Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

Show where anyone is not welcome on this board..

Is that a joke? I'm gone for weeks and get all sorts of secret handshakes for one innocuous post, not to mention the hugs and kisses. Thanks guys.

Yes, people will get banned for spamming like Beckjord does..

Beckjord was suspended for an obscene post the first time. I don't know what the second suspension was for - he claimed he couldn't get into his account after that. He wasn't spamming.

Of course swapping footprint stories doesn't stand up to logical or scientific debate, so there is not much point in Bigfooters jumping in over here..

There's a lot more than footprint stories. You might have noticed that when you jumped in over on BFF. I take it you would prefer we left you alone with your complacent denial?

Notice how we are in the ' Paranormal ' forum ?

So? I once found cases of beer in a meat department.

If you think you are being ' scoffed ' at here, why don't you try starting a thread over in " Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology " ?

You might be surprised how much I know on some of those topics. Math was never my long suit, but I did manage to make it all the way through A Brief History of Time.

You will be lucky if you are not totally ignored, along with any expert you care to invite.

I held my own for a couple of years on AOL with topics ranging from abiogenesis to zoology with side trips into String Theory, M Theory, Cosmology.......wow, that was fun. I was posting with some real scientists.

Do you think people are really afraid to post here because they are afraid of being abused, or that they think you have ?

Nope. <rest of rude, ridiculous nonsense snipped>

 

[LAL]

Maybe you should consider that "the recognition" is not there, simply because those "evidence" of yours do not hold water for the scientific method ?

You realize, naturally, that this is what many consider to be the most used "woo-ish/paranormal-ish" cope-up (Claiming not be to recognized by mainstream science, that is)...

What's a "cope-up"?

A few scientists have looked into it (Dr. Swindler was a sceptic for thirty years before he examined the Skookum Cast). As I've mentioned a few times, Dr. Meldrum has had papers accepted by the American Ass'n of Physical Anthropologists with "very good dialogue", also the Northwest Anthropological Conference, the Idaho Academy of Science, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Pacific Division).

For an idea of how the consensus in paleoanthropology, e.g., has changed over the years read Lewin or Tattersal. Today's radical new idea is tomorrow's received wisdom.

 

[LAL]

How do "we" act?

Confident?

I thought I was the only one Bill put on ignore. Is there someone else he considers "obtuse"?

I know I'm confident. I always am when I'm reasonably sure I've got it right.

 

[LAL]

Fascinating!

There's another that shows over 50% believe in Creationism. Did you miss my point? Here it is again: These things aren't decided by majority vote.

 

[LAL]

Well, 16 minutes of valid research could turn up a bit of truth, while years of bad research would be just that..

Yes, you really could benefit from a little logic 101..

I knew enough to catch you misusing logical fallacies when I first came on the board.

 

[LAL]

Yes, we do have proof that they are real animals.

At least, I do.

Do you? (Oh, yeah, I suppose you have a local zoo).

Fossils? Bear? Even though there are hundreds of thousands of them today, throughout North America, Siberia, and Europe, can you you produce a single link to any archeological evidence?

Links please?

In fact, I found an article on worked bone found in Alaska that may be 40,000 years old. No human remains, no fossils, yet we know humans migrated over the Bering Strait.

 

[Correa Neto]

Let's see some of your "quick googling" come up with some results on archeological digs in North American gravel.

There are no archeological bonanzas in the Pacific Northwest for the obvious reasons:

the place is simply too wild.

You know the difference between paleontology and archeology?

"The place is simply too wild", wow, that surely convinced me as a reason...

Gravel? Fossils in gravel?

Please, AGAIN, I now BEG:

Show us ANYTHING which shows ANYTHING regarding an archeological dig, result, find, attempt, ANYTHING archeological in the Pacific Northwest.

It just doesn't happen.

You tried to argue that the PNW is crawling with biologists. I demonstrated that, at least in Southeast Alaska, it ain't happening. I asked for any link to the contrary. You have failed to produce a single one.

Produce, or get quiet.

It seems you missed or failed to understand the following posts at this very thread:
From me, #827, 830; from LTC8K6, 828 and 829, from Ray G 854 and 855.

And "Crawling with biologists" is not exactly what I said. What I and other people around here say is that there are bios working within bigfoot territory, and they have all that takes to find them, even if they are not specifically looking for them.

But, in your misconceptions, these professionals are just lab rats. Or are involved in some sort of conspiracy to keep bigfoot undicovered. Not to mention your suggestions regarding their skills.

So far you have failed to back the claims. All you showed were cherry-picked out-of-the context sentences.

Can you possibly understand?

These creatures are extremely rare. They aren't hiding behind every bush.

Get it?

Extremely rare... According to wich avaliable estimate? 2000? 14000? 6000?

And if they are extremely rare, please explain the number of reported sightings, that you claim to be too big to be ignored (even tough when it comes to data, quality comes ahead of quantity)?

 

[LAL]

For what it's worth, there have been sightings by wildlife biologists; I don't have the names.

Dr. John Bindernagle, who is a wildlife biologist, found a trackway while hiking in a wilderness area and became interested enough to present papers in Canada and write a book. I've presented his credentials here earlier, I believe. He thinks the reported sightings may be the tip of the iceberg. His book is written from the perspective of whether the reported behavior adds up to that of a normal animal. He was particularly interested in the throwing behavior which resembles that of Great Apes.

 

[Correa Neto]

For what it's worth, there have been sightings by wildlife biologists; I don't have the names.

...snip...

That would be a bit better - if propperly backed.

However, I can't help but wonder why just one among these folks has "followed the trail"?

And why this specifical trail (to write a book) was chosen .

*waits for usual complains about skeptical behavior*

 

[Hitch]

Extremely rare... According to wich avaliable estimate? 2000? 14000? 6000?

And if they are extremely rare, please explain the number of reported sightings, that you claim to be too big to be ignored (even tough when it comes to data, quality comes ahead of quantity)?

That always bothers me. We need to accept the reality of bigfoot because of the thousands and thousands of sighting. But when we ask for more than heresay, they suddenly become so rare that no sample can be found. Need to pick one fantasy and stick with it.

 

[Hitch]

Patterson and Gimlin said they filmed an animal. It stands.

So. The Alien Autopsy was real? (At least until proven false.)

Piltdown Man was real? (For 40 years.)

Keppler forced the Earth to suddenly move and orbit the Sun?

A claim is not a fact. Things do not exist just because we want them to.

 

[UrsulaV]

No, it stands.

Patterson and Gimlin said they filmed an animal. It stands.

It looks valid. You say it doesn't.

Prove it isn't what it's said to be.

That's not proving the negative. You're just on the negative side of the equation.

Wow, you totally missed the point of my post, didn'tcha?

I was responding to your statement, "It has not been proven to be not a hoax, so the film stands as claimed until proven otherwise." If one takes that statement at face value, then you are stating that "It has not been proven to be not a hoax." If we replace "not a hoax" with "real" then your statement reads "It has not been proven to be real."

You can flail 'bout my negativity as much as your heart desired, but I'm just checkin' to make sure you actually wanted to state that the PGF wasn't real, and weren't just lost in a cloud of double negatives.

 

[UrsulaV]

(In reference to the Skookum cast not being in a musuem)

Because the scientific community hasn't yet accepted the existence of sasquatches..

Ah, bud, you might wanna check on that one. I'm pretty sure we discussed already in this thread that the holders of a number of casts are not allowing people to examine them. It's not a case of them trying to donate them to a museum and being turned down, but a case of them refusing to allow public viewing.

My memory, which may well be faulty, is that the Skookum cast was among these, and access to it has been very limited by the owners I could be wrong, mind you, and thinking of a different cast, but someone with this information at their fingertips might wish to weigh in.

 

[Hitch]

(In reference to the Skookum cast not being in a musuem)



Ah, bud, you might wanna check on that one. I'm pretty sure we discussed already in this thread that the holders of a number of casts are not allowing people to examine them. It's not a case of them trying to donate them to a museum and being turned down, but a case of them refusing to allow public viewing.

My memory, which may well be faulty, is that the Skookum cast was among these, and access to it has been very limited by the owners I could be wrong, mind you, and thinking of a different cast, but someone with this information at their fingertips might wish to weigh in.

I'm probably completely misinterpreting this. (Because it sounds so silly even a Woo would be embarrassed.) But if I remember correctly, they actually want the Smithsonian to accept the Skookum cast. They just don't want any OTHER scientists to look at it. Because they tend to use bad language which is very upsetting to Woos -- like "elk."

 

[LTC8K6]

And they wonder why no one wants to listen to them about bigfoot.....

They haven't got a clue and they will never get anywhere with scientists due in large part to their attitude and behavior.

How do "we" act?

The answer was in the post you partially quoted. Why did you leave it out?
Here it is again:

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.

 

[UrsulaV]

Let's see some of your "quick googling" come up with some results on archeological digs in North American gravel.

There are no archeological bonanzas in the Pacific Northwest for the obvious reasons:

the place is simply too wild.

Please, AGAIN, I now BEG:

Show us ANYTHING which shows ANYTHING regarding an archeological dig, result, find, attempt, ANYTHING archeological in the Pacific Northwest.

It just doesn't happen.

Archaeological? Are you on crack, dude?

Well, there's Kennewick Man, there's all those great Salish trash sites, there's Fort Vancouver http://www.nps.gov/fova/archy.htm and if you want specific samples, search the collections at http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/collections/archaeology/collections/index.php by plugging "washington" or "oregon" into the "location" section of the search engine, and they'll pull up the catalog entries of hundreds of artifacts found by archaeology in the Pacific Northwest.

Now, paleontology, there's also quite a lot--look at the John Day fossil beds--but it is, admittedly, of the wrong era to hold Gigantopithecus fossils, since the forests that are fossilized there are a few million years too old.

But there's plenty of archaeology in the Pacific Northwest. I am somewhat baffled by your claim that there isn't.

(And yes, that was all done with quick googling. Of course, I remember some of it from when I lived there, which may have helped.)

 

[Starrman]

Yes, we do have proof that they are real animals.

At least, I do.

Do you? (Oh, yeah, I suppose you have a local zoo).

Fossils? Bear? Even though there are hundreds of thousands of them today, throughout North America, Siberia, and Europe, can you you produce a single link to any archeological evidence?

Links please?

http://paleoenterprises.com/bear.htm

I know you said 'archeological evidence' but I assume paleontology will do. That took 15 seconds after typing 'Bear Fossils' into Google. The very first link that came up even has fossils from some very un-extinct Black Bear fossils. You can buy them if you want.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

In fact, I found an article on worked bone found in Alaska that may be 40,000 years old. No human remains, no fossils, yet we know humans migrated over the Bering Strait.

And this is evidence for Bigfoot? How ?

( see post about ' non-evidence ' that Hunster also had a problem with )

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_080905WABmammothEL.5a002ae8.html

 

[Skeptical Greg]

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_080905WABmammothEL.5a002ae8.html

Must be a hoax.. We know animals don't leave behind bones in the PNW. Much less the Yakima area ..