Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

We do not even know when the P/G film was actually shot, or if it was edited before anyone saw it.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...And it's my right to believe, based on the evidence, that the subject depicted in the PG film is an uncatalogued animal that is most likely a primate.
...snip...

So, setting beliefs apart for a while, basically you are saying:

Bigfeet - more specifically Patty - may or may not be a primate. PGF itself is not enough to stabilish exactly what was caught on film.

Are the above sentences correct?

 

[Correa Neto]

Man, Bigfoot being a marsupial would rock.

And there actually IS at least one marsupial in the PNW, whereas we never had a great ape living under the house when I was a kid there.

Can you prove there wasn't one or more great apes living under your house?

Sorry, could not help...

 

[Huntster]

...All I do is ask, repeatedly, what evidence you based your very clear statement that the PGF definitely did NOT portray an alien on.....

Word games.

Weak.

 

[Huntster]

Beckjord has as much evidence as the BFRO.....

Evidence of what?

 

[Starrman]

The men who filmed the subject said they believed it was a sasquatch.

How do those men know it was a 'sasquatch' what specimen did they compare it to to make that judgement?

 

[Huntster]

Hunster, there is no evidence that G.B. was huge.

We know his head was, of course.....

Now what are you intimating with that brilliant observation?

Ciochon calculated the size of gigantopithecus thus:

...The way they arrived at this picture was first to estimate the size of the head from the jaw, and then to use a head/body ratio of 1:6.5 in order to determine the body size. For comparison they cite a head/body ratio of 1:8 for the Australopithecus afarensis specimen known as 'Lucy'. The more conservative ratio for Gigantopithecus was arrived at out of consideration of the massive jaw as an adaptation to the mastication of fibrous plant matter (probably bamboo). Gigantopithecus was probably proportionally a markedly big jawed creature....

This resulted in his calculation of a 10' tall, 1200 lb. ape.

Please outline your critique of this, and your reasoning.

 

[UrsulaV]

Can you prove there wasn't one or more great apes living under your house?

Sorry, could not help...

*grin* No, you're quite right! I stand corrected!

To the best of my knowledge, there were no great apes living under my house growing up.

I know we did have a possum, and the clearance would be awfully low, but I cannot state that we were in fact apeless.

 

[Huntster]

...None of the primate experts I referred to said anything about a "compliant gait", nor do I see one in the P/G film.....

Correct. What they said was:

...Dr. John R. Napier, Director of the Primate Biology Program, Smithsonian Institute, was quoted in the article as saying that, in his opinion, nothing about the film would point conclusively to a hoax. He also stated that he was satisfied that the walk of the creature shown in the Patterson-Gimlin film was "... consistent with the bi-pedal striding gait of man." Napier also conceded that the bodily proportions of the creature "appeared to be within normal limits for man."

...Its erect attitude in locomotion, the gait, stride and manner of that locomotion, as well as the relative proportions of pelvic to pectoral limb, are all manifestly human...

However, although a compliant gait is very possible to do by humans, it is not a common gait.

I'm sorry you don't see one in the PG film. That is not something I can help you with.

...Glickman was way off on the height. Patty is nowhere near that tall and nowhere near that heavy....

Glickman does a fine job of documenting his analysis and evaluation.

And your basis and authority for dismissing his evaluation is?.......................

...How can you be unaware of how Glickman has been discredited? Why bother to even mention him? Most believers have long since abandoned his figures....

Discredited by whom?

Evidence, please?

 

[LTC8K6]

An estimate is now evidence?

Well, you are certainly free to accept estimates as evidence, and base your ideas on same, but don't expect everyone to.

 

[UrsulaV]

Word games.

Weak.

Asking if you have proof to back up a statement you've made is weak?

Goodness, what is that I see you doing at the bottom of that last post to LTC8K6?

Well, as long as we're all wussies together, I suppose it's all good...

 

[Huntster]

We do not even know when the P/G film was actually shot, or if it was edited before anyone saw it.

Patterson and Gimlin have stated an approximate time of the shooting.

Do you have any evidence that they are incorrect, and why that would be important as to whether or not it is a man in a suit or an uncatalogued animal?

Do you have any evidence that the film was edited before someone saw it?

 

[Huntster]

...Bigfeet - more specifically Patty - may or may not be a primate....

Are you a lawyer? What kind of question is that?

The image in the film appears to be either an uncatalogued animal or a man in a suit.

If it is an uncatalogued animal, it appears to be a member of the primate order.

 

[Huntster]

How do those men know it was a 'sasquatch' what specimen did they compare it to to make that judgement?

They had no specimen to compare it to.

They saw it, filmed it, and it looked like what thousands of people have seen, and what is commonly called sasquatch.

 

[Huntster]

An estimate is now evidence?....

Yes. It is well documented on pages 12 and 13 of the report.

Do you have any documented critique of Glickman's analysis, or is it just your word?

Why would your word hold any more authority than Glickman, who has documented, justified, and published his analysis under his own name?

Who are you?

...Well, you are certainly free to accept estimates as evidence...

Thank you.

...but don't expect everyone to....

I don't, and I won't.

 

[Huntster]

Asking if you have proof to back up a statement you've made is weak?

Goodness, what is that I see you doing at the bottom of that last post to LTC8K6?...

You're asking me to prove that the subject of the film is not an extraterrestrial being. It's the classic "prove a negative" game.

I asked LTC8K6 to support his statement that Glickman has been "discredited".

You're playing games.

 

[LTC8K6]

Huntster, I am not talking about the time of day the P/G film was shot.

While P/G can't keep that straight either, it's not what I mean.

Do you have any evidence that the film was edited before someone saw it?

No, but we cannot see the actual film to determine for ourselves whether it was edited, shot over more than one day, shot a week before P/G's claims, etc.

Most people probably no longer realize just how small Patty appeared in the film frames because all they have seen are the zoomed in and blown up versions.

 

[Correa Neto]

My point exactly.

Thank you.

So, we agree that -assuming bigfeet are/were real- their range must have been larger. We'll return to this point a bit later.

Or professionals who simply have not seen the rare remnants of the sasquatch population.

And, as I have already exhaustively pointed out in the case of Southeast Alaska, the state biologists aren't in the field as much as you are desperately trying to portray.

Can you prove it?

Not necessarily. They were at least numerous enough to have a range that spanned the continent.

And we don't know when that was, or when the population began it's decline, but we can be relatively certain that the population is very low in most areas of the continent outside of the PNW by the number of sighting and footprint reports.

OK, we're back the first point of this post. The area they lived was larger, OK? Now, how would a species populate such area (density differences included)?

Starting from the point where the species was originated -say, where the Bhering Land Bridge "touched" Alaska- the initial population would grow (as well as there would be "new arrivals"), and new groups would seek new territories. Now, bigfeet are reported to have existed from Alaska to Florida, OK?

Suppose each group, pack, whatever is the collective for bigfeet, has a territory with say, 30km diameter. From that "starting point", new bigfeet groups would stabilish territories, each of them with 15 km radius (make it 5 or 50, the number is just for the purpose of reasoning). At a certain point, a continous "chain" of bigfeet packs, each with its own territory would have existed from Alaska to Florida. This would have been the peak, the healthiest moment of bigfeet population, with genes being potentially swapped from Alaska to Florida. You agree on the above?

We'll leave the population decline aside, at least for this post.

An important point: please observe the vast ammount of area that this represents, and the many types of terrain and habitats within it.

A shorth break while I I answer to this:

...AND NOT A SINGLE SPECIMEN HAS BEEN OBTAINED...

Let's be clear:

Not a single carcass has been confirmed to have been obtained. There are hair and feces samples which have defied identification.

"Defied identification" by no means is equal to "belongs to an unidentified species". Among the reasons the material was labeled as unidentified, you should add contamination, DNA degradation, not enough material, etc.

I know of caves on Prince of Wales Island which have yielded bear fossils, but that is all.

Can you cite other fossil sites in the Pacific Northwest please?

Check the other bigfoot threads. The issue was already discussed, fossil sites already pointed by myself and other posters. However, we are now back to where we were before the DNA detour.

If bigfeet even nowdays are not exclusive of PNW, why should their fossils be restricted to PNW?

No, and no.

Pandas are the only known large bear to specialize it's diet as it does, and that is the primary reason it is in danger of extinction.
...snip...

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

Phytoliths are microscopic bits of silica formed by certain plants between their cells. Different kinds of plants form different phytolith shapes. Thompson knew that scanning electron microscopes had been used to check stone tools for phytoliths, and he suggested applying the technique to fossil Giganto teeth.
The SEM analysis revealed that some Giganto teeth do have phytoliths embedded in the enamel. Two types of phytoliths- needlelike grass phytoliths and hat-shaped fruit phytoliths- were found in the teeth. Several types of grass (including bamboo) have needlelike phytoliths, so the presence of these phytoliths is consistent with Ciochon's theory

So, they ate bamboos!!! Their diet was nothing like what is supposed to be bigfeet´s menu.

Hubei Province, where gigantopithecus fossils were found, is at 33 degrees north latitude, well within the temperate zone:

Are they? Really?
Hubei Province, Alaska, Washington, Florida, the whole bigfoot territory has the same climate?
I don't think so.

...snipped because it was already discussed...
Do you know what the word "kushtaka" means?

No. Enlighten me.

Can you provide some insight as to why it was theorized that gigantopithecus was a fistwalker? What evidence supports that allegation, since all that was found were teeth and a mandible?

What was enough to affiliate the genus with orang-utangs. Must I go on?

No, but they are described as being omnivores, not herbivores.

But Gigantopithecus, that are supposed to be bigfeet, were hebivorous...

I can also attest that moose, the world's largest deer, or bison, North America's largest land animal, (herbivores, both) can not be described with the words "extreme slowness".

What part of the "we are not talking about a short-time charge" are you having problems to understand?

Do you have any experience tracking animals, slow or fast?

I do. Lots. And I'm still not very good at it.

It's a lost art, and few today are very good at it.

I know no scientist at all who has any skill at it.

Yes, I happen to have. And ALL zoologists I know that work in the field are quite used to track the animals they study. Not to mention the hunters.

The gigantopithecus facial reconstructions were created without any evidence whatsoever regarding the nose.

They were created based on the animals that are related to them.

...snip...
The facts are these:

* Thousands of people today claim they see bipedal apes in North America that are commonly described as 8' tall or more, and those sightings are most common in the Pacific Northwest region of the continent

Unreliable evidence. Already discussed. Next one please?

* Hundreds of footprints supporting that eyewitness testimony have also been found

As already discussed, footprints can be misinterpreted and faked. Next one please?

* A film of such a creature has been shot, and despite many attempts to establish it's validity/invalidity, it has still not been proven a hoax

Also, as already discussed, it has not been proved NOT to be a hoax. Next one please?

* There is fossil record of a huge ape in China, which is a Pacific Rim nation, and estimates of it's size are very close to the reported size of the bipedal apes seen in North America

That does not looks like bigfeet, has a different diet, whose fossils have never been found in North America neither somewhere between China and North America.

That is more evidence supporting the existence of these creatures than you can produce which indicates that they don't or can't exist.

Sorry, but thems are the facts.

In your opinion.

 

[LTC8K6]

The info on Glickman is widely available and anyone claiming to be a believer should have seen it long ago.

Are you sure you know anything at all about the history of the P/G film?

Did you not even notice the weight discrepancy between Glickman and pretty much everyone else?

Did you not know that Krantz established Patty's height at no more than 6 feet 6 inches?

How can you not have read any of this?

How can you have missed the comparison shots of other people standing where Patty stood?

 

[Starrman]

They had no specimen to compare it to.

They saw it, filmed it, and it looked like what thousands of people have seen, and what is commonly called sasquatch.

Thousands of people also report seeing what are commonly called 'aliens'. Maybe this is a big furry alien, it's either that or a guy in a suit, right? And it is a word game, one that you are losing horribly.

Amazing that we have thousands of witnesses seeing these things (in the digital age, even) and this grainy film from 30 years ago is still the best picture ANYONE has been able to get.

Come on, Huntster - the more people that see these things without getting a clear picture or a specimen, actually hurts the case for the thing existing. If it did, one of the thousands would have gotten better evidence than a scary camp-fire story by now.