ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bigfoot , Bob Gimlin , Bob Heironimus , Patterson-Gimlin film , Roger Patterson

Reply
Old 24th September 2016, 01:30 PM   #41
ArchSas
Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
Have you ever discussed the methods you used to make that map?

I'm just curious because, as an archaeologist, I've had a fair amount of training and experience mapping areas (sites), and I know it's not easy to do without a fair amount of experience. I'm not necessarily doubting the accuracy of your map, but I have seen how easy it is to screw up little things and end up with a map that looks very little like what someone else would produce, so I'm curious about how it was made, since you freely admit you and the other people who produced it are amateurs.

Also, can you discuss how you determined the age of the plants you were examined at the site? Some species on the northwest coast grow surprisingly fast, and most people I've known have a hard time accurately guessing the ages of things like trees. For example, I've seen people mistake 40 year old Douglas firs for old growth a number of times because they grow ridiculously fast.

It seems like you lose your patience kind of easily here, but if you expect us to take your point of view as authoritative, some methodology discussion would help.
ArchSas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 01:47 PM   #42
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Knights

It proves that the film wasn't shipped by air from Arcata, but was mailed instead. (And, as I mentioned a few days ago, no air shipment from Arcata then occurred either, because Peter Byrne checked all the flight records and interviewed pilots from there.)
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Let me make sure this is your idea of proof of something being mailed:

" Someone threw a piece of paper in the trash, and when asked what it was, said it was a receipt. "

I have to respect your brass, Roger, if nothing else..
Patterson was the one who shipped the film and owned the piece of paper, not a possibly unconnected “someone.” Your misrepresentation is pretty brassy.

I concede that if Jensen had obtained the receipt, that would be “proof.” So his testimony, not being as strong, should be called something less. How about “best evidence”?

Patterson said the film had been shipped by “registered mail,” not a term one would use for a private shipment by a small plane.

And the context strengthens the evidence. Patterson spoke in an unguarded moment to a friend (Dennis Jensen) who had no reason to lie (to embarrass Patterson).

Moreover, Patterson took a risk by mentioning and tossing out the receipt for the shipment. Jensen might have said, “Let me take a look at that; it’s a historic memento” or “I’d like to keep that as a souvenir.” If Patterson had refused, he’d have looked like a liar—and Jensen might have exposed him as such after Patterson’s death, which he must have suspected might be soon.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 02:12 PM   #43
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by ArchSas View Post
Have you ever discussed the methods you used to make that map? ... if you expect us to take your point of view as authoritative, some methodology discussion would help.
In my comment 3379 on page 85 I provided links to places where he discussed his methods. First, though, I include the comment I was responding to, for context:

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
https://www.blogger.com/profile/07852437322070677310

That's your film site expert?

Is he an expert on the PGF film site because he visited the site 48 years after the film was shot?
Originally Posted by Roger Knights
Streufert wasn't just a site visitor. He is rather, an expert in the details of the site, having studied it itself and what others had written of it and the photos they'd taken of it for years in conjunction with several other knowledgeable Bigfooters, including members of his site rediscovery team. The links below should give you an indication of the depth of his involvement. These include detailed maps of the site, based on his team's site surveys. The sidebar contains links to additional threads of his on the topic.

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com...iscovered.html

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com...matically.html
Originally Posted by ArchSas View Post
It seems like you [Bigfoot Bookman aka Steven Streufert] lose your patience kind of easily here ....
I think LTC's snark above, and the dismissive comments after I posted Streufert's maps in comment 3388, got under Streufert's skin. Here they are (from Part II, page 85):
Quote:
LTC in 3390: "Yes, because we've never discussed Streufert or seen those maps before..."

Parcher in 3392: "These maps look like a view into a manic mind. I have no idea how to relate anything because it doesn't look like what we see in the PGF. It is drastically different."

Resume in 3393: "Looks like someone got a new box of Crayolas. Is this magneted to your fridge Roger?"

Gilbert Syndrome in 3396: (It's invisible to me, but it's probably similar to the ones above.)
page 86:
Dmaker in 3417: "I want to see more pencil crayon drawings littered with misspelled words. It makes me feel all sciency."

LTC8K6 in 3420: "I'm still not sure how a map made of the site 40+ years later tells us anything at all about the PGF or BH. Even if it were the best map ever made of the site, I'm still struggling to find it even useful regarding the veracity of the PGF incident. IIRC, we've seen other maps of the site made by people who visited it much earlier, and they differed quite a bit. Not sure what a third different map does for the subject."
There were no favorable comments.

Last edited by Roger Knights; 24th September 2016 at 02:43 PM.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 02:43 PM   #44
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,882
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
DUDE, I AM A SKEPTIC.
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Dude, I'm skeptical.
Because:http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com...ptic-plus.html

Quote:
Perhaps the most convincing thing to me that tends to prove Bigfoot exists is hearing Bob Gimlin, a guy who obviously would not lie to you, say that he saw what he saw on that sandbar back on October 20th, 1967.
That is not skepticism.
__________________
In fact, there is no institution, private or public, that has less of a problem with the sexual abuse of minors today than the Catholic Church.

Bill Donohue
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 02:55 PM   #45
ArchSas
Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
In my comment 3379 on page 85 I provided links to places where he discussed his methods.
Thanks for the links, but I don't see much about the methodology I asked about in there. Steven talks a lot about how the site was found and about how to match it with previous images, but spends little to no time on the actual mapping process. This is important because of his continued insistence that everything was done in an amateurish way; in order for people to tell if the map is accurate, it's useful to tell what methods they used to make the map. For example, compass and tape measuring, pace measuring, or some other form of measuring scale and determining distance and direction.

The main reason I'm asking is to give Steven (and I guess you as well, since you're relying on the authority of that map) a chance to explain his work. He seemed to be getting frustrated because people weren't taking it seriously, but that's a somewhat reasonable position to take if we can't trust the accuracy of the map. Again, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying you guys will be in a better position to argue for authority about this subject if we can trust the evidence you're using. Criticizing methodology is a pretty standard part of scientific discourse.
ArchSas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 05:30 PM   #46
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,284
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
After the filming, Green left a message at Dahinden’s hotel in SF to contact Hodgson. After contacting Hodgson, Dahinden traveled to Willow Creek, where he met Jim McClarin, who was already there. (He may have been a resident then.) Patterson, on his way home, called Hodgson from Orleans and told him of events. Dahinden and McClarin then headed to Yakima to see the film the next day. (From Chris Murphy’s Bigfoot Film Journal, pp.35–36.)

Dahinden later said he regretted leaving Willow Creek and failing to examine the site while it was fresh. I suppose he could have gone back, but I guess he didn’t have enough money for that.
What is this constant rehashing of info supposed to do exactly?

Does it get more valuable the more it's printed?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 07:20 PM   #47
captain koolaid
Muse
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
...4. Dennis Jensen, Patterson’s assistant after 1967, said that one day when he was in Patterson’s house and Patterson was cleaning out his desk and files, Patterson tossed a piece of paper into a wastebasket, saying that it was the registered mail receipt from when he shipped the film from Bluff Creek...

When did Jensen say this? I gotta say, the anecdote sounds rather odd and specific.


Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
Let me make sure this is your idea of proof of something being mailed:

" Someone threw a piece of paper in the trash, and when asked what it was, said it was a receipt. "...

By the sounds of it, Jensen didn't actually ask. It seems more like Patterson holding up a piece of paper and saying- "This is me, Roger Patterson holding the all important mailing receipt. Now I'm throwing the all important mailing receipt in the bin. Did you see that Mr. Jensen?"

It's a little weird. But, whatever. It's possible it happened, I guess, but, it sounds.... kinda made up.
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian)

Last edited by captain koolaid; 24th September 2016 at 07:26 PM.
captain koolaid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2016, 11:57 PM   #48
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome View Post
Mate, I am baffled.

Perhaps you've been believing something that isn't true?
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 12:11 AM   #49
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
It wasn't done "in an amateurish way." I said we are amateurs, in the sense that we are not professional surveyors. Surely you can see the difference that your choice of rhetoric makes?

Once we were reasonably assured in our own minds that we had indeed found matches for the original trees, stumps, and old log piles from the flood, we determined to map the whole site using a grid map. We chose the point that Gimlin had identified as the approximate spot where they had first seen the subject, and with a compass we drew a line directly north. Along the way we marked ten foot segments. From the center we drew the line east and west, planting flags at each grid corner. Then we covered the entire site on foot, drawing in everything we found that was obviously old, removing from our mapping any trees and objects that were obviously too young to have been there in 1967 or 1971/2. We checked the entire mapping which was on graph paper, and then Robert drew the final first version map you see above. We compared it with the aerial photo from Dahinden and found so many matches it was clearly beyond coincidence (second photo above). Fortuitously, we met an independent geologist, and he did the trigonometry to compare the two images, correcting for viewing angles. The match was perfect with a very small margin of error. The next year we brought Munns up there. He confirmed it was the site using his own methods, and did analyses based on the film itself and the early site photos. There is no doubt that it's the site, and our map is accurate within mere inches, though not quite good enough for exact photogrammetry (according to Munns). We found in fact that our measurements were better than those done by Green and Dahinden, back in the day.

BFBM

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 25th September 2016 at 12:15 AM.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 02:26 AM   #50
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,606
Mins has no clue about photogrammetry, he demonstrated that in this forum.
His comment that an accurate ground map could not be used to analyse frames of the film using photogrammetry only reinforces his demonstrated ignorance of the subject.
His continued avoidance of using the process that would disprove his lens focal length assertions are just too obvious.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 05:33 AM   #51
Cervelo
Graduate Poster
 
Cervelo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,449
Wow...that's clarifying stuff to support the crayon drawing, graph paper, a geologist and trigonometry. Bill Munns opinion really adds to the "skeptical" viewpoint, didn't he want to dangle beneath a helicopter in a porch swing to take aerial photos of the site?


Last edited by Cervelo; 25th September 2016 at 05:46 AM.
Cervelo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 07:29 AM   #52
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
Bringing these forward. I found another error. FIAT = FLAT. There are no cars here.


Map #1


Map #2
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

Last edited by William Parcher; 25th September 2016 at 07:31 AM.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 08:06 AM   #53
snoop_doxie
Graduate Poster
 
snoop_doxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In my reality tunnel
Posts: 1,467
What is a "gradual upclimb"?

Maybe incline?



"down streem"
__________________
Formerly known as member wicked_ways
snoop_doxie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 10:37 AM   #54
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,582
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
In my comment 3379 on page 85 I provided links to places where he discussed his methods. First, though, I include the comment I was responding to, for context:




Let it be known that Roger couldn't even see my comment, but included it in a list of "snarky comments" anyway.

A man old enough to be my grandpa, lol.


I think LTC's snark above, and the dismissive comments after I posted Streufert's maps in comment 3388, got under Streufert's skin. Here they are (from Part II, page 85):

There were no favorable comments.
Let it be known that Roger couldn't even see my comment, but included it in a list of "snarky comments" anyway.

A man old enough to be my grandpa, lol.

In all seriousness, what do you expect to get when you post such a bloody ludicrously scribbled map a la Crayola? Sort yourself out.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 10:40 AM   #55
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,582
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
Perhaps you've been believing something that isn't true?
Oh, touche! lol.

In all seriousness, I never saw you conducting yourself in a sceptical manner when you were on Never Finding Bigfoot. Being a self-professed sceptic, is there any reason why you didn't feel the need to lay the Smack Down on Bobes and the gang?
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'

Last edited by Gilbert Syndrome; 25th September 2016 at 10:42 AM.
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 10:44 AM   #56
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,582
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
There were no favorable comments.
A disingenuous comment, considering you admittedly couldn't even read my post, Roger. I'm appalled! Shocked and appalled. The humanity...
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 10:56 AM   #57
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
In the past I watched a video of a Gimlin lecture with follow-up questions and answers. One person asked, "How far away from the creek was Patty when you first saw her?" His answer was, "About 18 inches." She was only a foot and a half from the water, according to Gimlin.

So given that information we can look at these maps and sort of see how far Patty walked away from the water before Patterson got his first frame of her on film. Maybe a rough calculation could be done for elapsed time of her walking away based on previously done calculations of her "walking speed". But then I seem to recall one or both of the guys saying that she stood and looked at them for a period of time before walking away.

But then there also remains the question of this creek in the fall of 1967. Is its position the same as in these maps? Is its shape the same? Is its width the same? Did the iconic giant log jam of the first few frames become moved? P&G said that that log jam concealed Patty as they approached her on horseback. So, from their perspective, she is "behind" the log jam and also 18" from the water.

Of course these cowboy Bigfooters could have made all of that up as part of a big hoax story.

ETA: I did write about the Gimlin lecture with the 18" comment here but I can't remember exactly when. I probably also linked to the video lecture.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

Last edited by William Parcher; 25th September 2016 at 10:59 AM.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 11:13 AM   #58
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
If she's 18" from the water then she's either on the creek embankment or she's about to clamber up the embankment to get to the sand flat. Either way, there are going to be some really interesting tracks of hers climbing that soft bank next to the creek. We heard nothing of that from anyone there.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 11:22 AM   #59
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,594
I can't tell if they documented the depth of the creek water or the height of its banks.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 11:49 AM   #60
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
And they drew the map on a sheet of graph paper instead of starting with an actual contour map of the area ... why?
__________________
>Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do.

-historian
John Nowak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 03:46 PM   #61
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
What is this constant rehashing of info supposed to do exactly?

Does it get more valuable the more it's printed?
This particular bit of information hasn't been hashed here in the two months I've been here. I wasn't aware that you were familiar with it. I thought you might not have been. I thought (and think) that some readers certainly weren't familiar with it, and that by going over it for their benefit I'd forestall comments asking for more detail.

PS: The place where Dahinden expressed regret at not remaining in or returning to Willow Creek to examine the filmsite was in TMoB, p. 191.

Last edited by Roger Knights; 25th September 2016 at 03:48 PM.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 04:18 PM   #62
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by captain koolaid View Post
When did Jensen say this? I gotta say, the anecdote sounds rather odd and specific.

By the sounds of it, Jensen didn't actually ask. It seems more like Patterson holding up a piece of paper and saying- "This is me, Roger Patterson holding the all important mailing receipt. Now I'm throwing the all important mailing receipt in the bin. Did you see that Mr. Jensen?"
My interpretation is that it was just an offhand remark, presumably made to alleviate Jensen's boredom while Patterson performed housekeeping.

Originally Posted by captain koolaid View Post
It's a little weird. But, whatever. It's possible it happened, I guess, but, it sounds.... kinda made up.
That's a reasonable objection. I knew it would be raised. Before posting, I looked for two hours for my source, unsuccessfully. I hope that some Bigfooter out there will supply it for me. If not, I'll look for another two hours. (It's too bad that Jensen died about a year ago, per Bigfoot Times. Say, maybe THAT'S where I read it! [checks] Nope: The 4/2015 issue reports his death but doesn't contain the quote I want.)
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 04:27 PM   #63
Roger Knights
Thinker
 
Roger Knights's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
If she's 18" from the water then she's either on the creek embankment or she's about to clamber up the embankment to get to the sand flat. Either way, there are going to be some really interesting tracks of hers climbing that soft bank next to the creek. We heard nothing of that from anyone there.
On pages 48–49 of Murphy's Know the Sasquatch / Bigfoot there's a painting ("2007 by Michael Rudd") of Patty (viewed from behind) standing about four feet from the edge of the creek. She sees P&G having come round the rootball, as their horses rear. No embankment is shown, unfortunately.
PS: Patty is on p. 48, P&G on p. 49.

Last edited by Roger Knights; 25th September 2016 at 04:41 PM.
Roger Knights is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 04:48 PM   #64
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
That was a blog post written six and a half years ago. I was indeed more of a "believer" in the possibility of Bigfoot being an actual creature than I am now. I never fully "believed," as I really do not believe in "belief." My attitude is generally one of agnosticism, of curious skepticism. At first I was pretty impressed with all of the witnesses, and the arguments made by smart guys like Krantz and Meldrum, and by the apparently smart ones among the current "researchers" of Bigfoot. But with time, as I was exposed to the community of believers, and as I studied and then restudied the claims, the credibility of much of it began to wear thinly.

How did this happen? I was always a critical thinker. We decided in 2009 to investigate the history of the thing, with focus on Bluff Creek. Over the course of that investigation we learned many things. Since early 2010 when I wrote that blog entry I've had to re-evaluate all of the claims and the claimed evidence, usually dispelling the myths and poor logic that had been associated with them by the avid believers. We were trying to find the film site, and to find whatever the accurate history of Bluff Creek may have been, but much of what was claimed did not really hold any water. In many cases, the sacred cows of Bigfooting fell apart upon close examination. This is called... learning. There was indeed much hoaxing going on up in Bluff Creek. I met and interviewed some of the old-timers who were in on it, or were privy to the plans. Some of this is obvious, like the Wallace tracks. Some of it, like the PGF, is a bit more ambiguous.

I do not claim that the film is of a real creature. My position is agnostic, and I think the film is ambiguous and anomalous. That doesn't mean I am trying to make it be real, despite all the weight against the possibility of Bigfoot actually existing. If Bigfoot isn't real, so be it. I am interested in discovering the truth.

I do find Gimlin to be a congenial and honest type of fellow, a seemingly convincing witness; but that does not mean that I AM convinced. It doesn't seem to me that he is lying when I hear him talk, or when I have spoken with him. But, that is not proof that the film is of a real creature known as Bigfoot. Perhaps he was in on a hoax, or was the one first fooled by one? Even he has admitted this possibility. I said that about Gimlin to indicate one of the real puzzles of the whole PGF controversy, and one that applies to all of Bigfooting witness accounts: How can seemingly honest and sane, ordinary people think they have seen this creature, if it does not exist? If it does not exist, why are they claiming to have seen it? Is it all hoaxing or delusion, or mistakes of perception? Perhaps it is. Perhaps it is not. This is the aspect of the "phenomenon" that I find most fascinating.

Why? Because to me it seems that it is most likely that Bigfoot does NOT exist. The evidence is poor, and has not passed scientific scrutiny in any way. The claims of researchers to this day are highly questionable, and with the internet we are exposed to more and even more outrageous stupidities every single day. I am talking about all the blobsquatches, and the outrageous claims of habituation (without evidence that should be easy to obtain) and metaphysical superpowers, and the claims of stick structures and very poor track finds or DNA claims that never pan out. After all this time, it seems increasingly likely that some kind of urban legend is at play, rather than an elusive species of primate, spirit being, or extraterrestrial entity.

In 2010 I was among friends in the Bigfooting community, and that in part swayed me a little toward the believing side, but by the end of that year I'd hit a wall of serious questions that could not be denied. I saw how the "community" was indeed in denial of these questions, and... I started asking them. Perhaps you guys don't know it, assuming me to be some kind of "Gimlin Guard" believer, but I have been known as a notorious skeptic within the community of Bigfooters since 2011. Some of them even call me "Evil." Ha ha.

You might see me at times question what I call the "hoax theories," such as the poor Bluff Creek geography of Bob Heironimus. I do this because I apply the same kind of skepticism to his claims as I do to those of the believers. I'm not biasing my thought or our investigation to favor the film or its supporters. I am questioning ALL of it. It's just a fact that much of what Bob Gimlin has said over the years has proven to be true, on the ground, as we spent time in Bluff Creek. Much of what I find in Greg Long's book and the Bob Heironimus statements does not prove to be congruent with facts on the ground up there. So, I do acknowledge that Bob H. was somehow involved, such as with his horse being there with P & G, or in the Yakima footage, but I don't see anything really convincing to me that he was really there in Bluff Creek. In our studies we had to throw out many of the statements made about the PGF site by Peter Byrne, MK Davis, Christopher Murphy, Daniel Perez, et al. Many did not seem to have a good enough memory to get us to the actual site, including John Green, Al Hodgson, and the USFS. By rejecting them all, we eventually found that Rene Dahinden had marked the map correctly, and Bob Gimlin had a good enough recollection after all to identify it in 2003 and 2011. He was right on the spot, within about 20 feet or so, even though the ground itself in that spot had been washed away by the erosion in the creekbed. So, really, I apply the same kinds of scrutiny to Bob Heironimus or whatever other claim. It's a fact that Heironimus' description of the route in to the film site comes nowhere near the actual site, and sounds nothing at all like the real trip there.

Since we found and documented the site in 2011, proving it beyond dispute to be the site, we moved on to another kind of investigation. We always wondered how it could be that we spent more time than anyone else up in Bluff Creek, and yet never saw any sign of Bigfoot. Others claimed "action" all the time, but we only found bear tracks, heard owls or pine cones falling, and saw deer in the thermals and night vision devices. We decided to test the hypothesis, asking "Does Bigfoot Exist?" We started deploying an array of trail cameras that monitored the PGF site, the area around it on the hillsides and up and down the creekbed, and around adjacent lakes in the Bluff Creek basin. These cameras ran 24-7, 365 days a year, and are still doing so, up to 20 of them at a time. We implemented them strategically, such that they observed each other, or viewed the same basic areas from different angles. After five years coming up soon, with no sign of Bigfoot yet (though lots of other great, real wildlife), we are all recognizing that the null hypothesis seems the most likely conclusion. Of course, one can make all kinds of excuses and special pleading, such as that Bigfoot avoid trail cameras, or can know about them psychically, or whatever; but we don't do that. We are a skeptical and rational group of investigators.

What we're doing is amateur science, I think, a valid form of observation and investigation of a real question that could use some answering. I'd think you guys in here would appreciate what we've been doing, instead of getting all worked up over spelling errors on a draft version map that Leiterman made. If you don't like the spelling, just look at the first version, which did get some editorial attention. Fixating on such things is a form of straw man or red herring, really. The map is really quite accurate, and we'd be happy to show any of you that it is right there on the spot. Come on out to Bluff Creek, you skeptics, and see it for yourselves. I assure you that it is a fine place to visit, whether or not you see a Bigfoot.

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 25th September 2016 at 04:57 PM.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 05:20 PM   #65
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by John Nowak View Post
And they drew the map on a sheet of graph paper instead of starting with an actual contour map of the area ... why?
There is no contour map of that spot that shows it in great enough detail to matter. We're talking about a football field sized square of mostly level sandbar, with the creek flowing beside it some seven to nine feet lower. The use of graph paper was simply to draw the details found within each measured square of the grid lines.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 05:22 PM   #66
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
On pages 48–49 of Murphy's Know the Sasquatch / Bigfoot there's a painting ("2007 by Michael Rudd") of Patty (viewed from behind) standing about four feet from the edge of the creek. She sees P&G having come round the rootball, as their horses rear. No embankment is shown, unfortunately.
PS: Patty is on p. 48, P&G on p. 49.
That painting is not accurate. It's just an impression of the story told. To my knowledge Rugg had never been to the film site to observe such things, as the site was lost to the woods and changes in the creekbed until we rediscovered and surveyed it.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 05:30 PM   #67
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I can't tell if they documented the depth of the creek water or the height of its banks.
The creekbed is considerably lower than it was in 1967, due to slow erosion of the 1964 flood deposits in the creek's course. It is now about seven to nine feet from the creek bottom, depending upon where you stand and look. There is no sign of it having crested over the deposits of the historic flood of 1964, however, as basically all of those artifacts seen in the 1967 film and the 1971 "aerial" photo are still there. That, and the ground underneath the thin layer of forest duff is fine silt sand, an unusually fine deposit, that is the sign of the '64 flood. At the time there were logjams that blocked the narrow bottlenecks just below the film site, and it was obviously submerged then, for a while by the flood waters. Part of the sandbar seen in the Dahinden aerial photo has been eaten away with time, but the full course of the trackway of the subject is still there. It's hard to tell in the original film just how high the bank really was then, due to perspective illusions and such. When we were there with Munns he was able to mark out from photo analyses the spots where the subject stood in the first frame, and other parts of the film, as well as the camera positions of Patterson and the other site photos for the "Frame 352" shots. Some of this is on the second version draft map that I posted earlier. Keep in mind that Patterson was moving during most of the filming process, so his 352 position was just off the edge of the current bank, and then he moved forward a few times as the subject retreated. We have very close ideas of where these spots are on the site, and you'd see how it makes sense if you'd come out here and look at it.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 05:40 PM   #68
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
The logjam is still there, though the creekbed there has eroded down. Hence, those logs have sunken downward, and some pieces of it seem to have washed downstream. The Titmus drawing shows this spot, though without any real detail. We were looking for that rootball that he depicts in that extended, longer part of the second map, as that tree seems to have been washed into another position. These old logs from the flood of '64 are big and heavy, and the subsequent creek waters haven't done much, apparently, to move them over the years. Those "root balls as big as a room" as described by Gimlin are still there. Though the ground where Gimlin says he and Patterson stood on their horses at the first sighting moment has been washed away downward, a part of the old road cut there is still visible. Gimlin was able to point across the creek and show the spot where the "creature" was squatting or standing beside the water. Also, though much of the sand and gravel that was once down in the creekbed have been washed away, the course of the creek itself it essentially the same, due to the geology of that spot. At the south end there are some hard rock barriers that force the creek westward from its southerly course, and that sends it around the filmsite sandbar until it hits the area of the logjam and turns again toward the south.

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
In the past I watched a video of a Gimlin lecture with follow-up questions and answers. One person asked, "How far away from the creek was Patty when you first saw her?" His answer was, "About 18 inches." She was only a foot and a half from the water, according to Gimlin.

So given that information we can look at these maps and sort of see how far Patty walked away from the water before Patterson got his first frame of her on film. Maybe a rough calculation could be done for elapsed time of her walking away based on previously done calculations of her "walking speed". But then I seem to recall one or both of the guys saying that she stood and looked at them for a period of time before walking away.

But then there also remains the question of this creek in the fall of 1967. Is its position the same as in these maps? Is its shape the same? Is its width the same? Did the iconic giant log jam of the first few frames become moved? P&G said that that log jam concealed Patty as they approached her on horseback. So, from their perspective, she is "behind" the log jam and also 18" from the water.

Of course these cowboy Bigfooters could have made all of that up as part of a big hoax story.

ETA: I did write about the Gimlin lecture with the 18" comment here but I can't remember exactly when. I probably also linked to the video lecture.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 05:56 PM   #69
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Mins has no clue about photogrammetry, he demonstrated that in this forum.
His comment that an accurate ground map could not be used to analyse frames of the film using photogrammetry only reinforces his demonstrated ignorance of the subject.
His continued avoidance of using the process that would disprove his lens focal length assertions are just too obvious.
Munns told me that he needed more precise (meaning exact) measurements of the distances between the trees to do photogrammetry. When we were measuring the site and the trees, we just eyeballed the centers as best as we could, and drew the measuring tape between the two objects in each instance. A few inches off and you lose the exactitude necessary for a proper implementation into a computer program. Hence, we need to get a professional surveyor out there, with real equipment beyond tape and compass. We have one who has volunteered, actually, but she hasn't found the time yet to come up here.

If there are any measurements that you analysts would like to have, just let me know. I'll take note of them and see that they are included in any future results.

Keep in mind, our original map was only made for purposes of analysis of the site we'd chosen, in comparing it to all the other evidence of the site and trying to prove that it was indeed the site. We were mainly interested in the layout of the sandbar and the objects on it, with the surrounding trees that could be seen in the film. All of that stuff is quite accurately depicted in the map, even if you think it looks like a crayon drawing. It was a tool to be of use to us at the time, and for further work we just need to do certain things with more absolute precision. This is all in the plans.

Not to be defensive or combative, but I'd really like to see any of you here do any better. It's not easy crawling around through that thick forest that dwells there currently, and over all the big log debris that is piled up here and there. Just getting up to the "Big Tree" there now is a hack through some rather thick brush, and it presents much impediment to a tape line and foothold.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 06:02 PM   #70
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome View Post
Oh, touche! lol.

In all seriousness, I never saw you conducting yourself in a sceptical manner when you were on Never Finding Bigfoot. Being a self-professed sceptic, is there any reason why you didn't feel the need to lay the Smack Down on Bobes and the gang?
Mr. Gilbert, do you always believe what you see on TV?

That segment they showed of me on FINDING BIGFOOT was highly edited. Also, it was recorded over five years ago, and my general approach and attitude have changed much since then. They just removed all the parts where I said, "I didn't actually see it," and "I don't know what it was," and put an image of a Bigfoot coming down the hill in their place, with funny "awestruck" clips of the cast inserted as well. I don't know if what was in my yard that night was a Bigfoot, or not. It was an odd experience, and that is really all.

If I'd tried to do a "smackdown" on there it surely would not have been included in the part they used. I said that I didn't believe in Bigfoot when I moved up here, and that having met so many people here that claimed to have seen it, I was becoming more curious about the possibility that there could be something to it. I also said many things about how one can never establish something real just based upon anecdotal accounts, but heck, that is on the cutting room floor. Really, for these shows, they will manipulate reality any way they can to make it seem like the premise they need for ratings is valid.

Anyway, that's enough for now, I guess. I can't go over all the other things in this thread which I haven't even read. I only came here because of Roger telling me of things like Parcher accusing us of illegal activities. No, we didn't do illegal tree removal, and no, it was not illegal to do tree bores to determine age. The USFS knows about what we've been doing, and approves. In fact, we took them and some of their scientists up there and showed them the site, because even they didn't know where it really was. They were all convinced by the work we'd done and agreed that we'd found the site. They like the fact that our trail cameras are out there helping to document the wildlife that live within the area of their jurisdiction. They don't mind that we have removed dead branches and stuff to make the site more accessible for our studies. In fact, they want us to make an informally-marked trail there, so that all of those going in there don't just get lost or endanger themselves in a rather rugged environment.

Anyone who wants to see the kind of skeptical application I do within Bigfooting in general is welcome to come over and join our Facebook discussion group, which tries to apply skeptical methodology to the various crazy claims.
Coalition for Critical Thinking in Bigfoot Research
https://www.facebook.com/groups/smartbigfoot/

BFBM

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 25th September 2016 at 06:10 PM.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 07:28 PM   #71
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,284
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
If she's 18" from the water then she's either on the creek embankment or she's about to clamber up the embankment to get to the sand flat. Either way, there are going to be some really interesting tracks of hers climbing that soft bank next to the creek. We heard nothing of that from anyone there.
It also seems possible to me that it might not have been difficult to see her trackway while walking or driving by.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 07:31 PM   #72
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,284
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0YGdoEUHCy...2012+Large.jpg

Both maps together, I think.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 07:51 PM   #73
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,582
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
Mr. Gilbert, do you always believe what you see on TV?

That segment they showed of me on FINDING BIGFOOT was highly edited. Also, it was recorded over five years ago, and my general approach and attitude have changed much since then. They just removed all the parts where I said, "I didn't actually see it," and "I don't know what it was," and put an image of a Bigfoot coming down the hill in their place, with funny "awestruck" clips of the cast inserted as well. I don't know if what was in my yard that night was a Bigfoot, or not. It was an odd experience, and that is really all.

If I'd tried to do a "smackdown" on there it surely would not have been included in the part they used. I said that I didn't believe in Bigfoot when I moved up here, and that having met so many people here that claimed to have seen it, I was becoming more curious about the possibility that there could be something to it. I also said many things about how one can never establish something real just based upon anecdotal accounts, but heck, that is on the cutting room floor. Really, for these shows, they will manipulate reality any way they can to make it seem like the premise they need for ratings is valid.

Anyway, that's enough for now, I guess. I can't go over all the other things in this thread which I haven't even read. I only came here because of Roger telling me of things like Parcher accusing us of illegal activities. No, we didn't do illegal tree removal, and no, it was not illegal to do tree bores to determine age. The USFS knows about what we've been doing, and approves. In fact, we took them and some of their scientists up there and showed them the site, because even they didn't know where it really was. They were all convinced by the work we'd done and agreed that we'd found the site. They like the fact that our trail cameras are out there helping to document the wildlife that live within the area of their jurisdiction. They don't mind that we have removed dead branches and stuff to make the site more accessible for our studies. In fact, they want us to make an informally-marked trail there, so that all of those going in there don't just get lost or endanger themselves in a rather rugged environment.

Anyone who wants to see the kind of skeptical application I do within Bigfooting in general is welcome to come over and join our Facebook discussion group, which tries to apply skeptical methodology to the various crazy claims.
Coalition for Critical Thinking in Bigfoot Research
https://www.facebook.com/groups/smartbigfoot/

BFBM
Surely you must have known going into that FB fiasco that they'd take anything spoken with regards to Bigfoot not being real and they'd throw it out of the window. I get that those shows are edited and rehashed, they truly are the lowest form of "entertainment."

Re: your comments about Gimlin seeming honest, do you actually think he's an honest guy? To me, he seems like the type of person who may suggest to certain sceptical folk that he could've been fooled, and then when chatting to other certain folk who may be more inclined to believe, he'll spin the whole Gimlin-drenched folk-tale in the greatest of detail. Imo, he's a fickle man with a sense of pride in having a story to tell. The way he puffs out his chest and does the whole weathered cowboy act is nothing short of embarrassing.

I find it hard to believe that Gimlin was ever not part of the hoax. Now, with Patterson long gone, Gimlin struts about the place trying to be the John Wayne of the Bigfoot speech-circuit. He loves it.

I think if Gimlin was a genuine guy, he'd allow a more sceptical questioning of his tales, but he seems to regard sceptics as though they were the Kryptonite of the Bigfoot power he's enjoying having flow through his veins during his little sermons at those many many conferences they drag his arse to every other month. At the very least, you'd think he'd confront Bob H during one of these many many conferences, to argue his position...But he never does, because salt of the earth Gimlin is about as crooked as the other bozos who frequent those shoddy conferences, selling their stale pies.
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity:

Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up.

Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'
Gilbert Syndrome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2016, 09:18 PM   #74
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,606
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
Munns told me that he needed more precise (meaning exact) measurements of the distances between the trees to do photogrammetry.
As I said in my previous post.
Munns has no clue how photogrammetry works. That statement pretty much supports that accusation.

Also he's a hypocrite.
He pretends that only accurate physical measurements can be used for valid photogrametrical analysis, yet is emphatic about the accuracy of the merely eyeballed inputs into a drawing tool that "prove" the height of Bigfoot and the lens used in the camera to shoot it.

He has demonstrated repeatedly that
A. He has no clue about photogrammetry, and
2. He'll avoid such tools because of their analytical superiority to his eyeballed guesses.
Quote:
When we were measuring the site and the trees, we just eyeballed the centers as best as we could, and drew the measuring tape between the two objects in each instance. A few inches off and you lose the exactitude necessary for a proper implementation into a computer program.
This is why you should ignore any things Munns has to say on the subject. A photogrammetry tool will give you the error margins (and what influences them) when it has analysed the sample images.

Munns' inability to account for measurement and other analytical error margins was demonstrated hilariously in a thread on this forum and his utter ignorance on the subject is preserved in the PDF "reports" on his site.
Quote:
Hence, we need to get a professional surveyor out there, with real equipment beyond tape and compass. We have one who has volunteered, actually, but she hasn't found the time yet to come up here.
For photogrametrical analysis we just need access to the hi-def frames scans that Munns purports to have and once promised to make available for independent analysis and/or verification of his method.

Surprise, surprise these were never forthcoming despite numerous requests on this forum.
Quote:
If there are any measurements that you analysts would like to have, just let me know. I'll take note of them and see that they are included in any future results.

Keep in mind, our original map was only made for purposes of analysis of the site we'd chosen, in comparing it to all the other evidence of the site and trying to prove that it was indeed the site. We were mainly interested in the layout of the sandbar and the objects on it, with the surrounding trees that could be seen in the film. All of that stuff is quite accurately depicted in the map, even if you think it looks like a crayon drawing. It was a tool to be of use to us at the time, and for further work we just need to do certain things with more absolute precision. This is all in the plans.

Not to be defensive or combative, but I'd really like to see any of you here do any better. It's not easy crawling around through that thick forest that dwells there currently, and over all the big log debris that is piled up here and there. Just getting up to the "Big Tree" there now is a hack through some rather thick brush, and it presents much impediment to a tape line and foothold.
Well I had 2 years of surveying practical and theory in university and my first job was as an engineering draughtsman.
My first thought would be "handheld laser rangefinder" and second would be "plane table".
But, like most "serious" ghost hunters, bf researchers also seem to have a propensity for lack of preparation when doing field research.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 05:18 AM   #75
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,321
Yes. Bill Munns explained in detail his plans to be suspended over the film site in an aluminum framed basket with lawn chairs bolted to the frame.

Then I told him about the FAA.

I took the time to do an artist's rendition of the endeavor.

__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 12:24 PM   #76
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
We did have a laser rangefinder, and GPS units. The problem was that it's so dense in there now we couldn't always get good measurements. We decided that a hands-on approach would be best. Also, the GPS signals down in those steep canyons were not reliable.

I'm no surveying or photogrammetry expert. We'll certainly keep what you say in mind. Again, we'd welcome any of you to join us on a trip to the site sometime, skeptic or believer regardless.

We don't worship Munns. We took his views into account along with all the others. His insight into the film action, as derived from the motion between each frame, as seen in his animations of the film, were very helpful indeed in our finding the site again. I give him a lot of credit for that.

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 26th September 2016 at 12:25 PM.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 01:14 PM   #77
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,165
What would be the point in visiting a site where a man in a monkey suit was filmed 49 years ago?

It's not like there is any doubt by believers or skeptics that the filming took place..
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 04:10 PM   #78
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
What would be the point in visiting a site where a man in a monkey suit was filmed 49 years ago?

It's not like there is any doubt by believers or skeptics that the filming took place..
Why go to the moon? It's not like you can grow watermelon there.

For me it's a fascinating piece of local history in my area, and I'd like to see some kind of resolution to it all.

Why do all of you discuss it here, if it's of no interest? Even if it's just the site of a great hoax, knowing the details of the site and its area can be of use in studying that.
bigfootbookman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 05:39 PM   #79
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,165
I don't see how studying the site contributes anything to the mystery..

No one is questioning that a film was made on Bluff Creek..
That is a fact that adds nothing to the veracity of the film itself..

" Yep.. This is where Roger used his Camera.. Yes siree.. "


P.S. It's not a 'great' hoax in the minds of those who believe it's a hoax.. What does that leave?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 07:37 PM   #80
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
What would be the point in visiting a site where a man in a monkey suit was filmed 49 years ago?

It's not like there is any doubt by believers or skeptics that the filming took place..
To talk to eyewitnesses?

Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
Why go to the moon? It's not like you can grow watermelon there.

For me it's a fascinating piece of local history in my area, and I'd like to see some kind of resolution to it all.

Why do all of you discuss it here, if it's of no interest? Even if it's just the site of a great hoax, knowing the details of the site and its area can be of use in studying that.
Resolution to Patterson? PGF? Bigfoot? And "even if"?

You're perhaps misunderstanding our present day fascination with Bigfoot. It's not about the clever hoaxer Roger Patterson or his Indian sidekick Bob "Kee-mo sah-bee" Gimlin. It's almost solely about the hilarity that ensues when those who "believe" in Bigfoot so deeply or play Bigfootopoly™ so much they inevitably "experience" one. To sharpen the point, it's our humorous fascination with the seeming psychopathy required to claim such a thing.
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.