Leaderboard

I consider the lid to now be well off the box for considering the period for the earliest migration to N.A., and open season on the most probable route(s) of migration(s). Last week's report of a flint blade found in a Florida spring at a level dated to 14,500 years ago is truly astounding, but a confirmation of what has already been hinted at here and there in other excavations. If there were pre-Clovis people all the way to Florida at that early date, the previously held theory that the ice blocked such migrations is out the window. If we can't even say when, or how they arrived, do we really have a firm grasp of what likely did, or did not, migrate with them ? http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/spring-2016/article/prehistoric-site-in-florida-confirms-pre-clovis-peopling-of-the-americas

In my opinion you cannot do both. You cannot wear a suit convincingly WHILE wearing stompers and taking extra big strides and trying to mash tracks into the ground. I think its impossible. Think about it..... we know exactly where the film site is. We have track casts that correspond to the film and the site. We have follow on investigations including a 6 ft 6" man walking Patty's route across the creek bed with corresponding deadfall and trees matching up in both films!!! Todd Standing doesnt tell you where he is shooting his Sasquatch films, nor does he share it with other researchers. The PGF stands today not just because its a **** good film, but because of the transparency after wards. No hoaxer tells you where he shot his film and oh by the way here is the corresponding trackway.......no way. Most PGF critique I hear is about attacking Pattersons or Gimlins character......not so much the film itself. And thats because every attempt to discredit the film has failed. To my knowledge the skeptics have not even mounted a formal professional rebuttal to Bill Munn's work....why??? Its because its easier to throw rotten fruit from the shadows than it is to stand up publicly and state your case.

I scratched the surface of this on another thread but I would like to get some additional opinions from a wider group of Forum members. I am also hoping the Mods and Admin will let this run for a while before moving it elsewhere. The question revolves around the Patterson Gimlin Film shot in October of 1967 of what looks like a real Sasquatch. An apparent female from the looks of things but there has been much debated over the years about whether it's a hoax or not. After the short film was finished Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin went back to their camp to procure casting material in order to make casts of the footprints. Now understand this is on top of an already remarkable film- real or not. So the question is this: With film footage of a supposed female Sasquatch already taken what would be the point of returning to camp, picking up casting material, and going back out to the creek bed to make footprint casts. Now granted they didn't know if the film actually recorded the creature we call "Patty" so was the footprint casting a back up measure? Or if they knew the filming was successful then why do the foot castings? After all if the film was for the purposes of hoaxing an it didn't turn out then they could have simply set up another attempt and filmed again and again until they got it right. So. Since the filming was right it should have been enough in and of itself to pull off a hoax. Why go to the extra trouble of getting on horses, riding back to camp and then returning on horses to make molds? Now that that's said we see a lot of what are called CGI video hoaxing but rarely if ever does the film crew talk about or show that casts of footprints were also made or a follow up of a trackway recorded. Plenty of furry, blurry blobsquatches though. Some are even pretty clear and obviously hoaxed. The PGF was reasonably clear as well but the effort was made to still get film footage of the trackway and footprint casts. Was that extra effort necessary to pull off what some say is a video of a Human in a suit? If it WAS a Human in a suit then I can't see where any effort to make footprint molds would have or should have even entered the minds of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Additional foot casts simply are not needed to pull off a hoax. Filming a guy in a suit yes; track casts no. Has anyone thought about this aspect of the case for or against the reality what is or is not on the Patterson Gimlin Film? My opinion is that the extra effort at getting follow up footprint casts says a lot about it. In truth they didn't need them to have a hoax in that day and age be a success. Thoughts? Opinions? This thread may not last in the General Forum so fire you shots over the bow while you can

I'm telling you the conflict in your own mind need not exist. Most human-cougar attacks involve old cougars, hungry cougars. Most human-cougar encounters send the human blissfully on their way unaware of the cougars presence. But there are exceptions to every rule.

Why? People tend to see things in absolutes. They can be shy and reclusive and still stalk and kill a lone hiker for food. That does not violate any notions we have of them. The opposite of that is an army of Bigfoots raiding small towns and packing off the inhabitants. These hypothetical predatory encounters must be a rare thing in order for them to be plausible.

I read all 39 of his statements. He could have consolidated it to around 20, he reiterates himself so much. Also this was supposed to be native American research. So why is there some European mythology thrown in? And the pure speculation of turning to stone? I guess I don't get this idea of painting bigfoot as evil. Evil from who's viewpoint? I always interpreted the NA viewpoint as respectful. As they are with all animals. Evil is a matter of intent not survival. Were those people in the Donner party evil because they canibalized their fellow travelers or just hungry and dying of starvation? Any large animal can be dangerous and should be treated as such. Respectfully. Does that make it evil? My answer is no.

Let's boil this down to brass tacks. We are talking about a supposed 8 ft tall, 800 lbs bipedal ape man. What do we know about other hominids? Homo Sapiens commit cannibalism to this day. Chimps actively hunt and eat other primates. Neanderthals commited cannibalism. Chances are that Sasquatch could or would eat a Human under the right circumstances. Especially if reports are true that they actively hunt ungulates. We may not be a regular menu item. But in the right circumstance? A lone hiker, a child not being watched, an elderly person who wanders off? Coupled with a failed berry crop or a heavy winter kill of the local Deer population? I have zero problems envisioning some thing like a Sasquatch utilizing a food source like us if the situation warrants it. Mother nature is a cruel mistress......many of us forget that. If your hungry your going to do what it takes to survive. 800 lbs trumps 180 lbs everytime. But obviously if we were on the main menu? We would notice. So it must be a unique situation that happens, but not often. But there is no reason not to follow the boy scout motto while out in the woods, lest we tempt fate. I do not intend to become a pile of poo on the forest floor. Be prepared!

To my understanding, "good" and "evil" are moral judgments based on intent. As such, they have a built in implication of consciousness rather than mere instinct. A lion or bear that eats you is not "evil", it is merely hungry and acting on instinct, same as a venomous spider or snake that bites you in self defense. Harmful, absolutely, evil, absolutely not. (Note: I recognize that some particularly narcissistic people consider anything not submitting to their will to be "evil." That's not what we're talking about I hope.) Basically, I consider the question itself invalid so either answer to be nonsense unless you build in the assumption that bigfoots are self-aware with a sense of right and wrong and occasionally deliberately choose to do "wrong." It is probably more productive to couch the question in more objective, less subjective, terms. Risk. Costs. Tangible outcomes. Something that most "camps" can agree on rather than building the value system of one camp or another into the discussion and forcing the others to accept it or not participate. MIB

I come at this from a different angle. I wasn't aware of the existence of the PGF until about 7-10 years ago, long after my first sighting. The figure in the film looks enough like what I saw to suggest to me very strongly she is exactly what they said she is, no hoax involved. If I were going to perpetrate a hoax, I would do one thing well, not do one thing only halfway well, then try to do another halfway well to validate the first. In practice, it creates twice as many things that have to stand up to scrutiny and if either fails, it pulls down the house of cards. Nope, in the case of a hoax it is wisest to put all your eggs in one basket and make it a very good basket indeed. The bottom line is, at this point, all attempts to prove the PGF, tracks, etc have failed on an epic scale. The denialists have failed in every attempt and now resort to special pleading and a lot of juvenile "but but but"-ing. They're pathetic. It's become religion to them. They're too wrapped up in their denial to see that every failure on their part strengthens the perception of validity in the mind of honest skeptics and honest believers alike. And of course, knowers don't need the PGF so how the failed debunking affects them doesn't really need to be discussed. (Besides, the laughter speaks for itself.) MIB