Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

Well gee Lu, that couldn't have had anything to do with finding elk hair in the cast, could it ? No sasquatch hair, no unknown primate hair , though ..

There was hair that didn't match human on physical examination that was so close to human on DNA testing that contamination couldn't be ruled out.
According to colobus in a PM, experiments were done that ruled out not only elk, but coyote.

And yes we have matched Wallace feet to suposedly genuine Squatch tracks.

Even on St. Meldrum's web pages..

No you haven't. You and Bill see a superficial resemblance, do a stretch in more ways than one, do no measurements and post your assumptions as though they were fact.

Tell it to an expert in primate foot anatomy. I've posted the link to his e-mail at Idaho State.

No, I won't dig the links up again..

There's a whole thread on this silliness. I'd be embarrasssed to post the links too.

 

[LAL]

I'm sure most of you have already seen this. But just in case, I'd thought I'd post a link to the latest Bigfoot video: http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/videogalleries/promo_02.html

For a moment I thought you were referring to the debunked Sonoma video. That's a reenactment, or didn't you notice? Any resemblance to the PGF should be further evidence that it's not easy to duplicate it even with today's technology and an adequate budget.

The Discovery Channel also purchased Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.

Your point?

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa is fond of saying I said things I didn't say, Huntster. (I hate it when the quotes vanish.)

I'd like to know where I ever used an argument about Ape Caves. ...snip...

I wrote:

Its the very same argument LAL used with the Cascades' Ape Cave.

After reading your reply I -as I had done in similar cases- checked the old thread. This time you are (partially) correct. I was wrong, you did not used this as an argument.

However, I am not fond of saying things you did not. Its not the first time you say things like this, and I would greatly appreciate if you either dropped this sort of claim or proved it.

I posted a recent article on Giganto diet somewhere in these threads. There's little to indicate they were a specialized bamboo-eater.

And I posted links where it showed they were herbivores, bamboo was part of their diets, fist-walkers and related to orang-utangs.

 

[LTC8K6]

Intentionally obtuse.... we know we have posted the stuff, we know we argued about it, now they haven't seen it....

Very odd....

 

[LAL]

The Columbian mammoth was an adaptable little bugger with a habitat including both woodlands and grasslands.

The American Mastodon (Mammut Americanum) is believed to have lived in spruce forests and open spruce woodlands.

Ya want fries wi' dat?

Funny, I was going to make a comment about the strawmen around here, but decided to rise above it and deleted it.

"Relative to mammoths and modern elephants, mastodons possessed rather primitive teeth. Instead of the flat grinding surface composed of highly convoluted ridges of enamel that characterize the teeth of mammoths and modern elephants, mastodon teeth are characterized by rounded and pointed enamel-covered cones and close-spaced roots. These teeth would have been well-suited to clipping or crushing twigs, leaves, and stems. The nature of the teeth and gut contents indicate that the mastodons were forest-dwelling animals that browsed on leaves, trigs, shoots, and other foliage. The structure of their limbs and the close association of mastodon remains with pond and shallow lake deposits indicates that they possibly spent a large amount of time walking through shallow lakes, ponds, and swamps."

http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/mastodon1.html

This is interesting:

http://www.mammothsite.com/MammothInformation.html

Didn't Correa argue large animals can't live in forests because the trees impede their progress?

Note where these mastodon finds were made:

"Although a fossil common to Louisiana, mastodons have been found in very specific parts of Louisiana. They are most commonly found within blankets of loess, glacial wind-blown silt, and Quaternary sediments directly underlying it that cover the upland bordering both sides of the Mississippi River Valley. Excavations have uncovered mastodons beneath and within the loess within East Baton Rouge Parish, at Angola Prison, and beside Bayou Manchac in Ascension Parish. Mastodons have also been found in loess exposures long Tunica Bayou and Little Bayou Sarah in West Feliciana Parish. Also, a number of fossil mastodons have been found in pond sediments filling depressions overlying salt domes within Bienville, Iberia, and Winn Parishes."

Still looking for a fossil site in the PNW that was deeply forested at the time the bones were buried.

 

[UrsulaV]

Note where these mastodon finds were made:

My dear LAL, at no point did I claim these were PNW mammoths. You, however, made a very broad statement--I quote--"Mammoths were creatures of the open grassland." This statement was factually inaccurate. You also asked, and I quote: "And what forest-dwelling mammoth lived on the North American continent?" Which I answered.

If you want specific PNW critters, say so. It's all these sweeping generalizations that I think we should definitely cut down on.

 

[UrsulaV]

Wrong on all counts.

Well, that's why I said I could be wrong and my memory might be faulty. Thank you for the correction.

 

[UrsulaV]

Funny, I was going to make a comment about the strawmen around here, but decided to rise above it and deleted it.

Yes, yes, you're a saint. How exactly is it a strawman to correct a sweeping and inaccurate generalization? I did not say "And therefore there is no Bigfoot!" I made no claims about Bigfoot fossils or anything else related to this. I merely pointed out that your statement about mammoths was inaccurate and provided examples, as you also pointed out that my memory of the Skookum cast was indeed faulty.

If that's a strawman--or mammoth!--then I am unfamiliar with how you're using the term.

 

[LTC8K6]

And therefore, there is no bigfoot!

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
Didn't Correa argue large animals can't live in forests because the trees impede their progress?
...snip...

Perhaps you forgot that I was talking about mature, old growth, etc. forests, where there's little underbrush? The sort of forest that is a bit different from the entangled branches of low trees and bushes that really make movement difficult, reduce line of sight to a few meters, etc. The last ones are (usually)secondary or young forests -quite often confused with primary by some people.

And that I even used tropical rainforests as examples (inhabited by rhinos and elephants in Asia). And that then you said a bigfoot researcher said PNW woods were worse than those from Sumatra (or Java, typing from memory). To what I replyed something like "if they are so thick, how come a 3m high ape..."

 

[Hitch]

Perhaps you forgot that I was talking about mature, old growth, etc. forests, where there's little underbrush? The sort of forest that is a bit different from the entangled branches of low trees and bushes that really make movement difficult, reduce line of sight to a few meters, etc. The last ones are (usually)secondary or young forests -quite often confused with primary by some people.

And that I even used tropical rainforests as examples (inhabited by rhinos and elephants in Asia). And that then you said a bigfoot researcher said PNW woods were worse than those from Sumatra (or Java, typing from memory). To what I replyed something like "if they are so thick, how come a 3m high ape..."

Don't go muddying the waters with your pesky "facts." That's not what this debate is about.

 

[LAL]

I wrote:

After reading your reply I -as I had done in similar cases- checked the old thread. This time you are (partially) correct. I was wrong, you did not used this as an argument.

Thank you.

However, I am not fond of saying things you did not. Its not the first time you say things like this, and I would greatly appreciate if you either dropped this sort of claim or proved it.

I already did that and I'm glad you're not fond of it.

And I posted links where it showed they were herbivores, bamboo was part of their diets, fist-walkers and related to orang-utangs.

I've posted the same link, if you mean this one:

http://www.wynja.com/arch/gigantopithecus.html

"Locomotion

Ciochon et al., (1990) speculate that given its size Gigantopithecus blacki was a ground dwelling ape, probably a knuckle walker, though it could just as easily been a fist walker, the exact nature of its locomotion is impossible to ascertain from mandibles. Given its mass it could not have been a gibbon-like brachiator."


Orangs have a different way of going than Gorillas. There's a long clip of one walking bipedally on LMS with its arms in the air. Since the fossil record is showing bipedalism was rather common in ancient primates and k-w a later adaptation that evidently evolved more than once among the Great Apes, it would appear the unidentified NA hominid primate could be a relative of Orangutans and bipedal too. Schwartz was once convinced Orangs were humans' closest relatives (until DNA testing proved him wrong).

This isn't what I was looking for, but it seems Enchanted Learning is teaching kids Giganto ate plants and small animals (as do Sasquatches, according to reports).

" GIGANTOPITHECUS

Gigantopithecus (meaning "gigantic ape") was the biggest primate that ever lived. Gigantopithecus was a gorilla-like land-dwelling ape that weighed roughly 650 pounds (300 kg) and was about 10 feet (3 m) tall. It was an omnivore, probably eating eating plants and small animals. This intelligent mammal lived during from the late Miocene until the middle Pleistocene, roughly a million years ago. Some people think that some surviving specimens of Gigantopithecus are the Yeti of the Himalayas. Fossils (mostly jaws and teeth) have been found in China, India, and Pakistan. Gigantopithecus was named by the German paleoanthropologist Ralph von Koenigswald; in the 1930's, he had spotted huge fossilized teeth being sold in Hong Kong for medicinal purposes. The type species is Gigantopithecus blacki (named to honor Koenigswald's colleague Davidson Black)."

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/indexg.shtml

The fact remains there are no fossils other than lower mandibles and teeth. No femur, no foramen magnum, no pelvis, no feet ........nothing but lower mandibles that were wide enough to allow passage of a vertical spinal column and dentition that appears hominid. There is nothing to definitely establish the way of going.

 

[LAL]

Perhaps you forgot that I was talking about mature, old growth, etc. forests, where there's little underbrush? The sort of forest that is a bit different from the entangled branches of low trees and bushes that really make movement difficult, reduce line of sight to a few meters, etc. The last ones are (usually)secondary or young forests -quite often confused with primary by some people.

And that I even used tropical rainforests as examples (inhabited by rhinos and elephants in Asia). And that then you said a bigfoot researcher said PNW woods were worse than those from Sumatra (or Java, typing from memory). To what I replyed something like "if they are so thick, how come a 3m high ape..."

That was Peter Byrne. He was commenting on the difficulty of tracking in them. You can't see through them. The PNW has forests that range from very open to very dense, and, thanks to logging, some are 3' high.

Old Growth forests don't support the variety of foods need by omnivores, but they certainly are dense and incredibly beautiful. The Vine Maple in the understory of more open forest, such as mature second growth, is extremely entangled. but deer, elk and bear move through it with ease.

 

[LAL]

Yes, yes, you're a saint. How exactly is it a strawman to correct a sweeping and inaccurate generalization? I did not say "And therefore there is no Bigfoot!" I made no claims about Bigfoot fossils or anything else related to this. I merely pointed out that your statement about mammoths was inaccurate and provided examples, as you also pointed out that my memory of the Skookum cast was indeed faulty.

If that's a strawman--or mammoth!--then I am unfamiliar with how you're using the term.

You might find a few strawmen if you look closely. The examples you posted were mostly African, weren't they? I admit to my ignorance on the excursions into forests of the Columbian Mammoth, but I'm still not finding examples of their fossils being found in areas that were forested. Seems mastondon habitat was inferred partly from diet as indicated by their teeth.

Rapid burial is required for fossilization to occur. Perhaps someone should start a dig on St. Helens. Of course, the blast blew animals to bits, but there might be a Sasquatch bone shard under a couple of hundred feet of mud somewhere.

I don't claim to be a saint, BTW. In fact, I would find it insulting to be called one.

 

[Correa Neto]

This is the main link:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html

Note the mention to phytoliths.

And note also that the reconstruction's caption says:

Bill Munns stands next to his model of a Gigantopithecus male, a quadrupedal, fist-walking creature that also could have stood erect, as bears do.

All the talk on bigfeet -assuming they are real- are belong to this genus are based in nothing else but the size of the cretures. Diet, locomotion, geographic range, they are all different from what bigfeet are supposed to be .

Note also that the fossils were found in caves, the animal lived in rainforest with acid soils, etc. etc. etc.

 

[UrsulaV]

You might find a few strawmen if you look closely. The examples you posted were mostly African, weren't they?

African, European, and Asian, actually. And your statement, which they were in response to, was and again I quote, "Mammoths were creatures of the open grassland."

Please, show me the strawmen inherent in pointing out that some mammoths lived in forests. Assume I'm obtuse and can't see them myself. Point them out for me.

 

[William Parcher]

The original may have been lost by Al De Atley, Roger Patterson's brother-in-law. I've read recently it isn't lost and is indeed safe, but I can't substantiate that. The original was thoroughly examined and shown before it disappeared, and there are several first generation copies still around. The rights were tied up for years because Roger oversold them. Dahinden spent quite a bit of money straightening things out. The rights are now owned by Roger's widow.

To most who have "scrutinized, parsed, discussed" it, it does not appear to be a man in a suit at all. The sceptical argument seems to go no farther than "looks like a man in a suit to me", possibly because no evidence that it is has ever come to light.

Several Bigfooters are in possession of quality first-generation film copies of the PGF. They aren't sharing these. The LMS DVD is derived from such a copy. It is edited and manipulated. Huntster proclaims that the PGF has "withstood" time and scrutiny. He didn't mention that the best copies (physical evidence) are being intentionally withheld from skeptical inquiry.

Richard Noll has prevented Benjamin Radford (Skeptical Inquirer Editor) from examining the Skookum Cast.

It looks to me like Bigfootery is engaged in conspiracies against inquiry. Concerning the PGF... Bob Heironimus cannot be removed from the equation no matter how shoddy his recollections may be. I posted photos in this thread (now missing because they were linked from the inoperative BFF) that showed Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin and Bob Heironimus together on horseback in a forest. BH was involved in the Bigfoot "documentary" film that Patterson was creating.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...Rapid burial is required for fossilization to occur. ...snip...

Nope.

It may be required. But its not always required. Slow and steady sedimentation of mud or silt at an oxigen-deprived environment, such as a lake bottom, do the trick quite well.

In caves, dripping of carbonate over the corpse does the trick.

In peat bogs -extremely acid environments, BTW- sedimentation rates may be very small, and yet, corpses are preserved. One can't even call the remains to be actual fossils.

 

[LTC8K6]

William, do we know if those first gen copies of the P/G film were zoomed? That is, are they really identical to the original?

 

[William Parcher]

Rapid burial is required for fossilization to occur. Perhaps someone should start a dig on St. Helens. Of course, the blast blew animals to bits, but there might be a Sasquatch bone shard under a couple of hundred feet of mud somewhere.

Funny you should mention that. More than a couple Bigfooters claim that a government cover-up operation occured after the big MSH eruption. They say that shortly after the blast, government agents arrived (I think some folks mentioned black helicopters) and whisked away Bigfoot carcasses that were found by them.

I don't claim to be a saint, BTW. In fact, I would find it insulting to be called one.

Funny again. Dr. Jane Goodall, the token declared "supporter" of Bigfoot, has great things to say about saints and sainthood in her most recent book. She also writes supportively about ESP and spirituality.