Jump to content

Why Patterson And Gimlim Were Successful That Day.


Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

Not at all Sweaty, I'm saying science should not get too excited about it. People can, and will, discuss it forever and ever most likely, just like ghosts and boogeymen and every other myth. But from a Scientific point of view ( at least one dealing with Bigfoot as a live animal to study) Bigfoot is pointless and a waste of resources. My opinion, of course, YMMV?

 

 

But yet you answered 'no' to this question, of mine...

 

The "pointless" subject of Bigfoot is for skeptics only???

 

 

 

So, just to get this straight.....you say that the "pointless" subject of Bigfoot is not just for skeptics only, to spend their time on....but yet, 'scientists' should not get too excited about the "pointless" subject of Bigfoot.

 

Is that correct?? :)

 

 

If it is....then should people check-in with you first, dmaker, to find out just how excited they should/should not get over some new bit of 'Bigfoot evidence'?

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

My point is pretty simple Sweaty. Split hairs and play all the word games you want -but all I'm saying is talk about it all you want. I just don't think there is any point in approaching BF from a scientific point of view as a live animal. As in sending biologists out looking for one is a waste of time and resources. There is probably some valuable psychology to be studied or sociology on the phenomenon in general, but real biology? Not likely. So again: Scientific effort spent to prove the existence of BF is ( again in my opinion) a pointless waste of resources. But of course, as mentioned many times, this is my opinion and your mileage may vary. Not sure how you leap from that to people should check in with me. This a forum, opinions are offered, sometimes shared, sometimes not. But still opinions for the most part. My opinion is that BF is a social construct, not a real creature. Therefore any serious effort to "discover" a Bigfoot is a pointless in my opinion. You are free, as is everyone else, to talk about whatever you would like. I may even join in...even if I think it's pointless. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
My point was around the lack of fossil record for BF in North America. We have no G.Blacki fossils from anywhere outside of Asia. We have no other extant 800ln mammals running around all over North America that have zero fossil record or any kind of physical record for that matter. Bears, which BF is often compared to in terms of habitat and diet have, in fact, an exceptionally good fossil record. So what is up with BF? Are his bones made of something special? Does he just evaporate upon death? Why would another animal of similar size and similar habitat leave behind remains, but not BF?

 

 

We have no Gorilla fossils at all from areas where we know they exist to this day, thus a lack of fossils isn't a deal closer in my view. The few in existence fossils pertaining to gigantopithecus blacki stand as testimonial to this. My point is that until any of those jawbones were discovered - there was no evidence of gigantopithecus blacki ever living in those countries. And if not by accident would there still not be any evidence of that animal living in any of those countries. Not finding a fossil of one in North America doesn't mean there aren't such fossils to be found here any more than than there was in those other countries before a fossil was found there. So the lack of fossils doesn't mean anything to me for the previous stated considerations, especially when the possibility did exist for them to migrate from Asia to here - combined with countless witnesses claiming to see creatures that would fit their build.

 

I think there are several reasons that bones are not found. One big one is that the terrain they live in is seldom trodden because of its remoteness and difficult layout. Look at all the bears there are in the PNW and yet how many of their bones are discovered that weren't killed by hunters. They are obviously dying, but unless one dies near a place where people can happen upon them, they are never seen. People ie every year by getting lost in this wilderness and they try to be found and also have hoards of people looking for them in particular areas and still some of these people are never found - searches called off - and so on. I guess what I am saying is that I cannot simplify things like you appear to have done as I feel the subject deserves a more thorough unbiased investigation.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

A some point there was a rare shark that attacked a few people in the NY or NJ area.  It inspired the book 'Jaws'  At that rare time those looking for that unlikely shark would be more likely to find that shark during that time. It is my understanding that for a few years there had been footprints in the bluff creek area.  I don't  Roger and Bob they went out on the first exp. and found the Patty encounter on the first try.  Thus, it seems reasonable they went where the 'fish were' and caught the big one.   It is pluasable and I don't understand how so many can be so dismissive about this.  The fact this was toward the end of the exp. (even the rental of the camera had ran out) reminds me how Bob Ballard found the Titanic at nearly the end of the exp.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

Roger was looking for Bigfoot for some time before his search at Bluff Creek, so I guess he partly accomplished what he set out to do. I don't know anyone who goes out on horseback with a camera these days. It seems that field research at the moment is mostly a bunch of guys behind a computer with pictures of fake structures and blobs. Who's likely to get the next shot of Bigfoot, the guy who covers countless miles of remote forest in active areas or the guy who's behind a computer all day?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would bet on anyone spending a month solid in an area of recent encounters, on horseback, coming back with evidence.

 

Kind of an index of how often it is tried.

 

(So far...once.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

A some point there was a rare shark that attacked a few people in the NY or NJ area.  It inspired the book 'Jaws'  At that rare time those looking for that unlikely shark would be more likely to find that shark during that time. It is my understanding that for a few years there had been footprints in the bluff creek area.  I don't  Roger and Bob they went out on the first exp. and found the Patty encounter on the first try.  Thus, it seems reasonable they went where the 'fish were' and caught the big one.   It is pluasable and I don't understand how so many can be so dismissive about this.  The fact this was toward the end of the exp. (even the rental of the camera had ran out) reminds me how Bob Ballard found the Titanic at nearly the end of the exp.

 

Backdoc

 

It was Matewan in 1916 and there were more than likely 2 sharks of 2 different species involved: a juvenile great white, and a bull shark. The first victim was killed in salt water, subsequent victims were killed upstream in fresh water.  A juvenile white shark was caught and killed and human remains were found in the stomach. Most likely the remains of Vansant, the first victim. The subsequent killings were most likely done by a solitary bull shark as white sharks are not known to tolerate fresh water, and bull sharks are known to spend great lengths of time in fresh water ( in fact there is a golf course in Australia that has a permanent population of them that got stranded in a water hazard on the course after a flood).  One of the killers was caught. The other got away. 

 

Bull sharks and white sharks are not really that rare to New England shores during summer months. White sharks are uncommon, sure, but modern tracking technology is showing that there are more of them around New England waters than people thought. Bull sharks are even more common than whites for those waters.  But you could still, then and today, get in a boat and fish for a shark in New England waters in the summer and have a pretty decent chance of catching one. From the more common blues, makos and threshers for those waters, to the more uncommon bulls, the odd tiger even, and the most prized of all, the great white.  My point being, you can catch sharks fairly easily, of many different species, of all the coasts of North America.

 

To date we have zero squatches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

My point is pretty simple Sweaty. Split hairs and play all the word games you want -but all I'm saying is talk about it all you want. I just don't think there is any point in approaching BF from a scientific point of view as a live animal. As in sending biologists out looking for one is a waste of time and resources. There is probably some valuable psychology to be studied or sociology on the phenomenon in general, but real biology? Not likely.

So again: Scientific effort spent to prove the existence of BF is ( again in my opinion) a pointless waste of resources. But of course, as mentioned many times, this is my opinion and your mileage may vary. Not sure how you leap from that to people should check in with me. This a forum, opinions are offered, sometimes shared, sometimes not. But still opinions for the most part. My opinion is that BF is a social construct, not a real creature. Therefore any serious effort to "discover" a Bigfoot is pointless in my opinion.

 

Well, my basic point, dmaker...is that your opinion is fine...for you. :) But, when you say that 'science/scientists' should not spend their time searching for Bigfoot, and analyzing the evidence...you are trying to push your preferences onto others.

And, you are then, in fact, the one who is engaging in a pointless activity.

 

 

 

You are free, as is everyone else, to talk about whatever you would like. I may even join in...even if I think it's pointless. :)

Enjoy the discussions, dmaker... :)

And, while you're talking about the evidence for Bigfoot....feel free to show where there are any significant errors in my comparisons between Patty and your 'average human being'. ;)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

 

A some point there was a rare shark that attacked a few people in the NY or NJ area.  It inspired the book 'Jaws'  At that rare time those looking for that unlikely shark would be more likely to find that shark during that time. It is my understanding that for a few years there had been footprints in the bluff creek area.  I don't  Roger and Bob they went out on the first exp. and found the Patty encounter on the first try.  Thus, it seems reasonable they went where the 'fish were' and caught the big one.   It is pluasable and I don't understand how so many can be so dismissive about this.  The fact this was toward the end of the exp. (even the rental of the camera had ran out) reminds me how Bob Ballard found the Titanic at nearly the end of the exp.

 

Backdoc

 

It was Matewan in 1916 and there were more than likely 2 sharks of 2 different species involved: a juvenile great white, and a bull shark. The first victim was killed in salt water, subsequent victims were killed upstream in fresh water.  A juvenile white shark was caught and killed and human remains were found in the stomach. Most likely the remains of Vansant, the first victim. The subsequent killings were most likely done by a solitary bull shark as white sharks are not known to tolerate fresh water, and bull sharks are known to spend great lengths of time in fresh water ( in fact there is a golf course in Australia that has a permanent population of them that got stranded in a water hazard on the course after a flood).  One of the killers was caught. The other got away. 

 

Bull sharks and white sharks are not really that rare to New England shores during summer months. White sharks are uncommon, sure, but modern tracking technology is showing that there are more of them around New England waters than people thought. Bull sharks are even more common than whites for those waters.  But you could still, then and today, get in a boat and fish for a shark in New England waters in the summer and have a pretty decent chance of catching one. From the more common blues, makos and threshers for those waters, to the more uncommon bulls, the odd tiger even, and the most prized of all, the great white.  My point being, you can catch sharks fairly easily, of many different species, of all the coasts of North America.

 

To date we have zero squatches.

 

well I am using the search for something just to illustrate that one can go out and look for something and unlike foklore, Roger and Bob did get 'lucky' by creating their own luck with multiple visits to the area where multiple prints had been seen over time.   That is my basic point when many claim they set out to make a film and they happen to get lucky on the first attempt and that is suspicious when there is just more to it.   i dont pretend to know all that shark story but thanks to you I know a lot more than i did as I just had heard some basic story of some rare shark for the NY or NJ waters that was the inspiration for Jaws but again, only going by what I heard i just a weak general sense.  next time I will use a more familiar example known more to me.  I do understand and repect your point though.

 

Backdoc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
  My point being, you can catch sharks fairly easily, of many different species, of all the coasts of North America.

 

To date we have zero squatches.

 

 

FWIW: A lot is known about sharks and where to find them. This is not the case with the Sasquatch. Comparing the two seems rather ridiculous to me.

Actually North America has twice as many sites as Asia does in the list of fossil sites, a worldwide record of areas that are well known for the presence of fossils.

 

 

How many in the mountain regions of the PNW are there???

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Those things you mentioned, Bigfoothunter, have more scientific validity ( IMO) than does Bigfoot. 

 

Then why hang out on a pointless Bigfoot forum when you could be out studying cow farts because you believe that has more validity?

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

@Bigfoothunter, comparing sharks and squatches may be ridiculous, perhaps you should mention that to Backdoc, as he brought it up first. I just took the chance to talk about one of my favorite topics, sharks.  

 

I don't see why narrowing the search for fossils to the PNW is an option. The Bigfoot sightings are from pretty much every state in the USA, minus Hawaii I believe. So why would you say limit it to the PNW? Or do you discount all the sightings from anywhere but the PNW? Which I assume you must be since you focus your explanation of zero fossil record solely on the PNW. So what, then, would be the explanation for all the other Squatch reports outside of the PNW? 

 

First of all, I am not a scientist. Secondly, if I was, I don't think I would choose cow farts to study.

 

@Sweaty:

 

"But, when you say that 'science/scientists' should not spend their time searching for Bigfoot, and analyzing the evidence...you are trying to push your preferences onto others."

 

Could you explain to me how you are not doing the exact same thing when you, and all the other proponents, push for science/scientists to spend their time searching for Bigfoot? Is that not trying to push your preference onto others? But it's ok in your case because your preference is pro-Bigfoot? Is that how that works? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Could you explain to me how you are not doing the exact same thing when you, and all the other proponents, push for science/scientists to spend their time searching for Bigfoot?"

 

Well, given the volume and consistency of the evidence, we just think that confirming sasquatch is science doing what...well, what it is supposed to do.  I mean, were I a scientist, I'd be a little more curious about this, given that no scientist has given me a demurrer that passes the most basic sniff test.

 

This has the potential to be one of the most important discoveries in the history of the natural sciences.  When it happens, count on it, dominoes will start falling so fast in so many fields - zoology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, et al - that it'll make those domino-falling tricks you see on YouTube look very last century.

 

That important.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ DWA, so then there is no difference between when I say they shouldn't and you, Sweaty and everyone else says they should, except that your're right and I'm wrong? Therefore I should be chastised by Sweaty for holding a different opinion on what science should or should not be doing? I see....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

@Bigfoothunter, comparing sharks and squatches may be ridiculous, perhaps you should mention that to Backdoc, as he brought it up first. I just took the chance to talk about one of my favorite topics, sharks.  

 

I quoted you as a skeptic giving a response to someones post - I believe I made my point.

 

I don't see why narrowing the search for fossils to the PNW is an option. The Bigfoot sightings are from pretty much every state in the USA, minus Hawaii I believe. So why would you say limit it to the PNW? Or do you discount all the sightings from anywhere but the PNW? Which I assume you must be since you focus your explanation of zero fossil record solely on the PNW. So what, then, would be the explanation for all the other Squatch reports outside of the PNW?

 

First of all, you have spoken about the Patterson film/Sasquatch and its validity when talking about no fossils being found to support a large undiscovered animal in North America ... and it was taken in the PNW. The terrain in the PNW is rugged and unforgiving ... and I know of no digs going on there to try and find gigantopithecus fossils. So when you mention the absence of such fossils being found in N.A. as if that means something, I am pointing out the obvious weakness to that position.

 

To answer the next remark you made about reports of Sasquatch outside the PNW - I believe it is possible that such creatures could be seen in other places as I had such an experience in Northern Minnesota years ago, but a population that has existed in those areas to the point of fossils of them being found is unlikely in my view. I also think that all to often that people are making up claims, or misidentifying something else for a Sasquatch so I tend to remain skeptical of such stories myself until the evidence leads me to believe differently. The problem I have with what you said is that you used a misconception that fossil digs are going on and if there were giant apes living in North America, then such fossils should have been discovered by now. That is as big of a misconception as thinking that there are hordes of people out looking for the Sasquatch when there is not.

Could you explain to me how you are not doing the exact same thing when you, and all the other proponents, push for science/scientists to spend their time searching for Bigfoot? Is that not trying to push your preference onto others? But it's ok in your case because your preference is pro-Bigfoot? Is that how that works? 

 

Please do not make statements that are designed to be factual when they are not. I for one do not think scientist should be out combing the mountains for a Sasquatch and I know more people who would agree with me than those who wouldn't. The complaint that we have is that science should take a hard look at the evidence to see how it holds up. Putting a man in a monkey suit and walking over a sandbar and leaving deep impressions in the ground that a man not wearing a monkey suit cannot begin to achieve needs a reasonable explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...