Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[dmaker]

^^^ @WSA I like your response and it does make one pause and think. And I gotta say it's way more thought provoking and refreshing than the " look at the evidence and then you must feel the way I feel" dressing down I was expecting from DWA.

Edited January 10, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^ @WSA I like your response and it does make one pause and think. And I gotta say it's way more thought provoking and refreshing than the " look at the evidence and then you must feel the way I feel" dressing down I was expecting from DWA.

You'd have my response better if you snipped the part in quotes after 'evidence.' Just sayin'.

[WSA]

dmaker: Post Script....

If you've not done it already, you really should check out Bill Munn's thread here regarding the work he's done, and is doing, analyzing the original P/G film stock. He's put up some amazing high rez shots there, one of which makes a very nice screen saver for those you left off your Christmas list. He also has a life-sized blow up of Patty, a 1st gen copy, hanging in his office, he says. (And no, he can't find the zipper, even at that scale) If any guy could tell you how to produce a P/G knock-off, it would be him. He's not, so far, said he knows how it could be done.

[dmaker]

You'd have my response better if you snipped the part in quotes after 'evidence.' Just sayin'.

PGF is evidence. I have examined it many, many times, as have you I assume. We both come away from that piece of evidence with different opinions. Shocker, I know. And as for the rest of this body of evidence that you are so fond of throwing out there, well some of us may have examined more of it than you think and...wait for it...STILL don't share your opinion of it. I admit, I have not read everything on the reading list you provided earlier in this thread. Some of it simply is no longer available, I looked, can't get it. Some of it, I already own and read a long time ago. Also, I am not going to pour through EVERY eye witness account on the report sites. At some point you have to stipulate ( much like in a court of law when faced with a pile of evidence at testifying the same details) that most of the sightings will say things that have already been said. But my point is that I don't understand why you can't seem to grasp that even if someone has read the evidence that you have, they still may remain a skeptic. I understand your position, I really do. You feel that the evidence that exists today is compelling enough to warrant a full scale, serious investigation into the existence of Bigfoot and that if done will find this creature. And that until that is done, we cannot say that BF does not exist. And that in fact, given the evidence, it is more likely that he exists than that he does not. Ok, fine. That is YOUR opinion after viewing the evidence. It is not, however, mine. And I have viewed a fair bit of the evidence available---it's not like it's ton of material. And up to this point, I still remain a skeptic. Go figure.

dmaker: Post Script....

If you've not done it already, you really should check out Bill Munn's thread here regarding the work he's done, and is doing, analyzing the original P/G film stock. He's put up some amazing high rez shots there, one of which makes a very nice screen saver for those you left off your Christmas list. He also has a life-sized blow up of Patty, a 1st gen copy, hanging in his office, he says. (And no, he can't find the zipper, even at that scale) If any guy could tell you how to produce a P/G knock-off, it would be him. He's not, so far, said he knows how it could be done.

I have done some reading on PGF and to be honest there are very compelling arguments on both sides of that debate.

[Guest DWA]

But my point is that I don't understand why you can't seem to grasp that even if someone has read the evidence that you have, they still may remain a skeptic. I understand your position, I really do. You feel that the evidence that exists today is compelling enough to warrant a full scale, serious investigation into the existence of Bigfoot and that if done will find this creature. And that until that is done, we cannot say that BF does not exist. And that in fact, given the evidence, it is more likely that he exists than that he does not. Ok, fine. That is YOUR opinion after viewing the evidence. It is not, however, mine. And I have viewed a fair bit of the evidence available---it's not like it's ton of material. And up to this point, I still remain a skeptic. Go figure.

I have noticed over time that I respond to what I get, here and elsewhere. WSA and I have talked about this. He's a southern gentleman. I am not. That simple disagreement is fine. It is when it is spiced by what I see it spiced by here that I start smacking folks about a bit, as much for fun as anything else. Can't apologize for it. You might want to go back and check everything you've said to me. You won't see the above tone in much of it.

I can grasp a difference of opinion. But if I get nastiness about it...well, I don't cotton to that so much.

[Guest]

Believe it or not, most people haven't seen the Patterson film. (Interested in this subject since 1968, I didn't see P/G until like 2003.) What lends the accounts their power is that people, from scratch, are citing the same features and behaviors down to fine detail, over and over. If everybody said what you are thiking they should all say: Bigfoot ain't real, simple as that. When people are making it up they glom onto tropes like Patty.

what on earth...

how could you be into BF and not see the film until 2003?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Well, game cams don't go, Holy whatthe...and realize about the time they get home that they were carrying a camera.

Well not everyone, but most would be startled seeing a bear that looks like it has arms and legs. I just threw in the game cams because they don't take time to think or get scared etc, I just think we should have had a good photo from one of them by now, I think the picture debate has been done to death so I'll kindly bow out on it and let you have the last word if ya want.

[dmaker]

Question for DWA: you have mentioned that you find a striking amount of common elements in the eye witness reports. You also mention this is coming from people with no previous exposure to Bigfoot, or "from scratch". Ok, fine. I can actually see how that would be impressive and quite compelling. But two questions arise for me: how to you confirm the lack of prior Bigfootery exposure, and how many common elements are needed to add veracity to the report for you? It seems to me that there is a short list of common elements that have been around for as long as I can remember. If I started a report with "I was walking in the woods one day when I felt like I was being watched and my senses were suddenly assailed with a horrible rotten egg-wet dog smell when I heard loud foot steps just off the trail around me and barely dodged a rock thrown at me". I probably hit about half a dozen of them right there. These are almost cliche in BF stories. Not all fairy tales start with Once Upon a Time, but tall tales are still tall tales.

Edited January 11, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

what on earth...

how could you be into BF and not see the film until 2003?

Very easy. I always considered it only one piece of evidence; I didn't consider it to be possible to play with any further than it had been; science's opinion on it was settled and that was that; P/G wouldn't change a thing I think on the topic were it proven fake tomorrow except: Patty's fake. That, to me, is like debunking two or three pretty cool sighting reports, max. So? And in my opinion, all one has to do is see the stills to doubt, very highly, that a human could be made to fit in that suit. Surprise! Bill Munns agrees. So. Who needs to watch a minute of film? I knew, before I'd ever seen the stills actually move, that I had never seen a person walk like that, ever.

And I have never, ever seen anybody spend any time on any thing to so little effect as I have seen both sides of the debate spend on Patty. It would be far easier to just get in the field and confirm the animal.

I just didn't need to. I paid attention to all the evidence, screened out the sideshows, and put Patty in perspective.

Edited January 11, 2013 by DWA

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I didn't consider it to be possible to play with any further than it had been.

It's an old grainy film and if you play with it too much using modern methods, it is IMHO that you are changing what is really on it, Bill has done some outstanding work, but the film is what it is, old, grainy, shaky, taken from a good distance and proves very little about BF in a scientific way, in other words, it's more for show than go.

[Guest]

I would take exception to the idea that 'most people' have not seen the PGF. It is, in my experience, the one piece of evidence that people with little or know experience with sasquatch/bigfoot HAVE seen.

They often do not know the name of it, where it happened, or exactly when...But many people I talk to light up when they see a still, or I describe it to them.

Not sure what the bigger argument is, here...Not taking a side. But there are a LOT of people out there who have seen the PGF, or at least stills from it.

dmaker: Not sure he was telling you to read up on the PGF, as much as suggesting that you read particularly, Bill Munns thread, right here on the BFF. There has been nothing like it in the forty odd years since the film was taken. Being knowledgeable about the film will actually make reading his work even better. I share his suggestion that you read it!

It's an old grainy film and if you play with it too much using modern methods, it is IMHO that you are changing what is really on it, Bill has done some outstanding work, but the film is what it is, old, grainy, shaky, taken from a good distance and proves very little about BF in a scientific way, in other words, it's more for show than go.

Hmm...I think what Bill set out to prove was whether the PGF subject is or is not a living, breathing animal (not a hoax). Alone, his work will not be enough to prove or disprove sasquatch...But if it proves that Patterson and Gimlin's actions and descriptions are matched by what is in the film, isn't that an important matter?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I would take exception to the idea that 'most people' have not seen the PGF. It is, in my experience, the one piece of evidence that people with little or know experience with sasquatch/bigfoot HAVE seen.

I agree with ya! Most people I have talked with have seen the film or pictures of it at one point or another, it is very commercialized and used time and time again with the media when BF is concerned.

[Guest DWA]

how to you confirm the lack of prior Bigfootery exposure, and how many common elements are needed to add veracity to the report for you?

You can pretty much tell the lack of prior exposure from the reports themselves. Almost no one mentions Patterson/Gimlin; Harry and the Hendersons; Chewbacca; etc. A few do, but I mean it's a *few.* They aren't saying "I saw a bigfoot;" as a matter of fact, that word occurs in *few* accounts. I think one can infer lack of exposure from that. Most of the references to TV shows, books, etc. come after the encounter, not before. Not that I'm discounting a report because you've heard of or are familiar with the topic.I also don't put number markers or specifics on my read. Doesn't do any good. Shoot, magic numbers are easy to toss in there. "Give him five. He falls for five." I read it and go: OK. What does it sound like they saw? Is there a good reason to believe they're lying or mistaken? Does it sound like a bigfoot to you? If it does, and there's no reason to doubt it, I toss it on that big and growing pile of reports no one can say are not what the person says they saw. Then we have all those footprints; then we have P/G, which just reading the reports you can tell they either saw that animal or another individual of the same or a related species. There's no way we can make proof out of these. So why try? It just seems a very weird thing to me - and no one has suggested a significant parallel - that this is what thousands of people are picking to lie or hallucinate about.

It seems to me that there is a short list of common elements that have been around for as long as I can remember. If I started a report with "I was walking in the woods one day when I felt like I was being watched and my senses were suddenly assailed with a horrible rotten egg-wet dog smell when I heard loud foot steps just off the trail around me and barely dodged a rock thrown at me". I probably hit about half a dozen of them right there. These are almost cliche in BF stories. Not all fairy tales start with Once Upon a Time, but tall tales are still tall tales.

But that's not how the elements get worked in. Every one is from the person's own perspective, using that individual's words based on that individual's education and socioeconomic position and profession, etc. ("Sagittal crest" can be said about 4,000 different ways.) They don't read like copying or aping or getting all the numbers in. They read like someone sincerely describing what they saw. When there is absolutely no reason to discount something, I don't. I just wonder why all these people are saying this. That they are seeing this seems **** reasonable to me.

[dmaker]

Yeah, I knew what WSA was suggesting and I have read a fair bit of that thread and plan to sit down and digest it fully and thoroughly soon. As I mentioned, there are very good arguments for and against the PGF.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Hmm...I think what Bill set out to prove was whether the PGF subject is or is not a living, breathing animal (not a hoax). Alone, his work will not be enough to prove or disprove sasquatch...But if it proves that Patterson and Gimlin's actions and descriptions are matched by what is in the film, isn't that an important matter?

I ain't following ya completely there buddie, It has been my understanding that Bill started his work to clean up the film, not so much prove or disprove anything, I think after time he got caught up in it and has stated that he believes patty is real, I have had many a pm with him years ago and that's what I got out of it anyway, but nothing is always set in stone if ya can't provide the evidence and those PM's are long gone.

Edited January 11, 2013 by RedRatSnake