeptics and woos something to yak about. Either way, IMHO, we're better for much of it.

The hard evidence, in this case, is the similarity between avaliable bones from fossil and living genus. Do we have the bones needed to completely back the bipedal or the knuckle-walking positions? Nope. But the hard evidence we have indicates it most likely was not bipedal. Bipedal is the weak position.

Well, IMO, if we think in terms of convergent evolution we have some ammo to think that Giganto was a knuckle-walker but without more hard evidence in hand both positions are weak. Knuckle-walking is simply a little more likely and a based on what we got a little more expected.

To say it may have changed diet is just wild speculation, and the same is valid when it comes to saying its geographic span was (much) greater. What actually backs these ideas?

Not enough and you have a good point there. Grabbing at straws is not an unexpected reaction in dealing with what may well be a social construct. Does one engage in the same when dealing with Thylacine sightings or say, explaining their morphological differences with their nearest relatives? Honest query.

As for the paucity of fossils, well, consider this: Bigfeet and similar animals are supposed to have a very big geographic span, covering a large area of the globe. A sizeable chunk of timespan, also, if you say bigfeet=Giganthopitecus. Thus, there are plenty of chances for a find.

Certainly funny or frustrating, depending on which side of the fence you sit. Bigfoot being reported in the U.K. does make things look rather silly. But then again 'supposed to have very big geographic span' becomes quite relative if you solely exclude anecdotes.

We've already been on this topic before. I asked why there are no bigfeet bones in some cave. LAL said its most likely because they don't like spending some times in caves.

Wild (read stupid) speculation.

I told her many (if not most) animals whose bones are found in caves are not cave dwellers neither use them for shelter, but die outside and have their remains carried to the caves by water, fall inside them by accident, get trapped while looking for water at droughts, etc.

Quite right. Err, I mean I didn't know that. What about animals carried to caves by other animals that dwell in them?

LAL then said there are no dry periods in PNW, neither caves capable of preserving the bones, neither fossils of the right age, bigfeet numbers have always been small.

Well, LAL doesn't seem too know much about the PNW or caves but apparently she knows much more than the rest of us about bigfoot.

Aside the obvious wild speculation regarding the number of specimens, two things missfire in the above reasoning: Bigfeet are not supposed to be or have been endemic to PNW and the fact that Giganthopitecus bones were found inside a cave...

Bigfoot is supposed to be a lot of things. 'Supposed' is the annoying bit.

Are there bones of bigfeet-like creatures awaiting to be discovered at some cave or at some sedimentary bed? Maybe yes. But maybe not. Given the avaliable information, I would say most likely not. And even if I tought bigfeet are real, I would not support the Giganthopitecus-bigfoot connection given the avalible data. All Giganthopitecus indicates is that there were "giant" primates related to orang-utangs in China in the past.

One can do no better, no worse. I don't know if, given the evidence in hand, I'd doubt that Gigantos may well have been giant.

 

[RayG]

Regardless of anyone's opinion about squatch, it hardly advances the discussion when parties involved wander off down the personal attack path.

Not trying to be anyone's mommy or anything, and Ed knows I don't always follow my own advice, but I've posted these hints on the BFF a number of times:

1. Attack the argument, not the person presenting it
2. Don't be ego-strokin' (your own or anyone else's)
3. Be prepared to dig for facts
4. Develop a thick skin

Page after page of 'neener neener neener', and 'did not' 'did so', gets tiresome real fast.

RayG

 

[Hellbound]

Regardless of anyone's opinion about squatch, it hardly advances the discussion when parties involved wander off down the personal attack path.

Not trying to be anyone's mommy or anything, and Ed knows I don't always follow my own advice, but I've posted these hints on the BFF a number of times:

1. Attack the argument, not the person presenting it
2. Don't be ego-strokin' (your own or anyone else's)
3. Be prepared to dig for facts
4. Develop a thick skin

Page after page of 'neener neener neener', and 'did not' 'did so', gets tiresome real fast.

RayG

Does not!



sorry, couldn't resist

 

[Correa Neto]

Sorry for the side flop, Correa, but wild speculation has led to many advances and joys in human civilization but more entertainingly gives skeptics and woos something to yak about. Either way, IMHO, we're better for much of it.

You may have a point, indeed.
But I must add I am really not sure if we would agree on whats "wild" in all cases...

What I do think is that we must always keep in mind what's sheer speculation. And never let it pass as conclusions based in solid evidence.

Well, IMO, if we think in terms of convergent evolution we have some ammo to think that Giganto was a knuckle-walker but without more hard evidence in hand both positions are weak. Knuckle-walking is simply a little more likely and a based on what we got a little more expected.Not enough and you have a good point there.

Not sure if it can be correlated to "convergent evolution". In the case in question, the two genus are quite close. Convergent evolution is applied to genus and species that are quite separated, such as ichtiosaurs and dolphins.

Grabbing at straws is not an unexpected reaction in dealing with what may well be a social construct. Does one engage in the same when dealing with Thylacine sightings or say, explaining their morphological differences with their nearest relatives? Honest query.Certainly funny or frustrating, depending on which side of the fence you sit.

Not sure. Really. Never checked this particular case.

Bigfoot being reported in the U.K. does make things look rather silly. But then again 'supposed to have very big geographic span' becomes quite relative if you solely exclude anecdotes.

Well, what's bigfeet-like creatures geographic range base in? Anedoctal evidence. Take this out and what you've got? Wanna Brittish bigfeet? Check woodwoose.

Even if you stick to bigfoot, you have a huge chunk of North America. Actually most of it. Plenty of chances for a specimen.

Wild (read stupid) speculation.

IIRC, it was from some bigfoot "expert" (Green? Noll?). What should really make us think about these interpretations.

Quite right. Err, I mean I didn't know that. What about animals carried to caves by other animals that dwell in them?

IIRC the excuse is that bigfeet have no predators. But actually I don't know if big predators eat their prey at caves, unless maybe they are bringing food to their offspring. Realy not sure on this.

Well, LAL doesn't seem too know much about the PNW or caves but apparently she knows much more than the rest of us about bigfoot.

Carefull, that would surely make her blow some, if not all, gaskets. She's very proud of her knoweledge of PNW.

Bigfoot is supposed to be a lot of things. 'Supposed' is the annoying bit.

Yep. That's why I say we should drop the wild baseless speculations instead of trying to push them as explanations.

One can do no better, no worse. I don't know if, given the evidence in hand, I'd doubt that Gigantos may well have been giant.

Uhm, well, if they were not big, they should have been apes with disproportionally big jaws...

See? Working with what we've got, we can check what's likely and what's unlikely.

 

[kitakaze]

You may have a point, indeed.
But I must add I am really not sure if we would agree on whats "wild" in all cases...

Maybe, but I'm sure we'd agree on a lot and have some interesting differences of opinion. Sounds like a good topic for a thread.

What I do think is that we must always keep in mind what's sheer speculation. And never let it pass as conclusions based in solid evidence.

Agreed, such vigilance is of great importance. Reversely, I think it's important to be wary of dogma obstructing intrepid and forward thinking but I think the former is a much bigger problem.

Not sure if it can be correlated to "convergent evolution". In the case in question, the two genus are quite close. Convergent evolution is applied to genus and species that are quite separated, such as ichtiosaurs and dolphins.

Good example. Or like thylacines and canines or rhinos and a whole lotta other guys. But wait, were you refering to gigantos and orangutans or gigantos and gorillas? I was talking about gorillas because simply the idea proposed by knuckle-walker proponents is that with gigantos you have an animal genetically closer with arborial brachiating orangutans but theorized as being morphogically closer to gorrilas. While not a giant leap, given the geographic (taking into account a small range as opposed to what some footers may speculate) and genetic separation, were gigantos to turn out to be basically oversized Asian gorillas I think that would represent a certain degree of convergence in terms of enviromental adaptations. While we're at it though, I could certainly see some paleoanthropolgists in considering gigantos' gait being somewhat nudged towards knucke-walking by the spectre of having hordes of footers waving my work around as proof of their crackpot ideas.

Not sure. Really. Never checked this particular case.

Thylacines are quite morphologically different from their nearest relatives, the dasyurus. Numerous expeditions to find extant populations have been funded since 1936, all failing to yield a live specimen. Wait a minute, I forgot what this has to do with bigfoot.

Well, what's bigfeet-like creatures geographic range base in? Anedoctal evidence. Take this out and what you've got? Wanna Brittish bigfeet? Check woodwoose.

Even if you stick to bigfoot, you have a huge chunk of North America. Actually most of it. Plenty of chances for a specimen.

Insufficient evidence is insufficient, no matter where it comes from. British bigfeet? Woodwose? Correa submitting folklore!? JK.

IIRC, it was from some bigfoot "expert" (Green? Noll?). What should really make us think about these interpretations.

Gleaning factual evidence from unconfirmed anecdotal reports gets real sticky when you get to the dileneating credibility part. But I say all the more power to an intrepid footer who puts on the $#!T-waders and does so if it actually starts coming up with some concrete (read specimen) results.

IIRC the excuse is that bigfeet have no predators. But actually I don't know if big predators eat their prey at caves, unless maybe they are bringing food to their offspring. Realy not sure on this.

Well one would think that young sasquatches would be a susceptable to predation as any other animal. I don't know, I'm no expert but what would the comparitive numbers look like if we look at bears and take out predation by man or other bears?

Carefull, that would surely make her blow some, if not all, gaskets. She's very proud of her knoweledge of PNW.

Frequent forest fires and drought-like conditions seem to have escaped her attentions then.

Uhm, well, if they were not big, they should have been apes with disproportionally big jaws...

You mean the mysterious and elusive Jayolenopithecus of southern California!?

 

[demonologist]

What does everyone think of the Tom Biscardi "bigfoot hand"? This guy is making a "club" about it, where he'll show the DNA results and such. Allegedly the DNA analysis concluded that it's not from a known animal. However this all smells of b.s., as the fingertips and thumb where cut off the hand. Probably a bear's.

 

[Huntster]

Biscardi has a reputation as a showman. I don't even bother to read what the guy says anymore.