Guest Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 They don't? You show a video of a guy in a gorilla suit to illustrate that gorillas look like guys in suits? Sas you and I are basically on the same page.......I just think it's important that I shake it up abit, because I think our emphasis is misplaced. On that we certainly agree!
bipedalist Posted February 23, 2011 BFF Patron Posted February 23, 2011 .....You show a video of a guy in a gorilla suit to illustrate that gorillas look like guys in suits? Had me fooled for about the first 20 seconds
Guest Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Out of the blue, yet still topical, have some of you guys thought about putting an article together for the magazine "Ancient American"? The owner/editor is quite a nice guy. The publication challenges standing theories in scientific fields. I'll be the first to admit some articles are "Interesting". ???!!!! However he publishes material he's sent. Gotta fill those pages. Most large bookstores carry it, Borders ect.... If you wanted to seriously challenge Tradiitional Acedemia it's a start. BTW He answers his own phone.
norseman Posted February 23, 2011 Admin Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) You show a video of a guy in a gorilla suit to illustrate that gorillas look like guys in suits? You said this: Gorillas, chimps, and orangs don't look like people in furry suits, they look like real biological entities. I offer that what looks like a real biological entity and what looks like a guy in a fur suit, is solely in the eye of the beholder. Even if the experience is first hand and not a photo. Which is why I have never ruled out the PGF being a hoax, although I feel the story presented to explain it is ridiculous. But you seem to think you have the gift to discern from a single photo what is real and what is not. I am just challenging that abit.... Edited February 23, 2011 by norseman
southernyahoo Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Hypothetical situation for you: Your in your pickup on a logging road in the forest and you come upon a fresh set of tracks crossing the road. You get out of your pickup and you notice some hair that may or may not be associated with the tracks on the ground. In your pickup you have a high powered rifle, evidence kit, dental resin, camera and a trail camera. What do you do? Almost all people are going to set up shop right there and spend their time collecting hair samples and casts. The hair sample is akin to buying a lottery ticket and the casts will be identified as a hoax by the skeptics. But the track way headed off into the woods is the only clear choice in quickly ending the mystery. Most Bigfooters may half heartedly follow the tracks for abit, fearful of what they may find, and they have no conviction of doing the animal any harm anyhow. So the track way is a mental dead end before we even get started. This is not to say that someone should ignore trace evidence, that is not what I am saying. But you do not effectively catch a bank robber by letting the perp run off down the street with his bag of money because you are too busy pulling a fingerprint off of the glass door that may or may not be his. It is the emphasis placed on trace evidence within the community that is upside down. Considering that you'd be lucky just to find one of the signs you speak of let alone having a choice which evidence to follow up on, I think footers are doing the right thing. You don't have to catch the crook in this case as long as you can prove he exists. Hair samples from all across the country can prove an entire breeding population exists. Isn't that better than a single specimen?
Incorrigible1 Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 But I suppose from the Bigfooter perspective, they keep introducing photo's that hold promise and they always seem to get shot down, which is construed to mean that there is some sort of conspiracy going on. Norseman, I'll quote you again, and have bolded what I feel is the pertinent point of the quote. I submit there have been few/none photos that hold promise in recent memory. Aside from the (over 40 year old) PGF, there just isn't much for any proponent to hold up and say "But what about this!" That's why I'm encouraging (hell, pleading for) substantial, clear "photos that hold promise" to be brought forth. Sad to say, I don't know of any.
southernyahoo Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 You show a video of a guy in a gorilla suit to illustrate that gorillas look like guys in suits? I think he showed that a guy in a gorilla suit can look like a gorilla to some people... ie; real biological entity. So the point is that it would be even easier to do a bigfoot since people really don't know what bigfoot looks like and they could do it walking erect. I'm as curious as Norseman how you would know a BF photo is real. Would it be the ability to see skin with hairs coming out of it? Could that not be hoaxed? What morphological characteristics would qualify it as real? It's much easier to say what is fake than to say what is real isn't it?
norseman Posted February 24, 2011 Admin Posted February 24, 2011 Considering that you'd be lucky just to find one of the signs you speak of let alone having a choice which evidence to follow up on, I think footers are doing the right thing. You don't have to catch the crook in this case as long as you can prove he exists. Hair samples from all across the country can prove an entire breeding population exists. Isn't that better than a single specimen? Absolutely not. Thus far nobody seems to even take hair samples seriously.
norseman Posted February 24, 2011 Admin Posted February 24, 2011 Norseman, I'll quote you again, and have bolded what I feel is the pertinent point of the quote. I submit there have been few/none photos that hold promise in recent memory. Aside from the (over 40 year old) PGF, there just isn't much for any proponent to hold up and say "But what about this!" That's why I'm encouraging (hell, pleading for) substantial, clear "photos that hold promise" to be brought forth. Sad to say, I don't know of any. What about say the Memorial day footage? Obviously not a bear, but here again any video COULD be hoaxed. What was it? What about the Freeman footage? Obviously not a bear, but Freeman was shady.....I think unlike Patty it looks like a guy in a fur suit that constantly looks down to where he is placing his feet. What about the Jacobs photo? It's obvious to me it's not a bear, but to me it looks like a Chimp. But alas I do not really know what a juvenile Squatch should look like. And that's a problem with new unidentified species I suppose. No, I think there has been some media that has came out since the PGF that certainly COULD be something. But is it more convincing? Probably not. Besides the film subject doing something obviously outside the realm of human capabilities? I really don't hold out much hope for anything being proven by media.
Incorrigible1 Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) What about say the Memorial day footage? Obviously not a bear, but here again any video COULD be hoaxed. What was it? What about the Freeman footage? Obviously not a bear, but Freeman was shady.....I think unlike Patty it looks like a guy in a fur suit that constantly looks down to where he is placing his feet. What about the Jacobs photo? It's obvious to me it's not a bear, but to me it looks like a Chimp. But alas I do not really know what a juvenile Squatch should look like. And that's a problem with new unidentified species I suppose. No, I think there has been some media that has came out since the PGF that certainly COULD be something. But is it more convincing? Probably not. Besides the film subject doing something obviously outside the realm of human capabilities? I really don't hold out much hope for anything being proven by media. Really? You consider those "photos that hold substance?" I don't. I think they're so unsubstantial as to be wholly questionable. Perhaps our levels of substance differ. I think we, as "squatchers," as we're sometimes referred down to, should demand better. Enough with the blobsquatches (keeriste, we've even got a sub-forum devoted to such), how's about some researcher or by general happenstance a clear, unmistakable photo (or better yet, video) be provided? Here in 2011. Something to propel us beyond heated cuss/discussion of 40 year old disputed film footage. Is that too much to ask for? You, evidently, think so. What say you? Edited February 24, 2011 by Incorrigible1
norseman Posted February 24, 2011 Admin Posted February 24, 2011 Really? You consider those "photos that hold substance?" I don't. I think so, but obviously you feel the PGF is 100% the real deal, where as I could concede it could be a hoax if a plausible explanation with supporting evidence ever surfaced. So you may have a bit of a bias point of view concerning other films and photos concerning Sasquatch other than Patty. I think as I stated before, you can break it down into three categories. 1) Blobsquatches, basically a photo that lacks any definition, and could be anything from a tree stump to a rock. 2) Misidentification's, such as the Jacob's photo. No matter what my personal opinion is, most think it is that of a bear. So we have enough definition to know that it is an animal but what kind? 3) Clear photos of a Squatch, such as the memorial day footage. It's not a bear, it's hairy and it walks upright, cannot be disputed in any way, except that it could be a hoax. There is actually quite a bit of material that makes it into category three. Most of it is a man in a monkey suit it would seem........but is it? Can I say with complete conviction that the memorial day footage is a hoax? No, I cannot. It seems funny that a Squatch would be running around on a hill side above a bunch of campers, but that region of the north Cascades in very remote, and I should know as I've packed into the Paysaten wilderness hunting mule deer. There is nothing between Chopaka lake and Bellingham, Washington 100 miles due west. Absolutely nothing. So if a very rare elusive creature could exist in the lower 48 for the most part staying hidden? This would be an ideal place. I think they're so unsubstantial as to be wholly questionable. Perhaps our levels of substance differ. I think we, as "squatchers," as we're sometimes referred down to, should demand better. I think we could demand all we want but are forced to accept what we get. Unless of course they are all hoaxed.......then I guess we could demand better! Because then it's just cinema. Enough with the blobsquatches (keeriste, we've even got a sub-forum devoted to such), how's about some researcher or by general happenstance a clear, unmistakable photo (or better yet, video) be provided? Here in 2011. Something to propel us beyond heated cuss/discussion of 40 year old disputed film footage. Is that too much to ask for? You, evidently, think so. What say you? I find it fun to look at media and wonder........sure. But again I have very little faith that this is the medium that will convince anyone.
Incorrigible1 Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) I think so, but obviously you feel the PGF is 100% the real deal....... Bullpucky. Simply caca. Look, I respect your steering committee position, but you've simply got to do better than this. I can't help finding your "obvious" conclusion offensive. Yikes. Edited February 24, 2011 by Incorrigible1
norseman Posted February 24, 2011 Admin Posted February 24, 2011 Bullpucky. Simply caca. Look, I respect your steering committee position, but you've simply got to do better than this. I can't help finding your "obvious" conclusion offensive. Yikes. A)I did not mean to be offensive to you in my post, it's simply an observation. If you took it as such I absolutely apologize. B)My steering committee position has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. Zip, zero, nada. In this thread I'm just another poster, that is all.
Incorrigible1 Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 A)I did not mean to be offensive to you in my post, it's simply an observation. If you took it as such I absolutely apologize. Yeah, I absolutely take offense to your allegation. "obviously you feel the PGF is 100% the real deal." Pssh, that's absolute crap. Geez, it's not as if you and I are that far off our personal beliefs, but then you come outta nowhere with that fart in the wind? Wow. If that's an observation, I must take the rest of your "observations" into account.
norseman Posted February 24, 2011 Admin Posted February 24, 2011 Yeah, I absolutely take offense to your allegation. "obviously you feel the PGF is 100% the real deal." Pssh, that's absolute crap. Geez, it's not as if you and I are that far off our personal beliefs, but then you come outta nowhere with that fart in the wind? Wow. If that's an observation, I must take the rest of your "observations" into account. I've apologized, there is not much else I can do.
Recommended Posts