Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
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".

Now, for once, you do have a point. Fair enough, those were two different requests. Mea culpa.

I assure you, however, I would not have asked you to prove it wasn't an alien, had you not SAID that the PGF clearly did not show an extraterrestrial being. You can accuse me of playing games all you like, but I was in fact addressing a declarative statement that you yourself had made. One may not be able to prove a negative, but if one makes such a definite declarative negative statement, one should expect to be asked for proof.

For example, if I said that the PGF clearly did NOT show an unknown primate, I bet you'd be all over me for evidence, and you wouldn't take "You're playing games!" as an adequate defense when I have no proof.
 
...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?.....

No, I cannot prove it.

However, I did provide links to several legal wildlife management reports from the ADFG which clearly stated that they do not perform field studies in Southeast Alaska (or any other densely forested area) more than once.

When you insisted that they do, and that others do as well, I asked you for links like I provided you.

You failed to produce any.

Now you want to return to the beginning again.

Sorry. I've provided links to establish that wildlife biologists do not go out into the field like you repeatedly assert in sasquatch habitat in Alaska. I will not return to that subject until you provide evidence to the contrary.

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.

No. I have repeatedly provided links to support my words. You should have to do the same.

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

Because, based on the number of reports continent wide, that is their primary habitat, their numbers were likely always highest there, and that's where the highest concentration of possible fossils would be.

...So, they ate bamboos!!! ....

Probably so. And there's nothing to indicate that bamboo is all they ate.

...Are they? Really?...

Yes. Sorry, but that's science. Do you disagree with the link?

...Enlighten me....

I've been trying oh, so hard.

Try these:

http://www.usd.edu/esci/alaska/kushtaka.html

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/alaska2.htm

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

There is nothing to establish that gigantopighecus was not omnivorous. An animal that eats vegetation may also occasionally dine on mice, birds, etc. just like bears.

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

This is the first time you mentioned "short time charge", and bison can run quite fast for many, many, many miles.

Believe it or not, so can moose.

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

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

...
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?...

Discussed inappropriately.

It has been repeatedly pointed out by several scientists that the sheer number of reports, along with the laws of probability, make it unreasonable to believe that they are all in error.

...Hundreds of footprints supporting that eyewitness testimony have also been found
As already discussed, footprints can be misinterpreted and faked. Next one please?...

And plenty of footprint casts and footprints in the field have been analyzed by scientists, and have been determined to be unlikely to be hoaxed.

Have you analyzed any?

Whereof do you write?

Opinion?

...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?...

Correct. It has not been proven to be not a hoax, so the film stands as claimed until proven otherwise.

You insist others must "prove a negative", yet cry when someone asks the same of you?

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...

You don't know what gigantopithecus looks like.

...has a different diet...

You have no evidence with which to limit either diets.

...whose fossils have never been found in North America neither somewhere between China and North America...

Correct, but the fossils of a large ape exist, nonetheless, and along the Pacific Rim.
 
Last edited:
The info on Glickman is widely available and anyone claiming to be a believer should have seen it long ago....

Link please.


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

Yes.


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

Yes.

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

Yes.


...How can you not have read any of this?...

I have read it, and much, much more.


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

How did you miss that exact photo, after I provided the link (all you had to do was click your left finger).

I even told you what page to look on.
 
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.....

Thanks for the opinion. A whole post full.
 
I have already seen the photo many times. No need to click on the link.

Perhaps you do not realize it, but I and most of the skeptics here have recently been through everything you can think of about bigfoot several times over in this thread and several others here.

You have not said anything that we haven't already discussed quite thoroughly.
 
I find it odd that the only people I have ever felt the need to ignore were bigfoot believers and it wasn't because of what they believed, but the way they acted.

That is, the assumption that many things are true when there is no evidence for them.
Stating these things as if they are accepted facts, and acting hostile when we object.

Such as saying that Patty is 7' 3.5" tall because Glickman said so.....
Despite that fact that there are actually all sorts of height estimates for Patty.
 
Last edited:
Correct. It has not been proven to be not a hoax, so the film stands as claimed until proven otherwise.

You insist others must "prove a negative", yet cry when someone asks the same of you?

You sure you got the right number of nots in there? If it's not been proven to not be a hoax, then proving the negative would be requiring proof that it's NOT a hoax, and therefore the claim that it WAS a hoax would stand, since it is impossible to prove the negative, as you say, that it's NOT a hoax.

In order to get to proving the negative being what's required to prove that the PGF is a hoax, I think you'd actually need another not, so that it was not proven that the film was not not a hoax.

'Course, this might be a Gordian not.

(See, Hunster, THAT was a word game.)
 
mole1.jpg
 
Correct. It has not been proven to be not a hoax, so the film stands as claimed until proven otherwise.
Any claim, no matter how ridiculous, must be accepted as true until proven false?

Like it or not, that's what you're claiming.

I know you'll argue with that, but it's fairly obvious to most people capable of critical thought here.
 
That is absolutely unbelievable.....even if I take out the extra "not".
You're quite right. I got lost in the excessive negatives myself. Let's simplify the statement.

"Nothing has been proven about the film, so no conclusion can be drawn from it."

Does that work?
 
...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.

I just highlighted the most important parts of the text...

And regarding you asking if I'm a lawyer... I see no need for name calling.
 
I just highlighted the most important parts of the text...

And regarding you asking if I'm a lawyer... I see no need for name calling.
At least he didn't accuse you of being Belgian. *



(* this comment is just for fans of Douglas Adams.)
 
And after nearly 40 years of effort, the subject in the PG film has not been determined to be a man in a suit.

Bigfooters (like yourself and LAL) seem to live in a cultish fantasy world. After nearly 40 years, hardly anyone other than Bigfooters think that the PGF is authentic. This was even true back when Patterson was showing it in theaters. Important scientific institutions and media that saw the "original release" and still frame enlargements rejected it. They decided it was a hoax because it looked like a hoax. Patterson was able to peddle it to Argosy Magazine, which was very tabloidish. Who even knows if Argosy actually thought it was authentic? I can only imagine that if we now could all watch that "original" film, it would look more like a dude in a suit than anything we are presently shown by Bigfootery.

The vast majority of American believe that the PGF is a hoax. It is also no accident that they also believe that Bigfoot is a myth or legend. Even people who have never seen or heard of the PGF think this way. This is no doubt because of the extraordinary nature of the proposed creature itself and that there has never been a confirmation after many many decades (approaching a half century) of intrigue and inquiry. It is rational and reasonable to think that if such a creature were real, it would have been found by now.

Bigfooters are a very weird bunch. I have compared them to Jehovah's Witnesses. Bigfooters expend a tremendous amount of time and energy trying to convince people that Bigfoot is real. It seems they do this even more than trying to find the animal itself. It's almost as if the true existence if Bigfoot is of secondary importance than getting people to think that it exists. I once had a signature here that satirized LAL coming to one's house and wanting to sit down for a chit-chat about Bigfoot over tea. The general approach rides on the notion that any thinking person with an "open mind" would be foolish to think that Bigfoot isn't real. "Have you heard about the inhuman IM index of Patty?", sounds so much like "Have you heard about The Word of God?"

I will say again that the efforts to show that the PGF is a hoax have been amateurish and incomplete. This is mostly because hardly anyone cares, since they already think it is a hoax. It is also because Bigfootery intentionally withholds some of the best physical evidence that could be used to show that it is a hoax.

Bigfoot cannot be examined or studied. But we can study the unique feature(s) of human psychology that causes people to believe in Bigfoot. This forum is able to confirm, examine and study Bigfooters like LAL and Huntster in ways that nobody can study Bigfoot. Skeptics have real creatures to research, while Bigfooters research nothingness.
 
The P/G film is not being examined at all, by either side. The skeptics believe it's a hoax and don't really care about it much anymore. The believers know it's real and don't want to know any more.
 
This map of sightings may help on the issue of habitat:

http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com/map/

Click on Washington and Oregon and note almost all are in the Cascades.

No one came up with a fossil bed in the PNW of the right age in the right region, despite all the discussion. Acidic soils are not good for preservation.

Fantasy world my a**.
 
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