Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 92

Thread: Bigfoot

  1. #1
    Squatch is offline Finder of the MissingLink
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Newcastl upon Tyne
    Posts
    56

    Bigfoot

    I've started this thread for a bit of a laugh and to hone my debating skills.

    Is there a large bipedal ape living in North America?

    Wikipedia says:
    Patterson and Gimlin by their tales were supposedly the only witnesses to their brief encounter with what they claimed was a Sasquatch. Their statements agree in general, but Long notes a number of inconsistencies. In an article in Argosy magazine, Ivan T. Sanderson gave the time of the encounter as 3:30 p.m., which differed from the 1:30 p.m. time in other articles and in interviews by Patterson and Gimlin. They offered somewhat different sequences in describing how they and the horses reacted upon seeing the creature. Patterson in particular increased his estimates of the creature's size in subsequent retellings of the encounter.[9] In a different context, Long argues, these discrepancies would probably be considered minor, but given the extraordinary claims made by Patterson and Gimlin, any apparent disagreements in perception or memory are worth noting.

    As their stories went, in the early afternoon of October 20, Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek. Both were on horseback when they "came to an overturned tree with a large root system at a turn in the creek, almost as high as a room."[10] When they rounded it they spotted the figure behind it nearly simultaneously, while it was "crouching beside the creek to their left."[11] Gimlin later described himself as in a mild state of shock after first seeing the figure.

    Patterson estimated he was about 25 feet (8 m) away from the creature at his closest. Patterson said that his horse reared upon seeing (or perhaps smelling) the figure, and he spent about twenty seconds extricating himself from the saddle and getting his camera from a saddlebag before he could run toward the figure while operating his camera. He yelled "Cover me" to Gimlin, who thereupon crossed the creek on horseback, rode forward a while, and, rifle in hand, dismounted (presumably because his horse might have panicked if the creature charged, spoiling his shot).

    The figure had walked away from them to a distance of about 120 feet (37 m) before Patterson began to run after it. The resulting film (about 53 seconds long) is initially quite shaky until Patterson gets about 80 feet (24 m) from the figure. At that point the figure glanced over its right shoulder at the men and Patterson fell to his knees; on Krantz's map this corresponds to frame 264.[12] To researcher John Green, Patterson would later characterize the creature's expression as one of "contempt and disgust...you know how it is when the umpire tells you 'one more word and you're out of the game.' That's the way it felt."

    At this point the steady middle portion of the film begins, containing the famous frame 352. Patterson said "it turned a total of I think three times,"[13] the first time therefore being before the filming began. Shortly after glancing over its shoulder, the creature walks behind a grove of trees, reappears for a while after Patterson moved ten feet to a better vantage point, then fades into the trees again and is lost to view as the reel of film ran out. Gimlin remounted and followed it on horseback, keeping his distance, until it disappeared around a bend in the road three hundred yards away. Patterson called him back at that point, feeling vulnerable on foot without a rifle, because he feared the creature's mate might approach.

    Next, Gimlin rounded up Patterson's horses, which had run off before the filming began, and "the men then tracked it for three miles (5 km), but lost it in the heavy undergrowth."[14] They returned to the initial site, measured the creature's stride, made two plaster casts (of the best-quality right and left prints), and covered the other prints to protect them. The entire encounter had lasted less than two minutes.

    A few hours after the encounter, Patterson telephoned Donald Abbott, whom Krantz described as "the only scientist of any stature to have demonstrated any serious interest in the (Bigfoot) subject," hoping he would help them search for the creature. Abbott declined, and Krantz argued this call the same day of the encounter is evidence against a hoax, at least on Patterson's part.

    Forestry worker Lyle Laverty happened upon the site a day later and photographed the tracks. Taxidermist and outdoorsman Robert Titmus went to the site with his brother-in-law nine days later. Titmus made casts of the creature's prints and, as best he could, plotted Patterson's and the creature's movements on a map.

    Patterson initially estimated its height at six and one-half to seven feet,[15] and later raised his estimate to about seven and one-half feet. (Some later analysts, anthropologist Grover Krantz among them, have suggested Patterson's later estimate was about a foot too tall.) The film shows what Patterson and Gimlin claimed was a large, hairy bipedal apelike figure with short black hair covering most of its body, including the figure's prominent breasts. The figure depicted in the Patterson-Gimlin film generally matches the descriptions of Bigfoot offered by others who claim to have seen the creatures.

    That is probably the most famous bigfoot encounter for most people interested in the subject. I have watched the film which accompanies this report many many times and I believe that it does indeed show a real animal (not human). There have been many attempts to prove this as a hoax but these have all failed. when you look at the stabilised versions of the film you can see things which are, IMHO almost impossible to fake.

    Apart from the 2 prints taken by Patterson on the day of the encounter there were further prints taken. Patterson, as it says in the wikipedia quote only took the 2 "best" prints, and the later prints were perhaps more interesting as they showed toe movement and evidence of flexibility.

    I'll leave it there for now, let's get the debate on the go...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    What's your take on the brightness of the soles of the feet?
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  3. #3
    Squatch is offline Finder of the MissingLink
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Newcastl upon Tyne
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    What's your take on the brightness of the soles of the feet?
    The creature in the Patterson Gimlin footage does indeed have what looks like very light colored soles. This actually confirms other eyewitness reports. Plus, she was walking across a sandbar, I would've thought there would be a certain amount of dusty sand to adhere to the soles of the feet. Another thing to take into account is the over exposure of the film. The footage itself is over exposed and would make light thing appear even lighter.

    If there are pads on the soles of the feet, would they not appear light coloured due to the build up of hard skin? In 1924 a man named Albert Ostman was purportedly abducted by a Sasquatch for a period of six days. His description of the creatures included light coloured pads on the soles of the feet, so the footage in question actually corroborates this.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch View Post
    The creature in the Patterson Gimlin footage does indeed have what looks like very light colored soles. This actually confirms other eyewitness reports. Plus, she was walking across a sandbar, I would've thought there would be a certain amount of dusty sand to adhere to the soles of the feet. Another thing to take into account is the over exposure of the film. The footage itself is over exposed and would make light thing appear even lighter.

    If there are pads on the soles of the feet, would they not appear light coloured due to the build up of hard skin? In 1924 a man named Albert Ostman was purportedly abducted by a Sasquatch for a period of six days. His description of the creatures included light coloured pads on the soles of the feet, so the footage in question actually corroborates this.
    If her skin was white, gorillas skin is dark; but I've seen chimpanzees with light skin. Obviously we have dark and light skin.

    What do you think of the possibility that the suit (if any) was destroyed shortly afterward and thus has not surfaced?
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    For goodness sake Freedom! You will be implying that the Loch Ness monster is a con next

  6. #6
    Squatch is offline Finder of the MissingLink
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Newcastl upon Tyne
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    If her skin was white, gorillas skin is dark; but I've seen chimpanzees with light skin. Obviously we have dark and light skin.

    What do you think of the possibility that the suit (if any) was destroyed shortly afterward and thus has not surfaced?
    There is always the possibility that the suit was destroyed. It would make sense if it's a hoax. But consider the fact that this was 1967 and the technology was very limited as far as materials are concerned. Fake fur with a two way flex simply didn't exist. The stabilized film shows muscle movement in the back and legs, and in my opinion would need a skintight fur suit which flexes with the muscle in a natural manner. And if it was a skintight suit then the person wearing it was of such proportions that he or she would not be hard to find.

    When you think, the details which are most compelling actually came to light later on when the film was subjected to digital analysis, you wonder why they would go to the trouble of hoaxing such detail whilst being unaware that the technology would exist enabling investigators to view the film in such a way. At first sight it's easy to conclude that it's a person in a suit because you can't see that much detail, the subject is tiny and the film very shaky. Why go to such lengths to have such a detailed suit? Why add breasts? For 23 seconds of shaky footage at such a distance.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch View Post
    There is always the possibility that the suit was destroyed. It would make sense if it's a hoax. But consider the fact that this was 1967 and the technology was very limited as far as materials are concerned. Fake fur with a two way flex simply didn't exist. The stabilized film shows muscle movement in the back and legs, and in my opinion would need a skintight fur suit which flexes with the muscle in a natural manner. And if it was a skintight suit then the person wearing it was of such proportions that he or she would not be hard to find.
    In fact this is a common failure in people's understanding of epistemology. One can always construct a dichotomy between truth and falsehood but it is possible, and far more prevalent than people think for some questions to remain unknown. This is because lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, and failure to disprove is not proof. After cursory examination of human means of gathering evidence, one must admit that there are some real things which cannot be proven and some unreal things that cannot be disproved. The number of those things in theory goes down with our ability to measure and the depth of our examination of evidence but it may never go to zero.

    Therefore one of the things I think crypto-zoologist often fail to recognize is that a hoax need not be perfect, only more perfect than our means of gathering evidence. Therefore it is possible that the film was faked and we have no way of proving it so. This does not prove it was real however.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch View Post
    When you think, the details which are most compelling actually came to light later on when the film was subjected to digital analysis, you wonder why they would go to the trouble of hoaxing such detail whilst being unaware that the technology would exist enabling investigators to view the film in such a way. At first sight it's easy to conclude that it's a person in a suit because you can't see that much detail, the subject is tiny and the film very shaky. Why go to such lengths to have such a detailed suit? Why add breasts? For 23 seconds of shaky footage at such a distance.
    As it stands though, it is strong if not conclusive evidence (cogent vs sound reasoning). Speaking as the devil's advocate if they were trying to fake it, the best combination would be high realism and poor filming (shaky and such). The low quality reduces the chances (perhaps to impossibility) that any errors are found, while making it as realistic as possible means that those details which do turn up after intense scrutiny fit. It is not contradictory to assume both were intentional while hoaxing.

    However, I agree that a ridiculous amount of thinking went into the suit if it was a hoax, and the famous picture of BBC recreation looked like chewbacca, not at all like the creature in the film.
    gallery_16762_17_984446.jpg

    @Gansao, there are a few big differences between Loch Ness monster and Sasquatch.
    1. Ness is reportedly confined to a lake, a very finite area if though the lake is pretty large. They have swept the whole thing with sonar, nobody has swept north America with ape detectors, heat blooms from animals are all over the place and the difference between a hiker, a Sasquatch and a bear would not be definite. Yet a giant serpent could not be mistaken for a fish.

    2. Ness doesn't have any long history of report (besides the general dragon lore). While Sasquatches were talked about before European colonization and throughout it. That is a long time. Of course the settlers could have just picked up the superstition from the natives but it is obviously not a plot for tourism; and for most of it's history there really isn't any motivation for reporting these except to have a campfire story.

    3. While the creature which ness is supposed to be has been extinct for 65 million of years the Sasquatch is supposed to branch off of a family of apes that developed much recently and to the best of our knowledge could be alive as little as one hundred thousand years ago. That means the fossil record gap is 650 times longer for Ness than Sasquatch. In either case low population density would help explain the lack of fossils (and bones) but the idea that the only place in the entire world that Ness like creatures survived is one lake in Scotland seems remote. While Sasquatch is still reported over an entire continent and perhaps in Asia as well.

    The biggest point against bigfoot is simply the lack of bodies. Yes it is hard to find them, but for other elusive creatures they do. Poachers seem to find mountain gorillas just fine.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Loch Ness has never been fully studied . As for sweeping with sonar.... see link or cut and paste

    Loch Ness Water - Facts and Information

    The legend of Loch Ness precedes the 1930s by many centuries.

    I will remind you of the coelacanth that was said to be extinct but was very much alive.
    What the Loch Ness monster and bigfoot have in common is that there is no conclusive evidence of either but many have been said to have seen it.
    The wee man who owns the gift shop has seen it many times








    Loch Ness is situated at the North Eastern end of the Great Glen, a large "side-slip" (and active) fault line that splits the north of Scotland down the middle and further sculpted by Ice Age glaciers. The word Glen means "steep sided valley".

    The Word Loch is another word for lake or fjord.

    There are about forty small rivers, streams, burns and waterways running into Loch Ness. The Loch itself is connected to the sea via the River Ness and Caledonian Canal - both feeding into the Moray Firth.

    Loch Ness is 51 feet (16 metres) higher than sea level, is 23 miles long and 1 mile wide. Beneath the water the Loch consists of two deep basins separated by a barrier of sediment from the River Foyers, approximately half-way down the southern shore of the Loch.

    So far, "Operation Deepscan" has been the largest and most exaustive expedition staged at Loch Ness. During the exploration, several unidentified and unexplained sonar contacts were recorded beneath the water.

    There have been countless fake monster sightings and false evidence of it's existance presented over the years, including a fabricated echo sounder chart showing a multi-legged creature taken from the Rival III in 1957.

    The first real scientific survey of Loch Ness occured in 1901 by John Murray.

    A plan to bring trained dolphins to help study Loch Ness was thwarted when one of the dolphins died during acclimatisation in New England.

    Ospreys regularly fish the waters at Loch Ness.

    The waters of Loch Ness never freeze over.

    The power company Hydro Electric is able to adjust the level of the water in Loch Ness by several feet, a practiced used to prevent flooding in the River Ness & Inverness.
    There are two layers of radioactive sediment beneath the waters of Loch Ness. The first was the result of radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl disaster.
    Loch Ness contains more water than in all of the lakes and rivers of England and Wales combined. It also has the greatest volume of water than any other Scottish Loch.
    The colour of the Loch Water is caused by peat particles floating throughout the Loch.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    What does 'fully studied' mean? I doubt many lakes in the world have undergone similar investigation. I am sure the lake was swept top to bottom at some point, they may be doing it again with better sonar but that doesn't mean it wasn't done before.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    What does 'fully studied' mean? I doubt many lakes in the world have undergone similar investigation. I am sure the lake was swept top to bottom at some point, they may be doing it again with better sonar but that doesn't mean it wasn't done before.
    Fully studied means fully studied.
    You may be sure that the lake has been swept from top to bottom but there doesnt seem to be any evidence that you are correct.
    I dont see any evidence thats the connections to the sea via the River Ness and Caledonian Canal - both feeding into the Moray Firth have been investigated either. When this happens it may be one step nearer to the Loch being fully studied.
    Sweeping the Loch with sonar may not be decisive anyway. It hasnt been so far, even though, several unidentified and unexplained sonar contacts were recorded beneath the water apparently

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    Fully studied means fully studied.
    You may be sure that the lake has been swept from top to bottom but there doesnt seem to be any evidence that you are correct.
    I dont see any evidence thats the connections to the sea via the River Ness and Caledonian Canal - both feeding into the Moray Firth have been investigated either. When this happens it may be one step nearer to the Loch being fully studied.
    Sweeping the Loch with sonar may not be decisive anyway. It hasnt been so far, even though, several unidentified and unexplained sonar contacts were recorded beneath the water apparently
    The lake has been swept:
    BBC: Nessie Does Not Exist; Sonar Scan of Loch Ness
    NOVA | The Legend of Loch Ness
    In 1987, an expedition called Operation Deep Scan used a flotilla of 20 sonar-equipped boats to sweep the loch with a curtain of sound; the operation yielded three underwater targets that could not be explained. In the early 1990s, the BBC's Nicholas Witchell helped organize Project Urquhart, the first extensive study of the loch's biology and geology. Although they weren't looking for monsters, the expedition's sonar operators detected a large, moving underwater target and followed it for several minutes before losing it.
    It seems to be good enough to find whales, fish, submarines and such.

    Here's the problem, if the creatures can get out of the lake then it doesn't make sense that in 65 million years none of them colonized the ocean. In this period mammals supposedly got in the water and evolved to dolphins and whales, surely a creature that had been successful for millions of years already could manage switching from fresh water to salt. The only thing to eat are fish, and there are lots of fish in the sea (pun intended).
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    not no
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    The lake has been swept:
    BBC: Nessie Does Not Exist; Sonar Scan of Loch Ness
    NOVA | The Legend of Loch Ness


    It seems to be good enough to find whales, fish, submarines and such.

    Here's the problem, if the creatures can get out of the lake then it doesn't make sense that in 65 million years none of them colonized the ocean. In this period mammals supposedly got in the water and evolved to dolphins and whales, surely a creature that had been successful for millions of years already could manage switching from fresh water to salt. The only thing to eat are fish, and there are lots of fish in the sea (pun intended).

    NOVA | The Legend of Loch Ness

    Although zoologists have yet to conduct the full-scale investigation Rines hoped to trigger, the loch continues to yield intriguing sonar hits. In 1987, an expedition called Operation Deep Scan used a flotilla of 20 sonar-equipped boats to sweep the loch with a curtain of sound; the operation yielded three underwater targets that could not be explained


    The BBC couldnt find a whore in a brothel or a pedophile in its ranks

    The BBC's real crime over Jimmy Savile was to act like the Catholic church | Jonathan Freedland | Comment is free | The Guardian

    There are many reptiles and fishes who have been around for millions of years but do not colonise the oceans.

    Why does a large primate known as bigfoot not colonise all of the forests in North America?
    Last edited by gansao; 10-27-2012 at 05:09 AM.

  13. #13
    Squatch is offline Finder of the MissingLink
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Newcastl upon Tyne
    Posts
    56
    If we disount the Patterson Gimlin footage as unprovable either way, then the next body of evidence would be footprint data. There is a statistical study of footprint data of prints found over a forty year period. It was written by Wolf Fahrenbach and covers footprints taken from a wide area. The statistical analysis he does is very interesting reading.

    Basically if you look at the size and distribution of the foot prints then you get a distribution comparible with a real population of animals. If people are hoaxing all of the footprints then the size distribution would be random.

    SASQUATCH: SIZE, SCALING, AND STATISTICS

    Check out the link, it makes for very interesting reading.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch View Post
    If we disount the Patterson Gimlin footage as unprovable either way, then the next body of evidence would be footprint data. There is a statistical study of footprint data of prints found over a forty year period. It was written by Wolf Fahrenbach and covers footprints taken from a wide area. The statistical analysis he does is very interesting reading.

    Basically if you look at the size and distribution of the foot prints then you get a distribution comparible with a real population of animals. If people are hoaxing all of the footprints then the size distribution would be random.

    SASQUATCH: SIZE, SCALING, AND STATISTICS

    Check out the link, it makes for very interesting reading.
    Again, good circumstantial evidence, but it is possible that the ratios are correct because hoaxers are basing the foot prints on their own feet (just scaling up). Unlikely of course, but possible.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,718
    Chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans all live in Africa and South-east Asia along with hundreds of species of monkey.

    Why arenít there any other apes and monkeys in north America?

    Doesnít it seem a little strange that the only ape in north America is the mythical Bigfoot?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •