Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

Don't extrapolate. Each piece of evidence needs to be examined objectively. Cliff Crook seeing a metal fastener that would have been smaller than a grain of film proves neither hoax nor authenticity, e.g.. Kids on BFF seeing teeth doesn't mean the teeth were or weren't visible for a split second. ..snip...QUOTE=LAL;1305933]

LAL, a PGF has enough resolution to show a teeth? Were is the objectivity? Oh, got it! If its pro-bigfoot, its an objective examination...

I'm not getting through to you, am I? If the time doesn't allow for the objects seen to actually be teeth and the resolution doesn't allow it, they're not teeth on the film. What serious investigator claimed they were?

I was reading Coleman's caution on making too much of enlargements on the net from JPEG because of pixels when I lost the book. MK Davis has posted Bruce Bonny's warning about this sort of thing as well. However, the enlargements and enhancements have yielded some new information. It's unfortunate everyone can't see a good copy of the film with the animal in motion. It's a far different cry from those dark, blurry things one sees on TV.

Oh, yes. Real tracks... Are there any?

Sure.

A seven mile long double trackway is found in snow, a pair of Sasquatches is seen crossing a meadow by five DNR workers in the same county, but it's reasonable to assume that the trackway must have been made by hoaxers and the experienced workers were seeing bears walking upright or were having a mutual hallucination.

LAL, at least when it comes to bigfoot, you are not a skeptic. All your arguments and points are being debated. I saw no evasions. Point me the red herrings or I´ll call strawman.

Call anything you want. I've asked a number of questions that didn't seem to get answered by anyone.

I'm sceptical of many of the sceptical arguments on this. I'm sceptical of some of the reports of sightings and more than one of the photos and films. I think Matt Moneymaker should be hung up by his thumbs, now that I understand the situation.

I think everything I "believe" should have evidence behind it.

To dismiss all evidence for Sasquatches because it doesn't fit with a notion I might have that these creatures can't possibly exist isn't being a sceptic, IMO, it's being stupid.

I've stated my goals, such as they are.

Then, what about taking some adivise on data handling in consideration? Sor far, I would say you are having very little success at best.

What data do I have to handle? I'm not a scientist, or even a collector.

I would like to see the effort taken out of the tabloid realm. There are people who don't know any more about this than they've seen on a TV show. If I've inspired anyone to look into it further, whether they agree or not, then I consider that a success.

I'm not on earth for you to like me.

What makes me think bigfoot investigators are naïve? Their conclusions!LMAO... No, not all of them are naïve... There are other categories, of course... Check BFRO and you´ll see what I mean.

So, if their conclusions don't agree with yours they're naïve. I see.

I have checked out BFRO. There are some good articles on the site. Some of the newer stuff is embarrassing. If MM is out to discredit the effort, he's certainly succeeded.

Who? Coleman? No, thanks.

Somebody, anybody.

Of course, reading Coleman might give you a better idea of what he's about. He seems to be a good historian and he writes well. I'm reading Steenburg next because I got a deal on shipping when I reordered. Maybe I'll be saying "Read Steenburg" next. Who knows?

 

[William Parcher]

I claimed Gimlin didn't (make any money from the PGF). He eventually sold his rights to Dahinden for $26 (not $10, from what I've read). Dahinden didn't make much off the stills and spent much of his cancer-ridden final days defending his rights against webmasters who were snatching them off his site. He and Murphy worked a deal, but had words and parted ways. Dahinden was a little rough around the edges.

I don't know how much Patterson made, but it doesn't seem to have been a fortune.

Bullcrap. We were not talking about Gimlin when I brought up American National Enterprises. You suggested that Patterson died broke. I suggested that he probably didn't. Here is the relevant posting I made on JREF concerning your claim that Patterson was broke and my response about him possibly earning income from ANE. This income would be in addition to anything that he already had earned and was still earning from the promotion of the PGF. You could demand that I "prove" that Patterson made anything at all ($$) from ANE, but I could also demand that you prove that he died broke.

It is also sad that you do not recollect your conversations about P&G tracking Patty for 3.5 miles up the mountain. You were presented with testimony (by way of interviews with P&G) that this was indeed claimed. No, it is really not sad. This is only just evidence of the symptoms of your own mental disorder. Maybe your problem is sad, but I would rather consider it typical and indicative of a special feature of human nature. It is not much fun playing the curator of your memory, Lu!

At some point a person has to realize that they are arguing with a woo.

You mention (accurately) that Titmus claimed that Patty sat down in some ferns overlooking and observing P&G after the initial encounter. I am trying to reconcile that claim of Gimlin's statement that the last time he saw Patty, "she was rounding a bend on the logging road about 300 yards away.", juxtaposed against Titmus' claim that she sat down and watched the cowboys. What are we left to believe that Patty did after she was filmed by Patterson?

Were P&G simply mistaken? Was Titmus simply mistaken? What is an objective "student" of the PGF supposed to think? Are they to never consider that this may have been a big hoax? Are they supposed to put all of the testimony aside and simply focus on the subject within the PGF film itself? Are they supposed to use the common Bigfooter fall-back default that no matter what anyone claimed(s), the figure in the film cannot be a human in a costume?

Lu, people like yourself are willing to put everything aside and focus on the proclamations and beliefs of "experts".

Loren Coleman photographed holding a plaster cast of "Ridiculousfoot"...

Dr. Grover Krantz photographed holding a plaster cast of "Cripplefoot"...

Dr. Jeff Meldrum photographed with a video image of the Yeti "Snow Walker"...

50 points are awarded to anyone that can find a common denominator of these photos.

"Spin the wheel or throw a dart. The Bigfoot believer must find some way to latch onto a scientific authority to guide them through the thorny maze that leads directly to the stinky bipedal ape."

 

[LAL]

Originally Posted by LAL :
Yep. It's probably been done and is on BFF somewhere.

Don't bet on it.

"Shadows can tell all kinds of interesting things.

Bluff Creek runs West to East at the PGF site. Since it was shortly after noon, the shadows in the film are practically pointing North/South. Patty was travelling approximatly 15 degrees East of North. Roger Patterson was facing approximately 26 degrees West of North when he shot the film. Does this check out with Gimlin's story? The 2nd reel supposedly shows Roger casting a track that same day, filmed a few hours later. The weather was sunny and sunset was at about 4 o'clock. Does the 2nd reel show all this? Using the shadows in the frame showing Roger casting a track and the shadows in the PGF (1st reel), we can construct a sundial.

The track Roger's casting shows Patty's direction of travel, 15 deg NE. The shadows in the PGF at 12:00 PM are N/S, the shadows in the 2nd reel as Roger casts a track appear to be 2 to 3 hours later in the day. This is exactly what Gimlin claims.


Now, are these the same tracks? The 2nd reel footage shows only 2 tracks clearly: the casted track and the track that precedes it. The uncasted track shows a very distinctive toe pattern. The toes on Patty's left foot appeared to have shifted laterally as she stepped into the sand. These tracks nicely match the Yvon Leclerc track reconstruction (which is quite distorted), even though each reconstruction was made from different viewpoints.



Using the tracks from the 2nd reel, and a 14.5 inch foot length, the step length from heel to heel is approximately 40 inches, which is reasonable.

The other stills of Roger and Bob, the horses and landscape correspond to the footage taken from the 1st reel, which had just enough film left to capture the famous PGF footage. In summary, I see absolutely no conflicts with any of the images attributed to the 1st or the 2nd reel and the timeline established by Bob Gimlin's rendition of the events. Please correct me if I'm mistaken." - Gigantofootecus

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=13527&st=60&#entry283722

 

[LAL]

Bullcrap. We were not talking about Gimlin when I brought up American National Enterprises. You suggested that Patterson died broke. I suggested that he probably didn't.

What's your problem? I recapped. I never said Patterson didn't make money off the film. Gimlin was cut out from the beginning. Patterson and De Atley split the profits.

Fun reading all those insults again. Thanks so much. Do you see why I may miss posts? Some of that junk isn't worth reading. I'm used to debate, not rock-throwing.

Here is the relevant posting I made on JREF concerning your claim that Patterson was broke and my response about him possibly earning income from ANE.This income would be in addition to anything that he already had earned and was still earning from the promotion of the PGF. You could demand that I "prove" that Patterson made anything at all ($$) from ANE, but I could also demand that you prove that he died broke.

According to Green, Long was wrong about ANE. Patterson didn't have the contract; Green did. Roger spent money going to Bossburg and spent money trying to mount an expedition to Tibet. Evidently that was the last of it. He did that rather than spending money trying to cure his disease. He died in 1972.

It is also sad that you do not recollect your conversations about P&G tracking Patty for 3.5 miles up the mountain.

Of course I recollect them. I asked for a source because I couldn't find it in mine. Two of my links on interviews had gone dead. It's difficult to find miles in a message that says the page no longer exists. I never said it wasn't true. I just wanted to know where the figure came from. This is not a big deal.

You were presented with testimony (by way of interviews with P&G) that this was indeed claimed.

And I didn't say it wasn't. I ask a question and get diagnosed with Alzheimer's, eh? RayG and Bill already have me straightened out on this, thanks. I don't need your $.02.

No, it is really not sad. This is only just evidence of the symptoms of your own mental disorder. Maybe your problem is sad, but I would rather consider it typical and indicative of a special feature of human nature. It is not much fun playing the curator of your memory, Lu!

I suppose I deserve that for calling you on your dishonesty; or maybe you didn't remember what Dfoot actually said. How's your memory?

I work in mental health, BTW. I wouldn't try to pull any amateur psychobabble on me, if I were you.

You claimed I was doing research on the fly in the earlier discussion, didn't you? I'm not all that familiar with what they said, as I noted at the time, because I hadn't looked into it that much. I'm far more interested in the film itself than in what they had to say.

At some point a person has to realize that they are arguing with a woo.

How does slapping that label on me forward anything?

I hate to sink to the level of name-calling you and your buddies seem to revel in; I outgrew that stuff in grade school. But I can think of a few words right now I didn't learn in grade school.

You mention (accurately) that Titmus claimed that Patty sat down in some ferns overlooking and observing P&G after the initial encounter. I am trying to reconcile that claim of Gimlin's statement that the last time he saw Patty, "she was rounding a bend on the logging road about 300 yards away.", juxtaposed against Titmus' claim that she sat down and watched the cowboys. What are we left to believe that Patty did after she was filmed by Patterson?

I'll see if I can get some scale on a map. The logging road was along the creek. Titmus' map shows quite a distance between Roger's 3rd position and hers when she turned to cross the creek. Her path is three times the distance.
Gimlin was behind Patterson. He may have thought she was rounding a bend when she was actually off the road and about to cross the creek. Hard to tell what he may have seen.

Were P&G simply mistaken? Was Titmus simply mistaken? What is an objective "student" of the PGF supposed to think? Are they to never consider that this may have been a big hoax? Are they supposed to put all of the testimony aside and simply focus on the subject within the PGF film itself? Are they supposed to use the common Bigfooter fall-back default that no matter what anyone claimed(s), the figure in the film cannot be a human in a costume?

Examination of a good copy of the film has been enough to convince most that if it is a hoax, it's the best ever.

Patterson making money after the fact hardly proves he had money with which to perpetrate such a hoax to begin with. Do you really think Heironimus' story of Roger skinning a red horse to make a suit makes any sense? He said he saw the film on television and suddenly realized that was him. duh. I was going to suggest he couldn't have seen the film at all if he thought anyone would believe him, but I guess he did. The one on Ancient Mysteries is really bad; maybe the color on his set was off.

Lu, people like yourself are willing to put everything aside and focus on the proclamations and beliefs of "experts".

I reached my conclusions long before I picked up a book on it. It was several years before I knew any "experts" were even looking in to this.

Is there something wrong with getting expert opinion? I do that for my car.

Loren Coleman photographed holding a plaster cast of "Ridiculousfoot"...

It's a reconstruction made from the Shipton print. It is not a cast and it isn't Sasquatch.

Dr. Grover Krantz photographed holding a plaster cast of "Cripplefoot"...

One of the Bossburg Casts that started him on the research.

Dr. Jeff Meldrum photographed with a video image of the Yeti "Snow Walker"...

I e-mailed him about this. It was originally a still from the Redwoods video. Someone substituted Snow Walker. He exposed that hoax, so maybe it's appropriate.

50 points are awarded to anyone that can find a common denominator of these photos.

They're all of PhDs?

"Spin the wheel or throw a dart. The Bigfoot believer must find some way to latch onto a scientific authority to guide them through the thorny maze that leads directly to the stinky bipedal ape."

And scoftics have to dismiss the scientific evidence to maintain their beliefs.

Yawn.

 

[RayG]

The creature circled back above them, sat and watched them from 125 yards away, yet neither Patterson or Gimlin mention this when they talk about tracking her.

Source?

I gave my source -- Krantz, page 91. You know the drill... read Krantz.

Krantz doesn't specifically say 'circled back', but he does say this:

"Bob Titmus... tracked the animal from where it left the movie site, walked up a hill, and back to an overlooking position only 125 yards from the point where the encounter began. There it apparently sat down for some time watching through an opening in the vegetation while the two men were looking at and casting tracks, quite unaware of their observer."

That musta been some hill! So... did they track the creature for 3.5 miles, only to have it double back at the 4 mile mark? Since they weren't casting tracks until after they tracked Patty (7 miles total), and had gone back for plaster, the creature obviously led them on a goose chase for over 3.5 miles, then doubled back and set up camp observing them from only 125 yards away. Which scenario should we believe?

It was Titmus who found this nine days later. Evidently they missed it.

Doesn't say much for the tracking abilities of Patterson or Gimlin.

Murphy says it ascended a hill, sat down and watched them, not that it circled back.

Krantz (page 91) specifically says: "...it left the movie site, walked up a hill, and back to an overlooking position only 125 yards from the point where the encounter began."

"The men found scuffmarks in the gravel and in the creek bed which indicated the creature ran when it was out of the men's sight. They continued up the creek for a considerable distance and observed a rock with a wet half print on the surface. From that point the path led up into the mountains."" Murphy, pg. 42

So, was it up a hill, or up a mountain? Did Patterson and Gimlin actually follow for 3.5 miles? If they did follow for 3.5 miles, why didn't Patterson's account match that of Titmus?

Titmus' map shows she took almost a 90° turn, crossed the creek and ascended the hill in a straight path, taking a turn to the right and sat. Unfortunately distances aren't given on it. Sounds ratherlike P&G followed the creek bed, instead of her.

For 3.5 miles?

They then returned to the film site and examined the trackway on the sandbar. If they rode up the creek bed, they could have covered the 3.5 miles, or whatever distance it was, fairly quickly.

So the creature did double back after leading them on a 3.5 mile goose chase?

Make a list. How many is "many"?

If you haven't noted the 'many' discrepancies that have been pointed out, you haven't been paying close enough attention.

Eyewitness testimony is supposed to be the most unreliable anyway, isn't it? So why does it matter if they disagreed on length of arms or her height? If it had been the scene of a robbery they probably would have disagreed on what color shirt the perpetrator was wearing. This is normal.

That's why it's so important to get the factual information sorted out from the inaccuracies or anecdotal accounts. If three witnesses give three totally different accounts, which one should we believe, and why?

(Lu's to do list: memorize list of logical fallacies.) I've read the two are the most studied films in history. Did I argue the films are alike?

Did you argue the two films are alike? Not necessarily. However, you did imply the films were similar when you said this:

There are doubtless more discrepancies than that in the the Kennedy assasination accounts, but the Zapruder film shows what it shows.

I took that to mean you were suggesting that the Zapruder film was analogous to the Patterson film, in that from your perspective they both show what they show (a true, historical event). I merely pointed out where they are NOT similar.

Do you read the supermarket papers?

Nope. I prefer my news to be factual if possible.

The Zapruder film clearly shows... <snip>... his death was hoaxed...conspiracy theory...Grassy Noll... </snip>

Damn Lu, I thought yer standards for evidence were a little higher than that.

My point was, that conficting eyewitness testimony doesn't affect the validity of what these films show.

Exactly what I thought you were suggesting (that both films capture historical fact), and I pointed out the fallacy of that analogy.

That was a joke, son. Got tired of typing "Read Krantz".

Not to worry, we were getting tired of seeing it.

Somehow though, he's able to speculate there are something like NINE different species traipsing about the woods of North America.

Nine? Name 'em. In the book I was reading he only talked about western Sasquatches, the eastern variety and "Napes". That's two, three at most. He did talk about the identification of the Minnesota Iceman photos by Vietnamese witnesses as most like their local "wildman", and presented the Wisconsin shooting story as well. I read Cryptozology A to Z and only remember the same for NA. How about a citation? Are you sure you're not throwing in some Asian types?

Nope, I stand corrected. Coleman, in his book The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide, mentions NINE classifications of creature, and TWELVE North American TYPES. Yes, that's 12. Here they are from pages 42-65: (DC = Distinguishing Characteristics)

• Class: Neo-Giant, Type: Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Oh-mah, DC: Pointed head
• Class: True Giant, Type: Pitt Lake Giant, DC: four-toed tracks
• Class: Marked Hominid, Type: Pennsylvania Creature, DC: pot-bellied
• Class: Marked Hominid, Type: Old Yellow Top, Yellow Top, PreCambrian Shield Man, DC: light-colored mane
• Class: Marked Hominid, Type: Momo, Sister Lakes Monster, Monroe Monster, DC: hair covering eyes
• Class: Neandertaloid, Type: Nuk-luk, nakani, bushman, DC: long, dark beard
• Class: Erectus Hominid, Type: Minnesota Iceman, Bozo, Homo pongoids, DC: upturned nose
• Class: Unknown Pongid, Type: Nape, Skunk Ape, booger, DC: swinging arms
• Class: Uknown Pongid, Type: Lake Worth Monster, Goatman, DC: all-white hair
• Class: Giant Monkey, Type: Devil Monkey, nalusa falaya, DC: long, pointed ears
• Class: Merbeing (freshwater), Type: Thetis Lake Monster, Lizardman, Tchimose, DC: sharp, three-toed footprints
• Class: Merbeing (marine), Type: Sea Ape, DC: long upper and lower lip whiskers

Coleman's spent forty years investigating and collecting reports. I don't believe Krantz, Meldrum, Dahinden, Bryne, Green or Bindernagle ever saw one either. I thought Coleman was a bit out there from some of the stuff written about him, but when I actually read him, including what he really said re reports of Sasquatch birth and the cow incident, I was impressed by his sanity.

I'm not so easily impressed.

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Class: Merbeing (freshwater), Type: Thetis Lake Monster, Lizardman, Tchimose, DC: sharp, three-toed footprints

Class: True Giant, Type: Pitt Lake Giant, DC: four-toed tracks

So we can, in fact, include those alligator prints as supposed bigfoot prints then? It is not a ridiculous thing for a skeptic to do at all, since Loren Coleman would consider the left track a possible bigfoot track.

 

[Correa Neto]

[creduloidmode]
Scoffic!
The footprint on the left is obviously a print from a bigfoot hand! Can´t you see the opposing finger?
And you have not seen the actual prints and casts! You can´t have an interpretation different from those who have seen the actual casts and prints! You can´t dismiss the evidence without looking at it! Coleman is a respected authority on cryptids he´s been collecting reports for decades! You are just an armchair investigator!
[/creduloidmode]

 

[LTC8K6]

Yet another version of events told shortly after the incident. This time it's 1:30, P/G are riding their horses on a logging road, Patty is across the creek and beside the road, and Patty stood still for half a minute, and Roger ran all the way down to the creek and filmed Patty from a sandbar.

"About 1:30 in the afternoon, as we rounded a bend in the road, we saw the creature. My horse reared, and then fell as I tried to control it. But I got the camera out and yelled to Bob to cover me with his rifle while I tried for pictures. The thing was across the creek beside the road, about 50 yards away. I ran down to the creek and got on a high sandbar to film it. It was obviously a female, for although it was covered with hair you could see it had large breasts. It stood about six feet tall, maybe more, and was very broad. We figured the weight at somewhere between 350 and 400 pounds. She stood there for maybe half a minute and then started walking away, still upright. She crossed the creek, got back on the logging road up ahead and moved out of sight."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/province2.htm

 

[LAL]

I gave my source -- Krantz, page 91. You know the drill... read Krantz.

Was he there? I noticed a discrepancy in one of his accounts, but I don't recall now what it was. I'll have to reread Krantz

Krantz doesn't specifically say 'circled back', but he does say this:

I wish the quotes would come up. I'm not intentionally snipping anything here. It's really a pain when I have to go back several pages to read what was said and save my post in Notepad lest the whole thing vanish in the process. I like the BFF board better.

That musta been some hill! So... did they track the creature for 3.5 miles, only to have it double back at the 4 mile mark? Since they weren't casting tracks until after they tracked Patty (7 miles total), and had gone back for plaster, the creature obviously led them on a goose chase for over 3.5 miles, then doubled back and set up camp observing them from only 125 yards away. Which scenario should we believe?

Neither.

I'm going by Titmus' map. 125 yards away from what? If Roger filmed her for 200 yards (and I can't find where I read that, so I hesitate to use it), that gives a measurement of sorts. Her whole path would be about 400 yards on his map. It doesn't go farther than the spot where she sat; no indication of where she went after that. Do we have a map of the route they took? Perhaps they followed her on past that point, and just didn't note where she'd stopped.

Doesn't say much for the tracking abilities of Patterson or Gimlin.

They were following her on what? Horseback or foot? Easy to miss signs on the ground on horseback, I'd think.

Krantz (page 91) specifically says: "...it left the movie site, walked up a hill, and back to an overlooking position only 125 yards from the point where the encounter began."

Doesn't show it that way on Titmus' map.

So, was it up a hill, or up a mountain? Did Patterson and Gimlin actually follow for 3.5 miles? If they did follow for 3.5 miles, why didn't Patterson's account match that of Titmus?

Or up a hill in the mountains. I think I see a molehill.

Evidently they went further than he did and at some point saw her track on a rock in the creek. Was this from the first time she crossed or later?

For 3.5 miles?

I don't know. Who gave the most detailed report?

So the creature did double back after leading them on a 3.5 mile goose chase?

I don't see where she did double back from the map. They may have followed her past that spot for another 3+ miles.

If you haven't noted the 'many' discrepancies that have been pointed out, you haven't been paying close enough attention.

I'm not so sure they all are discrepancies.

That's why it's so important to get the factual information sorted out from the inaccuracies or anecdotal accounts. If three witnesses give three totally different accounts, which one should we believe, and why?

The three witnesses (including Titmus) don't give totally different accounts. I'd go to the source, especially with an error in the very first news story. Gimlin and Patterson disagreed on some points in their interview together. If they had pulled a hoax, wouldn't they have gotten the story straight and based their figures on Heironimus' actual measurements to avoid confusion?

Did you argue the two films are alike? Not necessarily. However, you did imply the films were similar when you said this:

"There are doubtless more discrepancies than that in the the Kennedy assasination accounts, but the Zapruder film shows what it shows."

The films both show what they show. Neither was tampered with. The eyewitness accounts differ from each other; that doesn't prove hoaxing. Maybe I'm not being clear.

I took that to mean you were suggesting that the Zapruder film was analogous to the Patterson film, in that from your perspective they both show what they show (a true, historical event). I merely pointed out where they are NOT similar.

They show what they show. The Zapruder film clearly supports the physical evidence (in the Patterson film that would be the tracks), despite some fanciful interpretations (in the Patterson film that might be bottle-shaped objects and seams) about entry wounds. I hadn't thought of both being historic, but, yeah the Patterson film is pretty historic, even if it's only of the longest running hoax in history.

Nope. I prefer my news to be factual if possible.

I was pointing out how absurd things can get. Not unlike Heironimus' story, perhaps? Or the Romney story? John Chambers? John Landis?

Damn Lu, I thought yer standards for evidence were a little higher than that.

Examples of absurdity only. I didn't get past the covers, but I saw both while in checkout lines. For the straight story, read Case Closed by Harold Posner. But even he has his critics and there are still those who are convinced the CIA did it and that there were shots from behind the fence.

Exactly what I thought you were suggesting (that both films capture historical fact), and I pointed out the fallacy of that analogy.

No, I wasn't ( I didn't think of that), but I didn't know there had to be a shooting for a film to be "historical fact". Am I typing in some other language?

Not to worry, we were getting tired of seeing it.

Read Murphy. How's that for a change? BTW, there's a discrepancy between his account of Titmus" sighting in Alaska and Titmus" account. Gotta watch these guys.

Nope, I stand corrected. Coleman, in his book The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide, mentions NINE classifications of creature, and TWELVE North American TYPES. Yes, that's 12. Here they are from pages 42-65: (DC = Distinguishing Characteristics)

• Class: Neo-Giant, Type: Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Oh-mah, DC: Pointed head
• Class: True Giant, Type: Pitt Lake Giant, DC: four-toed tracks
• Class: Marked Hominid, Type: Pennsylvania Creature, DC: pot-bellied
• Class: Marked Hominid, Type: Old Yellow Top, Yellow Top, PreCambrian Shield Man, DC: light-colored mane
• Class: Marked Hominid, Type: Momo, Sister Lakes Monster, Monroe Monster, DC: hair covering eyes
• Class: Neandertaloid, Type: Nuk-luk, nakani, bushman, DC: long, dark beard
• Class: Erectus Hominid, Type: Minnesota Iceman, Bozo, Homo pongoids, DC: upturned nose
• Class: Unknown Pongid, Type: Nape, Skunk Ape, booger, DC: swinging arms
• Class: Uknown Pongid, Type: Lake Worth Monster, Goatman, DC: all-white hair
• Class: Giant Monkey, Type: Devil Monkey, nalusa falaya, DC: long, pointed ears
• Class: Merbeing (freshwater), Type: Thetis Lake Monster, Lizardman, Tchimose, DC: sharp, three-toed footprints
• Class: Merbeing (marine), Type: Sea Ape, DC: long upper and lower lip whiskers

I haven't read that one. Sounds like he's a splitter extrordinaire, but "types" are not necessarily species, are they? The whole "Nape" thing and "Marked Hominids" were new to me until a few months ago.

What the heck. Some paleoanthropologists would put all the Homo fossils into one highly variable species while Tattersal and Schwartz recognized 18 "human" species before some of the latest discoveries. None of this stuff is written in granite.

There are some major people posting on his boards. There's good stuff there, anyway. I have Green's permission to repost his.

I'm not so easily impressed.

RayG

I wonder what the person who found my book thinks?

 

[LTC8K6]

From Reader's Digest Jan 1969:

They scouted the area on horseback for a week and a half. Early in the afternoon of October 20, they came to a bend in the creek where a gigantic stump, overturned by a flood, obscured the view ahead. Patterson's horse stopped and snorted, then reared and fell on its side. Moments later, Patterson saw what had startled his mount. "This creature was on my left, about ~ 95 feet across the creek," he recalls. "Its head was very human, though considerably more slanted, and with a large forehead and wide nostrils. Its arms hung almost to its knees when it walked. Its hair was two to four inches long, brown underneath, lighter at the top, and covering the entire body except for the face. And it was a female; it had big, pendulous breasts."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

From Reader's Digest Jan 1969:

Did you see the source and author of the RD article ?

 

[LTC8K6]

© The Reader's Digest, January 1969

1968 BY JAMES B. SHUMAN. WEST MAGAZINE
(DECEMBER 15, 1968) PUBLISHED BY THE LOS ANGELES TIMES MIRROR SQUARE
LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 90053

Article courtesy Chris Murphy February 2002

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...Coleman, in his book The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide, mentions NINE classifications of creature, and TWELVE North American TYPES. Yes, that's 12. Here they are from pages 42-65: (DC = Distinguishing Characteristics)

• Class: Neo-Giant, Type: Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Oh-mah, DC: Pointed head
• Class: True Giant, Type: Pitt Lake Giant, DC: four-toed tracks
• Class: Marked Hominid, Type: Pennsylvania Creature, DC: pot-bellied
• Class: Marked Hominid, Type: Old Yellow Top, Yellow Top, PreCambrian Shield Man, DC: light-colored mane
• Class: Marked Hominid, Type: Momo, Sister Lakes Monster, Monroe Monster, DC: hair covering eyes
• Class: Neandertaloid, Type: Nuk-luk, nakani, bushman, DC: long, dark beard
• Class: Erectus Hominid, Type: Minnesota Iceman, Bozo, Homo pongoids, DC: upturned nose
• Class: Unknown Pongid, Type: Nape, Skunk Ape, booger, DC: swinging arms
• Class: Uknown Pongid, Type: Lake Worth Monster, Goatman, DC: all-white hair
• Class: Giant Monkey, Type: Devil Monkey, nalusa falaya, DC: long, pointed ears
• Class: Merbeing (freshwater), Type: Thetis Lake Monster, Lizardman, Tchimose, DC: sharp, three-toed footprints
• Class: Merbeing (marine), Type: Sea Ape, DC: long upper and lower lip whiskers

...snip...

Lets be sincere. Only a creduloid with underdeveloped critical thinking skills will belive the above list of animals can be real. Even appealing to subspecies, its just ridiculous, for there would be at least six unknown genus or species of primates in North America, including an aquatic one...

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip... Long flexible ligaments might be required, but not "extra".

You should think a bit harder on the issue.

Read his unpublished book have you? He seems to have dealt ...snip...

"Seems"?

To you. To others they fit just fine ...snip...

Where and who are all these other people? The regular bigfoot club?

Sure it does. You're either unaware of it or you dismiss it.

I dismiss substandard-quality data as well as conlusions based in this sort of "evidence".

Are you claiming again I am using a sock puppet?
Please provide the evidence or remove your claim.

Did I claim that in the first place? I thought it was a little strange someone with a Irish name seemed to be typing with a Brazilian accent, so I asked. ...snip...

Yes, you claimed PatKelley and I were the same person. Provide the evidence or remove the claim. Regardless of what "type with a Brazilian accent" means, that was NOT your original motivation. It was the fact that we both have the same line of reasoning regarding how implausible bigfoot´s feet are.

Laetoli? The foot reconstruction was of A. afarensis, wasn't it? Lucy, not Little Foot. White said it fit like Cinderella's slipper. ...snip...
Tracks tend to be a bit larger than actual feet, BTW, again depending on the substrate. Some may be a good match, others not.

Don´t you think tracks depend on bone structure? Feet bone structure and the footprints in question are close to what´s supposed to be bigfoot´s feet? NO.

I really wish you'd drop the attitude. ...snip...
I'm still trying to understand how the formula applies to living feet. I haven't taken a physics course and math is far from my stong point.

Then drop YOUR attitude.
One does not need a physics course. The analogy I provided using doors are enough.

Fingers? Are we talking about handcasts now? You're lost me. Are you talking about toes? The non-opposed variety?

You know exactly what we are talking about.

So, only those who have or saw the actual casts and prints are qualify to have positions on the isssue... Right... Very solid argument... Are you proud of it?

Sure. But I didn't say that.

How can you be proud of such a weak argument?

I think if you're going to debunk evidence you should see the evidence you're debunking....snip...you would be able to show him how the "extra hinge" in the tracks made by wooden feet and bears defy the laws of physics. I'd like to be there.

Please either show where I wrote that an extra articulation defy the laws of physics or remove the claim. I said it would be inneficient for bigfeet´s alleged way of life.

WTF? Have you looked into where these sightings and track events occur? There's a correlation with rainfall. Why on earth would they have to live in "quite smooth terrain"? I don't think I'm the one with mistaken reasoning. See some maps. It's almost possible to get from China to California without leaving the mountains.

What´s the importace of an alleged correlation between sightings and rainfall for the current discussion? You are the one who should see some maps -or perhaps learn how to interpretate them. Check the distribution of bigfeet sightings and you´ll see what I mean. Unless in your opinion rolling hills are mountainous terrain requiring special adpatations.

Even if they do inhabit "smooth terrain", it's still forested. Bipedalism evolved in forests.

So what? The point is that the alleged foot anatomy is inneficient for bipedal creatures that make regular long-distance walking.

Source? He goes into some length on people saying he said what he didn't say, including the gay sex nonsense, but I didn't see anything on Enkidu. I found this on one of his sites and that's a wireless flash.

http://www.lorencoleman.com/bigfoot_iraq.html

I saw nothing about this in the book, but then I lost it before I read it all. ...snip...If you don't have a citation, drop it. This seems like just another scoftic attempt to portray the "true believers" as crackpots and woos.
...snip...
...snip...I doubt the regulars would let him get away with Enkidu and Bigfoot making it in Iraq.

Drop it? Why? LAL, don´t you think that if he did not signed to the text´s content text he would have let it at his site? Wouldn´t at least he comment "Hey! I never said that!"?

What part of "short in time" you failed to understand? Don´t worry, I´ll discuss the issue briefly ASAP.

You seem to have plenty of time to elaborate on your own arguments. You're the only poster I can't answer without having to snip or divide into two posts.

Are suggesting -again- that I am not telling the truth? Please provide evidence or remove the claim. Debating at JREF is a hobby to me, not a full-time occupation. And bigfoot is not my main interest topic here. Besides, that´s just another weak point that you´ve made before. But, if you want another OT digression...

...snip...
Didn't the Australopiths have all the other adaptations for habitual upright walking? ...snip...

LAL, please check what where their habits, as inferred from their anatomy and environment. You´ll see that their inferred habits are NOT similar to whats supposed to be bigfoot´s way of life.

Apparently their feet don't render bipedal locomotion inefficeint. I've mentioned tracks ...snip...

Where are the evidences that a real bigfoot made those (or any other) footprints?

It's an acceptance, based on evidence...snip...

Acceptance of conclusions based on weak evidence. Sounds like belief to me. Or poor reasoning.

Are you claiming I am not telling the truth? Are you calling me a liar? Please provide evidence or remove the claim.

I'm claiming you don't seem to be very familiar with his work. Perhaps you read it so long ago you've forgotten it. ...snip...

No. That was not your original statement.

The first time I read, I thought, "WOW, COOL! BIG APE IN USA". I was still at my woo phase. As I told you before, I started my graduation, learned more about science and then I no longer was impressed by the conclusions. Specially because of the basis upon which they were made. This made me question all the other speculations regarding bigfeet as well as other cryptids. As well as all the woo beliefs I once had. But not without coming back at my sources and giving them the benefit of the doubt. The result? I found even more holes.

Which questions? They've been all over the no fossil argument, no dead body argument....what did they miss?

LOL! They never answered propperly any of these questions either!

A foremost primate anatomist examines the Skookum Cast four times, concludes the imprint is of an unidentified North American hominid primate (that must've killed him; he was a sceptic). ...snip... But you're not impressed.

I do not accept appeal to authority. I consider these conclusions at least disputable. The "foremost primate anatomist" is not the infailible Pope. And even if he were, since I´m not Catholic...
BTW, I´ll ask again: Experts are never wrong?

Now, who has the paradigms and preconceived notions?

Who? You. Shoe comfy?

Is this a proper scientific attitude - to refuse to even look at it to see if it's weak or not?..snip...

Two words- "testicles imprints"
Two more words- "elk hair"

Yep. And I didn't single you out. Shoe comfy?

Yes you did, since the post was an answer to me. Therefore the comment was aimed at me.

So, LAL, if I present a paper on a new mineral species to say, International Journal of Earth Sciences, the reviewers will have to look at the actual specimens I used to define the mineral? The presented data (difratograms, assays, photomicrographys, TEM scans, etc.) are not enough?

Looks like we've got everything we need, then, if reviewers wouldn't even want to see a body.
Of course Henry Gee actually does examine fossils, as in the case of Sahelanthropus, before publication in Nature.

Your above arguments can be summarized the word strawman.

I'm not getting through to you, am I? If the time doesn't allow for the objects seen to actually be teeth and the resolution doesn't allow it, they're not teeth on the film. What serious investigator claimed they were?

I was reading Coleman's caution on making too much of enlargements on the net from JPEG because of pixels when I lost the book. ...snip... However, the enlargements and enhancements have yielded some new information. ...snip...

So, the resolution of PGF allows or not such level of detail to be seen? A simple yes or no, please. Bigfoot PGF analysts are seeing tôo much or not? A simple yes or no, please.

A seven mile long double trackway is found in snow, a pair of Sasquatches is seen crossing a meadow by five DNR workers in the same county...snip...

Oh, a sighting report... I´m convinced...
To be continued...

 

[Correa Neto]

Continuing...

Call anything you want. I've asked a number of questions that didn't seem to get answered by anyone.

Wrong. They were answered, but you have not received the answer you wanted. So you consider them unanswered.

...snip...I think everything I "believe" should have evidence behind it.

To dismiss all evidence for Sasquatches because it doesn't fit with a notion I might have that these creatures can't possibly exist isn't being a sceptic, IMO, it's being stupid.

IMHO to conlude bigfeet do exist, based on the avaliable evidence, is being stupid.

What data do I have to handle? ...snip...

The data you used to conclude that the animal is real.

I would like to see the effort taken out of the tabloid realm....snip...

You need a better approach if you want to have any chances in your “crusade”. Ignore this and bigfoot will remain in the ” tabloid realm”. Accept this and face the high probability to conclude its only a modern myth.

What makes me think bigfoot investigators are naïve? Their conclusions!LMAO... No, not all of them are naïve... There are other categories, of course... Check BFRO and you´ll see what I mean.

So, if their conclusions don't agree with yours they're naïve. I see.

An oversimplification and misinterpretation of my comment. But I´ll add that there are other options. Naïve is among the best ones.
And if my conclusions don´t agree with yours, what am I? A "scoffic"? A liar? Someone who´s using sockpuppets at a debate?

I have checked out BFRO. There are some good articles on the site. Some of the newer stuff is embarrassing. ...snip...

Your quality standards for "good articles" seem to be lower that those of most people around here.

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

So, still no Bigfoot then?

I'd have thought after so much vehement and learned debate that you would have produced one by now. I'll check back in another 2 or 3 pages time...

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/news/bftrap.html

They caught one in a bigfoot trap once, but won't let anyone see it. Uncertainty Principle, you know......if we see it, it will disappear.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think I found another Rogerfoot cast..

Pic on right, cast on right.. Turned in big toe..


What'cha think ?

 

[LAL]

Continuing...

<snipped because I'm not going to bother to answer you. >

Your quality standards for "good articles" seem to be lower that those of most people around here.

Coleman, via e-mail, denies ever telling any reporter he was going to Iraq or that he thought Bigfoot is gay. I'll post the e-mail if he gives me permission.

Did you consider that misinformation you found on the Internet a "good article"?

 

[LAL]

I think I found another Rogerfoot cast..

What'cha think ?

I think you've violated TOS. See 4. below):

"Copyright and use of BFF material
One of the primary purposes of the BFF is the dissemination of knowledge and understanding regarding sasquatch and the investigation into them. By posting on this forum, you understand and agree that all original content created here by you is published under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike Deed. In short, this license says the following:

1. Anyone is free to copy and redistribute original material created here in any form.

2. Anyone is free to create derivative works from the original content created here.

3. Anyone is free to make commercial use of the original content created here.

4. If you copy, redistribute, or in any way reuse the original content created here, you must give attribution to both the author of the content and this website.

5. If you alter, transform, or build upon the original content created here work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one." -Paul

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=11778

The similarity between Roger's foot and the 1964 cast comes from BFF too, doesn't it? You two aren't very original, are you?