Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

What's sad is, I really don't think she knows the difference between an animal that has never been shown to exist, and one that has ( recently ) gone extinct..

 

[LTC8K6]

Look! Bigfoot! One was right here, 2 hours ago!

Let's leave!

Bizarre.

 

[LTC8K6]

This pattern goes all the way back to the PGF.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

This pattern goes all the way back to the PGF.

We are expected to believe it made more sense for Patterson to go to Thailand than to return to Bluff creek ..

 

[SweatyYeti]

What's wrong with that question, Sweaty? I mean, forget reliable evidence, why don't we have proof of these madly varying, continent roaming creatures?

http://penn.freeservers.com/bigfootmaps/

Rare and remote?

There's nothing wrong with the question itself..."where's the proof?". It's a perfectly fair question to ask...and it is a problem for us Bigfoot proponents.
By "problem" I mean the lack of proof, after all this time, does lower the probability of Bigfoot's existence....but it doesn't eliminate it completely. The fact that we don't have proof of Bigfoot...such as a body, or a video which is absolutely unambiguous....does not mean that there's a 0% likelihood of it's existence.

But even though it is a legitimate question to ask....simply 'asking for proof' is NOT the purpose of this or any other Bigfoot thread.
The whole point of a Bigfoot discussion board, or a thread, is to analyse and WEIGH the evidence...in order to determine what the true likelihood or probability of Bigfoot's existence is.
Members of this board, and the Bigfoot boards, should be contributing to the intelligent analysis of the evidence, HELPING to find it's TRUE weight. (There is actually a scientific method to weighing evidence, btw.)
Instead, what goes on here is garbage analysis by skeptics such as Greg, LTC, and others.....meaningless ranting by Mad Hom....and never-ending, mindless parroting of the question "where's the proof?".

Here's just one example...
In response to my posting of images comparing Bob's arm length to Patty's, LTC posted this....

"Wrong angle, arms at different points,..."

That is a perfect example of worthless, garbage analysis.
I wonder how much time and thought LTC put into that.
(I'll expound on his "contribution" later.)


Bottom line....I do agree that the very low number of potentially legitimate Bigfoot videos, and the lack of outright proof....reduces the odds, or 'degree of probability', that Bigfoot exists. But there is still evidence which needs to be weighed.....and members like Mad Hom do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help along those lines.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom stupidly wrote:

it has gotten to the point....where Bigfoot Nation needs to put up.....or shutup....so..

No, "Bigfoot Nation" does NOT need to prove anything...to anybody.

If you need proof of Bigfoot's existence....it's your problem....pure and simple.

I joined a Bigfoot Forum to analyse and weigh the evidence for Bigfoot......NOT to prove that Bigfoot exists. If the evidence does, at some point, rise to the level of proof....I'll be pleased....but it doesn't need to.

Maybe Bigfoot exists, and maybe it doesn't......either way, I'll survive, quite happily. I don't NEED proof that it does exist.

WHY do you say "Bigfoot proponents NEED TO PROVE IT or shut-up"???

Can you explain that?


Personally, I think that members who have NOTHING to contribute are the ones who should SHUT-UP.

 

[drapier]

Isn't wonderful how "a certain degree of probability" never reaches 0%?

I can contemplate that thought for quite a long time.

Much longer than 40 years.

Mars forever!

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, footers know all about bigfoot already. They know what it eats, when and where it sleeps, it's social structure, it's behavior, how it walks, what it's skeleton looks like, how it's feet work, etc., etc.

I can see why they don't need a body or any evidence.

No wonder Sweaty is so mad when we ask for evidence.

Footers have already told us everything there is to know about the creature, and we just won't listen.

That would upset anyone.

 

[LTC8K6]

Here's just one example...
In response to my posting of images comparing Bob's arm length to Patty's, LTC posted this....

"Wrong angle, arms at different points,..."

That is a perfect example of worthless, garbage analysis.
I wonder how much time and thought LTC put into that.
(I'll expound on his "contribution" later.)

GIGO...

You deliberately posted a picture that appeared to support your point, Sweaty.

Fortunately, someone corrected you with a proper comparison.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sweaty, I find it's better to ignore meaningless rantings and garbage analysis. You'll only encourage it by responding, you know.

 

[Aepervius]

What's wrong with that question, Sweaty? I mean, forget reliable evidence, why don't we have proof of these madly varying, continent roaming creatures?

http://penn.freeservers.com/bigfootmaps/

Rare and remote?

Funnily enough, this seems to match population density.

 

[Aepervius]

Isn't wonderful how "a certain degree of probability" never reaches 0%?

I can contemplate that thought for quite a long time.

Much longer than 40 years.

Mars forever!

I wonder if Sweat Yeti is still assigning a non-zero probability of existence to unicorn,. fire breathing dragon, people on the moon, and other myths... ?

 

[Melissa]

They did claim to find 2 tracks, though. Just no mention of any where they saw the beastie that night.

In fact, they appear to have followed the common bizarre pattern of actually seeing bigfoot, or signs of it's immediate presence, and then leaving the area, rather than following up.

A pattern I have complained about for a long time with bigfoot hunting trips, btw.

I first noticed it while reading up on the BFRO Skookum cast expedition.

No, 2 impressions were found and reported, but upon further examination it was decided the tracks were inconclusive. If they had been what is deemed a track they would have been casted, they were not.

We go out into the field to look for any and all possible evidence of this animals existence - but something we have to stand around and stare at for an hour and say "Well, that kinda looks like a track" or " Those could be toes" - we know science is not going to buy that kind of "evidence", nor will the general public. So, we move on and continue. Now, one possible track I did observe - it photographed very bad, but there just wasn't enough detail to cast the track.

We are after evidence that will help build the case or prove this animals existence, not waist our time, sciences time or the general public.

And, your wrong. While that track that showed some possibility was not casted, we did remain in the area for a while - and night ops were set up in that very location, I cant say for sure what happened that night because I was not there - but we didn't just leave and not return to that very spot. That is discussed fully in the report. This is why we have day and night time operations. The day team I was apart of came across something, what I do not know. But, all these events were reported and it was decided to set up night ops at that location.

 

[LTC8K6]

No, Melissa. They were considered possible tracks. The soil in the area is visible in photos as well. No reason bigfoot wouldn't have left tracks that I can see. I thought the foot hid his tracks anyway? Why'd he walk in that small clay area, and how did he avoid leaving good tracks in soft clay?

Van Hall discovered some impressions in a small clay area that appeared to him to be possible sasquatch tracks. Hall summoned the conservative and careful Hestand for a second opinion. Hestand agreed with Hall’s assessment; the impressions did indeed appear to be possible trace evidence of the target species. The clearest of the impressions was approximately 12 inches in length, and appeared to indicate at least a few digits. Another larger impression, approximately 16 inches in length, was not as distinct, but Hall and Hestand still classified it in their field notes as a “possible bigfoot track.” The indentations were less than two days old, in the considered opinions of Hestand and Hall.

They left the area and went to sleep just after standing right next to bigfoot, and watching bigfoot examine their gear and then walk right past them. People began leaving just hours after this close encounter. The area was evacuated by 2pm the day after the close encounter, Melissa. No one stayed at all, despite having been right next to bigfoot just hours before.

After several minutes had lapsed since the investigators fanned out northward along the pipeline right-of-way, Petree and Kessler, who were about 15 yards south of the trailhead where everyone’s equipment was piled, heard what they described in their reports as “a very deep, guttural growl,” and a “very resonant and deep” vocalization originating from the area where the trailhead intersected with the right-of-way.

Brian Petree went on to write in his field log: “I immediately focused my attention on the area, and observed a very dark, yet large image moving within the intersection. I observed it stop at a location that would have put it merely a few feet away from the pile of backpacks and gear that we had discarded.”

In his field report, Kessler noted: “I asked [on the radio] for someone with night vision and or video/light. We had left ours, with the exception of a white light that Petree had at the trailhead, with our gear. As we approached the trailhead, Petree, to my left nearest the trailhead, stuck his right hand out in a stop motion across my chest. I did see movement. My best description would be shadow movement; no outline, no features, just the movement of a large shadow.”

Kessler’s field notes added: “Petree wanted to light it with his white light but I said, ‘No wait, if you do then we will lose our [natural] night vision and possibly scare away whatever it was.’ He agreed and we waited on the other teams, who had not even begun to start our way. We discussed what it could have been, and that we perceived that it felt cornered and that it would probably be best to back up and give whatever it was room. As he turned his back to leave, I saw the skyline darken and go black, it was just a few seconds as this happened; I thought it was coming at us. I said, ‘Oh [expletive]!’ and ducked slightly. It moved left to right; we were facing north so it would have been west to east. I then heard a snap sound to my right about the 2 o'clock position. All I saw was a large, fast shadow move across the pipeline [right-of-way] and into the trees. I do know that whatever it was blacked out the marker as it crossed and was taller than that marker, which I estimate to be about 8 feet. I don't know if it jumped or ran across the opening. I explained to Petree what I saw and he immediately wanted to light it up with the white light; I again said no, to wait for red lights and night vision. We both were in a defensive posture at this time. [Others] got to us about this time and we began to look for where ‘it’ had crossed the pipeline.”

Petree recalled becoming quite anxious: “I felt threatened by the animal’s actions, yet I didn't want to lose the opportunity to pursue or confront it. I turned and grabbed Kessler by the left arm and stated, ‘We need to back off, this thing’s [angry] and we have it cornered.’ Kessler took about one step back then franticly stated, ‘The damn thing just crossed!!’ Kessler was extremely alarmed. Kessler stated that the whole pipeline went dark when it crossed, and that it was very tall. Colyer and Street arrived in a matter of minutes, and I accompanied them into the forest in an attempt to flush out whatever Kessler and I had just seen. We were unsuccessful at relocating it.”

As mentioned in Petree’s field notes, Colyer and Street arrived, along with David Peddy. Morley and the others followed shortly thereafter. The group then began trying to assess what had just transpired. After brief deliberation, Colyer, Street and Petree attempted to pursue the subject into the deep thicket located on the east side of the right-of-way, but to no avail.

The team lamented at what appeared to be another lost opportunity to document what may have been the subject of their field study.

At approximately 04:00, the night team returned to the field station.

By 06:30, all of the night team had turned in for sleep.

By noon, most were up and preparing to leave. Colyer and Street continued to interview all the participants from the previous evening’s events to try to gain a clear perspective of what exactly had occurred.

By 14:00, the research station was evacuated as participants returned to their respective homes and Operation Thicket Probe 2 came to a close.

Look! Bigfoot! He was right there. He checked out our gear and then walked right by us!

Okay, let's get out of here before we see it again!

I'm with you!

 

[kitakaze]

There's nothing wrong with the question itself..."where's the proof?". It's a perfectly fair question to ask...and it is a problem for us Bigfoot proponents.
By "problem" I mean the lack of proof, after all this time, does lower the probability of Bigfoot's existence....but it doesn't eliminate it completely. The fact that we don't have proof of Bigfoot...such as a body, or a video which is absolutely unambiguous....does not mean that there's a 0% likelihood of it's existence.

But even though it is a legitimate question to ask....simply 'asking for proof' is NOT the purpose of this or any other Bigfoot thread.
The whole point of a Bigfoot discussion board, or a thread, is to analyse and WEIGH the evidence...in order to determine what the true likelihood or probability of Bigfoot's existence is.
Members of this board, and the Bigfoot boards, should be contributing to the intelligent analysis of the evidence, HELPING to find it's TRUE weight. (There is actually a scientific method to weighing evidence, btw.)
Instead, what goes on here is garbage analysis by skeptics such as Greg, LTC, and others.....meaningless ranting by Mad Hom....and never-ending, mindless parroting of the question "where's the proof?".

Here's just one example...
In response to my posting of images comparing Bob's arm length to Patty's, LTC posted this....

"Wrong angle, arms at different points,..."

That is a perfect example of worthless, garbage analysis.
I wonder how much time and thought LTC put into that.
(I'll expound on his "contribution" later.)


Bottom line....I do agree that the very low number of potentially legitimate Bigfoot videos, and the lack of outright proof....reduces the odds, or 'degree of probability', that Bigfoot exists. But there is still evidence which needs to be weighed.....and members like Mad Hom do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help along those lines.

Let's get something straight, Sweaty. This is not a house among the streets of bigfootery Neverland. We are outside the sphere of your adult roleplay network. The conversations here are about the PGF, the bigfoot phenomenom, bigfootery, it's various claims of evidence, and the various characters who perpetuate the myth. The default position is that bigfoot as it is variously described does not exist. This is the normal and correct position to adopt. Any other position is a fringe belief. We do not deny the possibility as that would be irrational but to hold it as a possibility put forth on the same quality of evidence as alien visitation. Can you argue that the comparison is not apt? It has been presented to you and your fellow proponents here many times and yet you shrink from it every time. Why should we hum and haw over the reality of bigfoot? What legitimate reason do we have?

Intellectual cowardice, rigid inflexibility, willfull self-delusion, that is what seems to be the norm with you. You talk about garbage analysis. What kind of analysis is your pareidolia play? Take a look at yourself. You make various bizarre claims and yet don't have the intellectual brass to stand behind them. You simply take the odd pot shot and scamper when confronted with factual information. 'If the fingers bend you must pretend', 'there is evidence of alien civilization on Mars'. You claim these silly things and act like a frightened turtle when confronted on them.

Make no mistake, bigfoot as variously described is ludicrous. As much as some would like to suggest otherwise we are not being asked to contemplate an extremely rare, elusive creature in a few isolated, remote pockets of the PNW. What we are being told of is some wildy varying man beast across the continent, across the world. In our back yards, outside our windows, on our farms. Running alongside our cars, jumping out at us on our bike trails, shaking their hands and talking to us. You yourself are one of the proponents of a pan-continental bigfoot. The very first question we should be asking is "Where's the proof?" Now try not dodging it. Why do we not have proof for this bizarre claim? No creature that has as much contact with humans as bigfoot does escapes formal classification. Tell us why and spare us the rare and remote tales.

 

[LTC8K6]

Keep in mind that they claim to know all there is to know about the creature, and they still can't locate even one.

It's not like bigfoot is some strange unknown entity to them. They claim to know as much about the creature as if they had found it and studied it for years.

It's not like they are looking for a creature when they don't know it's habits, it's diet, etc.

They know absolutely everything there is to know about bigfoot, and they are proud of this, and they still can't locate even one.

Not only that, but BFRO states that eyewitnesses will continue to have priority, even over actual knowledge of sasquatch anatomy!

Note: As mentioned at the top of this article, for the sake of brevity, the description will not be couched in the customary cautionary terminology with the usual "weasel words". Hence, the seemingly dogmatic style of the text is used only in the interest of terseness and it should be leavened by reference to the literature cited at the end of this article. All dynamic biological aspects of the animal, particularly behavior, will continue to rely on eyewitness reports regardless of advances in anatomical knowledge.

 

[Correa Neto]

OK, saying the "odds of [add fringe subject here] being real are zero" is bad...

What are the odds of Planet X approaching Earth in 2012 flipp its' axis and kill 90% of the humans?

"Ooooh! You can't say zero!"

OK, I'll be PC. Its not zero. It just tends towards zero.

 

[Melissa]

No, Melissa. They were considered possible tracks. The soil in the area is visible in photos as well. No reason bigfoot wouldn't have left tracks that I can see. I thought the foot hid his tracks anyway? Why'd he walk in that small clay area, and how did he avoid leaving good tracks in soft clay?

That is exactly what I said. They were possible tracks - not conclusive. They were possible - but inconclusive. There was not enough detail for casting. Yes, we did think one impression was worthy of discussion - and combined with other issues, it was decided to hold night ops in that very same area. We did not just leave the area - we were there for a period of time afterward, hell we even had a brief rest about 100 yards from this area. We did not leave immediately.

The area was evacuated by 2pm the day after the close encounter, Melissa. No one stayed at all, despite having been right next to bigfoot just hours before.

We dont know what we came across during those daylight hours, I certainly never called it a bigfoot - I have no clue what that was, but its movement was very curious to me.

We had a decision to make. Keep messing with whatever this was, or hopefully get night ops set up in this location - we chose to get back and discuss setting up field ops in this very spot. Thats exactly what happened. I must be honest and tell you, I dont know what time we left the field. If the report says 2 - that works for me. But, I can tell you those who are involved with night ops are always in position prior to nightfall - so it was maybe a few hours before we had people back there.

You act as if you were there, you were not. I was, but not for the night ops and as I told you I wont get into that.

There always seems to be this "I know more than you do mentality". Problem is those with that attitude are not in the field. Hard decisions need to be made. We made one. Not sure whatelse to tell you. I am not trying to convince you of anything - you asked about the things I have done in the field - well, here ya go. I have no idea what that animal was and Im not calling it a bigfoot - because I did not see it. I dont expect you to think it was either.

 

[Hellbound]

Huntsman, I think you need a nap.

What you think doesn't matter (nor does what I think), which is the point I've been trying to get across. It's what you can show evidence of that's important.

Good lord, calm down your gonna have a stroke.

Please do not confuse writing style with anything else. IF you believe this, you're reading a lot more into my posts than I've put there. I'm passionate about science, and about finding truth. I also have little patience with those who would misuse it and misrepresent it for their own personal reasons.

Kitakazee, show me the body of an Ivory Billed Woodpecker, and I will then believe the animal exists - and is no longer extinct.

And this is what I'm waiting for too. Not necessarily a body, but some sort of physical evidence. For the last time, please at least try to understand the argument we're actually making, instead of the argument you wish we were.

Why would you ask me to apply thoughts that are contrary to what I apply to the same thoughts I use in bigfoot research? I don't understand that at all. It seems to be accepted to simply believe one thing is true, with no evidence (body) yet another issue is a complete fabrication of the imagination. I am truly amazed at what some people will demand for one situation and not another. I demand the same proof from anyone who says they have discovered an animal that was either thought to be extinct or does not exist. Show me the body, and I will applaud the researchers involved. Give me DNA evidence, something substantial. A photo wont do it for me in bigfoot research or anything else.

No one is asking you to apply different thinking at all. However, if ten years down the line there's 60 supposed sightings of the IBW, many contradictory, across the entire southeast U.S., and still no physical evidence, I'll be saying the SAME thing about it that I am now about Bigfoot. That even the search is a waste of time and money. The fact that you can't seem to seperate looking for a creature that we knew once existed and looking for a myth, and can't seperate the difference between 5 years and 40 years, and can't seperate the difference between a small bird and a large bipedal primate, says more than enough about your biases. I don't believe you're capable of understanding the arguments made against you; certainly posts such as the one I'm responding to ignore the points, and amount to (when boiled down) nothing more than you screaming "Is Not!".

 

[Melissa]

The conversations here are about the PGF, the bigfoot phenomenom, bigfootery, it's various claims of evidence, and the various characters who perpetuate the myth. The default position is that bigfoot as it is variously described does not exist. This is the normal and correct position to adopt.

That is total arrogance. How can you or anyone possibly know what is out there? Good lord, Im glad you were not involved with the discovery of the animals over the last year.

No, when your researching the possibility of something, you must take into account the possibility it may actually be true. That does not mean you believe everything your told. You must consider the possibility, or why even be involved?

Argue about that all you want Kitakazee, but your comment shows a real ignorance to how investigative work is really done - off the internet. That is the normal and correct position to adopt? According to whom? I think thats according to you and your comfort level, because that approach was not something I was ever taught, to include my 9-5 job.