Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Blackwell]

Great post, Orthoptera! (Too bad it's too long to steal for my sig line...)

Welcome to the forum!

 

[Huntster]

Actually, not all of them. You're thinking of the famous steppe mammoth, but a number of species of mammoth are believed to be forest dwellers......

Funny how that word is used, isn't it?

When a sasquatch believer uses it, it becomes a matter of contention.

When a "scientist" (of your choice) uses it, it becomes "gospel" (another rather "funny" word around here).

 

[LTC8K6]

When did sasquatch believers use it, Huntster?

When have you and LAL used it?

Not much, looking back over the thread.

If you have changed your mind and only believe the things you have claimed about bigfoot, and no longer consider them factual, then say so.

 

[LTC8K6]

Conversely, all the fault-finding and doubt in the world cannot deny the fact that there is too much evidence for it all to be hoaxed or mistaken.

There is very little evidence, imo.

What there is, is tainted by long time believers being associated with it, like Jeff Meldrum, who see what they so desperately want to see.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Funny how that word is used, isn't it?

When a sasquatch believer uses it, it becomes a matter of contention.

When a "scientist" (of your choice) uses it, it becomes "gospel" (another rather "funny" word around here).

Apparently you don't seem to understand the difference in speaking about believing as it applies to mammoths, gorrillas and bears, as opposed to Bigfoot and other imaginary creatures.

 

[UrsulaV]

Funny how that word is used, isn't it?

When a sasquatch believer uses it, it becomes a matter of contention.

When a "scientist" (of your choice) uses it, it becomes "gospel" (another rather "funny" word around here).

Feel free to provide evidence that those particular mammoths aren't forest dwellers, by all means! I don't think anybody--except you--has claimed that it's gospel yet. I'll happily listen to any evidence you have to the contrary about the habitat of those mammoth species mentioned.

 

[LTC8K6]

Good point, UrsulaV.

Huntster just made that up, and I didn't even think to question it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Good point, UrsulaV.

Huntster just made that up, and I didn't even think to question it.

Don't feel bad. It's easier to get away with making stuff up about real animals..

 

[Correa Neto]

Found this forgotten on my files. Here it goes, since it may help clearing some misunderstandings.

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.

"Were likely always highest there" You can´t prove that with the avaliable evidence. That may be very well a residual habitat -if the creatures exist. And the area is vast.

And before arguing about "fossil preservation at acid soils", you'd better check the meaning of the words "soil" and "sediment".

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

Gigantopithecus were herbivorous and ate a lot of bamboos (check the mention to phytoliths). Bigfeet are -assuming they exist- omnivorous.

Check the map at http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/gbigmap.html

Are they the same climate and vegetation zones of the alleged bigfeet habitats? Not now, not 6 my ago.

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

So, from souteastern Asia to Florida (that's the size of bigfeet territory at least at its maximum range - if they are real), precipitation and temperature range are the same?

Vegetation is also the same?

You are missing a lot of things. There are subdivisisons on the climate zones. Check them and you'll see you are wrong.

I've been trying oh, so hard.

Try these:

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

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

So, if a place is named after a mythical creature, it follows the creature is real? Remember that the caveats of using myths as evidence for the existence of bigfeet -or any other cryptid- have already been discussed.

And you know what? Its the very same argument LAL used with the Cascades' Ape Cave. Note that this would suggest that bigfeet indeed, at least sometimes, enter or are nearby caves. And were're back to the (unsolved) question regarding the absence of a specimen ...

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.

Plain wrong. Diet can be inferred from teeth morphology and wear pattern.

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.

Wrong again. Check post # 1107 and you'll find that short time charges are not the subject. Large animals move slowly. They will increase pace only if there´s need. Specially if its an herbivore, since plants provide less energy and take more time to digest than meat.

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

Wrong. Once again. After comparing Gigantopithecus's bones with bones of other species, it was concluded by the scientists in question, that they were more similar to those from orang-utangs.

Discussed inappropriately.

In your opinion, all discussion where someone points the weakness of the presented evidence is "innapropriate".

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.

How many people saw what they thought to be a bigfoot and then a split second later realized it was not? Was this taken in to account when considering the "laws of probability"?

You know what? Scream and complain as much as you want. Its not, IMHO, unreasonable at all to conclude that ALL bigfeet sighting can be explained by mistakes, "daydreams" and plain lies. Specially when you take in to account the "failed" sightings above. And the similarities with other lore phenomena such as UFOs and ghosts.

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?

But you are still left with the "mistaken identity" option. Not to mention the "unlikely".

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?

Argument beated to death by other posters here. Unworthy of wasting more time.

You don't know what gigantopithecus looks like.

Based on reliable evidence, avaliable for anyone who wish to carry on a reinterpreation, the reconstructions were created. Are they perfect? Of course not. But they are much better than footer's speculations. A jawbone is reliable evidence. PGF is not. Note that even if PGF's subject was the real deal, nothing but the size of the creatures would support the claim that bouth are from the same genus. You need to compare morphology (of the bones) not size.

BTW, PGF original film is avaliable for anyone wishing to carry on a study on it?

You have no evidence with which to limit either diets.

Wrong. Once more. I'll repeat. Diet can be inferred from teeth morphology and wear pattern. Check with your dentist if you want. Bigfeet, according to the avaliable texts, are omnivorous.

Correct, but the fossils of a large ape exist, nonetheless, and along the Pacific Rim.

"Along the Pacific Rim" is an overestimation. Gigantopithecus fossils were found at certain locations in China. And nothing but the size of the animal indicates any affiliation to bigfeet, assuming they are real.

 

[Huntster]

When did sasquatch believers use it, Huntster?

When have you and LAL used it?

Not much, looking back over the thread.

If you have changed your mind and only believe the things you have claimed about bigfoot, and no longer consider them factual, then say so.

I have not changed my mind about anything. I believe I've written it several times:

I believe in the existence of sasquatch based on the available evidence.

 

[LTC8K6]

Huntster only seems to like certain cherry picked bits of the bigfoot anecdotal "evidence".

 

[Huntster]

Apparently you don't seem to understand the difference in speaking about believing as it applies to mammoths, gorrillas and bears, as opposed to Bigfoot and other imaginary creatures.

That's correct. I don't understand the difference at all.

The word is belief. It should mean the same thing to English speaking scientists as it does a kindergarten child.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief

Belief:
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another:

Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something:

Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

 

[Huntster]

Feel free to provide evidence that those particular mammoths aren't forest dwellers, by all means! I don't think anybody--except you--has claimed that it's gospel yet.....

That's it. Invite me (yet again) to prove a negative.

I have no evidence or information on the habitat of North American mammoths, and have no beliefs about them, either.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, just like me and everybody else.

 

[UrsulaV]

So, Huntster, you still believe there are no archaeology sites anywhere in the Pacific Northwest? Seem to recall you were kinda adamant on that one...

 

[UrsulaV]

Huntster just made that up, and I didn't even think to question it.

Actually, I thought it was LAL, but either way, to be absolutely fair, the popular imagination woolly mammoth is the only one most people know about, and it was in fact a steppe dweller.

I only remembered t'other kinds because of this RPG I worked on once with mammoth riders in it. *coughgeekcough*

 

[Hitch]

I have no evidence or information on the habitat of North American mammoths, and have no beliefs about them, either.

Okay. You Believe in bigfoot. You don't believe in Alaskan Blue Giraffes. You have no beliefs about North America Mammoths.

It's hard to find a patern in your beliefs other than you want bigfoot to be real regardless of the evidence.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

That's correct. I don't understand the difference at all.

The word is belief. It should mean the same thing to English speaking scientists as it does a kindergarten child.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=belief

So as long as someone believes in something, it is all the same..

I thought most Christians had pretty strong opinions about valid beliefs and invalid ones..

 

[UrsulaV]

That's it. Invite me (yet again) to prove a negative.

Oh, cry me a river. If I claimed mammoths could fly, proving they couldn't would be "proving a negative" but you could still make a damn compelling case against mammoth flight that would convince practically anybody. Don't hide behind the phrase.

 

[Huntster]

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

Nope. It wasn't a hoax. It was an accident:

It was found accidentally by construction crews but now it could end up being one of the most important skeletons ever uncovered in Washington......

No scientists (until after the discovery).

Nothing new there. It's par for the course.

 

[Huntster]

So, Huntster, you still believe there are no archaeology sites anywhere in the Pacific Northwest? Seem to recall you were kinda adamant on that one...

I'm reviewing the links provided. The ones in Vancouver appear very valid.

The one of the bear parts is in Florida. I'm not sure which part of the Pacific Northwest Florida is in.

The ones regarding the Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game are not in Southeast Alaska. They are in the Interior, far from coastal forests.

The link to the University of Alaska had nothing to say about any digs anywhere.

I'll continue to review. So far, I'm not impressed with the links. Like I posted, if there are any in Southeast Alaska, I'm not familiar with them, and I would be.