Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

Shall I say... ?

 

[Starrman]

Anthropologist Richard Nelson's words:

Could you summarize what you think this means, in regards to bigfoot?

 

[Correa Neto]

Thanks for that citation.

Do you agree with his words?

You know the answer, don´t you?

Let make it clear: I think his conclusion on the alleged bigfoot handprints to be... How can I say without being rude... Mistaken. An error. A very big basic mistake. The sort or error someone will commit if his/hers conclusions are based on unreliable data. Something that indicates that he and Meldrum might have commited another big mistake- to conclude bigfeet are real creatures.

Well, I might get around to it someday.

I've been reading elsewhere.

W00t? A footer that has not read Krantz?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The sort or error someone will commit if his/hers conclusions are based on unreliable data.

How about someone who's premise is based on a conclusion?

We seem to see a lot of this ..

 

[William Parcher]

Coming into Koyukon society from a very different background, I was suddenly confronted by the power of this reality. Although I had lived for several years among other native Alaskan peoples, I had never found access to this element of their lives. Among the Koyukon, my teachers clearly perceived in the fullest measure a different world than I did, or than people from my culture could perceive. Each of them was also rational and intelligent by any measure, biculturally fluent, and acutely observant. The great difference in our points of view was something I had been prepared for intellectually; but I was entirely unprepared for it emotionally, unready of the impact of living it.

My clear and certain comprehension of the natural world was ended. Fundamental assumptions I had learned about the nature of nature were thrown into doubt. I must emphasize that I underwent no great conversion and emerged no less an agnostic than before. But now I had to face an elemental question, as an anthropologist of course, but even more so as someone who had always been deeply involved with nature: Is there not a single reality in the natural world, an absolute and universal reality? Apparently, the answer to this question is no.

The issue that perplexed me is far from new in anthropology, though it was certainly new for me to deal with it as a direct personal experience. Anthropologists and linguists have written at great length about the different realities that humans perceive as members of different cultures and speakers of different languages.....

....The basic premise underlying anthropological writings on this subject, as I understand it, is this: Reality is not the world as it is perceived directly by the senses; reality is the world as it is perceived by the mind through the medium of the senses. Thus reality in nature is not just what we see, but what we have learned to see.

Koyukon Elder Orator "Laughing Vulture": "The young Scratching Marmot has come to me and said that he has seen Sasquatch near the falling water".

Koyukon Teenager "Big Belly Turtle": "We all know that Scratching Marmot is a liar. I've never seen Sasquatch and I really doubt that Scratching Marmot has either".

Laughing Vulture: "I know everything there is to know and I can tell you that Scratching Marmot did see Sasquatch, because I could detect whether he was telling a lie or mistaken".

Big Belly Turtle: "OK. You know everything and tell everything. I would still like to see Sasquatch myself".

Rraaaaaappppp...

Big Belly Turtle: "Laughing Vulture, you just farted. Why didn't you tell us of this?"

Laughing Vulture: "I may know of everything in the world but I don't have to tell of it".

Bigfoot is real. Native Alaskan legend proves this. The plaster casts are unnecessary to prove existence. Laughing Vulture told everything that anyone would ever need to know.

 

[Correa Neto]

How about someone who's premise is based on a conclusion?

We seem to see a lot of this ..

Yep. Let´s improve it.

Someone whose premise is based on a conclusion and relies unreliable data to back reasonings created to sustain the it. Kinda circular, eh?

Or perhaps someone who made a wrong conclusion and can not -or does not want- for some reason to say "I was wrong". It becomes a snowball of errors, patches, confuse explanations, dead ends, incongruences, etc.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Thus reality in nature is not just what we see, but what we have learned to see.

Translation:

" Thus reality in nature is not just what we see, but what we have made up, as well . "


Yeah, right...

 

[Correa Neto]

All the talk about "different realities" smells of Erick Beckjord ...

And this line:

Reality is not the world as it is perceived directly by the senses; reality is the world as it is perceived by the mind through the medium of the senses. Thus reality in nature is not just what we see, but what we have learned to see.

Could have came out from Interesting Ian or Lifegazer... again.

And still no evidence that bigfeet are real.

 

[Huntster]

Could you summarize what you think this means, in regards to bigfoot?

An educated and experienced anthropologist went out to live among a native people in their village, to learn of their relationship with the environment. He asked lots of questions about all the animals (among other things) in their lives. They told him about all the animals, including the sasquatch (called nik’inla’eena, or "woodsman").

His learning experience taught him that:

...Is there not a single reality in the natural world, an absolute and universal reality? Apparently, the answer to this question is no....

because:

...Reality is not the world as it is perceived directly by the senses; reality is the world as it is perceived by the mind through the medium of the senses. Thus reality in nature is not just what we see, but what we have learned to see. In other words, my Koyukon teachers had learned through their own traditions about dimensions in nature that I, as a Euro-American, had either not learned to perceive or had been explicitly taught do not exist...

You will not accept the sasquatch because you have not seen their sign, you don't live in their habitat, you have been told they don't exist, and if you wonder openly, your peers will ridicule you.

The people of the village of Huslia (where Nelson learned) know of sasquatch because they have seen their sign, they live in their habitat, they have been taught that they exist, and there is no problem with that.

 

[Huntster]

...W00t? A footer that has not read Krantz?

Yup.

 

[Huntster]

Yep. Let´s improve it.

Someone whose premise is based on a conclusion and relies unreliable data to back reasonings created to sustain the it. Kinda circular, eh?

Or perhaps someone who made a wrong conclusion and can not -or does not want- for some reason to say "I was wrong". It becomes a snowball of errors, patches, confuse explanations, dead ends, incongruences, etc.

Yeah, I suppose you're right.

It's a lot easier to disregard all the evidence as "inconclusive", and go watch another episode of "Lost".

Besides, who really gives a ***** if these creatures exist or not?

 

[Huntster]

...Thus reality in nature is not just what we see, but what we have learned to see....

Translation:

" Thus reality in nature is not just what we see, but what we have made up, as well . "


Yeah, right...

That's a perfect translation into the language of skepticism.

Who besides a pure, radical skeptic could have performed such a flawless translation from perfect English.

 

[Huntster]

...And still no evidence that bigfeet are real.

Nope.

Not for you.

Mr. Nelson, an anthropologist, got his.

 

[RayG]

Here you go:

Krantz, G.S. 1992. Big Footprints: A Scientific Inquiry into the Reality of Sasquatch. Boulder, Colo.: Johnson Books.

Pages 66-67:

And from the same page 66:

"The gross anatomy of the handprints shows one feature of special interest because it was almost totally unexpected. The five available casts, representing four individuals from two locations, all show a nonopposed thumb."

Keep in mind Krantz is discussing handprints cast by Ivan Marx and Paul Freeman. Since both have been associated with bigfoot hoaxes, I have trouble accepting any so-called 'evidence' they might produce. Krantz obviously had no such trouble, he had convinced himself he couldn't be fooled, remember?

Further info regarding Marx/Freeman:

Not since the days of Ivan Marx (a notorious Bigfoot hoaxer) had someone so consistently been associated with bogus evidence as Paul Freeman. And, like Marx, Freeman is one of a select group to find and cast a set of Bigfoot handprints (they are gigantic and show the creature without an opposable thumb). Eventually Freeman would go on w find additional Bigfoot footprints, encounter the creature on a second, third, and fourth occasion, photographing and filming it twice. According to the late Bob Titmus, once he told Freeman that to mark a territory an individual Sasquatch would sometimes break off the tops of young fir trees, Freeman then began discovering damaged vegetation, in one case locating a tree with damage well above the reach and strength of any human. Freeman claimed to find a series of Indian cave paintings depicting Bigfoot scratch marks, feces, and a "section of an elk hide with huge teeth marks embedded in it." He even managed to taperecord the screech of the monster. But by the mid-1990s only Krantz and a select few academic supporters could maintain belief in Freeman's discoveries.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/proponent.html

RayG

 

[Starrman]

An educated and experienced anthropologist went out to live among a native people in their village, to learn of their relationship with the environment. He asked lots of questions about all the animals (among other things) in their lives. They told him about all the animals, including the sasquatch (called nik’inla’eena, or "woodsman").

His learning experience taught him that:



because:



You will not accept the sasquatch because you have not seen their sign, you don't live in their habitat, you have been told they don't exist, and if you wonder openly, your peers will ridicule you.

The people of the village of Huslia (where Nelson learned) know of sasquatch because they have seen their sign, they live in their habitat, they have been taught that they exist, and there is no problem with that.

You have things turned so far backwards I'm not sure where to start. Apparently you live in a different world than I do.

Well, there is a Harvard professor who is convinced people are being probed by Aliens and are told great tales of what the creatures look like and how they behave. Would you give John Mack and the probing Aliens the same degree of belief you give to Sasquatch? If so, why not?

And please don't assume why I don't accept sasquatch, it is for none of the reasons you mention. Show me a habitat, show me a sign - this is 2006, you don't need to live in Antarctica to see penguins. I don't accept him for the same reason I don't accept alien abductions. Because he consists of nothing more than stories. Until something solid comes in, the rational thing to do is assume he doesn't exist.

If I believed everything I was told to believe, I probably wouldn't be an Atheist now, would I? In fact, if you pay any attention to the media and the general population most of them are telling you to believe all kinds of unsupported nonsense, yet you are going to tell me that I can only see and believe in what I am told to?

Let me ask you this, do you think I am more open to ridicule in society for swallowing this stuff whole, or for standing up to it and calling it the garbage that it is? That may be true in this forum, but it is certainly not a fair representation of the world in general.

And, of course, the last straw, please don't pick on 'Lost' - I like that show.

 

[Huntster]

....Apparently you live in a different world than I do.......

That is definately true.

...Would you give John Mack and the probing Aliens the same degree of belief you give to Sasquatch? If so, why not?...

No.

Because I have seen or heard of no evidence of such.

I have seen and heard of evidence of sasquatch.

...Until something solid comes in, the rational thing to do is assume he doesn't exist....

Until proof is established, the rational thing to do is to simply admit that there is no proof, but there is evidence.

...If I believed everything I was told to believe, I probably wouldn't be an Atheist now, would I?...

I have no idea if you're an atheist or not, what you were told to believe, or why you would or would not be whatever you are.

I don't believe things because I'm told to believe them. I believe or disbelieve things based upon evidence or lack thereof.

...In fact, if you pay any attention to the media and the general population most of them are telling you to believe all kinds of unsupported nonsense, yet you are going to tell me that I can only see and believe in what I am told to?...

Today we are subjected to propaganda on so many levels it's disheartening; political, commercial, social, religious, etc. That's why belief should be tempered with skepticism.

I'm not telling you what to believe or disbelieve. That's up to you.

I'm just telling you what I believe.

...Let me ask you this, do you think I am more open to ridicule in society for swallowing this stuff whole, or for standing up to it and calling it the garbage that it is?...

Who gives a damn about ridicule?

If you're afraid of ridicule, then you're not a very strong person.

...And, of course, the last straw, please don't pick on 'Lost' - I like that show...

That's why I used it as an example.

The TV generation, enjoying fantasy on TV, is telling the folks in the woods what live out here with us, and telling us what our fantasies are all about.

Ironic that it's title is "Lost", isn't it?

 

[William Parcher]

Well, there is a Harvard professor who is convinced people are being probed by Aliens and are told great tales of what the creatures look like and how they behave. Would you give John Mack and the probing Aliens the same degree of belief you give to Sasquatch? If so, why not?

John Mack was struck and killed by an automobile in 2004. Somewhat coincidentally, one of the most noteworthy researchers into the psychology of fantasy-proneness and false memories died in 2005. That was Robert Baker.

 

[LAL]

What telltale marks are those ?

Knee prints, boot prints, brush marks from obscuring the work, or was the trackway faked days before the filming to avoid the chance of rain ruining their efforts?

This clip does not prove anything, other than the fact that some tracks ( if that is what they are ) were recorded on film. Nothing to indicate when or how they were made or when they were filmed .

Huh ?

I agree Davis seems a little language challenged there.

 

[LAL]

And from the same page 66:



Keep in mind Krantz is discussing handprints cast by Ivan Marx and Paul Freeman. Since both have been associated with bigfoot hoaxes, I have trouble accepting any so-called 'evidence' they might produce. Krantz obviously had no such trouble, he had convinced himself he couldn't be fooled, remember?

RayG

John Green would agree with you, but Chris Murphy notes some of the evidence associated with them as held up to some intense scientific scrutiny. He thinks each piece of evidence should be looked at objectively. I was going to comment that this seem to be the only field so plagued with hoaxes, but then there's that Korean stem cell situation. I guess it isn't.

I got a reply from colobus, BTW. I was wondering if there's a video clip demonstrating the Skookum roll. Tube suggested I contact him. No video, but he sent the instructions. He's given me permission to post the reply with the pertinent eight paragraphs intact. Here they are:

"I'm not sure if Matt has seen site photographs of the site of the cast, or read about the impression's proximity to hard dry ground. Basically the area in which the impression was left was quite small in dimension, and it was immediately adjacent to hard packed murram road surface.

From the place where the putative heel strikes occurred, the foot, already bent at the knee, would only have to move a foot to the right before being placed on hard ground.

The place where the putative right arm made a double impression was about 15 inches from dry hard ground to the right again.

If you site on the floor on your butt, with both knees bent at about a 30 degree angle, imagine where the dry ground is located to your right. With your right leg and foot, move your heel over say fifteen inched to the right - put it on dry ground. The with your right arm and hand reach over 15 to 18 inches to dry ground.

Now rolling right, shift your weight onto both right foot and knee, and right hand/arm. You can get up with some exertion - without leaving tracks in the impression beyond the putative heel strikes already present. If you happened to be considerably larger it would be even easier.

As far as the elk is concerned - elk always leave prints in the center of bedding areas when they get up. We've got lots of video and still imagery to back that up, as well as photos of eld beds in mud and snow. All of them have tracks in the center grouped closely pointed the same direction.

Extensive analysis of the lengths of the anatomical features impressed into the mud, comparisons with ungulates - including elk, and other large mammals such as goat, bear, and so on find no match with whatever made the impression.

Hairflow pattern analysis of the impression show continuous hairflow along anatomical structures that is 100% in agreement with apes. The same hairflow analysis demonstrated that the hairflow patterns found could not have been produced by an elk in a series of multiple impressions that might "appear" to be one big impression. It just is not an elk."

 

[LAL]

Lu, I wasn't speaking of subsequent hoaxing at the location of Bluff Creek, but I still could.

When Patterson (with Gimlin) finally left Bluff Creek at about 4:00 a.m., October 21, 1967, he took the camera and film with him. But he had already filmed Heironimus in the costume weeks prior to this at Bluff Creek. The film that he took out on October 21 was only of the fake trackway that he created on the 20th. This is what is being called "The 2nd Roll". Anyway, my point was that subsequent manipulation and modification of the PGF has happened after Patterson was at Bluff Creek.

Bunk.

The Dahinden Cibachrome with the artist-added hand, is one example of how Bigfoot hoaxery is trying to get the world to think that Bigfoot is really an existing wild animal. That modification was made after Patterson was at Bluff Creek.

I've never seen this except on this board. Bigfoot hoaxery better get its act together publicity-wise.

Please produce the name of the artist.