The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty

[Skeptical Greg]

....

They must match Patty EXACTLY, and they don't. Good fit, but not perfect..

Any recreation, animated or otherwise, will never be perfect ( enough ) ..

If someone came came up with a decent recreation of a suit, the proponents would scream that " It wasn't with the materials available to Patterson .. "

Proponents will always have a reason to believe, even in the presence of overwhelming evidence ( or lack thereof ) to the contrary; the most significant of which, is the lack of evidence that such a creature exists..

There is a relatively small number of people who think the PGF is anything but a hoax; and I suspect that most of them, are those who won't consider the possibility that Gimlin is not telling the truth ..

Those who have lingering doubts, for whatever reason, will be moved closer to the truth by mangler's work ..

 

[Vortigern99]

Come on, you're joking right? These are nice animations but they don't prove anything. They certainly aren't up to photogrammetric standards. Mangler will be the 1st one to admit this.

Let it be known that I am not a trained scientist and that my opinion on this matter must be taken with the appropriate grain or block of salt. To refresh the record, I minored in anthropology and primatology in college, and am a figure artist/illustrator with 25 years experience in studying and delineating human proportions and musculo-skeletal anatomy. For whatever any of that is worth, it does not constitute a degree in any science.

That said, I understand the standards of taxonomy and the rules governing species identification. I understand human anatomy and to a lesser degree the anatomy of non-human primates, especially chimpanzees. I know the dividing line between a chimp and a bonobo, for example, because I've watched the controversy over the latter's identification as a separate species for many years. Based on my non-professional knowledge of these facts, it is my expert layman's opinion that mangler's animation proves that Patty is Homo sapiens. (See my response to davefoc, above, for further clarification.)

They must match Patty EXACTLY, and they don't. Good fit, but not perfect. It has nothing to do with Mangler's efforts, it's just highly unlikely that the figure in the suit had the exact same dimensions as the poser, human or otherwise. And that's just 1 of the major problems here.

They don't have to "match Patty EXACTLY" as you opine. The question of Bob Heironimous aside, in order to show that Patty is unquestionably a human being (any human being, not specifically Bob H.), all that has to be shown is that her proportions are completely human, and that her gait can be matched by a normal human. (See my assertions regarding species identification, above and upthread.) This has now been done.

This poser figure has "standard" proportions that were forced to fit over Patty's images. But this approach is backwards. At best it's only phase 1. For phase 2, the proportions must be adjusted for a BETTER fit. Repeat this process until you converge on an accurate model of Patty. The resulting animation will then meet photogrammetric standards. Otherwise, what do these animations actually show? They AREN'T averages and they certainly don't prove that a person with "poser" proportions fits perfectly in the suit. As I alluded to upthread, whenever limbs are foreshortened, there are always MULTIPLE solutions for a 2D representation of a 3D object. This can only be resolved thru averaging over many frames, which in turn revises the model. This was not done here. Each frame was fit independently and the poser's proportions were never averaged.

Not to sound harsh, but for these animations to mean anything, they must attempt to match Patty's proportions, not force a "standard" human CG figure over them. The objective should be to achieve an optimal fit. Not close, it must be exact. No excuses. These animations don't fit to these specifications probably because the model is rigid and due to limitations of the software.

Then there is the hefty preparation required before these animations can meet photogrammetric standards (listed upthread). I wouldn't trust any derivations from any PGF images unless these standards were adhered to. Any CG animation can't come close to proving anything, otherwise.

But I also applaud Mangler, who has proven the persuasiveness of a slick graphic. Very nice job...and proof enough, for some. I guess I'm just a stickler, but I need more. Bring on phase 2.

Fair enough. I already said "It must be stated that proportionally, the mangler figure is not a precise match with 'Patty'" and "If I had the capacity to generate a similar animation, I would shrink the human figure slightly and raise him up a bit from the ground plane."

But the groundwork has been laid, from which initial determinations can logically be made. Barring any future turnarounds, which based on my own visual perception and understanding of human proportion I do not foresee, "Phase 2" will be a further corroboration and verification of the results of Phase 1.

Every research project requires error analysis and peer review, of course, but based on mangler's initial findings, I for one feel comfortable as a non-scientist expert in the area of human anatomy, in concluding that the PG figure is incontestably human.

 

[River]

River, quick question for you. From one person who's had a lot of experience with Wild Bill to another, it's good to have you join us here in an environment devoted to critical thinking. I note that very few Bigfoot enthusiasts want to address any of the glaring indications of hoaxing that you continue to raise at the BFF. I know what it's like to have Bigfooters ignore and evade important questions. That aside for a moment, I was interested in this comment of yours over at the BFF...


url removed because it wont let me post it, and it made me lose an entirely long post uhgg

What exactly was it about the JREF that you found to be crass? Was it something specific? Was it a thread in General Skepticism and the Paranormal? Say, Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology or Education, for example? Economics, Business and Finance or maybe History, Literature, and the Arts? Religion and Philosophy, Computers and the Internet?

I'm wondering this because I'm used to seeing fanatical people with deeply impaired critical thinking such as SweatyYeti refer to the JREF as a sewer, but I've never seen someone who posts skeptical arguments speak ill of this forum. I had the impression from reading your posts in the PGF section of the BFF that you were a skeptic, but maybe I misunderstood and you're a Bigfoot proponent who believes the PGF was a hoax. I could understand why you might think poorly of the JREF then.

Please don't interpret my question as being hostile or perturbed. I'm simply curious as to what cold make you think the JREF is crass. That would be one of the last words that comes to my mind when I think of this forum. Personally, I consider it to be the most useful and educational website and enlightened community on the entire internet. It is certainly the largest gathering of critical thinkers on the web. I can learn about pretty much anything I want to know and I can get all sorts of assistance on any kind of problem, whether my computer is cracking out or my understanding of quantum physics is cracking out.

Anyway, I am confident that your opinion of the JREF will rapidly change, if it hasn't already, and I hope you enjoy your time here.

Hey kitakaze, thanks for the nice welcome in this thread and in the other that was closed. I appreciate that ;-)

As for my comment about the forums being crass: it's directed more towards individuals posting rather than the forum as a whole. When I first started reading this forum I came across many posts that were more personal insults or rather distasteful in tone more so than presenting any intellectual dialogue, theories or other factual information regarding the topics being discussed. This of course doesnt mean I think of all of the posters here in this regard! Since I've read a little more and become more familiar with the forum I've become less tainted in that regard. There are many that post here presenting very intellectual points and theories that stray from the 3rd grade mentality I initially encountered. Please do not take my initial impressions as an insult, as I'm sure you've witnessed this type of thing here as well in some cases. It has become apparent that there are many very bright people participating and intelluctual discussions taking place on these forums to me since that time. (ignoring the idiots and trolls that is)

It is true I've had more than my share of debate with Bill Munns regarding the PGF and his "report" regarding it! I consider Bill to be a very kind and intelligent man. However, I think his report tends to be extremely agenda biased. I'm of the opinion that he's been more than willing to skew data in order to meet his objectives. I also find that he's very good at avoiding certain questions/points by speaking around the issues with non related, or vaguely related information to make it seem as if he's addressed the point. (so annoying!) No disrespect meant towards Bill. I think he's in an extremely uphill battle with this report given his seemingly biased approach of trying to prove the subject of the film to depict a real animal.


I'm not sure that I fit into the bigfoot proponent/enthusiast category so much. I'm of the belief that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up. In that regard I'm extremely skeptical of any outlandish claims made with little or no evidence to back them up. As to date, there have been no substantial (this is subjective of course) evidence presented scientifically or otherwise to prove the existence of such an animal roaming the NA continent. If someone lays a body on the slab, I'll be happy to consider it a done deal. I consider myself open minded to most theories or speculation as long as its presented in such a way that it leaves the discussion on that level without assumptions of fact or definitive statements being presented with baseless findings/evidence to support it.

In my book its "ok" to theorize or speculate asking for peer review. I just hate to see people using those theories or speculation presented as something factual. To distinguish the difference is important in my eyes.


Thanks again for the kind welcome ;-)

 

[davefoc]

...

I respectfully disagree. I opine that we can now make a reasonable, evidence-based determination that a human being of normal proportions could easily have fit inside the parameters of the PG figure, without recourse to mechanical or prosthetic extensions, demonstrating with sufficient certainty (based on the rules of taxonomic classification with regard to physiology, proportion and locomotion) that the figure is indeed genus/species Homo sapiens.

For the record, our disagreement, if it exists is tiny.

You said this:

"There is and there can be no non-human animal with precisely human proportions that walks exactly like a human. No species in the animal kingdom shares the precise proportions and gait of another species; it's part of what separates us, physiologically and genetically,"

This is your key assertion and when it is combined with the proof that the creature in the PG film could be a human and that it could not be any other known creature would make it impossible for the PG film to be of a genuine wild creature.

I think the chances that this is true approaches certainty. However that is the very thing that bigfoot people are asserting is false and just declaring it to be true is not evidence that it is false.

I think we both agree that the evidence that there are not living unknown hominids in the world today is very strong. But that evidence can not be derived from the film and or from the evidence that the creature in the PG film is not any other known animal than a human.

The case against there being another living hominid might include some of the following:
1. No fossil trail of such a creature for the past 30,000 years although the possibility of hobbit people being a different hominid species reduces that to about 10,000 years.

2. The vast number of people on the earth filling most human habitable niches and traveling through much of the rest of the world who year after year fail to report any credible evidence of a bigfoot type creaure.

3. The complete lack of photographic or biological evidence for such a creature despite the millions of people that might photograph one if it existed.

The case against there being another living hominid is the Pacific Northwest is even stronger because there is no evidence whatsoever for such a creature to have lived in the Pacific Northwest.

 

[makaya325]

I think we both agree that the evidence that there are not living unknown hominids in the world today is very strong.

What about the Orang Pendek, Yeren, Yeti, Yowie, etc?

1. No fossil trail of such a creature for the past 30,000 years although the possibility of hobbit people being a different hominid species reduces that to about 10,000 years.

Nobody found the first chimpanzee fossil until 2004! Estimates range from 100's of millions to billions of chimpanzee ancestors that have lived in africa without ever being found

2. The vast number of people on the earth filling most human habitable niches and traveling through much of the rest of the world who year after year fail to report any credible evidence of a bigfoot type creaure.

Not the remote areas of the world though. Nobody really has explored all of Alaska.

3. The complete lack of photographic or biological evidence for such a creature despite the millions of people that might photograph one if it existed

.

And people do photograph them. Considering there are, what, billions upon billions of individual deer sightings, yet deers are not exactly found daily by the average joe

[/QUOTE]

 

[davefoc]

What about the Orang Pendek, Yeren, Yeti, Yowie, etc?

The fact that there are many anecdotes about encounters with fantastic creatures is of no probative value as to whether the fantastic creatures actually exist. There will always be anecdotes about encounters with fantastic creatures whether they exist or not. It is completely within the nature of humans to fantasize and lie and a certain percentage of the population will periodically do so.

Nobody found the first chimpanzee fossil until 2004! Estimates range from 100's of millions to billions of chimpanzee ancestors that have lived in africa without ever being found

That seems like a good point to me. However, there have been a large number of hominid type fossils found dating from after the split with chimpanzees. There have been over 400 specimens of neanderthal found alone. And yet there have been no specimens of any kind of great ape or hominid ever found in North America that could have been the creature in the PG film. Nor have there been any fossils ever found that are less than about 40,000 years old that could have been the creature in the PG film period.

Not the remote areas of the world though. Nobody really has explored all of Alaska.

Yes, there is quite a bit of land that is very isolated from humans. Some remote areas of Canada are extremely sparsely populated and it is certainly plausible that they contain unknown mammals. However a large unknown hominid seems quite unlikely to me. First, there are no known primates of any kind that live in an environment like that. Humans can survive in this environment only with substantial technology passed down through generations. Secondly these hypothetical hominids would need to be so immobile that they never venture into human settlements and they would need to be so secretive that they are never encountered by the occasional miner/explorer/adventurer who happens into their territory. These hypothetical hominids make nothing that is detected from the air. They make no artifacts that have been found. There skeletons are never found and nobody takes any pictures of them.

There were frequent interactions between the indigenous people who lived in the Artic region and the early explorers and whalers who made their way into their territory. So even fairly sparse populations of indigenous people living in the artic regions were came into contact with the early European explorers. And yet these same European explorers brought back no credible evidence of interaction with any kind of non-human hominid. [/QUOTE]

.

And people do photograph them. Considering there are, what, billions upon billions of individual deer sightings, yet deers are not exactly found daily by the average joe

People living in Orange County, CA rarely see deer, but I see them fairly often when I am walking on the local trails in the early evening. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of deer pictures taken every year in the US exceeds 100,000.

 

[kitakaze]

Hey kitakaze, thanks for the nice welcome in this thread and in the other that was closed. I appreciate that ;-)

As for my comment about the forums being crass: it's directed more towards individuals posting rather than the forum as a whole. When I first started reading this forum I came across many posts that were more personal insults or rather distasteful in tone more so than presenting any intellectual dialogue, theories or other factual information regarding the topics being discussed. This of course doesnt mean I think of all of the posters here in this regard! Since I've read a little more and become more familiar with the forum I've become less tainted in that regard. There are many that post here presenting very intellectual points and theories that stray from the 3rd grade mentality I initially encountered. Please do not take my initial impressions as an insult, as I'm sure you've witnessed this type of thing here as well in some cases. It has become apparent that there are many very bright people participating and intelluctual discussions taking place on these forums to me since that time. (ignoring the idiots and trolls that is)

Thanks for your explanation, Ben. I'm guessing it was mostly the Michigan thread with its squabbling footers that gave you that impression. Mostly. I could think it might have well also been the giant, coloured text spazzes and insults in this thread in which I've not always been flowers hugs, as well. That Michigan thread was a trainwreck and I've seen it happen before when a Bigfoot thread becomes a cage match for footers from rival sects. Bigfoot, afterall, is a fringe belief and it attracts many socially retarded people. I'm glad the thread went to Abandon All Hope considering what a headache it became for moderators. It's unfortunate that we have to continue the thread on moderated status.

Have a browse around the forum and you'll soon find many things that strike your interest. Red tells me you're also a musician, a guitarist. You'll find some great music and guitarist threads in Movies, TV, Music, Computer Gaming, and other Entertainment. I play guitar, as well, (mostly jazz, latin, blues) but I wouldn't call my self a guitarist only, as I play many instruments. I can tell you some stories and share some videos of some of the amazing guitarists I've performed with. You can share your music there, too.

It is true I've had more than my share of debate with Bill Munns regarding the PGF and his "report" regarding it! I consider Bill to be a very kind and intelligent man. However, I think his report tends to be extremely agenda biased. I'm of the opinion that he's been more than willing to skew data in order to meet his objectives. I also find that he's very good at avoiding certain questions/points by speaking around the issues with non related, or vaguely related information to make it seem as if he's addressed the point. (so annoying!) No disrespect meant towards Bill. I think he's in an extremely uphill battle with this report given his seemingly biased approach of trying to prove the subject of the film to depict a real animal.

All those things you mention about Wild Bill I know from experience here very well. If you look back through any of the threads in which Munns was posting, you'll find lots of words written by me on those things you mention. Bill has been on a mission to carve out a niche for himself in Bigfootery from the beginning. I've yet to see a single person who was not a Bigfoot enthusiast who couldn't see that he had decided Patty was real long ago and has undertaken the task of making up facts to support the position.

Bill often thinks he is being subtle in his evasions and insults but he is anything but. Remember the post at the BFF thread where he goes into the drawn out numbered pseudo-intellectual foo foo about why it doesn't matter that so many SFX people with better experience than him consider Patty to be a transparent hoax? That is some classic Wild Bill. It's posturing simply for the benefit of his fans. If he spoke five minutes with Tom Savini about 15 mm lens this and 7'4"/extremely Inuit body propotions that, the man would laugh himself silly and rightly so. Pseudo-intellectual poseur foo foo designed for the willing believers.

Meanwhile, regular people have little trouble looking at Patty and seeing a man in a suit. Think about what Bill is doing. Nothing he is doing is ever, ever, ever going to make Bigfoot anymore of a reality with out reliable evidence. Saskeptic over in the BFF Munns thread nailed it when he apologized to the crowd and said we still need a type specimen to classify a species. Sorry, footers, reality isn't changing just for you. What Bill is doing is putting himself to a task in which he can gather attention and accolades. He sees himself as a Renaissance man and the PGF hobby is the the feather he's always wanted to stick in his cap.

Well, he's welcome to it and good luck with that. Bigfoot is still a myth. Personally, I've pretty much forgotten about Munns' meanderings. I don't even take the Munns Report seriously enough anymore to waste any time writing about it. Anybody that gets boonswoggled by that 15mm lens/7'4" hooey can keep it. We knew what Munns was going to flop out long before he did it and nothing's changed. The PGF is still the fortean addict's crack and a cute little bit of pop culture everywhere else.

I'm not sure that I fit into the bigfoot proponent/enthusiast category so much. I'm of the belief that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up. In that regard I'm extremely skeptical of any outlandish claims made with little or no evidence to back them up. As to date, there have been no substantial (this is subjective of course) evidence presented scientifically or otherwise to prove the existence of such an animal roaming the NA continent. If someone lays a body on the slab, I'll be happy to consider it a done deal. I consider myself open minded to most theories or speculation as long as its presented in such a way that it leaves the discussion on that level without assumptions of fact or definitive statements being presented with baseless findings/evidence to support it.

In my book its "ok" to theorize or speculate asking for peer review. I just hate to see people using those theories or speculation presented as something factual. To distinguish the difference is important in my eyes.


Thanks again for the kind welcome ;-)

Footers like to tell each other that skeptics are motivated by fear; that the notion of Bigfoot is unsettling to us and threatens our dogmatic world view. What a lot of gobbledy-gook. Find me one person here that wouldn't be stoked for Bigfoot to turn out to be real. Find me one Bigfoot skeptic wouldn't jump up and down to be proven wrong and eat crow with gusto. Give it to us, footers. Rub our faces in it. Everybody wins. See the smile when we see Bigfoot is real. Until they have something with which to rub faces in, we can only smile and ask but what about the chupacabras. At least they have better evidence.

There are no Bigfoots, there are only sad, socially retarded people with a strong desire to see themselves as intellectual mavericks and I desire to carve out a community niche that they could never handle in real life.

Bigfoot is for Bigfooters. Woods & Wildmen is a game and that's all there is.

 

[makaya325]

The fact that there are many anecdotes about encounters with fantastic creatures is of no probative value as to whether the fantastic creatures actually exist. There will always be anecdotes about encounters with fantastic creatures whether they exist or not. It is completely within the nature of humans to fantasize and lie and a certain percentage of the population will periodically do so.

Tell that to the tribes in Africa who reported a large hairy beast taking their women. Westerners laughed at that, yet it turned out to be the legendary Mountain Gorilla, which left myth and entered reality. Explorers have allegedly found Orang Pendek DNA, so lets hope the test's come back on a good note

That seems like a good point to me. However, there have been a large number of hominid type fossils found dating from after the split with chimpanzees. There have been over 400 specimens of neanderthal found alone. And yet there have been no specimens of any kind of great ape or hominid ever found in North America that could have been the creature in the PG film. Nor have there been any fossils ever found that are less than about 40,000 years old that could have been the creature in the PG film period.

There are plenty of Fossil hominids that could fit the description of the PGF figure. Most of our fossil record is unknown to science, and that we have only discovered a small percentage of all the fossil Hominids.

Yes, there is quite a bit of land that is very isolated from humans. Some remote areas of Canada are extremely sparsely populated and it is certainly plausible that they contain unknown mammals. However a large unknown hominid seems quite unlikely to me.

They said the same about the Mountain Gorilla.

First, there are no known primates of any kind that live in an environment like that.

I assume that you mean Great apes. What if we are dealing with a Hominid, not a dumb ape?

Humans can survive in this environment only with substantial technology passed down through generations. Secondly these hypothetical hominids would need to be so immobile that they never venture into human settlements and they would need to be so secretive that they are never encountered by the occasional miner/explorer/adventurer who happens into their territory. These hypothetical hominids make nothing that is detected from the air.

Let's say that they are seen only 400 times a year. That is a really, really, really low chance of seeing one. Compare that to the billions of deer sightings.

There skeletons are never found and nobody takes any pictures of them.

There are pictures of them. It is up to you whether to accept them or not. Just remember, that the Forest Elephant is RARELY photographed in it's natural habitat in Africa, despite their size.

And yet these same European explorers brought back no credible evidence of interaction with any kind of non-human hominid.

That is quite flawed.

From Bigfoot lives.com

The first written account of the North American ‘Wildman’ occurred in 986 AD when Leif Erikson and his men landed in the new world. (Several centuries before Christopher Columbus, i might add). In Samuel Eliot Morisons account of the Norse voyages, Erikson mentions creatures which were “horribly ugly, hairy, swarthy and with big black eyes”.4

May have he encountered regular Indians? Perhaps, but then again, you did ask for any kind of anecdotes.

Mariano Mozino in his book Noticia de Nutka published in Spanish in 1792 wrote :

“I do not know what to say about the matlox (Sasquatch), inhabitant of the mountainous districts, of whom all have an unbelievable fear. They imagine his body as very monstrous, all covered with stiff black bristle; a head similar to a human one but with much greater, sharper and stronger fangs than those of the bear; extremely long arms; and toes and fingers armed with long curved claws. His shouts alone (they say) force those who hear them to the ground, and any unfortunate body he slaps is broken in to a thousand pieces.”9

People living in Orange County, CA rarely see deer, but I see them fairly often when I am walking on the local trails in the early evening. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of deer pictures taken every year in the US exceeds 100,000.

True, but the estimate of individual deer sightings yearly would likely be in the billions, yet they are not found daily by the average Joe. Why isn't the forest floor covered with Deer bones?

 

[makaya325]

According to Kitz

There are no Bigfoots,

Tell that to LT.

there are only sad, socially retarded people

Excuse me? Reported

 

[Avindair]

Don't be a stranger, Avindair. I'd love to have someone of your experience around.

Thanks for the kind words, Kitz, but I just don't have the free time I once had to trade words with Footers. Besides, I've come to the conclusion that trying to convince a Bigfoot Believer that the PGF is clearly a fraud is like trying to make a river run backwards. Sure, it happens on occasion (the Mississippi in 1812), but those are the rate exceptions, not the rule.

These days I'm just content to sit back and marvel at the religious fervor that has grown up around this silly man-in-a-suit footage. It actually makes for a fascinating study in the growth of belief systems. I don't know if it's right up there with the New Guinea Cargo Cults , but to me at least it's just as interesting.

Avindair

...who would dearly love one day for someone to offer genuine, irrefutable proof of a sasquatch...

...but who also is quite certain that it will never, ever happen.

 

[makaya325]

Thanks for the kind words, Kitz, but I just don't have the free time I once had to trade words with Footers. Besides, I've come to the conclusion that trying to convince a Bigfoot Believer that the PGF is clearly a fraud is like trying to make a river run backwards. Sure, it happens on occasion (the Mississippi in 1812), but those are the rate exceptions, not the rule.

These days I'm just content to sit back and marvel at the religious fervor that has grown up around this silly man-in-a-suit footage. It actually makes for a fascinating study in the growth of belief systems. I don't know if it's right up there with the New Guinea Cargo Cults , but to me at least it's just as interesting.

Avindair

...who would dearly love one day for someone to offer genuine, irrefutable proof of a sasquatch...

...but who also is quite certain that it will never, ever happen.

There is a difference between saying "I think the pgf is fake, but that is only an opinion" and saying "the pgf must be a fake, even though i cant prove it"

 

[Avindair]

There is a difference between saying "I think the pgf is fake, but that is only an opinion" and saying "the pgf must be a fake, even though i cant prove it"

Indeed, there is a difference.

The difference, of course, is that it's up to the proponent to provide evidence for their extraordinary claim. It is not up to the observer to disprove their assertion. Since my position isn't extraordinary (to whit, "It's a guy in freaking suit,") I'm done.

'nuff said.

 

[makaya325]

Indeed, there is a difference.

The difference, of course, is that it's up to the proponent to provide evidence for their extraordinary claim. It is not up to the observer to disprove their assertion. Since my position isn't extraordinary (to whit, "It's a guy in freaking suit,") I'm done.

'nuff said.

That is not how it goes. It does not matter how mundane or extraordinary the claim is, all that matters is that the person who claimed whatever has to provide proof to back up there claim

 

[davefoc]

Tell that to the tribes in Africa who reported a large hairy beast taking their women. Westerners laughed at that, yet it turned out to be the legendary Mountain Gorilla, which left myth and entered reality.

This evidence cuts more against the case for an unknown hominid than for it:
1. The discovery by Europeans was made in 1902. More than a hundred year ago, Europeans were able to discover a rare creature that lived in a remote (relative to Europeans) part of the world. There's a lot more people now with a lot more sophisticated equipment to detect unknown animals and still no bigfoot.

2. The gorilla was found in Africa where a subspecies of a known species or even a new species of great ape wouldn't have been completely unexpected even at the time. By comparison the existence of an unknown hominid living in the Pacific Northwest would have been much more surprising even with knowledge available in 1902.

... Explorers have allegedly found Orang Pendek DNA, so lets hope the test's come back on a good note

The Orang Pendek, if it exists, is reported to be much smaller than the creature in the PG film. It could be just a subspecies of an existing primate. The only thing that I found about Orang Pendek DNA test on line was about some hair that was tested and found to be probably human. There seems to have been some pretty dedicated attempts to provide proof of the existence of this creature and nobody has succeeded so far. So it's a bit of a stretch to use the possible but unlikely existence of a short probably non hominid , certainly non big foot like creature as evidence of any kind that the image in the PG film could be a wild creature.

There are plenty of Fossil hominids that could fit the description of the PGF figure. Most of our fossil record is unknown to science, and that we have only discovered a small percentage of all the fossil Hominids.

This is doubtlessly true. However an amazing number of fossils have been found and there is nothing in what has been found as far as I know that supports the idea of a great ape in North America, ever. There is also no evidence for any non human hominid that is less than about 28,000 years old (except for Homo floresiensis which even if it was a non human species is too small to have been bigfoot). So the bigfoot hominid would need to be either an unknown hominid species or be a remnant population of a hominid for which the fossil evidence disappears more than 28,000 years ago. So the bigfoot hyphothes here requires that older fossils can be found but new fossils can't be found even though the creature hasn't died out or that no fossils ever of the hypothetical bigfoot hominid have been found.

...
I assume that you mean Great apes.

I sort of meant great apes. I wasn't aware of how many primate fossils had been found in North American until I did a little reading based on your comment.

What if we are dealing with a Hominid, not a dumb ape?

I think it has almost been established that the if the creature in the PG film wasn't a human it was a hominid. It is difficult to prove this beyond all doubt but it is obvious to even a casual observe that the image is not of any known non-human primate. Whatever the creature is, it is either a human in a monkey suit or a creature that is very closely related to a human.

And that is a problem for the hypothesis that the PG film creature is a real wild animal. If it is a hominid it would need to be living a very non hominid life to have avoided detection. It doesn't travel substantially otherwise it certainly would have been detected in the periphery of its range. It lives in an area where the only known hominids to have survived have required technology and the ability to build structures and weapons and yet nothing resembling weapons, tools, clothes, and shelters built by an unknown hominid have been found.

If it was a hominid, living with no or almost no technology, how would it compete with the grizzly bears that share it's range? They would eat similar food and yet in almost every way the grizzly bear is better suited to exploit those sources. Hominids without technology probably aren't going to do well if they need to compete with grizzlies.

...

There are pictures of them. It is up to you whether to accept them or not. Just remember, that the Forest Elephant is RARELY photographed in it's natural habitat in Africa, despite their size.

But it is photographed and people who want to find them and put the effort into finding them do find them. An enormous effort has been put into finding Bigfoot and yet the pile of evidence is nothing more than what one would expect given the human penchant for fantasizing and lying.

As to the history of miscellaneous sightings through the years:
This is an are where we will just disagree I suspect. I think it is reasonable to almost completely discount them. As I noted above, people fantasize and people lie. In addition people can be just plain mistaken. The sum of those characteristics means that humans routinely produce stories about creatures that don't exist or that are about an existing creature that they have wildly misdescribed. Anecdotal evidence is almost of no value when one is evaluating the possibility that a particular creature exists. There are millions of stories about unknown creatures most of which are certainly mythological, some of these mythological creatures become well known enough that a kind of synergy is created between the story tellers and the legends. Many of these creatures have their own group of experts including a few academics that write about them and argue for their existence. I don't think either the existence of stories or the existence of a few experts can serve as evidence for the existence of unknown creatures. It is just evidence about the nature of humans.

 

[GT/CS]

That is not how it goes. It does not matter how mundane or extraordinary the claim is, all that matters is that the person who claimed whatever has to provide proof to back up there claim

Mak#1

If you tell your teacher you didn't turn in your term paper because a weird, unknown species of dog ate it it's 100% up to you to prove the dog ate the paper. The teacher has absolutely no responsibility to prove you're a liar and the dog did not eat the homework. And you'd be considered a liar until you proved the extraordinary claim that you encountered an unclassified homework-eating dog.

 

[makaya325]

Mak#1

If you tell your teacher you didn't turn in your term paper because a weird, unknown species of dog ate it it's 100% up to you to prove the dog ate the paper. The teacher has absolutely no responsibility to prove you're a liar and the dog did not eat the homework. And you'd be considered a liar until you proved the extraordinary claim that you encountered an unclassified homework-eating dog.

Knock it off with the wise-ass comments, ok?

No, I would never make the claim that a dog ate my homework. If the teacher claimed that a fake dog ate it, it would be up to her to prove that. You are mixing up the "prove it doesnt exist" bull with the "You claim it, prove it" arguement

 

[makaya325]

An enormous effort has been put into finding Bigfoot and yet the pile of evidence is nothing more than what one would expect given the human penchant for fantasizing and lying.

You can't be serious? There is no "enormous effort" being taken to look for bigfoot. No, more like a bunch of amateurs and wildlife researchers spending a night in the woods and calling it a day

 

[makaya325]

But it is photographed and people who want to find them and put the effort into finding them do find them.

True, but they are not found at a frequent clip. In fact, they are quite rare

 

[neltana]

True, but they are not found at a frequent clip. In fact, they are quite rare

But that is precisely the point! They [forest elephants] are rare, and yet we can still get pictures of them. Not so for BF! We still don't have confirmed, unambiguous pictures of them.


kitakaze, you need to clean out your inbox. I'm trying to send you a PM, it is darn interesting, but you can't see it!

 

[GT/CS]

Knock it off with the wise-ass comments, ok?

No, I would never make the claim that a dog ate my homework. If the teacher claimed that a fake dog ate it, it would be up to her to prove that. You are mixing up the "prove it doesnt exist" bull with the "You claim it, prove it" arguement

Who said anything about the teacher claiming a fake dog ate it?

Since you are having reading comprehension issues today you may want to run this past Mak#2 and see if he can explain it to you.