Leaderboard

DWA, in this thread you said that "Parrots can speak English." Yet, any reports of language by bigfoot you call jibberish. Surely you understand that parrots are not truly speaking English, they are only mimics? I would imagine that if bigfoots exist and there is any validity to the language reports that what people are reporting is either on a par with parrot mimicry or maybe even closer to actual language.

Of course you are one of those people...you are basing your whole belief in the subject on it. One, ten, ten thousand - what's the difference? How do I know you haven't made up many of the reports? What safeguards are in place to keep you from doing so? They are unverifiable and can't be trusted or tested. Do you believe in fairies due to the existence of sighting reports in Iceland? How about alien UFO sightings worldwide? Chupacabra? They don't even provide a starting point for further examination much less something concrete to argue over. I agree people aren't always good - there are liars and hoaxers out there. Some will even state that calling 911 won't get a response to a call for help. It doesn't matter whether they are deliberately lying or unknowingly ignorant they are still wrong when they make such a statement and it's easy enough to prove unlike tracking down an anonymous bigfoot report where the best possible outcome is "it's possible". Science CAN'T follow the evidence because it can't be trusted - simple as that. Evidence is testable and repeatable, not anonymous and anecdotal - even if it's on a bigfoot PowerPoint presented by Dr. Bindernagel. When the sightings reports/databases are used to allow Norseman or NAWAC to be in the right place at the right time to bring in a specimen for examination or Dr. Bindernagel to film a bigfoot in high def you can rightfully claim them as testable and repeatable evidence. Until then you only have stories which so far have been useless in obtaining any hard evidence and don't even rise to the results you'd expect from a part-time hunting or fishing guide.

Here is a picture of him with an emotional reaction after receiving a 5 minute standing ovation at Salt Fork State Park, Ohio Bigfoot Conference 2014. Long live Bob Gimlin!

I'm not even reading the rest of this thread, just going to answer your question from my opinion after hearing him speak at Salt Fork a few weeks ago... He talked about how much he was ridiculed by his local people. His wife went to the bank teller and she refused to wait on her. He said that the next day after they came back, he was so exhausted from staying up all night to hike back a long way over rugged terrain, then having to get the truck and horses out of the river that rose up, that he crashed out to sleep when they got home. The next day, Patterson announced it to the public, and Gimlin caught some grief for not being there when it was announced. After all these years, it seemed like he was still ticked off about that. He also said that he didn't get any money from the rights to that film. As I say this, I want you to know that he was very cool about it and didn't get nasty or accusatory, he was just stating the facts as they were. And this is just my opinion from what I took away from it. He doesn't talk much but when he did, it was powerful. He had the audience eating out the palm of his hand. Listening to what it was like for him personally to get to Bluff Creek was just captivating. Patterson asked him to go because he really wanted the research and to get prints from there. Gimlin was free that day and went with him. Gimlin did a LOT OF WORK to make that trip happen. He's just a low key country rodeo guy that was good with horses and was up for an expedition. One of the coolest things that he said, was that "I saw it with these two blue eyes. I was not looking at it from behind a camera. I saw it make it's move and watched it the whole time. Patterson was rushing to get the camera." They only had 1 minute left on the reel because Patterson had been filming other things. Gimlin said that while Patterson was rushing to get the shot while looking through the camera lens, he tripped on a rock or something which is why you see the shot jumble for a few seconds. Because he saw it from start to finish with his two blue eyes, he feels that he got the best look at it. It's burned into his brain and at 82 years old, he tells the story like it happened yesterday. He also said something about the horses getting spooked off when it showed up and they had all the gear and extra film on them. I'm not sure when exactly that happened with the horses running off, but I think that's how it goes from what he said. It was just one of those moments. They went up there to document and track prints and fortunately had less than a minute left in the can to capture the event. I did hear from a very close friend of his that there were a few times when he would give a talk and people were just milling about and not paying attention to him. I can't even imagine that. When he was at Salt Fork, he was treated like a hero. He said many times that we were the best group he had ever spoken to. We were just so grateful that he came all the way from California to talk to us, and we are grateful to Tom Yamarone for bringing him to us safe and sound! So what are his regrets? I don't know. It seems like there were a few snags along the way, but honestly, from how genuine and nice he was to each and every person that he met, he's just enjoying life now. I got to actually spend some time with him, as did anyone that wanted to. He was so available and I don't know how he kept his energy up. I thanked him for being here and for everything that he has done, and he turned it around on me, and said I thank all of you people for carrying it on. What a guy. So sweet, so cool, tough on the inside, but soft on the outside. He speaks the truth as far as I'm concerned and no one will EVER convince me that that film wasn't real. I challenge a skeptic to listen to him talk about it if he ever does again. I was just one of the lucky few that heard it.

I think you are misrepresenting my position a bit bipto, so maybe this helps. I look at Patty and see upper limb proportions that are marginally longer than modern man. The legs are maybe a bit shorter proportionally (perhaps the femur is shorter) and may contribute to a larger angle of shin rise. The neck is probably obscured by muscle, more than ours. The arm swing is just like ours and this is one attribute that contributes greatly to the humanness of their walk, often reported to be like a cross country skier. The facial features being much like ours, with a hooded nose, actually fits very well with decreased prognathism which shifts the position of the tongue further back in the throat which is directly associated with the ability to produce the quantal vowels heard in the recordings and is an anatomical basis for language. So it's not surprising to hear these in purported bigfoot speech/ chatter etc., and in the long distance calls which is very much a human trait. The other sounds, perhaps a learned technique or on the outer limits maybe laryngeal air sacs are at work. Fahrenbach's analysis of hairs only matches what is found in human head hairs, though I do know that the sample I've worked with did not match his criteria...and still produced only human DNA. The tracks are larger yes, they are reported to be larger, hairy and brutish in nature, unsophisticated and low tech, but the opposite is not required in the purest biological sense. The body and DNA is all science will go by. As you can see Bip, I do allow for some differences between us and them, but the taxonomy only cares where it fits in current theory and on a purely biological phylogenetic basis. It won't be classified and placed on the tree of life without the genetics in this day and age, and scientists have proposed that chimps be placed in the genus homo before based on this. So as I have said, I think they are in the genus homo and perhaps a subspecies of modern man, but I do not think they are homo sapiens sapiens 100%.. maybe that clears things a bit when I say they are human.......meaning member of the genus homo. I can't be anthropomophising when the commonalities are so apparent from so many different angles.

^^ Anecdotes, regardless of how many, do not fall short of absolute proof. They are not even in the same ballpark. "No one who isn't thoroughly interested in this topic can get a PowerPoint that would satisfy him... " DWA What does that mean? Only people who are really into bigfoot can truly appreciate the value of the "evidence"? Well, yes anyone who is emotionally invested in one outcome over the other can get as much confirmation bias as one wants while deep diving into the BFRO database. That much should be very obvious.