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 1st October 2016, 03:30 PM   #121
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,882
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Well that's a funny statement to make. I would think that since those "rules" are rarely if ever enforced, preconceived thinking reigns supreme here. Shame that. Chris B.
If by preconceived you mean the fact that there is no substantiating evidence for the mythical bigfoot, then yes. No, there is no shame in acknowledging that; in fact, it's the only intellectually honest thing to do.
__________________
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 1st October 2016, 07:00 PM   #122
captain koolaid
Muse
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
Although Greg Long himself accused Patterson of only being in it for the money, his own book provides much evidence that this wasn’t so...

Yes, there were probably a number of facets to his character. He wasn't one dimensional. But, that changes little. Most, if not all, of the interests and ambitions he had, that you mentioned as reasons for for not being focused on the footage and it's value, take care of themselves after that day. Hence why I don't think he would be terribly fussed about much at all, beyond getting his ticket cashed. Fame? Further expeditions? Getting his mug on camera? Selling books? Advancing the Bigfoot "cause"? The film he just shot would deliver all that anyway. The sweet, sweet moolah, however, would be the primary concern and if he had any brains at all, he'd realize that the rest would follow.

As for any concerns you cite as motivation for tinkering with the account and staging events... I don't think any of it would bother him in the least.

Patterson had a shady past? ... "**** you! I just filmed Bigfoot"...

Scoffers? ... "**** you! There it is, Bigfoot!" etc.

If he had just filmed a real bigfoot, he'd have the conviction to go for it. IMHO, Patterson's defining traits were... he was feckless, but ambitious and was usually on the lookout for a major payday. This is the brass ring. I can't see Patterson dicking around and taking risks on blowing it. I'm not adamant that my view is how it was and can't be wrong. But, given what is known about Patterson, the events surrounding the filming and the potential such footage would have... it doesn't add up...

It's great that you've come to the conclusion that the events of Patterson's "Bigfoot Day" are dubious, at best. But, the whole affair becomes even more WTF? in light of what he was supposed to have actually done. It doesn't make sense if he had filmed a real Bigfoot. However, it all makes sense if it was a hoax.

BTW- in regards an earlier post, regarding Jensen and the receipt.. I wasn't doubting that you had read the quote. I have some doubt as to the veracity of Jensen's story.
__________________
"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; 1st October 2016 at 07:51 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 2nd October 2016, 06:02 PM   #123
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
The assertion of Bigfoot actually existing, or that the film shows a real creature, is not necessary to the investigation of the site itself, which is an interesting issue of local history on its own here, but could also be of great importance to the analysis of the film, for skeptic as well as believers.

Sure, you could say over and over again that the film is a hoax, and should simply be forgotten... but then, why do you keep discussing it here? Obviously, there are certain issues still standing and needing some kind of resolution. The debate continues on, over the years. We have tried to settle all the questions we could by showing the site as it is now, and also surveying the objects that were there at the time of the filming and still remain on the site today.

It is of interest to me, simply as an objective place on Earth. If it is not to you, so be it. You can go follow the path of Odysseus all you want, dig around on old Civil War battlefields, or watch the Zapruder film. I don't care what you do. Go for it. I think all objective knowledge and information can be valuable. Looking into the PGF history to find what was real or what was not, and to ascertain as best we can from the evidence and the oldtimer locals what happened, is just plain interesting, whether or not the Bigfoot creature is real.

Look, we are NOT trying to prove the film subject is real. We are not either trying to prove that it is false.

BFBM

Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
What truth? That the PGF was a hoax? There is no bigfoot, ergo the PGF is a hoax. There you go, mystery solved. Truth exposed.

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 2nd October 2016 at 07:00 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 2nd October 2016, 06:21 PM   #124
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Shiner, I've explained this already, at least I though I had.

We wanted actually to FIND the film site, as it had been lost to public knowledge, and no one could be found who could actually point it out with certainty, and show any of the old objects seen in the film. There were some seven proposed locations, from various "knowledgeable" people, and yet none of them had anything like good evidence of their claims. We questioned all of them, people like Byrne, Davis, Murphy, Perez, etc. We reasoned that the old trees should still be there, as there had been no logging down in there since the salvage operation done 1965-1966, after the 1964 Flood. We found much evidence of that flood and of the salvage logging in going up and down the creek. We found what we thought were certainly the old background trees, as they were basically identical in size, type and placement, at one of the proposed locations. Then we decided we had to survey the site to actually show that it was the film site, as there was so much thick, recent growth there. Our survey was to "remove" the new objects, and only show the really old ones, from the time of the film. We showed all the trees older than an approximate 45 years, doing a few bores into trees to find out their age if they were in question. We documented the creek course in its rather stable bed, and the outline of the sandbar as it stands currently, basically showing what was left of the formation deposited by the major flood in 1964. What came from this was a map that showed the aspects of the site as seen in the film, and we were very surprised to find so much had been preserved over time, on elevated sand, under an increasing canopy of younger trees, protected by the geology of the area, which determined that water flowed around the site rather than over it. We documented all of this with the greatest precision possible to us as amateur surveyors, and made a map that is accurate enough to compare to previous site photos. Our geologist did some mathematics and found that the matching of the map to the "aerial" site photo of Dahinden was 97% or better. He said that without a doubt it is the site, and that we had done a good job documenting it as well. Munns later confirmed this from various features from the film itself, the next year.

Now we know where the site is, and what it looked like in the time of the filming, in many ways that are useful and were not adequately documented at the time. We hope to do an even better survey, with a professional, sometime soon. This data can then be used by whomever, skeptic or believer, to run a 3-D model of the site, do photogrammetry, or whatever they like. Perhaps this will prove useful in determining, say, the height of the subject, which I know is an issue still in debate and controversy. It's been an interesting process, without a motivation to "prove Bigfoot," but just an inclination to show what exists in reality, on one small patch of Earth that we find rather enjoyable to visit.

When we were done with the process of documenting the site itself, we moved on to test the hyothesis, "Bigfoot Exists in Bluff Creek," using trail cameras deployed around the film site area. We figured that if Bigfoot existed, it was likely to reappear in the most famous historical area where it was previously claimed to appear. Note, we did not personally ASSERT that Bigfoot exists, but rather wanted to TEST that idea. So far, in five years of observation 24-7-365, in an area closed to humans usually eight months of the year, which is increasingly wild and fecund as humans hardly go there anymore, we have found not a single piece of Bigfoot evidence, no images or video or anything else. I would say, though we haven't finished the observational period yet, that the null hypothesis is highly likely.

BFBM

Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
Hi. I haven't been around for 12 months or so. I have a nagging question.

Why?

What was your objective in precisely mapping this location 40 years after the film was made?

Also, could you explain the point of taking core samples from trees?

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 2nd October 2016 at 06:33 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 2nd October 2016, 06:34 PM   #125
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,311
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
Looking into the PGF history to find what was real or what was not, and to ascertain as best we can from the evidence and the oldtimer locals what happened, is just plain interesting, whether or not the Bigfoot creature is real.

BFMB
How? How could detailed information about that small tract of land possibly be interesting? I just don't understand how any investigation of that sort is not ultimately an attempt to defend the film as genuine. Otherwise, what possible interest could that particular piece of land have?

Also, I don't discuss the PGF here. I don't analyze the details to determine the right from the wrong. I am familiar with the broad strokes, certainly more than the average person. That is more than enough for me. I have no doubt that bigfoot does not exist. I still have an interest in the myth. Why people claim sightings, etc. I even can share in the folkloric fun of it and would enjoy visiting the restaurants in your area and even your bookstore. But, it ends there. I see no point, whatsoever, in conducting serious looking investigations into the site itself. What is the point? What could such activities possibly yield?

I can see maybe interviewing old timers, as you put it, that were around then to try and get a feel for things like how people felt about the idea of bigfoot, or Patterson even. But to study the trees, sand and water than a person strolled by while conducting a hoax? I just don't see what possible value that could have. Particularly for anyone who approaches bigfoot as a psychological question.

Last edited by dmaker; 2nd October 2016 at 06:44 PM.
dmaker 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 2nd October 2016, 06:42 PM   #126
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Well, there are plenty of old accounts of hairy giants and "wildmen" and such that exist in various cultures around the Earth, but yeah, I think they are really not exactly the same thing across those cultures, and surely not identical to the modern image of the Bigfoot. Native people I speak with here locally, including those in the old traditions, DO talk of the entity, and in various ways. It is not the "white man's Bigfoot," as many of them have made clear to me. Plus, the local versions are not the same as those found in Oregon or Washington, or Canada or Alaska. There are in fact *many* "Bigfoots" that differ widely. Read a book like Kathy Strains GIANTS, CANNIBALS, AND MONSTERS, and you'll likely be left with the question, "Where's Bigfoot?" I don't think that a giant ogress, or a spirit being, or a shapeshifting entity that can take any form, or a myth of The Guardian of the Woods, or of wild tribes of humans who interacted with other tribes, can be bent and molded into the modern "Bigfoot." If anything, they contradict the modern image. They are not consistent enough to be a realistic depiction of a real, living species of animal. What these old myths and legends show is the creativity of the human cultures. Perhaps there was something at the base of it? I don't know. Heck, it could have been some old memory of Gigantopithecus relatives, or something like that. I agree that the modern use of Native cultural elements is appropriation, and is not a really deep consideration of the uniqueness of the real Native cultures as they were or as they currently are.

BFBM

Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
I have an objection.
Their are no "old mythologies", especially not American Native mythologies, that the invention of bf is based on.
We had a long and enlightening thread on the subject here a year or two ago.
The be legend is purely a modern, white mans invention and has no basis in local, native legend or mythology.
[/high horse]

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 2nd October 2016 at 06:43 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 2nd October 2016, 06:49 PM   #127
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
Shiner, I've explained this already, at least I though I had.

....

BFBM
Thanks for the reply, and apologies for making you repeat yourself. I'd have been happy with a couple of sentences though.

I assume you have a network of trailcams at the location now?

ETA. Dmaker said it best.

Last edited by Shiner; 2nd October 2016 at 06:55 PM.
Shiner 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 2nd October 2016, 06:51 PM   #128
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
It was simply an unresolved issue of geography. We solved it. It was interesting to us, as we live here, and wanted at very least to show the "Bigfooters" that something like facts could actually be established, while they just kept on with their grand assertions and bad evidential presentations. We did the best we could to follow objective scientific methods, and we ignored the silly, logically unanswerable question of ontology. We wanted to show how real knowledge could be obtained, beyond the constant aggravation of the "IS IT A REAL BIGFOOT" question. See, we just don't concern ourselves with that. We're a group with a skeptical approach, with two members who sort of believe it could be real, and two who think it very likely isn't real (I am of the latter). Our approach is agnostic on those ontological issues, as it should be I think, to retain objectivity in the face of all the varied claims people make. For instance, I question a lot of what Bob Heironimus has claimed. That doesn't mean I do not also question the whole story told by Patterson and Gimlin, or the following "believer" researchers who wanted to mold ambiguity into certainty.

I don't approach the "Bigfoot Question" as only a psychological issue. I think it is also one of cultural history, and particularly local history for me. Beyond that, it is a *proposed* issue of zoology or anthropology. I don't mind addressing the claims of the proponents on this matter, and as an agnostic I don't just throw their propositions in the trash can. Yes, I can say, within the bounds of logic, it is unlikely that it really exists. I don't find the argument, "Bigfoot isn't real, therefore it is a hoax," really logically sufficient. There is that whole "you can't prove a negative" thing that comes up if you say that. Now do please note, that does not make me a freaking "believer," or a "Gimlin Guard" member. OK? Thanks.

BFBM

Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
How? How could detailed information about that small tract of land possibly be interesting? I just don't understand how any investigation of that sort is not ultimately an attempt to defend the film as genuine. Otherwise, what possible interest could that particular piece of land have?

Also, I don't discuss the PGF here. I don't analyze the details to determine the right from the wrong. I am familiar with the broad strokes, certainly more than the average person. That is more than enough for me. I have no doubt that bigfoot does not exist. I still have an interest in the myth. Why people claim sightings, etc. I even can share in the folkloric fun of it and would enjoy visiting the restaurants in your area and even your bookstore. But, it ends there. I see no point, whatsoever, in conducting serious looking investigations into the site itself. What is the point? What could such activities possibly yield?

I can see maybe interviewing old timers, as you put it, that were around then to try and get a feel for things like how people felt about the idea of bigfoot, or Patterson even. But to study the trees, sand and water than a person strolled by while conducting a hoax? I just don't see what possible value that could have. Particularly for anyone who approaches bigfoot as a psychological question.

Last edited by bigfootbookman; 2nd October 2016 at 06:58 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 2nd October 2016, 06:53 PM   #129
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
A couple of sentences are insufficient to tell the story, as people keep asking questions. Plus, it's easy enough for me to write a lot about this stuff.

Yes, check out our study and very cool wildlife videos here. Just don't expect to see a probably non-existent Bigfoot creature in any of it:

http://bluffcreekproject.blogspot.com/

BFBM

Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
Thanks for the reply, and apologies for making you repeat yourself. I'd have been happy with a couple of sentences though.

I assume you have a network of trailcams at the location now?
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 2nd October 2016, 06:56 PM   #130
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,882
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
I think all objective knowledge and information can be valuable. Looking into the PGF history to find what was real or what was not . . .
We know this.

Quote:
and to ascertain as best we can from the evidence and the oldtimer locals what happened, is just plain interesting, whether or not the Bigfoot creature is real.
BFMB
It isn't.
__________________
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 2nd October 2016, 07:04 PM   #131
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,882
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
I don't find the argument, "Bigfoot isn't real, therefore it is a hoax," really logically sufficient.
BFBM
Would it be logically insufficient to call the documentary Mermaids: The Body Found a fake? You know, due to the fact that there are no mermaids.
__________________
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 2nd October 2016, 07:12 PM   #132
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Actually, the Dahinden photo contains the whole area of the trackway seen in the film, but lacks the foreground logjam area as you note. At first Patterson was filming down in the creekbed, facing northeastward, just to the left of the corner of the photo, but the subject was up on that sandbar already in Frame One. Patterson eventually moved forward to the spot marked with the red square in the image. That is approximately the Frame 352 position. After that he moved up forward and a bit sideways to the left, moving his camera from the northward view toward the east, to capture the retreat part of the film.

The front edge of the sandbar where the red square is shown has been eaten away by the creek's erosion, so the current Frame One and camera positions are both just off the edge of the current sandbar.

There are many things we've wished over the years had been documented by Dahinden, Titmus, Byrne or Green, but I suppose film was expensive then. Either that, or all the great stuff is hidden in Dahinden's son's barn.

BFBM


Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Dahinden's photo doesn't show the area we would like to see. He's shooting too far to the right (east?). We can't see the logjam at the beginning of the PGF, nor the creek in that area because he shot only a partial section of the area seen in the PGF. It's a damn shame that he didn't move to the left and shoot another picture.
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 2nd October 2016, 07:52 PM   #133
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,311
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
I don't mind addressing the claims of the proponents on this matter, and as an agnostic I don't just throw their propositions in the trash can. Yes, I can say, within the bounds of logic, it is unlikely that it really exists. I don't find the argument, "Bigfoot isn't real, therefore it is a hoax," really logically sufficient.

BFBM
Dogman is gaining traction within some fringe cryptid fan groups. Would you address their claims with the same agnosticism that you do with bigfoot proponents?

It is unlikely within the bounds of logic that a half human, half dog animal exists. Is it logically sufficient for one to say there is no dogman?

I'm not trying to build a strawman here, I'm just presenting an analogy for you to examine. There really is not a lot of difference (evidentiary anyway) between something like bigfoot and something like dogman. I suspect you would summarily dismiss and maybe even scoff at claims of a dogman. Yet you want to put a logical doorstop in place for bigfoot. Why is that?

Last edited by dmaker; 2nd October 2016 at 07:53 PM.
dmaker 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 2nd October 2016, 08:56 PM   #134
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,882
Dogman? ****. Right now over at the BFF, they're discussing the differences between southern and northern "boogers." Of course, some also insist there are four distinct flavors of footie. All this detail without one single substantiated specimen of any type documented anywhere. Ever.

Bigfoot agnosticism? **** or get off the pot already.
__________________
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

Last edited by Resume; 2nd October 2016 at 08:58 PM.
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 2nd October 2016, 09:19 PM   #135
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
A couple of sentences are insufficient to tell the story, as people keep asking questions. Plus, it's easy enough for me to write a lot about this stuff.

Yes, check out our study and very cool wildlife videos here. Just don't expect to see a probably non-existent Bigfoot creature in any of it:

http://bluffcreekproject.blogspot.com/

BFBM
Thank you for that link. I hope whatever took your marble didn't swallow it. Or attempt to .....

Looks like a slow trigger on the cameras. Probably wouldn't catch a bird ?
Shiner 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 3rd October 2016, 02:05 AM   #136
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,606
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
Well, there are plenty of old accounts of hairy giants and "wildmen" and such that exist in various cultures around the Earth, but yeah, I think they are really not exactly the same thing across those cultures, and surely not identical to the modern image of the Bigfoot. Native people I speak with here locally, including those in the old traditions, DO talk of the entity, and in various ways. It is not the "white man's Bigfoot," as many of them have made clear to me. Plus, the local versions are not the same as those found in Oregon or Washington, or Canada or Alaska. There are in fact *many* "Bigfoots" that differ widely. Read a book like Kathy Strains GIANTS, CANNIBALS, AND MONSTERS, and you'll likely be left with the question, "Where's Bigfoot?"
Nope. We've been through these before in a thread on this forum. Any reference to bf by native Americans are their appropriation of a white mans legend. Check the thread out for in depth discussion already had.
Quote:
I don't think that a giant ogress, or a spirit being, or a shapeshifting entity that can take any form, or a myth of The Guardian of the Woods, or of wild tribes of humans who interacted with other tribes, can be bent and molded into the modern "Bigfoot." If anything, they contradict the modern image. They are not consistent enough to be a realistic depiction of a real, living species of animal. What these old myths and legends show is the creativity of the human cultures. Perhaps there was something at the base of it? I don't know. Heck, it could have been some old memory of Gigantopithecus relatives, or something like that.
So you think that racial memory of an animal that never existed on the N.Am continent might be an explanation?
I don't think so.
Quote:
I agree that the modern use of Native cultural elements is appropriation, and is not a really deep consideration of the uniqueness of the real Native cultures as they were or as they currently are.
We already have a thread on that subject.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=104878.
__________________
"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 3rd October 2016, 12:02 PM   #137
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,144
in looking at Roger Knights' aka MKDavis' falling/bending claims (now apparently disclaimed by RK), I think that one of the important parts of the pareidolia is the claim that we see the arm and the elbow. I have committed the sin of marking it here with green arrows. I would suggest that this is in fact a small curved tree or something of that nature, which has a 'texture" different from the "body" of the subject and extends well above the subject. Remember Patterson is still a long ways off and this may be an object that is anywhere on the sight line from him to the background trees. Recall, for example, the "S-branch" on the north bank.

__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Last edited by DennyT; 3rd October 2016 at 01:53 PM.
DennyT 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 3rd October 2016, 01:49 PM   #138
bigfootbookman
Critical Thinker
 
bigfootbookman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 276
Well, of course they didn't call it "Bigfoot," and like I said, the stories and legends that exist within the anthropological record aren't all the same thing, nor are they necessarily congruent with the modern Bigfoot. However is undeniable that various forms of the "Wildman" mythic element can be found all over the place, and they can be lumped together if one is inclined that way in an effort to support the notion that they were all based on this supposed Bigfoot animal. Personally, I find that to be appropriation that is an insult to all the old cultures, whose beliefs did not exist to support notions held by modern people wanting their own current legend to be true.

And no, I didn't suggest that there were Gigantopithecus relatives or descendants over here. It's simply a possibility that the people who came over to North America could have had contact with such on Asia, in ancient times, of course, or more recently of there were such animals surviving past what the current sparse fossil record suggests. Besides, that wasn't a main assertion. I only mentioned that concept to make the point that the are possibilities that need to be considered from the perspective of agnosticism.

BFBM


Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Nope. We've been through these before in a thread on this forum. Any reference to bf by native Americans are their appropriation of a white mans legend. Check the thread out for in depth discussion already had.So you think that racial memory of an animal that never existed on the N.Am continent might be an explanation?
I don't think so.We already have a thread on that subject.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=104878.
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 3rd October 2016, 02:39 PM   #139
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,144
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post
...

....human footprints make little impression on it. It's not made of ordinary silica beach sand, but of shards or platelets of slate (rock). It doesn't compress when pushed down; noticeable tracks aren't made unless the weight is great and the foot or hoof also makes a horizontal or sliding motion.

Could I ask where/how you obtained these various bits? care to quantitate what "great" means?
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot
DennyT 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 3rd October 2016, 03:43 PM   #140
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,311
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
Well, of course they didn't call it "Bigfoot," and like I said, the stories and legends that exist within the anthropological record aren't all the same thing, nor are they necessarily congruent with the modern Bigfoot. However is undeniable that various forms of the "Wildman" mythic element can be found all over the place, and they can be lumped together if one is inclined that way in an effort to support the notion that they were all based on this supposed Bigfoot animal. Personally, I find that to be appropriation that is an insult to all the old cultures, whose beliefs did not exist to support notions held by modern people wanting their own current legend to be true.

And no, I didn't suggest that there were Gigantopithecus relatives or descendants over here. It's simply a possibility that the people who came over to North America could have had contact with such on Asia, in ancient times, of course, or more recently of there were such animals surviving past what the current sparse fossil record suggests. Besides, that wasn't a main assertion. I only mentioned that concept to make the point that the are possibilities that need to be considered from the perspective of agnosticism.

BFBM
Are medieval legends of dragons rooted in ancient memories of dinosaurs? If so, why would those legends suddenly die and never make it to the New World?
dmaker 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 3rd October 2016, 04:52 PM   #141
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,144
BFBM:
can you track us through your evidence for this in post #49:
Quote:
We found in fact that our measurements were better than those done by Green and Dahinden, back in the day.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Last edited by DennyT; 3rd October 2016 at 05:07 PM.
DennyT 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 3rd October 2016, 05:06 PM   #142
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,262
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
Well, there are plenty of old accounts of hairy giants and "wildmen" and such that exist in various cultures around the Earth, but yeah, I think they are really not exactly the same thing across those cultures, and surely not identical to the modern image of the Bigfoot. Native people I speak with here locally, including those in the old traditions, DO talk of the entity, and in various ways. It is not the "white man's Bigfoot," as many of them have made clear to me. Plus, the local versions are not the same as those found in Oregon or Washington, or Canada or Alaska. There are in fact *many* "Bigfoots" that differ widely. Read a book like Kathy Strains GIANTS, CANNIBALS, AND MONSTERS, and you'll likely be left with the question, "Where's Bigfoot?" I don't think that a giant ogress, or a spirit being, or a shapeshifting entity that can take any form, or a myth of The Guardian of the Woods, or of wild tribes of humans who interacted with other tribes, can be bent and molded into the modern "Bigfoot." If anything, they contradict the modern image. They are not consistent enough to be a realistic depiction of a real, living species of animal. What these old myths and legends show is the creativity of the human cultures. Perhaps there was something at the base of it? I don't know. Heck, it could have been some old memory of Gigantopithecus relatives, or something like that. I agree that the modern use of Native cultural elements is appropriation, and is not a really deep consideration of the uniqueness of the real Native cultures as they were or as they currently are.

BFBM
This is an actual Kathy Strain quote...

Quote:
"...as a scientist and archaeologist it doesn't make sense to me that tribes would give names to imaginary creatures."
The soaring fail in that statement leaves me only wondering what school did this woman go to and how did she get out of it?

A a scientist. And archaeologist. It doesn't make sense to her. That tribes would give names to imaginary creatures.

It so thoroughly drenched in WTF that I don't even know where to begin.

She thinks indigenous North American tribes did not create and name mythical creatures?

Just wow.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze 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 3rd October 2016, 05:26 PM   #143
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,882
http://www.native-languages.org/monsters.htm

So all these must be real.

Quote:
Aniwye (Ojibwe Indian monster)
Apotamkin (Passamaquoddy sea monster)
Asin (Alsea Indian monster)
Axeki (California Indian monsters)
Basket Woman (Northwest Indian monster)
Be (Bribri Indian monster)
Big Owl Monster (Apache Indian monster)
Big Water Snake (Blackfoot Indian monster)
Bush Indians (Alaskan Indian monsters)
Caddaja (Caddo Indian monster)
Chenoo (Mi'kmaq Indian monster)
Culloo (Maliseet Indian monster)
Cipelahq (Maliseet Indian monster)
Deer Woman (Oklahoma Indian monster)
Flying Head (Iroquois Indian monster)
Gitaskog (Wabanaki Indian monster)
Giwakwa (Abenaki Indian monster)
Gux (Ahtna Indian monster)
Hairless Bear (Abenaki Indian monster)
Horned Serpent (East Coast sea monster)
Jipijkam (Micmac Indian monster)
Gougou (Wabanaki sea monster)
Gugwe (Micmac Indian monster)
Gunakadeit (Tlingit sea monster)
Headless Man (Wichita Indian monster)
Hiintcabiit (Arapaho Indian monster)
Kolowa (Creek Indian monster)
Lofa (Chickasaw Indian monster)
Loks (Wabanaki Indian monster)
Long Ears (Seminole Indian monster)
Man-Eater (Southeastern Indian monster)
Man With No Head (Hidatsa Indian monster)
Manetoa (Algonquian Indian monster)
Mashe-Nomak (Menominee Indian monster)
Mhwe (Lenape Indian monster)
Monkey People (Athabaskan Indian monster)
Monster Bear (Iroquois Indian monster)
Monster Frog (Wabanaki
__________________
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

Last edited by Resume; 3rd October 2016 at 05:36 PM.
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 3rd October 2016, 05:30 PM   #144
dmaker
Graduate Poster
 
dmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,311
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
This is an actual Kathy Strain quote...



The soaring fail in that statement leaves me only wondering what school did this woman go to and how did she get out of it?

A a scientist. And archaeologist. It doesn't make sense to her. That tribes would give names to imaginary creatures.

It so thoroughly drenched in WTF that I don't even know where to begin.

She thinks indigenous North American tribes did not create and name mythical creatures?

Just wow.
I have to agree. That single quote astonished me when I first read it. That quote is also the reason why I never give any weight to anything that claims to come from Kathy Strain. That quote simply obliterates anything that could be said afterwards and tears to shreds her credentials.

That quote would be like an historian saying that History can teach us nothing.
dmaker 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 3rd October 2016, 05:40 PM   #145
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,882
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
The soaring fail in that statement leaves me only wondering what school did this woman go to and how did she get out of it?
Maybe she got her money back.
__________________
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 4th October 2016, 08:12 AM   #146
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,632
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
in looking at Roger Knights' aka MKDavis' falling/bending claims (now apparently disclaimed by RK), I think that one of the important parts of the pareidolia is the claim that we see the arm and the elbow. I have committed the sin of marking it here with green arrows. I would suggest that this is in fact a small curved tree or something of that nature, which has a 'texture" different from the "body" of the subject and extends well above the subject.





Your upper green arrow is probably a tree. Your lower green arrow is the back of the right bicep. Your middle green arrow points precisely to the top of the right shoulder.
__________________
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 4th October 2016, 09:47 AM   #147
Gilbert Syndrome
Philosopher
 
Gilbert Syndrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK
Posts: 5,582
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
No, I'm not hooked like a fish. I'm simply curious as to why some appear so sincerely to believe they have encountered or seen a Bigfoot. There are many types of claimed witnesses. Some obviously have tongue in cheek, and there's usually a punch line at the end like, "It was my big, hairy uncle Joe who made that stench." Some just don't seem credible, either because their claims are outrageous, or they seem delusional, or they don't seem trustworthy. The other sort are really just ordinary people saying they saw or experienced something odd and anomalous. They don't seem to be exaggerating, and the details are there and quite normal, and they are usually people who have nothing to gain and perhaps much to lose (I know, you've heard this one before) by telling such a story. Everyone's motives are different, as are their perceptions. Perhaps they were wrong about seeing a Bigfoot. Perhaps they are not fools, crazy or disingenuous, and really believe it. Often the claimed experience is life-alerting or at least disturbing, shocking, or surprising to them, or so they act. This is, anyway, how they seem, and I've spoken with dozens and dozens of such people. I'll always take everything that people say with a large amount of grains of salt, but I'm also not so inclined to call *everyone* a liar or an idiot.

BFBM
People have been convincingly spinning yarns since time began, for the sheer hell of it.

The Victorians were masters of telling tales for the very sake of having people believe them, and they'd sink to any kind of low for the mere satisfaction of it. Just check out how many people wrote in to the press claiming to be the mythical "Jack the Ripper."

Nothing has changed. People spin yarns for the sake of spinning yarns. If it sounds like bollocks, it generally is.
__________________
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 4th October 2016, 10:47 AM   #148
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,144
BFBM wrote:
Quote:
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.
Has your geologist done an analysis?

Roger Knights wrote (above) that it was "shards or platelets of shale (rock)". I don't know where that specimen or story came from. Has he been there since the actual site was rediscovered?

Meldrum had some specimen analyzed and said it was 85% schist and gneiss, not shale, many years ago. That, however, may have been from the wrong site. Does anyone know where he got his specimen? Perhaps BFBM can query him.

The substrate seems to have a rather homogeneous composition in the small area of interest, and it may well be rather unique, created by the combination of certain qualities of the silt and the hydrodynamics of the flood (velocities, obstructions) at that place. Analyzing a sample from even a few yards up or downstream (for example, what is sometimes referred to as the Perez site) from the actual trackway area may give misleading results.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Last edited by DennyT; 4th October 2016 at 10:52 AM.
DennyT 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 4th October 2016, 11:29 AM   #149
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,144
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2ab358cfac.png


Your upper green arrow is probably a tree. Your lower green arrow is the back of the right bicep. Your middle green arrow points precisely to the top of the right shoulder.
The biceps muscle would not be apparent from behind, even if it were a real uncatalogued primate and not a guy in a costume. I assume you mean the upper arm.

What is your evidence for your proposal? do you disagree about the similarity in "tone" between the upper and lower segments of my proposed tree? and the dissimilarity between the tree and what we all think is part of the subject?

so if that is the upper arm, then the elbow is even lower, at Roger Knights' red dot? below the buttocks? or no? if so, try getting your own elbow below your buttocks while walking, especially with a compliant gait. You almost have to be knuckle walking or pitching forward.

The images provided just don't seem to give a clear image of the head, and without that it's anybody's Virgin Mary on a pancake. We don't know how many frames are missing from the sequence, and they are blurred, bloomed and twisted, there is no real depth perception, and we can't tell features of the subject from those of the landscape. As so many have said here, without the original film, this sort of 'analysis' is little more than Rorschach with crayons.

Having said all that, I still think it's a tree
have a look at this "version" from one of MKDavis' frames, just to the right of the yellow circle (click on image to enlarge):
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Last edited by DennyT; 4th October 2016 at 12:32 PM.
DennyT 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 4th October 2016, 12:38 PM   #150
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,617
Originally Posted by bigfootbookman View Post
It's simply a possibility that the people who came over to North America could have had contact with such [Gigantopithecus spp.] on Asia, in ancient times, of course, or more recently of there were such animals surviving past what the current sparse fossil record suggests.
My initial fascination with bigfootery was rooted in the possibility of ancient folklore providing a window to ancient contact with long-extinct hominins. I now realize the folly of such mental masturbation in that people just make things up. Why? Because. Always have, always will.
The Shrike 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 4th October 2016, 12:45 PM   #151
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,144
I think the subject is standing up, just like in the other frames. I think the top of the head is at or maybe just below the red arrow level, and the shoulders at or near the yellow arrow level. It may be that there are overhanging branches there. Click to enlarge.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot
DennyT 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 4th October 2016, 12:52 PM   #152
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,632
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
The biceps muscle would not be apparent from behind, even if it were a real uncatalogued primate and not a guy in a costume. I assume you mean the upper arm.

What is your evidence for your proposal? do you disagree about the similarity in "tone" between the upper and lower segments of my proposed tree? and the dissimilarity between the tree and what we all think is part of the subject?

so if that is the upper arm, then the elbow is even lower, at Roger Knights' red dot? below the buttocks? or no? if so, try getting your own elbow below your buttocks while walking, especially with a compliant gait. You almost have to be knuckle walking or pitching forward.

The images provided just don't seem to give a clear image of the head, and without that it's anybody's Virgin Mary on a pancake. We don't know how many frames are missing from the sequence, and they are blurred, bloomed and twisted, there is no real depth perception...
The upper green arrow is probably a tree.

The middle green arrow points directly at the outside upper part of the right shoulder.

The lower green arrow points at the light reflecting off the back of the upper arm.

The elbow, forearm and buttocks cannot be seen at all because they are entirely hidden by the sand berm/embankment.


__________________
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 4th October 2016, 01:01 PM   #153
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,144
ah, professor bird guy:


bfbm used the expression "sparse fossil record..."
I think we have seen a paper showing that the habitat of bigfoot (actually the locations of reports) and the habitat of bears are virtually the same, correct?
and we have all sorts of fossils of bears:
Quote:
The fossil record of bears is exceptionally good. Direct ancestor-descendent relationships between individual species are often fairly well established, with sufficient intermediate forms known to make the precise cut-off between an ancestral and its daughter species subjective.[15]
Thank you wikipedia.
Yet, Professor Meldrum says that we have no bigfoot fossils because something acid soils something something.

Am I wrong to conclude from that terribly sparse wikipedia article (actually it's huge) that the fossil record for bears has not been significantly compromised by acid soils, and would not be termed "sparse?" And that acid soils are, therefore, not the reason for the non-existent fossil record for bigfoots?
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Last edited by DennyT; 4th October 2016 at 01:12 PM.
DennyT 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 4th October 2016, 01:47 PM   #154
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,144
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The upper green arrow is probably a tree.

The middle green arrow points directly at the outside upper part of the right shoulder.

The lower green arrow points at the light reflecting off the back of the upper arm.

The elbow, forearm and buttocks cannot be seen at all because they are entirely hidden by the sand berm/embankment.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2ab358cfac.png
so, my misunderstanding: you do not think that what we see on the lower left, of that image you just posted, those about-the-right-size kind of paired round "things" with the "crack' in between, are buttocks? Then what are they? I'm having trouble conceptualizing your concept of the outlines of the subject.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot
DennyT 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 4th October 2016, 01:52 PM   #155
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,632
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
so, my misunderstanding: you do not think that what we see on the lower left, of that image you just posted, those about-the-right-size kind of paired round "things" with the "crack' in between, are buttocks? Then what are they? I'm having trouble conceptualizing your concept of the outlines of the subject.
Those round white things are the twin reflections from the back, not the buttocks. The "dark crack" between is the spine area.
__________________
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 4th October 2016, 05:38 PM   #156
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,144
Meldrum says his substrate sample was obtained in 2003. I assume that this was on the great outing following the the Willow Creek Symposium. At that time the actual location was not known, and most people thought it was a hundred yards south of the actual spot ( though at some point Gimlin indicated that he thought he recognized the actual site; it doesn't seem that his comment was paid any attention). I'm gonna say the odds are that the Meldrum specimen did not come from the right place.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

Last edited by DennyT; 4th October 2016 at 05:40 PM.
DennyT 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 5th October 2016, 06:44 AM   #157
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
But to study the trees, sand and water than a person strolled by while conducting a hoax? I just don't see what possible value that could have. Particularly for anyone who approaches bigfoot as a psychological question.
Agreed, especially at this late date.
__________________
>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 5th October 2016, 08:38 AM   #158
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,144
WP
I'm trying to get my mind to not think those are buttocks. So I lined up these images and though my perceptive mind refuses to accept it, my rational mind says you are correct that those cute little buns that I want to see, are actually not buttocks at all. That butt crack I perceive is not a butt crack. Not to mention the "stuff" that MKDavis thinks is in the "crack."

__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot
DennyT 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 5th October 2016, 09:02 AM   #159
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 20,632
Right, now you have it. Patty is fully upright. But the weird thing is that you can't really see the back of the head in the frame with your green arrows. The head has to be there and it's big. That area looks greenish to me. I'd be curious to see a scan of that film frame to see if the head is 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 5th October 2016, 09:13 AM   #160
DennyT
Illuminator
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,144
Originally Posted by dmaker View Post
How? How could detailed information about that small tract of land possibly be interesting? I just don't understand how any investigation of that sort is not ultimately an attempt to defend the film as genuine. Otherwise, what possible interest could that particular piece of land have?

Also, I don't discuss the PGF here. I don't analyze the details to determine the right from the wrong. I am familiar with the broad strokes, certainly more than the average person. That is more than enough for me. I have no doubt that bigfoot does not exist. I still have an interest in the myth. Why people claim sightings, etc. I even can share in the folkloric fun of it and would enjoy visiting the restaurants in your area and even your bookstore. But, it ends there. I see no point, whatsoever, in conducting serious looking investigations into the site itself. What is the point? What could such activities possibly yield?

I can see maybe interviewing old timers, as you put it, that were around then to try and get a feel for things like how people felt about the idea of bigfoot, or Patterson even. But to study the trees, sand and water than a person strolled by while conducting a hoax? I just don't see what possible value that could have. Particularly for anyone who approaches bigfoot as a psychological question.
I must say, visiting the restaurants and other establishments in Willow Creek is actually close to zero fun. I mean, I like to eat, get to know people, but that's not a fun place to do it. Aside from the surrounding mountains and Bigfootbookman, it's a fairly dreadful place (pro tip: stay away from the Bigfoot Motel). Unlike BFBM, I have no interest in hearing fish (or "fish-man") stories (pardon my disdain) from seemingly normal, truthful people...I can read them on Bigfoot Evidence every day.
The film site itself is fun in much the same way that visiting, say, an historic battlefield is fun. I am a history buff. The PGF has to be considered an historic event, or at least an historic hoax. And I must say, for me, there are still a few interesting things to learn there. Not everyone has that kind of curiosity. Very few, apparently. BFBM may correct me, but not many skeptics go there.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot
DennyT 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 02:04 PM.
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.