Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6, such claims come from people who have little or no knoweledge on biology field work. They don't have a clue on how a new species is found and conveniently ignore the circunstances that surround the description of a new species.

The recent rodent and monkey cases are the exact opposite of believers' interpretation. They were not triggered by people specifically looking for the rodent or the monkey. Researchers were there making what could be considered tedious routine work and found unusual specimens at a market. Researchers were studying a monkey population, grabbed a specimen, checked DNA and found it to be different enough from the species it was thought to be. This solid background allowed the researchers to carry on with their work. And no multi-million grants are needed.

All it takes is a reliable background. Something sighting reports, dubious footprints, a shaky film that may be a hoax and rants against the "close-minded scientific stabilishment" will not create.
 
Correa Neto said:
LTC8K6, such claims come from people who have little or no knoweledge on biology field work. They don't have a clue on how a new species is found and conveniently ignore the circunstances that surround the description of a new species.

The recent rodent and monkey cases are the exact opposite of believers' interpretation. They were not triggered by people specifically looking for the rodent or the monkey. Researchers were there making what could be considered tedious routine work and found unusual specimens at a market. Researchers were studying a monkey population, grabbed a specimen, checked DNA and found it to be different enough from the species it was thought to be. This solid background allowed the researchers to carry on with their work. And no multi-million grants are needed.

All it takes is a reliable background. Something sighting reports, dubious footprints, a shaky film that may be a hoax and rants against the "close-minded scientific stabilishment" will not create.
Click to expand...

Correa ya beat me to it my good man.

I was going to forward the notion that possibly they just stumbled onto this rock rat while out looking for something else. This was basically happenstance then.

So your saying........

There was no big million dollar grant?

They didn't mount a huge 40 man expedition into the hinderlands of Laos?

The RRFRO wasn't involved?

They found a Chihuahua sized rodent in thick jungle and they weren't even specifically looking for it yet Bigfoot fan can't find a single 7ft,800lb stinky ape and they know exactly where Bigfeets tend to dwell,have been searching for decades, and have a description for what it is they are looking for?

How can that be Correa?
 
bruto said:
This is one of the many convenient disconnects that characterize the bigfoot community.

They can claim that research has gone badly because science ignores bigfoot, and at the same time claim credibility for casts and track analyses because the people doing it are claimed to be real scientists.
Click to expand...

Yeah convenient is a good word for alot of things concerning Hairy Bipeds....

The only people who see them are never prepared to film one when they do,apparently Bigfeet only reveal themselves to people without working cameras.

Besides us no other APE is nocturnal.

Besides us no other APE lives in cold weather.

Bigfeet has no known predators or competition for food...yet they are exceedingly rare.

They are exceedingly rare yet are claimed to inhabit 49 states of the US,most of Canada,Tibet,Australia,South America,Russia,China and some of Eastern Europe.

They have Mid Tarsal breaks that don't show in every print.

Dogs,who have no idea what a Bigfeet even is,apparently won't track them.

They have an uncanny knack for avoiding game cams.

Not a single one has ever died a natural death anywhere near where someone might stumble upon it's carcass. They only die deep in the woods apparently.

Adolescents and youngins rarely leave footprints,if at all.

....and I'm sure there are many more.
 
Yep, no ready-team with FLIR-equiped helicopters, night vision googles, etc.

Heck, a bio studying say, population dynamics of some forest rodent, could stumble in a dead bigfoot, or at least take a snapshot of a living one. A snapshot from a bio would be much more reliable than the fishy PGF footage.

IF bigfeet are real there's no real need for a specific search for it. But realizing this takes a lot of the grounds footers cling on to... Thus they still hang on the following arguments:
(a) no one is looking for so they won't find it
(b) zoologists don't make field works at bigfeet's habitats
(c) scientists are just lab rats who can't handle themselves in the field, since all they have is their academic theoretical knoweledge
(d) there's too few of them

Feel free to name the above fallacies...
 
Mad Hom said:
They found a Chihuahua sized rodent in thick jungle and they weren't even specifically looking for it yet Bigfoot fan can't find a single 7ft,800lb stinky ape and they know exactly where Bigfeets tend to dwell,have been searching for decades, and have a description for what it is they are looking for?

How can that be Correa?
Click to expand...
I think nutboy would have a few answers for you on that one, Madness. Seriously though, a couple months back it occured to me that the Vancouver Island marmot was a good example of an animal having extensive studies done on it in an area that has had a history of sasquatch reports. Anyone else have any ideas like the V.I. marmot or ivory-billed woodpecker examples of extensive animal studies being done in what is purported to be bigfoot territory? (Edited for thinking about beer while typing.)
 
Last edited:
Mad Hom said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
No, it isn't. My belief is based upon my review and judgement of the evidence and is rooted in my EXTREME GULLIBILITY
Click to expand...

There I fixed that quote for you
Click to expand...

No, you fixed it for you, and in classic form; putting words in people's mouth.

Not at all. I accept the likelihood that they exist, and tend to argue with those who can't establish the difference between evidence and proof. Those who propound that "They do not exist" are simply in no position to claim that, and when I point that out and they try to defend their indefensible position, the argument begins.
Click to expand...

Fudd,those who propound "They DO exist" are also in NO position to claim anything either....yet they do....and some even make money on it. Oh and this just in....TONS of evidence? That does not equal proof.
Click to expand...

Still putting words in people's mouths. As the above quotes clearly show, I wrote "I accept the likelihood that they exist", not that "they exist".

Further, and once again, evidence does not equal proof, and that fact does not make evidence null and void.

Thus shows the basis of your position; lies, disinformation, and desperation.

Fixed another quote for ya Fudley.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's what you do best.

Lie, cheat, deceive, and BS.
 
kitakaze said:
I think nutboy would have a few answers for you on that one, Madness. Seriously though, a couple months back it occured to me that the Vancouver Island marmot was a good example of an animal having extensive studies done on it in an area that has had a history of sasquatch reports. Anyone else have any ideas like the V.I. marmot or ivory-billed woodpecker examples of extensive animal studies being done in what is purported to be bigfoot territory? (Edited for thinking about beer while typing.)
Click to expand...

How many Biologists/Zoologists studying the Florida Panther have had a run in with that dirty,stinking Skunk Ape down in Florida?
 
Correa Neto said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yeah, I found it interesting. It's a statement within quotation marks (thus, it's a quote), yet it isn't attributed to anyone.

Who are you quoting?
Click to expand...
Oh, your semantic games.
We've been through this before.
Just like your "arguments" on the word believe.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I'm going through it with MadHorn as well; He's changing my words, and your putting words in people's mouths.

That's the best you can do?

What's your next move? Quoting a dictionary?
Click to expand...

For people who don't understand, try to manipulate, or cheat with the language?

You betcha.

Anyone with minumum text interpretation skills would have understood wht I meant.
Click to expand...

And anyone who has had any experience dealing with lawyers, politicians, or other consummate liars knows what your intent was; to create a discrediting statement and make it appear like it applies to your victim.

So, again; who are you quoting?

Or you decided to try some obfuscation, evasion,diversion, etc.?
Click to expand...

That's what you're doing right now.

Again, who are you quoting?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Ah, yes: another version of your type of science.
Click to expand...

What exactly would be your type of science?
Click to expand...

Seek and analyze evidence to prove or disprove phenomena.

One that hunts for ghosts within the woods?
Click to expand...

Nope.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You are free to make conclusions based on observations, attribute statements to others based on those "conclusions", yet also claim the wisdom, insight, and authority to rule evidence on sasquatch reports as valueless from the seat of your pants in front of a computer screen on a different continent, again based on your "conclusions" (which aren't even observable).
Click to expand...

Oh, and your evaluation of sighting reports as reliable evidence was based in exactly what?
Click to expand...

The number of them, their concentration in specific areas, the lack of them in other areas, their consistency, their history, the mathematical possibility that they could all be wrong, and combine them with the other evidence.

And your evaluation of sighting reports as being unreliable evidence is based on exactly what?

Your "conclusions" are more observable?
Click to expand...

They're damned sure more observable than yours.

Huntster, my location is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

But your words and debate tactics are very relevant.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yeah, you're some kind of scientist...............I think your kind are called "pseudo-scientists".
Click to expand...

Mmmhmmm... And if I lowered my standards for evidence quality to your level, then you would call me a scientist?
Click to expand...

Nope. I don't think I could ever call you a scientist.
 
This morning I was feeding my obsession for exploitation films by perusing a few movie review websites and what to my amazement did I stumble upon but this little gem directed by Ivan Marx....

http://bleedingskull.com/vhs/legendbigfoot.html

That Ivan.......what a kook!!

Of particular interest to me is the bottom picture of the scampering Bigfeet,and the one of the hand casts,never heard of hand casts.

It is now my top movie hunting priority to find and secure a copy of this film.
 
bruto said:
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 :
There is nothing and no one preventing any scientists from looking for and studying sasquatch. Many scientists have done so. Many scientists are doing so.

Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar.

Anyone claiming that "science" is ignoring sasquatch is also a liar.
Click to expand...
This is one of the many convenient disconnects that characterize the bigfoot community.

They can claim that research has gone badly because science ignores bigfoot, and at the same time claim credibility for casts and track analyses because the people doing it are claimed to be real scientists.
Click to expand...

You gentlemen are now free to cite any and all funding from any and all scientific academy, fraternity, organization, or society to any accredited scientist which has been provided to search for or analyze evidence of sasquatch.
 
Huntster said:
Yeah. I'm going through it with MadHorn as well; He's changing my words, and your putting words in people's mouths.

That's the best you can do?



For people who don't understand, try to manipulate, or cheat with the language?

You betcha.



And anyone who has had any experience dealing with lawyers, politicians, or other consummate liars knows what your intent was; to create a discrediting statement and make it appear like it applies to your victim.

So, again; who are you quoting?



That's what you're doing right now.

Again, who are you quoting?



Seek and analyze evidence to prove or disprove phenomena.



Nope.



The number of them, their concentration in specific areas, the lack of them in other areas, their consistency, their history, the mathematical possibility that they could all be wrong, and combine them with the other evidence.

And your evaluation of sighting reports as being unreliable evidence is based on exactly what?



They're damned sure more observable than yours.



But your words and debate tactics are very relevant.



Nope. I don't think I could ever call you a scientist.
Click to expand...

Wow,Bleevers are a grumpy lot aren't they??
 
Correa Neto said:
LTC8K6, such claims come from people who have little or no knoweledge on biology field work. They don't have a clue on how a new species is found and conveniently ignore the circunstances that surround the description of a new species.

The recent rodent and monkey cases are the exact opposite of believers' interpretation. They were not triggered by people specifically looking for the rodent or the monkey. Researchers were there making what could be considered tedious routine work and found unusual specimens at a market....
Click to expand...

You can state that this is what happened in this rock rat situation? Please support this with a citation.

Researchers were studying a monkey population, grabbed a specimen, checked DNA and found it to be different enough from the species it was thought to be. This solid background allowed the researchers to carry on with their work. And no multi-million grants are needed.
Click to expand...

If the "researchers were studying a monkey population", were they doing it for free, or were they funded?

All it takes is a reliable background.
Click to expand...

And anyone who claims to believe that the sasquatch species might exist is automatically "unreliable".
 
Huntster said:
No, you fixed it for you, and in classic form; putting words in people's mouth.



Still putting words in people's mouths. As the above quotes clearly show, I wrote "I accept the likelihood that they exist", not that "they exist".

Further, and once again, evidence does not equal proof, and that fact does not make evidence null and void.

Thus shows the basis of your position; lies, disinformation, and desperation.



Yeah. It's what you do best.

Lie, cheat, deceive, and BS.
Click to expand...

Fudd it's patently obvious that youre the one Lying to yourself,BS'ing yourself,deluding yourself etc etc on the "LIKELIHOOD" of your favorite mystery monsters possible existence...But hey whatever get's you to sleep at night.

Blather on all you want Fudd...none of it make Hairy Bipeds any more real.
 
Huntster said:
Yeah. I'm going through it with MadHorn as well; He's changing my words, and your putting words in people's mouths.

That's the best you can do?
Click to expand...
Who would those people be? What about presenting your case with more detail? Because fornow, all I am seeing are diversion and obfuscation attempts.

Huntster, debating with you hardly demands the best I can do...

Try bringing some evidence or raising some interesting discussions and maybe it'll become a bit more demanding.

What about trying to demonstrate
"If science can't find bigfoot, its must be science's own fault, because *I* can't possibly be wrong."
Is not a typicall reasoning of a believer.

After all, you understood that was the point, right?

Huntster said:
For people who don't understand, try to manipulate, or cheat with the language?

You betcha.
Click to expand...
*cough* It seems the person who is having problems with the language is not exactly this humble South American...

Or can you prove the opposite?

Huntster said:
And anyone who has had any experience dealing with lawyers, politicians, or other consummate liars knows what your intent was; to create a discrediting statement and make it appear like it applies to your victim.
Click to expand...
Would you be, by some reason or circunstance, suggesting I am liar?

Carefull here, you are on slippery terrain and it may turn back to you...

Huntster said:
So, again; who are you quoting?
Click to expand...
Well, I have already answered. Please allow me to say your obfuscation and diversions attempts may give the impression that you have problems with text interpretation, so I suggest you to change your approach.

Huntster said:
Seek and analyze evidence to prove or disprove phenomena.
Click to expand...
And if the conclusion is that there are no bigfeet?
And if the conclusion is that the evidence is pretty weak?

Huntster said:
The number of them, their concentration in specific areas, the lack of them in other areas, their consistency, their history, the mathematical possibility that they could all be wrong, and combine them with the other evidence.
Click to expand...
Once again you claim they are consistent. They are not. We've already discussed it and IIRC it was one of Kitakaze's first questions. The alleged consistency appears only after a substantial filtering of descriptions. Unless your criteria for consistency is just "hairy bipedal vaguely humanoid".

And again you claim its not mathematically possible that they are all wrong. Again I will ask you to back this claim with some real math. Can you?

Huntster said:
And your evaluation of sighting reports as being unreliable evidence is based on exactly what?
Click to expand...
Ah, we've been through this before, hadn't we?
Here's why, on a short way:
Its based on their very nature, as well as on reasonings on what additional pieces of evidence would be avaliable if they were sightings of a real creature.

Huntster said:
They're damned sure more observable than yours.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, but I don't see how. Care to explain why your conclusions are better than mine? Or from anyone else's?

Huntster said:
But your words and debate tactics are very relevant.
Click to expand...
Of course. But then why you raised the issue regarding my location?

Huntster said:
Nope. I don't think I could ever call you a scientist.
Click to expand...
Oh, how cute, another flame from the tough-man-from-the-north!

Check this link:
http://www.uis-karst.kiev.ua/uis_karst/SEKAcont.htm
Scroll down to item 7.3.1. You'll find a familiar name down there.

Actually, I don't really care what you would call me (it would most likely not be something pleasant). I know pretty well and I am quite secure of who and what I am. I will continue to be what I am regardless of what you think.
 
Huntster said:
You can state that this is what happened in this rock rat situation? Please support this with a citation.



If the "researchers were studying a monkey population", were they doing it for free, or were they funded?
Click to expand...
It seems you have not read BBC's news on both issues. Go to BBC's site and use the search function.


Huntster said:
And anyone who claims to believe that the sasquatch species might exist is automatically "unreliable".
Click to expand...
Can you back this claim?
Or its just another empty claim of yours?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom