Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

No.



It appears that there is agreement that the opposable thumb is limited. There may be some disagreement as to the extent of the opposable thumb. I have not been made aware of Krantz stating the the thumb was not opposed.

I remain unaware of that allegation.

Dahinden noted a Russian report of a non-opposed thumb. Didn't Glen Thomas note this in his sighting.

Seen Alton's paper, speaking of handprints?

http://www.texasbigfoot.com/OK_handprints.html

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

...and so it goes on. Still no bigfoot? Still no evidence other than stories and hoaxes? Still relying on appeals to authority? Still clinging to the PG Film like a life-raft when each passing day makes it look more ridiculous?

Bring us a Bigfoot or spare us page after page of worthless debate. It's that simple - if it exists, show us one.

 

[aggle-rithm]

...and so it goes on. Still no bigfoot? Still no evidence other than stories and hoaxes? Still relying on appeals to authority? Still clinging to the PG Film like a life-raft when each passing day makes it look more ridiculous?

Bring us a Bigfoot or spare us page after page of worthless debate. It's that simple - if it exists, show us one.

Nah, they got bored trying to show that it exists. Now they're analyzing its migration patterns.

 

[Huntster]

...Bring us a Bigfoot or spare us page after page of worthless debate. It's that simple - if it exists, show us one.

Did someone hold you hostage and force you to click on page after page?

Spare yourself. Just don't click the mouse.

And you can be sure that if I had a dead sasquatch in the back of my pickup, you're the last bloke on Earth I'd bother showing.

In the meantime, you can amuse yourself with the near daily reports from around the world from Google News.

Here's an interesting story:

"There's no doubt in my mind that the officer saw something, but it wasn't human," Col. Brian S. Lindamood said. "At this time I have no idea what it could be."

He reported that he saw three individuals on foot inside the (secure area) and when he approached in his vehicle they ran into the woods

Ever hear of security personnel describe "wildlife" as "individuals on foot" before?

Notice there is no mention of species at all?

Wonder how AP would even get a story like this?

 

[RayG]

Anyway, my point was that subsequent manipulation and modification of the PGF has happened after Patterson was at Bluff Creek.

Bunk.

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.

LAL, surely you've seen the enhancements done to the film by primateer and others on the BFF. Meet the Sasquatch, by Christopher L. Murphy, includes many enhancements to film frames.

Compare an enhanced 5.5" x 5" face on the cover of the book to an original film frame blowup of the the face:

A comparison between the original and the touched-up version of the face can be found on page 93.

A frame 323 enhancement on page 81, shows details of the right hand and foot that are clearly missing in the original film frame (pages 53 and 67).

More enhancements to the face on pages 70 and 71 using frames 339, 350, and 352.

The enhancement of frame 352 that William Parcher posted, is also found on pages 54 and 96 of Meet the Sasquatch, yet none of those images looks like the original:

Can you tell which one is the original and which one is enhanced?

LAL, if you seriously think the film or frames from the film have NOT been enhanced, modified, or otherwise manipulated, I only have one reaction --

RayG

 

[Hellbound]

Oh good Lord.

Now Bigfoot wanders in southwest Arkansas?

I thought he liked remote forsests, not (relatively) heavily populated areas with lots of open land, farms fields, and oil fields. There are wooded areas, but they are not continuous nor large.

I live near that area, and I've been in the PB Arsenal they're talking of. Nice way to take quotes out of context, by the way.

The first quote you make is the Base Commander saying, basically, that a person could not have gotten into the secure area (a position I'd argue, but he's doing standard CYA right now).

In any case, the guard (the only one who actually saw anything) said it was people, the Colonel (who gave the first comment you quoted) saw nothing, but simply stated that people could not get in. THE FIRST QUOTE WAS FROM SONEONE WHO SAW NOTHING, AND WAS NOT EVEN PRESENT AT THE SIGHTING.

As to your second quote, yes, I've seen domesticated animals (cows) described as people on foot. I'd have a good ghost story that would haunt me for years if I hadn't crossed a fence several years ago. Even in the best of conditions, people make mistakes.

And there's no special requirements in the military to pull guard duty, so I don't want to hear any "trained observer" comments. I've been there and done that, got the T-shirt (and boots, and helmet, etc, etc).

If you're trying to turn this into evidence for Bigfoot, in any shape or fashion, then you seriously need professional help. This is a classic Argument from Ignorance.

"You don't know what it was, so it's BigFoot!"

If this is how you evaluate the reports, no wonder you think there's so much evidence.

"Police are still looking for the unknown person that robbed the First National Bank today..."

Huntster: "Unknown, it must've been BigFoot!"

Do you have anything...ANYTHING...to even remotely support your assertion that Bigfoot wandered into the secure area of the PB Arsenal?

I thought not.

 

[RayG]

Notice there is no mention of species at all?

There's no clear description of the 'intruders' either. On foot is not the same as walking on two legs.

Besides, with the recent increased threat of terrorism from Osama bin Laden, you'd think the security guard would have been a little more aggressive in trying to apprehend or identify these intruders. I mean, come on, we're talking about the second-largest chemical weapons depot in the United States.

For all we know it could have been racoons, but they're hyping it so most people will make a terrorism connection. Gotta keep the FUD flowing ya know. Maybe now the base Commander will get those extra funds for security he's been asking for.

RayG

 

[UrsulaV]

And there's no special requirements in the military to pull guard duty, so I don't want to hear any "trained observer" comments. I've been there and done that, got the T-shirt (and boots, and helmet, etc, etc).

Oh, jesus, ain't that the truth. I had a friend who wandered off guard duty to go get a Kit Kat and then acted vaguely baffled when they busted his ass for deserting his post. A dear man, but I wouldn't trust him to tell the difference between Bigfoot and a humpback whale at ten feet, in good light, if they were wearing little nametags.

 

[RayG]

Just reread that chemical weapons depot story and I may have an answer for the mysterious intruders.

The 13,000-acre Army complex, located a half-hour south of Little Rock, began destroying its chemical weapons stockpile in March to comply with international treaties.

They're just international weapons inspectors travelling fast and light.

RayG

 

[RayG]

A dear man, but I wouldn't trust him to tell the difference between Bigfoot and a humpback whale at ten feet, in good light, if they were wearing little nametags.

Damn good thing I didn't have a drink in my mouth when I read that.

RayG

 

[Hitch]

Oh good Lord.

Now Bigfoot wanders in southwest Arkansas?

I thought he liked remote forsests, not (relatively) heavily populated areas with lots of open land, farms fields, and oil fields. There are wooded areas, but they are not continuous nor large.

You may have noticed an interesting contradiction. When you ask a bigfoot woo why there's no real evidence for their pet fantasy, they go on and on about how remote and difficult to searh the Pacific Northwest forests are. But then they turn around and try to support their delusions by talking about the thousands of reports (like this one) from all over the world in all types of environments. Then they get really upset when you try to point out the obvious flaw in trying to combine these two arguments.

 

[Hellbound]

Tell me about it. Now, the area in question is not urban or even suburban, by any means, but compared to the usual arguments for the remote nature of bigfoot ranges, this place isn't even close. There's a freaking major east-west Interstate that runs within walking distance of the PB arsenal, for Ed's sake!

*sigh*

Not to mention that the PB arsenal is used by many reserve and guard units as a training ground or a way station for longer trips or convoys, it's not exactly remote in and of itself. A fairly busy place.

 

[UrsulaV]

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").

And people who lived with the Australian aborigines learned all about bunyips, and had anthropologists been living on the Orkney Isles back in the day, they'd be told about the Nuckalavee and the selkies. Or do you believe in those, too? (Hell, Selkies show up in a bunch of different myths. Were-seals are out there!)

Native lore is brutally unreliable as a source. Hell, I remember from my Brazilian Indians class, lo these many moons ago, an Amazonian tribe that believes little blue men live in the woods, and when you take enough ayahuasca-laced snuff, the little blue men come and live in your chest and give you magic. And yet, for some reason, the cryptozoology community is not out with little-blue-man traps baited with drugs and Terrence McKenna tracts to try and catch these guys. Can't imagine why not...

 

[UrsulaV]

Notice there is no mention of species at all?

*sigh* Huntster, even YOU should know that just because something's an unknown species, it doesn't follow that the species itself is unknown.

Something of unknown species was gettin' into my trash for about six months. While I had many speculations--feral dog? possum? raccoon?--it would have been patently absurd and surpassingly arrogant to even imply that just because I didn't know what species it was, therefore it was unknown to science. (And indeed, turned out to be Procyon lotor, which I confirmed by the arcane method of laying in wait until I heard thumping and then turning the porch light on.)

Now something's eating my birdseed at night. The species is yet unknown, although I can add deer and flying squirrels and a coupla varieties of night bird to the possible culprits. But you'll note that I do not attempt to turn my birdseed mystery into a really shoddy argument for cryptozoology by couching it in hysterical verbage like "It's not human! It's an unknown species!" because, while both statements are indeed true, it doesn't add up to evidence of squat.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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?

And whose word do I have, that none of those things were present?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Please produce the name of the artist.

Oh, no name, no touch up ?

Sure...

Your logic filter set to 110% as usual..

 

[RayG]

One of the biggest problems with enhancing images that contain indistinguishable features, it leaves room for lots of interpretation.

For example:

That's an exaggeration of course, but who can determine what embelishments have been added to the enhanced version? It seems like it's entirely up to the creator. (and I don't mean Ed.)

RayG

 

[Starrman]

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.

That's just a flip-flop, you stated in your earlier response that I don't believe in Bigfoot because I have been told not to believe. So you have no idea what I beleive or why, but I don't beleive in Bigfoot because that is what I am told. Make up your mind.

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.

Agreed

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

I'm just telling you what I believe.

Agreed - but you did say why I don't beleive quite clearly, though you seem to have changed your mind on that.

Who gives a damn about ridicule?

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

Did I say I was? You said that I don't believe because of ridicule:

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.

That was said by you! I was merely pointing out that an skeptical stance is more likely to be ridiculed among the general population. Don't put words into my mouth, which you seem to be doing wholesale right now.

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?

I can honestly say I don't know what you are trying to say here.

 

[UrsulaV]

That's just a flip-flop, you stated in your earlier response that I don't believe in Bigfoot because I have been told not to believe. So you have no idea what I beleive or why, but I don't beleive in Bigfoot because that is what I am told. Make up your mind.

He seems to do that a lot. Earlier he was telling me about the zealots of my religion, which was a pretty neat trick, since he didn't actually know what my religion was.

 

[Starrman]

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.

Sad. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.