Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot film patterson gimlin
- Status
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Oh great. Another wacko on the way. Add one more mole to the game.
And what makes you think he's a wacko? Prejudge everyone, do you, or just people who have actually looked into the phenomenon and think there may be something to it?
He's got a post on you on TBFF. You might want to read it.
Last edited:
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Correa referred to the lengthy discussion on this earlier. There are very few fossils of any forest-dwellers anywhere. Perhaps you'd like to do the search, find the thread and get educated.
Hitch
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 834
I understand the reasons for the lack of fossil evidence. The lack of fossils doesn't prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. But it also doesn't support bigfoot's existence, either. It's simply non-data. It doesn't support your argument at all. We need to quit running around in circles on non-issues.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
I know I'm on ignore for trying to be reasonable with this poster (up to a point), but I can't let this pass. The "work" was mostly Googling enough to find something new to mock. The whole "Wallacefoot" thread was an example of that. One poster took his "work" to BFF where it was politely dissected with explanations and quite a few photos of real ape hair. In general, the "woos" treated him with far more respect than I've ever seen here. I hope someone followed the links before the BFF board was hacked.
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
I'm not finding the thread and I don't want to go through all that again. Perhaps Hunster's found it.
I wasn't talking to you in the first place was I?
Hitch
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 834
You quoted my post and responded to it. When I call you on your lack of a point you want to pretend you weren't in a conversation. Why do Woos insist on running from facts?
You seem to persist in claiming that bigfoot is a real animal. (Though that will probably change when you can't support it.) Do you have any evindence of that, or just excuses?
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,680
Because he seems to believe that Bigfoot is a real creature, or that it is very likely to be a real creature.
Prejudge? Yeah, I'm prejudging "Lvscott" based on what I read from the links that Ray provided. This person lays it all on the table over there in the BFF. Do you think that a Bigfoot believer can stroll into this forum without a body part or carcass and make any kind of functional argument for the existence of Bigfoot? Do you think that the reality of Bigfoot is based on the dynamics of long-winded arguments on Internet forums? Do you think that if Bigfooters can convince enough people that this beast is real, that it is almost like it actually becomes real? Just what is supposed to happen with regards to Bigfoot? Why are you here arguing for the existence of an animal that nobody can ever seem to get their hands on? How on earth do you think that Lvscott is going to change anything if this person cannot deliver evidence that Bigfoot is real? So Lvscott has "looked into the phenomenon and thinks there may be something to it"? Great. This person is somehow different than any other Bigfooter? Just why shouldn't I prejudge this person?
Whether you realize it or not, Bigfootery has a very serious public relations problem. This is mostly based on the fact that Bigfoot cannot be distinguished from a myth. Get used to that problem. Unless one of your Bigfooter comrades is carry a body part, carcass or grandly-convincing recorded visual evidence... then they are just another Bigfooter. Just another mole to whack.
I'm thoroughly flattered. I can't wait to read it. Does Lvscott say that not only am I a myopic skeptic, but that Bigfoot has also been confirmed to not be a myth? Let's see. I hope this dude has a Bigfoot leg or arm or whatever part, sitting in the freezer.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,680
Where is this post about me on BFF by Lvscott? I can't find it on their temporary Frapper thing. I also didn't notice any threads about *breaking news* confirmation of Bigfoot.
Where is Bigfoot?
Where is Bigfoot?
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,680
I know this sounds cliche, but think for a moment about children...
How should anyone answer a child who is aware of the Bigfoot "question" and is simply curious about the world?
"Daddy, why isn't Bigfoot in my book about American mammals?"
"Daddy, why are there no Bigfoot footprint castings in the big museums we visit?"
"Daddy, why isn't the Skookum Cast located in a museum?"
"Daddy, where can I go to watch the whole original Patterson-Gimlin Film that you watched in a theater when you were a kid like me?"
"Daddy, how do we ever find out if Bigfoot is real, so that the grown-ups will stop argiung with each other?"
"Daddy, do you think that Bigfoot is real, or what?"
How should anyone answer a child who is aware of the Bigfoot "question" and is simply curious about the world?
"Daddy, why isn't Bigfoot in my book about American mammals?"
"Daddy, why are there no Bigfoot footprint castings in the big museums we visit?"
"Daddy, why isn't the Skookum Cast located in a museum?"
"Daddy, where can I go to watch the whole original Patterson-Gimlin Film that you watched in a theater when you were a kid like me?"
"Daddy, how do we ever find out if Bigfoot is real, so that the grown-ups will stop argiung with each other?"
"Daddy, do you think that Bigfoot is real, or what?"
natasha
New Blood
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 3
Because BF hasn't been proven to exist.
Because science considers such items as hoaxes, no matter how intriguing or interesting, and particularly, no matter how little if any evidence they have to support that opinion.
Well, sugar plum, for the same reasons I just said. That's just the way things are.
Hey, kid, I'm not a movie distributor. We might be able to catch it on reruns of Unsolved Mysteries or something though.
Well, first of all, all those crybabies, -- who are mostly woos, dear one -- have to get over their hypocritical mantra of a "No Kill" policy. Then fish and game and wildlife people, game wardens and forest rangers, hunters, fisherman, campers, hikers, -- anyone who goes out into the rural areas and the wilderness, needs to be armed with super duper massive guns that KILL a big huge ol' thing like Bigfoot. Because, my little tyke, only a dead BF will answer the question.
pause.
And, honey, you do know that just because a big huge furry unknown creature that we'd call a Bigfoot doesn't mean it exists, right? I mean, since we don't know what a BF is, how could we know it when we find it? See how it makes sense now?
Skeptic who posts on JREF: "No, I don't, and you should be ashamed for asking such a question! There's no proof, no solid evidence, and didn't I teach you better than that?! Now go write 100 times "There is no such thing as Bigfoot." And re-read the book I gave you for your birthday: "A Young Person's Guide to Critical Thinking: Or, How To Not Think Like a Woo."
Non-skeptic who rarely, if ever, posts on JREF: "Well, I think it does, but of course, I've never seen one. But I know a lot of people who have. There's no proof, yet, but ...I think it does."
Follow-up: if JREF groupies and CSICOP get their way, this last respone would be considered child abuse and I'd be taken to jail, and my kid put in foster care.
RayG
Master Poster
Hitch
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 834
My God! William Parcher is a Nazi? How did I fail to recognize that?
Oh, and it's nice to see our old pal Erik is still around. Bigfoot weighs up to 5,000 pounds. Patty certainly carries it well.
RayG
Master Poster
I'd love to know why no heat is generated when a 5,000 pound bigfoot shape-shifts. It should be causing a wee bit more than singe marks on the ground.
RayG
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
I said, in the first place. The post you answered wasn't addressed to anyone. It was, however, in reference to one of Correa's to Hunster. Why do scoftics insist on twisting simple statements?
There is more than ample exidence to support the hypothesis that they are real animals. Granted it will take a body or a large piece of one to convince science, but the fact no one's brought one in yet doesn't mean there's none to be found. The consensus in science will change overnight when that confirmation finally occurs.
I've been convinced since 1969 by events and physical evidence in Skamania County, Wa.. Some of the best later evidence comes from there. What would make me change my mind now?
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
It's "Ivscott". Nope. He attacked your logic. I thought you read his posts.
I don't think "Bigfootery" can be held responsible for things like the poor job the media does when it comes to plastering the Wallace story all over the papers and airwaves, but fails to pick up the evaluation of a giant in the field of primatology regarding the Skookum Cast. How many on this board had even heard of it before these discussions began? How many saw him on the Discovery Channel? How many have seen an interview with Dr. Meldrum, whose eyes never seem to get wild?
Skepticism is healthy. It helps separate fact from fiction. But to dismiss eye witness accounts as "unreliable" just because they're eye witness accounts, to dismiss evidence that has held up to some instense scientific scrutiny as somehow faked, misidentified or "tainted" because there was a known hoaxer in the area, or to label scientists who do take the time to investigate as "crackpots", no matter how well-respected, isn't scepticism, it's bigotry.
I don't think Ivscott is going to be able to change any POVs on this board. RayG called the sceptics here "hard core"; I'd call them hard-headed, but that's just me. It's Ivscott's choice to join or not; he's evidently a recovering sceptic. There are quite a few of those and I suppose they're about as welcome as AAs at a frat party.
The invasion of Beckjord and his alter SNs has driven a few posters from TBFF. The administrators aren't able to ban him on the Frappr board. Note his reception was about as hospitable as the one given here to posters who don't go along with the scoftical groupthink that seems to prevail in this area.
If I were to join a discussion on homeopathy or religion or UFOs I'd be welcomed on JREF with open arms. You might even find me quite sane.
But enough about the double standard. Back to the wars.
Last edited:
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Some comments on this often misundertood issue.
-"Acidic soil". Remains are not fossilized in soils, but in sediment. River and lake, beds, caves, etc. Fossilization may happen in forest soil, if the forest is located at a river system's flood plain, in the sediments deposited by the flood. The top of a sediment layer deposited in such conditions will develop a soil (that will be acidic and unfavorable to preservation of organic material and not always preserved in the sedimentary record due to erosional episode between sediment deposition).
What actually controls the preservation of organic remains is not the Ph, but the energy of the sedimentation environment (fast currents tend to dismember bodies and erode bones) and its oxigen content. Peat bogs are much more acid than any forest soil, and yet, prime sites for organic remains preservation.
- "Forest animals are not preserved". Dear forum dwellers, let us consider a forest. A forest has rivers, lakes, and in some cases, caves. There are fossil of forest animals of several ages in alluvial, lacustrine and cave beds. Lets remember that what is considered as the most likely candidate for being a bigfoot, is known by fossils found at a cave.
-"No fossil of the right age sites at PNW". Well, even if there wasn´t any (what is not true), let me remember that bigfeet´s alleged range is/was much broader. So, its remains could be found at sites located all along and area that not only encompasses a huge chunk of North America, but also stretches from the places at China where Gigantopithecus' remains were found to the Bering strait.
Check
http://www.museum.state.il.us/research/faunmap/ (fauna map)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/parcs/atlas/beringia/index.html (vegetation database)
Each dot is a fossil site.
Check also
http://www3.utep.edu/leb/paleo/pllit1.htm
and also
http://yukon.taiga.net/vuntutrda/palaeon/paleon.htm
http://www.nearctica.com/paleo/states/states.htm
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/resources/locality.htm
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/cave_visit/index.html
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/parks/hafo/
That was the result of just a quick googling. More links can be found on the other bigfoot threads, "fossilised" after the engine change.
Of course, absence of fossil register is not a "proof" that bigfeet are not real. It is, however, one of the many lines of reasoning that indicate that its existence is unlikely. It adds another problem regarding the main question - Why there are no specimens?
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
I'd love to know why no heat is generated when a 5,000 pound bigfoot shape-shifts. It should be causing a wee bit more than singe marks on the ground.
RayG
I'm still wondering how one photographs an invisible creature with the equipment he recommended in the same post.
Cracks me up every time I see your current avatar. It's much easier to take with my morning coffee than a couple of others of yours I've seen. Wherever did you find it? Or did you make it yourself?
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
I know of no one but you who claims there's a wide range of habitats. I gave you links about the forests and climate when the Bering Strait was a thousand miles wide, an article on the slim chances of anything getting fossilized anywhere and then surviving exposed long enough for someone to find it and some first hand experience regarding "water holes", climate and sedimentation in the Northwest which made me biased in your eyes. About the only way a Sasquatch carcass would be preserved in the PNW would be if one were caught in a landslide.
I'm not arguing there are no Pleistocene fossil beds in NA. I'm saying the one's we found didn't preserve deep forest animals. A site you posted commented on the scarcity of bear fossils, as I recall.
Do you have the links to the thread(s) where we already ran this stuff into the ground?
Last edited:
LAL
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
Heh, heh.
I don't recall ever discussing this stuff with my kids when they were little, but my son Scott once walked up to a guy in a suit promoting Bigfoot burgers somewhere near Battleground, Wa., and said, "You're not a real Bigfoot."
I always found my kids to be quite capable of doing their own thinking, except on issues such as what color the light's supposed to be when you cross the street. They're all grown now; I must have done something right.
One of the posters here thought of sending me a Bigfoot action toy he saw in a store. I'm happy to announce my daughter just sent me one. Of course, I'd have to alter the face to make it more realistic, but the footprint stamp is cute.
I'm thinking of sending it on to my little grandson in Northern California, or would that be considered brainwashing?
- Status