Huntster Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 Showing a faked film to scientists seems like an odd thing for a hoaxer to do. Why not just do the tour, collect the money and run? Maybe why so many now don't seem to want to bother with the scientists. It's a complete waste of time. Ivan T. Sanderson's take on it. Thanks for that. I'd like to quote from that, which shows the scientific method of the day (which appears to be the same today): Next day, LIFE took Roger and Al with the film to the American Museum of Natural History where a showing was put on for some of the scientific staff; notably Dr. van Gelder, head of the Department of Mammals and Dr. Shapiro of Anthropology. The wire services were permitted to view but the owners were excluded and within fifteen minutes the ‘scientists’* announced that “It is not kosher (a funny word to use for a spokesman of a scientific organization) because it is impossibleâ€. Upon this, LIFE washed their hands of the whole thing and LOOK followed suit on the grounds that if the AMNH said it was a phony, it was. There was at least one other scientist who wrote that he couldn't accept the films authenticity simply because he couldn't bring himself around to accepting that such creatures exist, not that what he saw on the film was or was not human. I can't seem to find that quote. I'll be you can, LAL.......... Denial can be arrived at in any of a number of ways. One can simply be incredulity, or an amazement so profound that refusal to accept is the result. Obvious ignorance is another. Not knowing the facts can lead to denial. Another can be fear. Fear that something like that is actually out there might be why many outdoorsmen might deny the possibility of sasquatch. What we see most often in denial of this phenomenon today (especially in forums like this) is from people who are simply invested in the ideology of denial and skepticism. What occurred in 1968 was more incredulity than an ideology of denial/skepticism, but that denial has been the major fuel for the ideological denialists to this very day.
southernyahoo Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 I'm talking about the majority of relevant scientists (e.g., biologists, anthropologists, etc.) who've seen the film ("enhanced" or otherwise) over the past 40-odd years* at Earth. Two things: (1) Nothing. If he shared his film with biologists and they weren't moved to do anything then that's it. Just because proponents of the film's authenticity see things in the film they find compelling doesn't mean the rest of us do. It's pretty good footage and would be diagnostic of any other creature, "except" bigfoot. If I had the exact same quality of footage of a Bear, there would be no dispute. (2) I don't know much about the lore surrounding the film, but isn't there supposed to be a whole lot more film from the roll(s) that has(ve) not been made available for analysis? If the film is authentic, then there isn't any reason not to share all the film related to the event, right? You see, you consider yourself one of the relevant scientists, but the images in the film isn't enough. You know they had filmed other stuff, but lord knows what that could be, maybe practice runs of the hoax.
Guest LAL Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) You see, you consider yourself one of the relevant scientists, but the images in the film isn't enough. You know they had filmed other stuff, but lord knows what that could be, maybe practice runs of the hoax. Some of that footage is on Bigfoot: Man or Beast. You can see Roger casting and grinning from ear to ear. Practice runs should have been before the filming, not after. Sloppy hoaxing if you ask me. Dahinden cut about 10 feet off the second roll that went to the BBC for a documentary and they lost it, as I recall without Googling it. Edited February 27, 2011 by LAL
Guest LAL Posted February 27, 2011 Posted February 27, 2011 There was at least one other scientist who wrote that he couldn't accept the films authenticity simply because he couldn't bring himself around to accepting that such creatures exist, not that what he saw on the film was or was not human. I can't seem to find that quote. I'll be you can, LAL.......... Still looking, but on page 239 of Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence Dr. Krantz mentioned an FBI agent who told him the implications of these tracks were just too great for him to believe they were real. A prominent anthropologist told him a biped cannot walk without a longitudinal arch in its foot and another that there's no ecological niche from such an animal to occupy in North America. Seems we're still seeing those kinds of arguments today.
Guest LAL Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Huntster, it was D.W. Grieve in his report.. "My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film. The possibility of a very clever take cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the film. A man could have sufficient height and suitable proportions to mimic the longitudinal dimensions of the Sasquatch. The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours. The possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18 fps. In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the Sasquatch must possess a very different locomotor system to that of man. D. W. GRIEVE, M.SC. PH.D. Reader in Biomechanics Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine London"
Guest gershake Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours. A-ha!
Huntster Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Huntster, on 27 February 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:There was at least one other scientist who wrote that he couldn't accept the films authenticity simply because he couldn't bring himself around to accepting that such creatures exist, not that what he saw on the film was or was not human. I can't seem to find that quote. I'll be you can, LAL.......... Still looking, but on page 239 of Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence Dr. Krantz mentioned an FBI agent who told him the implications of these tracks were just too great for him to believe they were real. I believe many hold the same form of denial. Can't say I don't understand. The thought that such creatures are out there, and in the vicinity of my own outdoor playground, is profound to me. Huntster, it was D.W. Grieve in his report.. That's the one. I knew you'd find it in short order. You amaze me with your grasp of the history of this phenomenon. "My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film. The possibility of a very clever take cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the film. A man could have sufficient height and suitable proportions to mimic the longitudinal dimensions of the Sasquatch. The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours. The possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18 fps. In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the Sasquatch must possess a very different locomotor system to that of man. D. W. GRIEVE, M.SC. PH.D. Reader in Biomechanics Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine London" That was the best review of the era. Dr. Grieve reported on what he saw as well as his emotion on the film. He was honest. Seems we're still seeing those kinds of arguments today. Indeed, but these words hold hope: The possibility of a very clever take cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the film. A man could have sufficient height and suitable proportions to mimic the longitudinal dimensions of the Sasquatch. The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours. The possibility of fakery is ruled out if the speed of the film was 16 or 18 fps. In these conditions a normal human being could not duplicate the observed pattern, which would suggest that the Sasquatch must possess a very different locomotor system to that of man. This indicates to me that it is remotely possible to "prove" photographically that sasquatches exist. At least enough so for the proper funding/attention to get science going. Maybe. Remote is better than "none"..............
Guest parnassus Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) I'm saying that every bit of the evidence collected can be attributed to a human or humanlike creature. Whether that translates into sapiens sapiens I couldn't tell you with certainty. I think the DNA is going to show that something is "off" about them, but for the most part , DNA has pointed to the human lineage whenever sequencing has been successful. Yes, I think they are from the Genus Homo, but when they are fully described I would expect a name like Homo something robustus (wildman). The fact that no obvious ape samples have turned up in any field biology study, my hypothesis is that BF evidence has been mistaken for human (sapiens sapiens) all these years. Yahoo I think u are overlooking much of the traditional Bigfoot evidence, but I'll let u hammer that out with Meldrum. U r correct that the non-"animal" DNA has been human. Not close to human ..HUMAN. That is what we will see in the future as well. The source will not be run of the mill, typical white Anglo European or Hispanic. It will be from Native American homo sapiens sapiens, whose DNA differs from the average American's in minor ways, basically some single nucleotide polymorphisms. You as a bigfoot believer without a very sophisticated knowledge of population genetics will be asked to believe that this is bigfoot's DNA. Maybe Paulides will mumble something about abduction and rape of tribal women, interbreeding and the like. This will be the real test of Bigfoot belief: you basically have two choices: ignore/forget most of the superhuman apelike characteristics including the Meldrum stuff, put your faith in David Paulides and develop some strange new ideas about Native Americans, or basically give up on the idea of Bigfoot DNA/real organism. I will be fascinated to see how it all turns out, and am particularly interested in how Meldrum will respond. The LDS church, u know, already has a far out idea of the origins of Native Americans. I think that Meldrum's belief in bigfoot will supersede what he must know as a scientist...that those are not the feet of any sort of a human, and that the subversion of genetics and evolution makes no sense. And yes this is just my informed speculation. Edited February 28, 2011 by parnassus
Guest Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 It's pretty good footage and would be diagnostic of any other creature, "except" bigfoot. If I had the exact same quality of footage of a Bear, there would be no dispute. Because we know what bears are - they've already been described. You know they had filmed other stuff, but lord knows what that could be, maybe practice runs of the hoax. Maybe indeed.
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 Parnassus, I hope they don't try to pass off Native American DNA as belonging to Bigfoot. If they do, I'm not buying it and I'll volunteer to be the first one to yell "Fraud!" What I've seen with my own two eyes was not an American Indian in any way, shape or form. Chris B.
Huntster Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 southernyahoo, on 27 February 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:It's pretty good footage and would be diagnostic of any other creature, "except" bigfoot. If I had the exact same quality of footage of a Bear, there would be no dispute. Because we know what bears are - they've already been described. Which, yet again, is why a photo isn't going to cut it. You can never "describe" a species from a photo. It has to be a carcass. Nothing less will do. Frankly, I resent the fact that I have to repeatedly recite this sad litany. These are not rules, regulations, demands, or ideological realities that originate from me. They're yours.
Guest LAL Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 A new macaque in Bhutan was identified from this photo but it's not 7' tall and bipedal.
Huntster Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 A new macaque in Bhutan was identified from this photo Was it really? No DNA, carcass, hide, bones, etc? but it's not 7' tall and bipedal. Indeed. So that's the real issue?
Guest ShadowPrime Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 IMHO, there is nothing wrong, certainly, with someone watching the PGF and having the reaction "That is a guy in a suit". Maybe the person has that reaction because they DO see "a man in a suit". Maybe they have that reaction because they are sure BF "can't" exist, or doesn't exist, or find the idea that BF is real to be so startling or disquieting that they feel "it MUST" be a man in a suit. All good. However - again, IMHO - if a person doesn't move past that, doesn't look into the matter in more detail, then I would suggest they aren't seriously curious about the subject. In other words, if you watch the PGF and say "man in suit, time to move on" (or, for that matter, if you say "Gotta be a real BF" and move on), you aren't doing much more than going with your gut feelings. Most recently, for example, on the just aired BF special (DEFINITIVE GUIDE), one of the "experts" basically said "that just looks like a man in a suit", and that was that. Now, to be fair, this was an edited TV special; maybe he provided a half hour of rationale, or maybe he has, in fact, done quite a bit of research... and I hope so. But on the face of it, that kind of "skeptical thinking" is maddening, because it isn't really skeptical thinking at all (again, any more than it would be to watch PGF, declare the subject to be real based on that viewing, and just moving on). There is a TON of PGF discussion on the Boards - no kidding, right? ;-) - so I won't "go there" here. Just saying that I have yet to see a 1960s era "gorilla suit" that comes close to Patty, have yet to see a 1960s era TV show or movie monster come close to Patty, and I have yet to see anything resembling a credible explanation of how a rank amateur like Patterson was supposed to have come up with a monster suit that trumped the best Hollywood at the time has to offer. So when someone says "Hey, looks like a man in a suit" and moves on, I find that just a bit frustrating. A bit. *S* Shadow
Guest LAL Posted February 28, 2011 Posted February 28, 2011 So that's the real issue? I tend to think so. I new macaque in a foreign land, even one as populated as Bhutan, doesn't shake any foundations. How many times have you heard "If something like bigfoot exists science would have discovered it by now", or "Maybe it's the Devil planting tracks to deceive us"? Old paradigms die hard and we've had to give up ideas like the earth is the center of the universe and we're so special no other ape could walk on two legs. Three new monkeys were found in Brazil in a decade, including a lion tamarind: "This colorful animal is also known today as the caissara monkey. The local fishermen, or caissara, had known about it for a long time, and the official discoverers acknowledged their debt by proposing Leontopithecus caissara as the species' formal name. The location was a surprise: Superagui is largely developed, and lies in the heavily populated region surrounding Sao Paulo. Primatologist Russell Mittermeier, president of Conservation International, marveled that it was "almost like finding a major new species in the Los Angeles suburbs." The discovery brought the number of known species of lion tamarins to four. All are endangered: the golden-rumped species was rediscovered in 1970 after no one had seen it in sixty-five years." http://www.mattwriter.com/excerpts/roe.html New large species in Vietnam are okay, and I think gorillas are pretty well accepted now after a rocky start, but an 8' ape in the forests of North America? Preposterous!
Recommended Posts