Did that documentary propose that the trackway was made by a Bigfoot?
It interviewed Ed. It was a
double trackway.
That make sense when one is trying to perpetuate a myth. Be sure that your audience is receptive and won't turn strongly skeptical on you. When you "know" somebody, they are much less likely to start calling you delusional, even if they think you may be. The strategy for perpetuating the Bigfoot myth is to tailor and market your claim to a certain kind of audience. It won't work all the time; but it only has to work sometimes. This incident occurred after the 1967 PGF, so there would be some people who were receptive with an inclination for belief.
Stevenson was a backwater town with impossible TV reception. I don't know of any pre - '69 documentaries on TV or in theaters anyway. The first documentary film anyone might have seen would probably have been the one showing in Portland in 1974, well after these events. Ed could hardly have been influenced by that; he was in it. I never heard anyone mention seeing or reading anything about the PGF. Skamania County had the Ape Canyon incident in 1924 (I never heard that discussed either, BTW), and that was considerably before the PGF. There were multiple incidents in the county in 1969; so many the commissioners passed an ordinance against wantonly killing one, noting spoor suggested these animals do exist and fearing the hunters posed a danger to the community.
After the waitress with the dog told me her story, the owner of the restaurant, her boss, said, "Oh, that Ellen; she's such a liar." That might give you an indication of why people didn't want to talk. Another standard reaction, was, "He was drunk and it was a bear."
How do you perpetrate a myth by not talking about it?
Does he sound as candid and honest as Bob Heironimus does?
You think Heironimus sounds candid and honest? He sounds well-rehearsed, except when he contradicts an earlier story. When MK Davis spoke with him he said he'd done that too to everything Davis pointed out.
Regarding Ed, see the DVD and judge for yourself.
You do it like it was done for the giant panda, platypus, okapi, mountain gorilla and coelacanth, etc. When an animal is really there, you can confirm it. It doesn't have to be shot to be confirmed. Nonexistent animals that are perpetuated as real are always going to be "inconclusive" or "unconfirmed". Bigfoot looks just like this. Some people are claiming existence, and with no animal to show for it. Bigfoot is very different than the above mentioned "cryptids", because Bigfoot is thoroughly resistant to confirmation even in technologically-advanced modern times.
Gorillas were thought to be a native myth, coelocanths were being caught and eaten by the locals (science didn't go searching for them), it took 60 years to bring in a Giant Panda, okapis don't have a fossil record and to western science were only a local myth well into the 1900’s and the first platypus presented to the Royal Society was dismissed as a "clever Chinese fake".
That's how it's done, huh? I guess so.
There are a few amateur groups with some equipment (mostly donated in one case) doing their best with full time jobs and a month at most to spend in the field.
If you put "two-and-two" together, you also end up with a small population of leprechauns living in Ireland.
No, I don't.
Skamania County? This is obviously a BF hotspot and should have produced a confirmation by now. Bigfoot appears to be mythical when hotspots don't yield confirmations.
There are hotspots in Oregon, elsewhere in Washington and Northern California as well. Shouldn't there have been confirmation from there too? Just what well-funded scientific effort is going on currently - or was in the past?
Isn't that argument like there "should be fossils"? Who sets the timeline for when things are supposed to happen?
Bigfoot is freaky. Sure, you can say that they behave just like their species does in a normal manner. That's because you get to pick-and-choose what constitutes typical behavior for the species. Bigfoot is freaky because it has eluded confirmation in ways that are importantly different from other "hidden" species. It seems to never die, get killed, or leave its DNA where motivated people can gather it.
What's freaky is that there hasn't been a concentrated, ongoing scientific effort to find a body, shoot a body or hack off some testable DNA.
They're nomadic and largely nocturnal. It's easy for them to avoid their diurnal, settled cousins without even trying.
The term credible is nearly useless in Bigfoot arguments. It's because the term is used subjectively to reinforce support for reality by proxy. This means that a "credible person" ought not to be expected to ever be spectacularly wrong, or ever have a desire to participate in an oral legend. Bigfooters seem to close their minds to the full range of human personalities and potentials. Bigfooters stereotype people as either being unlikely to represent fantasy as reality (intentionally or mistakenly), or likely to do that with intent. They love to spotlight people who would seem to not be the type to misrepresent Bigfoot in any way.
You wouldn't be stereotyping "Bigfooters" would you? Investigators have been the ones collecting outrageous claims, hallucinations, lies, phony photos and evidence of hoaxes for years.
Personal credibility doesn't solve the "Bigfoot question" for either side. Bob Heironimus is deemed to be as credible as Bob Gimlin.
By whom?
Take your pick. Neither one of them possesses physical evidence that proves they are right about their claim.
Forget the film and casts, by all means. Bob Gimlin doesn't possess those, so I guess you're technically correct. And BH doesn't possess the suit.
BH walks like Patty (to skeptics this will serve as some support for his argument).
If you line up his legs, the torso doesn't fit. If you line up the orso, the legs don't fit. He walks like Bob Heironimus.
BG has the PGF (to believers this will serve as support for his argument). Coincidentally, both can use the PGF itself as support for their argument. Take your pick.
BG could see the muscles moving under the skin. He was there. I'm waiting for the detailed analysis proving it's a suit, but I'm not holding my breath.
Multiple witnesses would initially seem to add credible support to any incident. But it really doesn't. Witnesses to the same incident often offer differing accounts, and they are prone to later adjusting their recollection based on what the others have said. We know that both Patterson & Gimlin are both supposed to have experienced the same thing when they saw Patty and Roger filmed her. But they differ on their recollections in some meaningful ways. Roger said his foot was crushed and injured by his horse when it fell on him after seeing Patty. Bob said it didn't happen like that. But Roger showed a bent stirrup to audiences to prove his experience. Bob never did clarify the significance of the bent stirrup. Gimlin never has said anything like, "I guess his horse did crush his foot, because the bent stirrup proves it... and Roger isn't the kind of guy to fake anything like that (he's credible)", or "I saw that Roger's horse did not crush his foot and it seems that Roger did produce and flaunt a fake bent stirrup to support his false claim."
And that proves it was a hoax? Bob didn't see the horse fall on Roger. Ever see a small horse get up? They do it quickly. Bob was busy with his own horse, and was keeping Roger covered, not trying to shoot him, so he might not have had hos eyes on Roger when the horse went down. They disagreed on the length of the arms too, but the film bore Roger out.
There are, of course, other multiple witness sightings, one with footage.
Right. It's my belief that most reports of Bigfoot sightings are not any kind of real misidentification. I believe that most of them are outright fabrications. I also believe that most of the people who offer fabricated sightings are strongly skeptical (or flatly deny) of the existence of Bigfoot. When you are personally convinced that the animal doesn't exist, you have a kind of "green light" for creative fiction writing. It doesn't even matter if your intended audience truly believes in Bigfoot, or not. The point is all about the ability to have your fictional sighting counted as "credible", or at least intriguing and compelling.
"Belief" says it all. Since these animals don't exist, any photographs must be hoaxed. As Green noted, the argument is effective and perfectly circular, without a flaw in it anywhere.
Sounds like some suggestions to buy and read The Holy Bible. The holy rollers say the same sorts of things.
I'm sure you know I'm no Holy Roller.
Is there something wrong with source material?
Because you already know that Bigfoot exists.
No, because I started talking to people around town and finding out about other incidents, unrelated to the events of 1969. I read Big Footprints by Dr. Grover Krantz and found out there'd been a lot going on that I didn't know about. My idea that there'd been nothing since was imply wrong.
I wouldn't use the term lying for Green. I think he has been duped and is consequently devoted to his belief. Once he fully embraces his belief, he resists and argues against any evidence or suggestion that he may have been, and is still being duped. It's not the same as lying. He engages in strong confirmation bias, and that isn't really the same as lying either. Green advocates Bigfoot as a real creature, but he can't really show that it isn't a myth. It appears to me that you regularly suggest reading pro-Bigfoot books because you feel that they will convince others (even strong skeptics)as they have done for you. Just read the damn book already!
Yes, read the books written by the people who have done the work. Green was one good investigative reporter and he's still very sharp. He spent time and money actually travelling to check things out instead of sitting in a chair conjecturing.
You seem willing to believe every sceptical argument that comes along; why not read the works of the researchers too? I read the other side. I even own a copy of Long (gasp!). I paid money for it, too.
What books have you read, exactly?
