• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your prejudice (pre-judgement; very unscientific) is being widely displayed, Mr. Parcher.

Did you know that Teslin is in a Canadian National Bison Reserve?

I'll bet you don't even know that they aren't even Plains Bison there. They're Wood Bison.

Know the difference? Know the history? Know anything about the subject at all?

He should. This was discussed on another thread (where he got the last word) and I posted an article on them here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=1141885&highlight=Wood+Bison#post1141885
 
I rest my case. You have nothing but blather.

How can you rest your case? You didn't have one.

You can't prove the existence of Bigfoot by writing about it really hard.

Show us some good DNA, or preferably a body, or quit spamming.

I've never spammed. Do you see me flooding this or any thread with duplicate posts or sending unsolicited e-mails? Look it up.

And if you do have a body, you may feel free to rub my nose in it and forcefeed me crow for years on end. You've had what ... 15 pages and you've proven nothing other than that your evidence is extremely poor.

You haven't read the other threads then? I've posted on a lot more than fifteen pages since last May (note well over 1000 posts on this board). I regret that a body wasn't brought in while I lived in an area where sightings were almost common. We had just about everything else on the courthouse lawn......I'm no hunter, but I'm leaning toward the pro-kill side, just because much would be gained with a specimen for study. I don't think it would be proper to kill one just to convince the sceptics however. They can find their own crow in their own time.

Message me when you have a body or some DNA. I'm waiting. In the meantime, I might monitor this thread from time to time. It's educational, as far as watching a woo pretend that he has evidence over and over again can be. Meanwhile, still no body, not even a bit of DNA. You have nothing, and I am willing to go out on a limb and say that you never will.

He? I'm a she. Haven't been paying attention, have you? :D

Your little fantasy game is just that .. a fantasy. And as most woos, you'll deny that until the day you die. But as I said, there are worse things you could do with your time.

Does it make you feel good to call me names? I was convinced by evidence in Skamania County, Washington, in 1969. Everything I've learned on this since has just reinforced my conviction there is an unidentified hominid primate living in North America. I, too, am waiting for a body, but I'm patient.
 
What do primatologists have to say about the idea of a noctural primate that does not have huge eyes?

Let me know how it turns out.

Hmmm... Well, in this case I think eye size may not be another implausible anatomical issue. Nocturnal mammals with large eye size in respect to the size of the head are usually small-sized (examples: nocturnal lemurs and some bats that feed on nectar -these particular critters rely more on eyesight than in echolocation). The eyes of larger nocturnal (perhaps better write semi-nocturnal) mammals don´t seem to be so big in respect to the head (or "face" if you preffer, LOL). As examples, let´s look at jaguars, leopards, wolves. Their eyes are not particullary big in respect to the head.

Possibly, the ammount of light gathered by an eye is not just function of the sensibility of the cells taht receive the light, but also of the area of the ocular globe. So, there´s no need to grow eyes above a certain size - unless you need to gather very small ammounts of lights - the eyes of an Architeutis come to my mind, but these animals live in conditions with very low light levels and are not mammals, BTW...

The answer to Huntster´s post will have to wait... Too busy right now with my son...
 
Last edited:
How can you rest your case? You didn't have one.



I've never spammed. Do you see me flooding this or any thread with duplicate posts or sending unsolicited e-mails? Look it up.



You haven't read the other threads then? I've posted on a lot more than fifteen pages since last May (note well over 1000 posts on this board). I regret that a body wasn't brought in while I lived in an area where sightings were almost common. We had just about everything else on the courthouse lawn......I'm no hunter, but I'm leaning toward the pro-kill side, just because much would be gained with a specimen for study. I don't think it would be proper to kill one just to convince the sceptics however. They can find their own crow in their own time.



He? I'm a she. Haven't been paying attention, have you? :D



Does it make you feel good to call me names? I was convinced by evidence in Skamania County, Washington, in 1969. Everything I've learned on this since has just reinforced my conviction there is an unidentified hominid primate living in North America. I, too, am waiting for a body, but I'm patient.

Let me call you one more name. Liar. Continue your game, I won't bother with this thread anymore.
 
I rest my case. You have nothing but blather.

You can't prove the existence of Bigfoot by writing about it really hard.....

And you can't disprove the existence of Bigfoot by pointing out that nobody has provided you with the proof that will satisfy you.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

...Show us some good DNA, or preferably a body, or quit spamming....

Now that's beautiful; classic; common; "repeatable": "Shutup. I've made up my mind, after investing absolutely nothing in research."

You're quite the scientific mind. There are lots of "scientists" out there just like you.

I'm impressed.

...And if you do have a body, you may feel free to rub my nose in it and forcefeed me crow for years on end...

Now that's a very attractive offer. Makes me want to invest some time in looking for the creature.

BTW, I thought I'd link to something that may show you how a real scientist deals with the phenomenon.

Figured you might get an education.

...There is no hard evidence that proves the existence of
Bigfoot, however, the quantity and distribution of anecdotal
reports in the Cascades can not be readily discounted.
Particularly compelling is the simultaneous
presence of multiple dimensions of circumstantial evidence:
• plausible continuity,
• plausible ecology,
• Green’s data,
• TBRP’s data,
• GNIS data,
• Native American mythology,
• historical and contemporary anecdotal accounts,
and
• the Patterson-Gimlin film,
which together, while coincidence has not yet been ruled
out, suggest the presence of an underlying phenomenon.

The lack of hard evidence supports the conclusion of
anthropologists that Bigfoot does not exist and that
Gigantopithecus is extinct. However, in the opinion of
this author, the compelling circumstantial evidence warrants
the dedication of additional resources to resolve
the origin of the Bigfoot phenomenon...
 
Hmmm... Well, in this case I think eye size may not be another implausible anatomical issue. Nocturnal mammals with large eye size in respect to the size of the head are usually small-sized (examples: nocturnal lemurs and some bats that feed on nectar -these particular critters rely more on eyesight than in echolocation). The eyes of larger nocturnal (perhaps better write semi-nocturnal) mammals don´t seem to be so big in respect to the head (or "face" if you preffer, LOL). As examples, let´s look at jaguars, leopards, wolves. Their eyes are not particullary big in respect to the head.

Possibly, the ammount of light gathered by an eye is not just function of the sensibility of the cells taht receive the light, but also of the area of the ocular globe. So, there´s no need to grow eyes above a certain size - unless you need to gather very small ammounts of lights - the eyes of an Architeutis come to my mind, but these animals live in conditions with very low light levels and are not mammals, BTW...

The answer to Huntster´s post will have to wait... Too busy right now with my son...

I was anticipating such a response. It is true that noctural animals in general do not necessarily have relatively large eyes. But it seems that nocturnal primates do have large eyes. How does a nine-foot tall bipedal ape go on supporting a rapid nomadic nocturnal lifestyle without having big eyes? Nevermind locating and tracking prey in darkness... how do you avoid tripping over fallen branches, stones and such when your eyes are nine feet above the ground and you are rapidly trucking along with your compliant gait?
 
And you can't disprove the existence of Bigfoot by pointing out that nobody has provided you with the proof that will satisfy you.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

What's really funny is the ridiculousness of Bigfootery. Is it not too much to ask for confirmation of the biological species known as Bigfoot? Is it too much to ask for this after so many many decades?

Funny how that works, isn't it?
 
...Is it not too much to ask for confirmation of the biological species known as Bigfoot? Is it too much to ask for this after so many many decades?....

Not at all.

But it may be too much to ask for it right now.

Were you aware that the first written reference to gorillas was in the 5th century BC, yet Western science didn't recognize them as a living species until 1861?

And did you also know that it was quite a few years after a carcass had been delivered to the Royal Geographic Society before the species was recognized by most Americans?

Do you know what those Americans were doing?

Exactly what you're doing. Absolutely nothing but criticizing.
 
Not at all.

But it may be too much to ask for it right now.

Were you aware that the first written reference to gorillas was in the 5th century BC, yet Western science didn't recognize them as a living species until 1861?

And did you also know that it was quite a few years after a carcass had been delivered to the Royal Geographic Society before the species was recognized by most Americans?

Do you know what those Americans were doing?

Exactly what you're doing. Absolutely nothing but criticizing.

Gorillas? How long after Western scientists entered gorilla-inhabited forests did they obtain physical evidence of gorillas?

Is that gorilla situation exactly like the present situation with Bigfoot skepticism? Is Bigfoot certainly going to be confirmed in spite of skepticism, just like the gorilla was? Is any possible hypothetical animal just on the verge of confirmation? Is there no such thing as a myth?

You have done nothing to bring Bigfoot into the world of reality. You are doing nothing but criticizing. You are words. Bring on the big monkey. Now!
 
Gorillas? How long after Western scientists entered gorilla-inhabited forests did they obtain physical evidence of gorillas?...

You don't seem to get it, sir.

Western science didn't enter gorilla-inhabited forests. They sat in their oak-panelled rooms and "opined" until a Christian missionary brought out and mailed them skulls, and an adventurer entered the jungle and (with great difficulty) brought out and delivered a carcass.

Still, Americans sat on their collective asses and talked sh!t until subsequent researchers, following the adventurer, came back and confirmed the obvious.

Read about it here, and learn.

...Is that gorilla situation exactly like the present situation with Bigfoot skepticism?...

Yup. Sure looks like it to me.

...Is Bigfoot certainly going to be confirmed in spite of skepticism, just like the gorilla was?...

I believe it will.


...Is any possible hypothetical animal just on the verge of confirmation?...

Not that I know of.

...Is there no such thing as a myth?...

I don't know. I don't study myths.

...You have done nothing to bring Bigfoot into the world of reality...

How do you know what I have done or what I have not done?

Have you employed the "scientific method", or are you opining (again)?

...You are doing nothing but criticizing...

I am responding to criticism. Do we need to go back and review this thread to establish who is criticizing?

...You are words....

I am a human being who is writing words.

Just like you.

...Bring on the big monkey. Now!...

No. I'm busy. I've got my pickup in my garage half prepped for paint, the Argo needs a brake job, and I haven't gone snowmobiling all winter.

I haven't got time to chase such a rare creature. I have a hard enough time filling the freezer with moose and caribou.

But I'm not going to be stupid enough to propound that something doesn't exist just because the existing evidence doesn't include a carcass.....yet.

Only an idiot would do that...............
 
Let me call you one more name. Liar. Continue your game, I won't bother with this thread anymore.

Since Red's been pretty well absent since the early days of Bigfoot Follies, the mother of these threads, I think I can live with it. Not the first to call me a liar, but no one's showed where I've lied. Oh, wait, they think it's all lies, ergo............
 
SETI is a UFO related study. It is, by definition, a Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.

Incorrect. You'd be hard-pressed to find within the ranks of SETI a scientist who believes that extra-terrestrials are currently buzzing our little planet in their spaceships. SETI is not concerned with reports from Billy Bob of aliens joyriding over his house; similar to how real biologists are not concerned with reports from Billy Bob of 'squatch leaving footprints in his backyard.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster :
SETI is a UFO related study. It is, by definition, a Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.
Incorrect. You'd be hard-pressed to find within the ranks of SETI a scientist who believes that extra-terrestrials are currently buzzing our little planet in their spaceships. SETI is not concerned with reports from Billy Bob of aliens joyriding over his house; similar to how real biologists are not concerned with reports from Billy Bob of 'squatch leaving footprints in his backyard.

The acronym SETI stands for Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.

If the SETI project concludes that, indeed, there is extraterrestrial intelligence out there, it confirms the possibility that the UFO phenomenon may have a basis in fact, and that further research in that particular sub-field is warranted.

I'd suggest that SETI is taking a better approach at seeking the possibility of extraterrestrial life than sitting around waiting for a flying saucer to land in the backyard, just like actually taking steps to find a sasquatch beats condemning the possibility here on this forum.
 
I was anticipating such a response. It is true that noctural animals in general do not necessarily have relatively large eyes. But it seems that nocturnal primates do have large eyes. How does a nine-foot tall bipedal ape go on supporting a rapid nomadic nocturnal lifestyle without having big eyes? Nevermind locating and tracking prey in darkness... how do you avoid tripping over fallen branches, stones and such when your eyes are nine feet above the ground and you are rapidly trucking along with your compliant gait?

Tracking prey? They're not predators. The diet is primarily vegetal.

"Eyewitness accounts do offer some indications about the diet of Sasquatch. John Green reported that, based on newspaper reports, personal letters, and eyewitness accounts, Sasquatch is probably an omnivore. Among dietary items which apparently are most favoured by Sasquatch are: tree roots, grass, berries, deer meat, and garbage. Other foods apparently eaten in lesser quantities include: bear, sheep, chickens, cows, horses, rodents and other small animals, grubs, clams, fish, salmon, leaves and evergreen buds, grapes, flour, eggs and bacon, milk, and doughnuts. Green pointed out that nine of the reliable eyewitness reports refer to Sasquatch eating vegetal foods while only four refer to eating of meat.

It is difficult to use the above data to formulate a Sasquatch dietary pattern, yet they do suggest a preference for vegetal foods. However, one fact is certain: if Sasquatch does exist, its primary diet item is not the meat of domestic animals such as cows, horses, sheep, or goats. Modern history shows that animals like the wolf, coyote, puma, cougar, and eagle have been hunted to near extinction because they have occasionally preyed upon domestic animals. If Sasquatch regularly preyed on livestock, then surely one would have been killed by now."

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/bryant.html

Doesn't take a lot of speed to scavenge a carcass or kill a cow. There are reports and sign of them tearing logs apart for carpenter ants. (Cougars eat grasshoppers, good source of protein, when hunting is unsucessful, BTW.) The PNW is full of frogs, crawdads and other easy to catch tidbits. Club moss is extremely nutritious and grows everywhere. Thomas observed a pair of females eating willow leaves (which contain a substance important in lactation). A "rapid" lifestyle might be difficult to maintain in the light of such bulk and could be one reason they seem to stroll away from humans rather than running for their lives, even from hunters. The large stride eats a lot of ground and uses relatively little energy.

They're omnivores, not killer apes.
 
The acronym SETI stands for Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.

If the SETI project concludes that, indeed, there is extraterrestrial intelligence out there, it confirms the possibility that the UFO phenomenon may have a basis in fact, and that further research in that particular sub-field is warranted.

I'd suggest that SETI is taking a better approach at seeking the possibility of extraterrestrial life than sitting around waiting for a flying saucer to land in the backyard, just like actually taking steps to find a sasquatch beats condemning the possibility here on this forum.

And in the meantime SETI's found all sorts of interesting stuff.

Billy Bob, huh? Looks like we're back to the "Only hicks see Sasquatches" argument. This is my all-time favorite report:

"Dr. Matthew Johnson
Skookum Psychologist
A personal account by Dr. Matthew Johnson


Where to begin? Rochelle and I took our kids to the Oregon Caves National Park in southern Oregon. We ate lunch at a picnic table and then took a tour of the caves. The caves were spectacular. If you haven’t seen them before, they are a must see experience.

Upon our exit of the cave, everyone usually turns to the right to go back down to the gift store and lodge. However, we are fresh from Alaska and love to hike in the outdoors (i.e., we just moved from Alaska to Oregon earlier this year). We decided to go left and hike up to see the Big Tree (i.e., a Douglas fir tree with a circumference of 40 feet that is about 800 to 1,000 years old). We hiked for about 2 miles into the forest up the mountain. As we were hiking up the trail, we smelled a very strong pungent smell. It was as strong as a skunk but it wasn’t a skunk (i.e., we know what a skunk smells like and it wasn’t a skunk even though it was as strong smelling as a skunk). We were standing down wind of the smell.

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). While I was doing my duty, I was scanning the woods down the mountain on the other side of the trail my family was standing on. That’s when I saw it. I saw it come out from behind one tree to the left and walk to another tree to the right. Then it looked back and was watching my family while they were standing on the trail.

I’ve hiked through the woods in Alaska numerous times and believe me, I know what a grizzly bear looks like and I know what a black bear looks like. I was actually chased by a grizzly bear on the Russian river in Alaska about six or seven years ago. What I saw was not a grizzly bear or a black bear. What I saw walked upright on two legs like a human and it was much taller than a grizzly bear or a black bear. What I saw was Bigfoot (otherwise known as Sasquatch).

I pulled up my shorts immediately, walked fast down to the trail and got my family moving up the mountain. I sure as heck wasn’t going to go back down the trail where we came from and go right to it. I didn’t tell my wife or children what I saw because I didn’t want them to panic. At this point, the adrenaline was rushing and I was very hypervigilent (i.e., constantly looking behind us and through the woods). The sound stopped but I wasn’t convinced we were safe.

When we got to a place where the kids could stop and sit on a fallen log to rest and drink some water, I pulled Rochelle away and told here that she wasn’t going to believe what I saw. She believed me right away. She smelled the smell and she heard the repetitive cycles of “Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa” and she knows I’m not crazy. I told her to keep the kids going and that I would stay at the back to keep my eyes on what was behind us. I told her that if anything came up from behind us or through the woods from the side of us that I would run interference to protect them. I told her that if this happened, I wanted her to run the kids on the trail, don’t stop, and don’t look back. We agreed not to tell the children because we didn’t want to panic them.

We never heard the sounds again and I never saw anything after that. We finally made it out of the woods about 1½ hours later. We sent the kids into the gift store to look for a gift because we had promised to buy them something if they were good hikers and didn’t complain. Rochelle and I sat on the bench outside the gift store and talked about the pro’s and con’s of whether or not to report what we smelled, heard, and saw (i.e., I don’t want people to think we are crazy). Rochelle said it was up to me. I decided that I wasn’t going to keep this a secret because it was real and I know I’m sane. I remembered reading about how the albino gorilla was a myth/legend in Africa for quite some time until someone finally captured one. Well I’m here to tell you today (and the world) that Bigfoot/Sasquatch is not a myth/legend. The creature/animal really and truly does exist!!

After we made our decision, Rochelle went into the gift shop with the kids. I walked to the Park headquarters and reported what I saw to NPS Ranger Beverly. I sat in the chair stunned and then I began to cry. All these emotions that I was stuffing due to the adrenaline began to surface now that my family and I were safe. You don’t know how vulnerable I felt being so far out in the woods without the ability to protect my family in that kind of situation (i.e., no gun). I told the ranger that I was not crazy. I gave her my business card (i.e., I’m a licensed psychologist in private practice). I told her that I have two master’s degrees and one doctorate degree and that I was an intelligent person. I told her that I know what I smelled, heard, and saw. In between the tears and my shaking, I told her that I saw Bigfoot. She believed me! She didn’t think I was crazy. She said that there is a lot about our world that we don’t know and that we are discovering new species all the time.

She took my story, Rochelle’s story, and Levi confirmed what the noise sounded like. I was the only one who saw Bigfoot because I had hiked up off the trail high enough to see it. I can’t tell you what it looked like other than it was very tall, looked half-human and half ape, walked upright, and had very dark hair (i.e., a mix of very dark brown and/or black hair). It happened way too quick and all I could think about after I saw it was to get my family the heck out of there. I’ve done some surfing on the internet and what I saw looked a lot like this picture below.

Rochelle and I are willing to talk with anyone. We don’t believe that it is right to have this kind of experience and to hide it from the rest of the world. Please feel free to pass this on to anyone you think would be interested in hearing the truth. This is a true story that just happened today (7-1-2000 shortly after 5pm).

Dr. Matthew A. Johnson

http://www.skookumquest.com/sasquatch/skookum_encounters_johnson.htm

He's noted it's not good for business.
 
...Billy Bob, huh? Looks like we're back to the "Only hicks see Sasquatches" argument....

That's what we expect from parrots, not scientists.

Forget spending time in sasquatch habitat. These "scientists" can't even perform armchair research.

Pitiful, isn't it?
 
The acronym SETI stands for Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.

Yes it does.

If the SETI project concludes that, indeed, there is extraterrestrial intelligence out there, it confirms the possibility that the UFO phenomenon may have a basis in fact, and that further research in that particular sub-field is warranted.

Incorrect. SETI's research is based on Sagan's Assumption of Mediocrity - that if extraterrestrial intelligence exists, it will be on the same technological playing field as humans; we would conceivably be able to communicate, but interstellar travel would still be beyond the capabilities of both races.

I'd suggest that SETI is taking a better approach at seeking the possibility of extraterrestrial life than sitting around waiting for a flying saucer to land in the backyard, just like actually taking steps to find a sasquatch beats condemning the possibility here on this forum.
Yes - but the search for extraterrestrial life has the benefit of having organized scientists behind it - The SETI Institute alone employs over 100 of them. Why no similar organization for the search for Bigfoot? After all, you'd think searching one little corner of this insignificant planet would be far simpler than searching the cosmos...
 
You don't seem to get it, sir.

Western science didn't enter gorilla-inhabited forests. They sat in their oak-panelled rooms and "opined" until a Christian missionary brought out and mailed them skulls, and an adventurer entered the jungle and (with great difficulty) brought out and delivered a carcass.

Still, Americans sat on their collective asses and talked sh!t until subsequent researchers, following the adventurer, came back and confirmed the obvious.

Read about it here, and learn.

Great article. Thanks. Took a while for them to be studied rather than merely collected:

http://www.fathom.com/course/21701783/session1.html

It took sixty years to bring in a Giant Panda after they were "discovered" by western science, despite expeditions out to capture them for zoos. (Been over this one, too, on another thread. How much have tracking methods changed in the last century?)
 
That's what we expect from parrots, not scientists.

Forget spending time in sasquatch habitat. These "scientists" can't even perform armchair research.

Pitiful, isn't it?

Indeed. One seemed to do research from a theater seat, though. "Watch the first few minutes of Star Wars, Episode IV..............." Proof Patty was wearing a padded bra, I suppose, but then he could have rented it and watched from an armchair.............

The pro side actually has evidence and the sceptical side has............( I was going to post something from the article by Vaughn M. Bryant, Jr. and Burleigh Trevor-Deutsch but maybe I'll just say "conjecture" instead.)
 
Billy Bob, huh? Looks like we're back to the "Only hicks see Sasquatches" argument.

Back to that argument? Had I argued from that position before? Don't make assumptions. I know next to nothing about the demographics of Bigfoot reporters. My comment was more along the lines of "a whole lot of UFO reports seem to come from trailer park residents." Yes, it was a generalization, but used only for comedic effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom