Secrecy And The Myth Of Protection.

[Guest]

I was referring to the chimpanzee when I spoke about Jane Goodall. She was sent to study their behavior after they were documented and classified. I would say the discovery of the chimp went along the same lines, stories of people seeing them, leading to tracking them, leading to their preferred habitat, leading to seeing and shooting them and that is called discovery. We are in the very beginning of the chase being that Sasquatch are far smarter than chimps or gorillas. The point I was trying to make is if the people that heard the original eyewitness reports of any of these animals had been told what people see and report is not real, tracks mean nothing and they had decided that these scientist knew more than them and did not continue to search then were would those discoveries be?

That was all before Dr Goodall. Chimpanzees have been known since at least the 1800s and probably earlier. They were frequently captured and traded for quite some time. This is not the same as saying that they were semi-mythological before then. Back in those days science as we know it barely existed. Almost all of the animals and plants were unknown and many were only rumored about back then. Cryptozoology as I understand and accept the term is about animals that might be but have not been documented by science despite the documentation of the public.

And what proof do you have that all footprints are faked?

I never said "all" footprints were faked. That footprints CAN be faked and HAVE been faked means that footprints are not perfect evidence. They are "contaminated" as it were by association with faked footprints. No matter how REAL the footprint may be.

Antfoot... It's a fact that if you did what you suggested, your discovery would be slept under the rug and absolutely NOTHING would come of it. The Police Department you dropped that hand off at would deny any such thing was given to them and that hand would magically dissappear.

AHH! conspiracies afoot!!

 

In no way shape or form do I believe that ANY of the cops I know (and would rush the evidence to) would do this. I have seen them in action and know full well they are not in any way shape or form involved in governmental conspiracies. These guys would actually help spread the news that bigfoot was real. Most cops are REAL people.

Edited July 24, 2014 by antfoot

[Guest LarryP]

 

I never said "all" footprints were faked. That footprints CAN be faked and HAVE been faked means that footprints are not perfect evidence. They are "contaminated" as it were by association with faked footprints. No matter how REAL the footprint may be.

 

 

That's a purely subjective statement.

[Guest]

Do you have a better stance from which to pronounce judgments? Duh!! Of course it's subjective. Shall we get into a debate about the nature of reality? Objectiveness is basically a source-funded(?) account of what happens to us. Most of our experiences ARE subjective but when we get together and talk about them we can usually arrive at a consensus of what really happened. Doesn't always work of course. Mass hypnosis does actually happen. That happens when people who experience something unknown to them come up with the wrong conclusion after talking about it. The thoughts and opinions of others DO affect how we think and remember things.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

When the animal's confirmed, people aren't going to be looking at the amateurs.  They're going to go:  how could scientists have MISSED this...?

 

No the people aren't going to be looking at the amateurs, they're going to be looking at scientists on TV who will step in, announce it to the public, make it official, GET THE NICKLE, get the funding and all the other grant money thrown at them and leave the amateurs in the dust. If the amateurs want the credit then the amateurs have to have played it smart from the beginning. In other words, it should be no different than seeing a coach with the star player interviewed together after a winning game. Press conference style.

 

And when the microphone gets handed to the amateur you'll hear him/her say, "Thank you everyone, but I give all the credit for this discovery to HIFLIER". And watch the crowd go wild!!!!

Edited July 24, 2014 by hiflier

[norseman]

Antfoot,

The film sight was independently verified by John Green and others. The trackway and film subject are absolutely tied together.

If you refute this? Explain how mcclarin was able to walk the exact same path as Patty in thousands of acres of national forest.

[Guest Crowlogic]

^^^No time, no money = no results.

 

This whole thing lies squarely on the shoulders of the mainstream.  How can they not be blamed for the mess that is filling the vacuum they've created by running pell-mell from the topic?

 

When the animal's confirmed, people aren't going to be looking at the amateurs.  They're going to go:  how could scientists have MISSED this...?

 

There are lots of flaws in your statement..The woods/wilderness is visited by hordes of people.  We have hikers, hunters, miners, lumberjacks, bird watchers, nature lovers and more.  Any one of them can deliver the proof positive.  If the woods were only the domain of Bigfooters then sure no time and limited personage could be a reason.  There are scientists to, I spent a fair amount of time in the outback once upon a time doing research.   

[Guest DWA]

Nope, actually, no flaws in mine, none at all.  Now let's tick 'em off in yours.

 

How much time have you spent in the woods?  For about 99.9999999% of it your second sentence does not apply.  Flaw 1 in your statement.

 

Thousands of the people you cite have seen sasquatch.  Hundreds more have found their tracks.  Proof yet?  Nope, and not their fault.  Flaw 2 in your statement.

 

Scientists have reported sightings as well.  Proof yet?  Nope...and since they are scientists maybe I could say it's a bit more their fault, but if they lost their jobs I could see the problem there.  Flaw 3 in your statement.

 

"Spent?"  Once upon a time?  OK, and you're not out there enough either.  Flaw 4 in your statement; and yep, each one is fatal on its own.

 

Nope, I've got it right.  It's read-up time.  When you can tell me why Krantz, Bindernagel and Meldrum are wrong, now we're getting somewhere.  No, I won't hold my breath.

[Guest]

Antfoot,

The film sight was independently verified by John Green and others. The trackway and film subject are absolutely tied together.

If you refute this? Explain how mcclarin was able to walk the exact same path as Patty in thousands of acres of national forest.

Umm, he did not walk the exact same path as anyone in thousands of acres of national forest. Unless I'm missing something. Patty's alleged footprints have NO evidence of being produced during the filming of Patty walking across the clearing. Verification efforts have not convinced me. The evidence has not been properly controlled. I have watched a not so large man walk the same path as on the film and looked little different from the Patty footage. This does not compel me to believe in bigfoot.

 

Patty is alleged to be female and as such she might be smallish member of a large species. But a human male could fill that monkey suit. A somewhat savvy person could figure that out.

[Guest DWA]

antfoot:  there is the vanishing chance something happened...and then there is the overwhelming probability that it did not.

 

You are showing inadequate investigation of the evidence here.  That was a bigfoot and those are its tracks; and everything we know about people and technology says that only somebody 'savvy' beyond the known capability of our species in 1967 could have faked it.

 

Sorry.

Edited July 24, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

Nope, actually, no flaws in mine, none at all.  Now let's tick 'em off in yours.

 

How much time have you spent in the woods?  For about 99.9999999% of it your second sentence does not apply.  Flaw 1 in your statement.

 

Thousands of the people you cite have seen sasquatch.  Hundreds more have found their tracks.  Proof yet?  Nope, and not their fault.  Flaw 2 in your statement.

 

Scientists have reported sightings as well.  Proof yet?  Nope...and since they are scientists maybe I could say it's a bit more their fault, but if they lost their jobs I could see the problem there.  Flaw 3 in your statement.

 

"Spent?"  Once upon a time?  OK, and you're not out there enough either.  Flaw 4 in your statement; and yep, each one is fatal on its own.

 

Nope, I've got it right.  It's read-up time.  When you can tell me why Krantz, Bindernagel and Meldrum are wrong, now we're getting somewhere.  No, I won't hold my breath.

Thousands of people compared to millions in the US alone? Not much of a sample really. Less than one percent. Especially when you consider that many of those thousands saw their experiences tens or even a hundred years ago. How many Americans does all of that time include? If all of those witnesses saw bigfoot this year would be more impressive but over a hundred or more years that number gets much less impressive.

[Guest DWA]

Um, antfoot?  "You're right" would have been an adequate response.

[Guest]

antfoot:  there is the vanishing chance something happened...and then there is the overwhelming probability that it did not.

 

You are showing inadequate investigation of the evidence here.  That was a bigfoot and those are its tracks; and everything we know about people and technology says that only somebody 'savvy' beyond the known capability of our species in 1967 could have faked it.

 

Sorry.

"Known capability?" what? We have no known capability statistics for hoaxing in the sixties. Planet of the Apes was being worked on back then and so were a number of other sci fi movies. Someone being "savvy" does not man prescient or "super-smart" but merely being able to take advantage of serendipitous events. In Patterson's case that might mean having a unique (and completely unreproducible) film. The film could be genuine but a less planned film would have similar vagaries that make reproduction difficult if not impossible, especially if proponents insist on EXACT duplication of every single detail.

Um, antfoot?  "You're right" would have been an adequate response.

LOL and big time. No there is no "you're right" about this. You think there is a tremendous amount of reports but there simply is not. Certainly not of the verifiable sorts and little of the "evidenced" ones.

[Guest DWA]

[holds head] no.

 

Please.  We KNOW what suitbuilding talent existed in the sixties and who had it and what they used.  Once again:  there is the vanishing possibility of a preternatural genius...and then there is the way to bet, which is:  that's an animal, and it ain't an animal in any suit but its birthday suit.

 

There are way more than enough reports.  WAY more than enough.  I am hoping that people do more thinking about this before they come here, but apparently not.  Once AGAIN:  people with directly relevant scientific chops say you are wrong.  Them over you, and done.

[norseman]

Umm, he did not walk the exact same path as anyone in thousands of acres of national forest. Unless I'm missing something. Patty's alleged footprints have NO evidence of being produced during the filming of Patty walking across the clearing. Verification efforts have not convinced me. The evidence has not been properly controlled. I have watched a not so large man walk the same path as on the film and looked little different from the Patty footage. This does not compel me to believe in bigfoot.

Patty is alleged to be female and as such she might be smallish member of a large species. But a human male could fill that monkey suit. A somewhat savvy person could figure that out.

Yes they do, it's an absolute fact, that the trackway and film site where at the same location. Otherwise explain to me how Green found it and filmed Mcclarin on the same path?

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/1887-parnassus-comparison-mclarinpatty-pics/page-2

My point was ? That hoaxed track ways never film the hoaxer perpetrating the act. The PGF does......it's unique.

Finally I am not asking you to believe in anything....other than biological proof. I am a firm believer in a type specimen solving this mystery, and not plaster casts or grainy photos.

But I am saying that if the PGF is a hoax? It's a **** good one.

[holds head] no.

Please. We KNOW what suitbuilding talent existed in the sixties and who had it and what they used. Once again: there is the vanishing possibility of a preternatural genius...and then there is the way to bet, which is: that's an animal, and it ain't an animal in any suit but its birthday suit.

There are way more than enough reports. WAY more than enough. I am hoping that people do more thinking about this before they come here, but apparently not. Once AGAIN: people with directly relevant scientific chops say you are wrong. Them over you, and done.

Then where is it? If it's out there? This film will not prove it's existence. We have to go get it.....

[Guest DWA]

Nothing but proof will prove anything.  But the body of evidence says:  anyone following it, and staying out there as long as it takes, will get it.