Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Because a quadraped doesn't fit into the giant hairy man mythology..
But come to think of it, don't some of the sightings include quadrapedal behaviour?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot film patterson gimlin
- Status
But come to think of it, don't some of the sightings include quadrapedal behaviour?
Because they have a database of witness testimony that other organizations do not have.
There is also John Green's more impressive and valid database, but it is not yet digitized.
Whoa, wait a minute.
Are you alleging that each and every report in the BFRO database (not to mention the Green database) are false?
I don't have the teeth, nor can I present them to you personally. How do I "prove it"?
That's the problem with most of the radical skeptics on this site. They ask for proof, but will accept nothing.
You write that as "King Kong" is currently making a blockbuster comeback?
How's this?:
Now, I think some of that is bullsh!t.
For example: How do you estimate the intermembral index when all you have are teeth and a partial mandible? I can understand how you can estimate the size of the head from that, and then estimate the size of the body, but the arm and leg length?
And, at the same time, the intermembral index shown in the Patterson film proves that the subject of the film is not a man in a suit, yet people scoff at that fact, saying that you can't reliably measure the arm and leg length from the film?
Bullspit. That's more of the double standards so common in this field.
UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
Perhaps that's why they opened by saying it was "speculative" and mentioning the very uncertainty of reconstruction without those parts, and then explained how they arrived at that speculative estimate based on body models of other primates? Perhaps bigger caveats like "WARNING: SUPER DUPER ULTRA-SPECULATIVE" for sensitive viewers would help dispel your concerns of a double standard? What more would you like them to say?
I think that is indeed speculative measurement, and not proof, and would require future confirmation from other fossils before we claimed to know exactly what that species looked like. I daresay the scientists writing that article would agree. Recreations based on known body types are exceedingly common, which is why our vision of various fossils can change radically over time as more information is added. Generally recreations are hedged about with caveats like "This is what Species A might have looked like," and they are changed when later information comes along, which is why paleo artists groan and throw out chunks of their portfolio whenever somebody dredges up an Ambulocetus shin.
I also think that the arm and leg length claims relating to the Bigfoot in the Patterson film is speculative, and I have yet to see a conclusive proof that they are or aren't too long, either way. Claiming that they prove anything about whether it is or isn't a guy in a suit seems to be jumping the gun.
I think it's probably a guy in a suit because it bloody well looks like a guy in a suit to me, but since it's such a crappy image, I freely admit that I might be wrong and the film may simply do Bigfoot a disservice. Hence my desire for a really good photo.
As Giganto is unlikely to turn up for the photo op, in their case, more complete fossils will be enough. So rejoice Huntster--skeptics want a carcass from them as proof, too!
How about leaving out the intermembral index baloney altogether, and focus on tooth size, jaw size, and how that would relate to head size, and then overall head/body size ratios, and leave it at that?
If people watching the Patterson film can't get a reasonable enough IM index to prove that isn't a man in a suit, why get into it with nothing but teeth and mandibles?
I disagree, and so does John Green.
RayG
Master Poster
Should BFRO reports be accepted simply because they're from the BFRO? They claim to be a scientific organization, should that give them more authority? Should ALL their reports be accepted at face value? Should Class A reports like this one from Alaska be accepted, even though no clear sighting, no footprints, nor any physical evidence was found to confirm bigfoot as the culprit? In fact, the person giving the details of the encounter stated, not once but twice, "I would not look behind the house." Kinda hard to find evidence if you won't look for it.
What about reports from other databases/sources? Should reports of bigfoot with wings, bigfoot wearing clothes, and bigfoot in chains, be accepted as valid reports? How is a report with a tidbit of evidence separated from a report with no evidence?
Should a witness report be accepted simply because of their status in the community. I'm no saint, but I would have sworn on a stack of Bibles that I saw a goat the size of a horse run across the road in front of my car one morning. After scanning the side of the road, noting the wad of kleenex on the dash, my lack of sleep, and the motion of the car, I concluded I was seeing things. There was no goat, horse-sized or not. People can flat out be mistaken or misperceive something.
Let me turn psychic and predict what your response will be.... -- Even if we eliminate 99% of the eyewitness reports because of fatigue, poor eyesight, bad weather conditions, and the like, the remaining 1% of sightings can't be adequately explained away by skeptics, so bigfoot must exist. --
Am I close?
RayG
RayG
Master Poster
RayG
Master Poster
Can you link to one that shows proof of bigfoot? Hell their expedition reports make it sound like bigfoot has not only been confirmed, but they stumble across him on nearly every outing.
RayG
RayG
Master Poster
Yup, I'm one of those that questions the accuracy of the IM index based on nothing more than photographs. John Green has even gone so far as to give the lengths of the arms (30 inches from the shoulder to the wrist) and legs (35 inches from the hip to the ground), even though he seems unable to decide on a height estimate. (Not really surprising, even Patterson (7'4") and Gimlin (6'1" or 6'2") disagree on the height and they were there.)
I remain unconvinced that an accurate IM index can be established without intimate knowledge of the anatomy involved or actual bone measurements.
RayG
UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
And I'm delerious with joy for you both, I'm sure.
However, I stand by my statement. All the speculation about the leg length and what not in the PGF are still speculative and will likely remain so until much better photos and/or a body arrive to provide confirmation or corroboration. I am not convinced by the PGF, and I'm not convinced by anything anybody says about the PGF, because it's too poor a source for me. Bigfooters will simply have to do better if they wish to convince me.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
So what is it about the theories of Green that you like that distinguishes them from those you oppose? If you are citing him as an expert in the field, why are you skeptical of his opinions with regard to extinction?
Psychic? You? Say it ain't so, Ray.
No, that's not my response, but I believe it's true that all witness testimony cannot be justifiably rejected as hoaxes, misidentifications, imagination, etc. There's just too many of them, and the validity of testimony is bolstered by the footprint evidence.
What is the mathematical probability that all of the thousands of reports are erroneous for one reason or another?
Of course not.
Many who post on this forum claim to be scientific in their thought processes. Does that give them any authority?
Of course not.
Yes. Hydaburg is an Alaska Native village, has a long history of numerous sasquatch sightings, is in prime, remote coastal rainforest, and the report does not include the creature in clown's clothing smoking a pipe. I would include it in an analysis of of trends, but not consider it a "Class A" sighting.
Had this young lady looked for it and found something, would you (or anybody else on this forum) been impressed?
This woman's mother took the time to place the report with an organization that she thought might be able to do something with the information. A phone interview was conducted by Dr. Fahrenbach, and it was filed. Case closed.
Damned shame, isn't it? The premier internet reporting point for a possible huge scientific find is run by the likes of Moneymaker, and the great halls of science just doesn't give much of a damn.
"Kinda hard to find evidence if you won't look for it."
Indeed. Maybe science needs to get out there and look, and stop wondering why scared little girls arent' chasing sasquatches out of their yards.
Yes. They should be included in analysis.
No.
Reports should be properly classed during analysis.
Accepted? No. Considered? Yes.
Reports from the Pope trump reports from the plumber.
Was it pink? Usually such visions are of elephants.
Funny, as much beer as I've consumed in life (not to mention other such indiscretions), I've only seen such a vision once. After drinking jimson weed tea in college, the hair on my arms looked like an army of squirming worms, and the lady diving off the diving board into the swimming pool in the courtyard of the apartment complex looked like a dragon.
I didn't call anybody about it, though. I just went back to bed and slept it off. Took a couple of days. Never did that again.
Correct. That's why we accept the reality that not all of the reports are valid.
Conversely, we can't reasonably accept that all the reports are invalid.
Not specifically. I haven't read "Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us".
I meant his files of reports accumulated since the 1950's, and mostly written/typed.
No. However, the accumulated reports, especially when combined with other collections of reports, cannot be dismissed.
The BFRO appears to have been turned into a 3-Ring Profit Circus.
That's what happens when the appropriate people shirk their responsibility. The warlords, black marketeers, shucksters, and con men take over.
Perhaps that's what the science community wants?
Sure beats trying to do it based on teeth and a partial mandible.
It also is a ratio. Perform the calculations with total height estimates of 3'10", 6'1", or 8'9", and you still come out with an IM index that establishes that it isn't a man in a suit.
Nothing. I weigh all that I see, read, and hear, and judge appropriately.
Isn't that what science is all about?
I believe Green's report files are more impressive because he has been compiling data for a much longer period of time than all the other organizations. It's unfortunate that it was mostly done before the desktop computer age, and is written and typed and not easily manipulated in database form.
Perhaps you've misunderstood me. I don't believe total and universal extinction is likely anytime soon. I do strongly believe that regional extinction is likely, especially in places like Florida.
- Status