Jump to content

Information Wanted: Roger Patterson


Daniel Perez

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

There is no contradiction in having no issue with the simple act of believing in Bigfoot. 

 

kit wrote:

 

 

The reality of this world is that Bigfootery talks amongst itself about 'remote and rare' and passes around Bigfoot sightings maps that look like an epidemic, an undocumented species ninja-ing itself from the books with absurd regularity. Bigfootery wants to blame everyone else and the world around it why we don't have proof or even reliable evidence of this Fortean dream. To believe in Bigfoot as presented to us by Bigfootery is to invest in a cavalcade of excuses. To believe in Bigfoot in 2014 either demands not being informed or being informed by the dogma of a strange subculture that is completely out of touch with reality.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/5116-cascades-carnivore-project-how-do-they-miss-the-bigfoots/page-14#entry801208

 

Simply put... :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

^

 

Regarding this alleged contradiction of mine...I purposely used the word "can", as a modifier...

 

 

 

I made no 'blanket statement', covering all cases....hence, there is no contradiction. 

 

Excellent. Then if being encased in flesh and hair can disguise the precise location of the elbow, especially when the arm is bent only at a small angle, how then is the following statement and image immune to that condition?...

 

 

 

Yes...the arrow points precisely to where Patty's arm bends...

 

Elbow1_zps500801c6.jpg

 

 

 

You're suggested elbow placement takes Patty not only out of the realm of any primate we know of, yet any mammal as well. You've given Patty the upper limb proportion of a ceratopsian archosaur. In your efforts to make Patty non-human you've unwittingly made something non-primate with the proportions of a non-mammalian quadruped.

 

 

...would you agree with this nearly-identical.....and simpler.....statement?...  :) ...

 

"If you believe in Bigfoot's existence, that is not unreasonable."

 

 

Simply believing in Bigfoot existing does not equate being unreasonable, it's the manner of that belief. If you believe in Bigfoot because you think you saw it, you think they are very rare or because you were convinced by information which you thought to be factual, such as Salubrious being convinced that fossils can not form in 60,000 years or less by getting either bad info at a South Dakota museum or getting good info and misunderstanding it, there's nothing unreasonable about it. One simply needs to be better informed about plausible alternatives that do in fact occur, such as social constructs, misidentifications, confabulated memory and hallucinations which happen to perfectly healthy people.

 

If you think Bigfoot is a living, breeding species of giant ape that lives all across North America with no proof, you are wandering in a Fortean dream that has nothing to do with reality. If you think Bigfoot is something akin to the kermode bear living in a tiny isolated population in some lost valley on an island in the PNW, there's nothing weird about it. That is not what you believe. You believe Bigfoot is coming into human habitation in New York. You think a little grey bug-eyed Bigfoot with thin grey hair charged a hunter in Indiana. David Griffin believing what he thinks he saw is understandable. He likely does not know what extreme cold can do to a person. Griffin does not likely know that benign hallucinations in people of good mental and physical health is a known phenomenon which has been clinically studied since 1886. Thus he can not be faulted for thinking he really did see a little grey Bigfoot 40 miles from Indianapolis in a state with only nine more reports than Iowa.

 

You putting onto others that Bigfoot is the only plausible explanation for Griffin's experience and that we would cower from him were we to meet face to face is a whole other ball game. That is where the fundamentalism comes in. Yours are the beliefs that are intolerant and extreme. 

 

It is no different than the following statement...

 

"If you believe in the existence of aliens, that is not unreasonable."

 

Certainly not. I believe in the existence of aliens, even within our own solar system. We have enough evidence to reason that it is there, if even only in microbial form. There is no reason to think that in the vastness of the universe other planets have complex living organisms in their own environments, even intelligent life more advanced than our own.

 

What you believe is a whole other ball game. You believe that this...

 

120220613251716131385.jpg

 

...is a face constructed by extraterrestrial beings on the planet next to us...

 

'SweatyYeti' said

NASA deliberately presented a distorted view of the Face to the world, in a long-awaited "high-resolution" look at it. As a result of this worthless image, all serious interest by the mainstream media and the general public was effectively killed.

 
 
But wait....there's more...    :).....
 
In 2001, the MGS took a real high-res image of the Face, and.....against all odds....details of an eye appeared....
 
face11a.jpg
 
For comparison...here is the original Viking image...showing the large dark area that gave the impression of an 'eye'...
 
face2.jpg
 
 How there happened to be anything at all within that dark area, even remotely looking like a detailed eye is beyond me.

That is truly 'against all odds'.

 

You believe that Mars is littered with the remains of an alien civilization but we are either too stupid or too scared to admit it.

 

You believe that above our own atmosphere alien spacecraft have been fired upon from the surface of the Earth in some secret alien war and that it is all hush-hush. You believe there are structures on Mars connected to sites on Earth such as Avebury and Sillbury Hill.

 

It's not the simple belief in Bigfoot or alien life, it the specifics of what you believe, which in your case is extreme Fortean woo, Bigfoots in human habitation in New York and alien war overhead.

 

There is nothing in this post that isn't talking about the absurd pan-continental Bigfoot given us by Bigfootery or believing based on a lack of factual information or just plain false information promoted by Bigfootery... 

 

 

No one is doing backflips about anything coming from Todd Standing because the man is a hoaxer. Bigfoot showing up on conservational remote cameras isn't going to ruin careers, it would make them. So far we've seen at least three different conservation groups employing hundreds of remote camera stations across huge expanses of territory right in the very heart of alleged Bigfoot country.

 

The following is yet another example of how Bigfoot should have been found and wasn't. This is not a government group. Conservation Northwest has been employing remote camera stations across the North Cascades, the Columbia Highlands, the Selkirks of the Rockies for over 10 years. Their cameras are operating year round in addition to winter snow tracking. This group was responsible for documenting the first wild wolf pups born in Washington in over 80 years...  

 

http://www.conservationnw.org/what-we-do/wildlife-habitat/wildlife-monitoring

 

These are images of the real animals they document and monitor in Washington State and British Columbia...

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/conservationnw

 

This is what the BFRO tells us are authentic Bigfoot snow tracks.

 

http://www.bfro.net/news/SnowTracks/index.asp

 

Conservation Northwest cameras are not recording any Bigfoots and trackers are not finding Bigfoot tracks and sweeping them under the rug for fear of The Man and losing their jobs. We have had over four hundred years minus the last 55 years without something like a Bigfoot stigma to come up with the same evidence we have for every other large mammal in North America.

 

These groups do not report Bigfoots in their survey areas not because of conspiracies and fear and extraordinary abilities on the part of Bigfoot. They do not find and report them because they are not there. They find single wolverines because they are there. They do not miss out on the Bigfoots because they are omnivores rather than carnivores. They quite successfully document all the large omnivores that are there, and the herbivores as well. Amazing finds are what they strive and hope for. Finding the animals thought not to be there is the highpoint of what they do.

 

The reality of this world is that Bigfootery talks amongst itself about remote and rare and passes around Bigfoot sightings maps that look like an epidemic, an undocumented species ninja-ing itself from the books with absurd regularity. Bigfootery wants to blame everyone else and the world around it why we don't have proof or even reliable evidence of this Fortean dream. To believe in Bigfoot as presented to us by Bigfootery is to invest in a cavalcade of excuses. To believe in Bigfoot in 2014 either demands not being informed or being informed by the dogma of a strange subculture that is completely out of touch with reality.

 

Bigfoot does not ninja-funk remote camera stations. Social constructs are something humans do and something that conservation work takes apart for the people that care to pay attention.

 

No Bigfoots on conservation cameras is important evidence that it is not there and that we have a subculture of people looking for excuses as to why not.

 

 

Simply believing in Bigfoot is not weird. I did it for a very long time and I was perfectly reasonable. I believed things like Matthew Johnson's account were hard to explain without real Bigfoots. I was wrong and I did not have enough information. If I thought I had seen a Bigfoot, I could not be faulted for believing. If I insisted to people that real Bigfoots were the only plausible explanation for Johnson's or someone else's sighting and that they were denialists for thinking otherwise and that they would cower away from such people face to face, that would be highly irrational and fundamentalist behaviour.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

Simply believing in Bigfoot existing does not equate being unreasonable...

 

 

So, to make sure I understand that statement of yours, kit...you think that there is a "reasonable degree-of-probability" that Bigfoot exists?

 

Is that correct? 

 

 

kitakaze wrote...in the same post, above:

 

 

 

Simply believing in Bigfoot existing does not equate being unreasonable...

 

If you think Bigfoot is a living, breeding species of giant ape that lives all across North America with no proof, you are wandering in a Fortean dream that has nothing to do with reality. 

 

 

So...."believing that Bigfoot exists in N.A. is reasonable", to you....(right?).....but...."believing that it lives all across N.A. is "absurd/bizarre/Fortean Dreaming/out-of-touch with Reality"???

 

Where is the 'flipping point', where that belief in Bigfoot goes from reasonable....to qualifying for all of your condescension/mockery/insults?  

 

How many States is it "OK" to believe Bigfoot creatures live in? :)

 

 

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

You believe that above our own atmosphere alien spacecraft have been fired upon from the surface of the Earth in some secret alien war and that it is all hush-hush. 

 

 

No, I don't think that. 

 

 

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

You've given Patty the upper limb proportion of a ceratopsian archosaur. In your efforts to make Patty non-human you've unwittingly made something non-primate with the proportions of a non-mammalian quadruped.

 

 

I've just highlighted where Patty's arm appears to bend. If you don't like that.....too bad, for you. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

From your above post Kit. Here you're saying there are multiple viewpoints in Bigfootery, and that some are okay some not okay..

 

 

 

If you think Bigfoot is a living, breeding species of giant ape that lives all across North America with no proof, you are wandering in a Fortean dream that has nothing to do with reality. If you think Bigfoot is something akin to the kermode bear living in a tiny isolated population in some lost valley on an island in the PNW, there's nothing weird about it.

 

 

 

Yet here you lump those viewpoints together, and then present a single "Bigfootery" viewpoint to make it look ridiculous and conflicted..

 

 

The reality of this world is that Bigfootery talks amongst itself about remote and rare and passes around Bigfoot sightings maps that look like an epidemic, an undocumented species ninja-ing itself from the books with absurd regularity. Bigfootery wants to blame everyone else and the world around it why we don't have proof or even reliable evidence of this Fortean dream. To believe in Bigfoot as presented to us by Bigfootery is to invest in a cavalcade of excuses. To believe in Bigfoot in 2014 either demands not being informed or being informed by the dogma of a strange subculture that is completely out of touch with reality.

 

 

 

I have a hard time believing that you can't see the obvious contradiction that you spend so much time trying to explain away.

Edited by roguefooter
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

He can see them, rogue...as we all know. :)

 

It's just that there is no 'turning back' for kit, to get out of the contradictions. So he has to continue re-stating his contradictory statements, and try to get out of them by playing the 'specifics' cards. ('In this case...it is o.k....in this case, it's not o.k....blah blah blah....ad nauseum').

 

 

But it can't erase the contradictory assertions of kit's. What we are seeing here is someone who has talked himself into a corner....that he can't get out of. :popcorn:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

Yet here you lump those viewpoints together, and then present a single "Bigfootery" viewpoint to make it look ridiculous and conflicted..

 

That the most common excuse in Bigfootery for why we have no body is that it is remote and rare is a fact. That in Bigfootery for support of the existence people regularly sight thousands of sightings across the continent is also a fact. That is what is ridiculous and conflicted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

^Once again you're taking multiple viewpoints and mashing them together.

 

Multiple viewpoints means that not everyone views the regularity or number of sightings as 'support for existence'. For one to believe that Bigfoot is remote and rare most likely also means they don't see total legitimacy of widespread regular sightings. The only conflict is in your own viewpoint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

So, to make sure I understand that statement of yours, kit...you think that there is a "reasonable degree-of-probability" that Bigfoot exists?

 

Is that correct? 

 

I think there is approximately between a 0.01 - 1% chance that Bigfoot actually exists. 1% at most may seem insignificant, but it is that 1% possibility which gives me an interest in examining claims of reliable evidence because like any Bigfooter, I think it would be awesome if Bigfoot did exist. If you place a high degree of probability in Bigfoot existing because of the accounts of Griffin and/or Gosselin, you are not being reasonable and are ignoring what occurs in real life - hoaxes, misidentifications, confabulated memories and hallucinations by perfectly healthy people. Simply, claims like Griffin's and Gosselin's may be good enough for you, but I am not so credulous nor would I insist to others that Bigfoot is the only plausible explanation for their accounts, nor would I be so indoctrinated as to think skeptics would cower before these people as if they are armed with some awesome truth that can't be explained by known phenomena.

 

So...."believing that Bigfoot exists in N.A. is reasonable", to you....(right?).....but...."believing that it lives all across N.A. is "absurd/bizarre/Fortean Dreaming/out-of-touch with Reality"???

 

That's correct. Slowly but surely you're getting there. I believed in Bigfoot for most of my adult life and was not in any way unreasonable.

 

Where is the 'flipping point', where that belief in Bigfoot goes from reasonable....to qualifying for all of your condescension/mockery/insults?

 

 

As explained countless times, the flipping point is when you go from simple belief to insisting things like Bigfoot being the only plausible explanation for a sighting account, becoming intolerant and fundamentalist with skeptical viewpoints, and acting as if skeptics could not face "knowers."

 

The flipping point is when you flip from moderate to fundamentalist beliefs.

 

How many States is it "OK" to believe Bigfoot creatures live in?  :) 

 

 

Well, there's that country which is the second biggest on Earth which we call Canada which is above you, so we would have to include provinces as well.

 

I would think it is reasonable, and this is really pushing it, four American states - Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California and two Canadian provinces - British Columbia and Alberta. That is where I think if the 1% were to be a reality, would be the only reasonable places. Anywhere else and I think you're dealing with a pure social construct. Even in Alaska, British Columbia and Alberta when you're talking about extreme winter temperatures, I don't think that Bigfoot would have the necessary anatomical adaptions to deal with the extreme cold. This applies all over North America where temperatures in winter become severely cold. If anything was ever to be found in Florida, my money would be on known primate.

 

Even in BC, ALB, AK, WA, OR and CA where I would put the 1% I think it would be very unlikely due to the amount of scientific and other work being done right where Bigfoot is supposed to be, like the Cascades Carnivore Project, but if you believe Bigfoot is there, that's fine with me. 

 

Certainly places like Whitehall, New York in human habitation like you believe is just absurd to me. Even then, however, I could be OK with a person simply believing Bigfoot is in another location based on a personal experience like Henry May thinking he saw Bigfoot in front of someone's house in Mississippi or from his own balcony in Georgia. It's what you do with those beliefs. I think his idea Bigfoot comes into human habitation anywhere and is not a proven part of North American fauna is absurd, but it is based on something he saw and he doesn't insist to others real Bigfoot is the only plausible explanation or become insulted with someone suggesting another explanation. He also recognizes the implausibility of what he saw. In one case he thinks he could have been hoaxed and in the other he allows for misidentification.

 

That is where he is being reasonable where you will not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

^Once again you're taking multiple viewpoints and mashing them together.

 

Multiple viewpoints means that not everyone views the regularity or number of sightings as 'support for existence'. For one to believe that Bigfoot is remote and rare most likely also means they don't see total legitimacy of widespread regular sightings. The only conflict is in your own viewpoint.

 

Acknowledging a majority in Bigfootery is not mashing together multiple viewpoints. Bigfooters generally believe Bigfoot to be a flesh and blood animal. Sweet mother, won't somebody please think of the children? What about the paranormal believers?

 

The fact is that regularly in Bigfootery people cite thousands of sightings yet also posit that Bigfoot has not been documented by science due to its rareness and the remote locations it inhabits.

 

Example...

 

 

 

It is much easier to believe that a large primate has gone scientifically undocumented, despite tens of thousands of sightings over the years, as opposed to some of the wilder alien hypotheses. But you know, as I think about it, what if I would have had some strange event where I witnessed something like that, instead of seeing a bigfoot? Would that have put me in the position of many of the loudest vocalists for alien activity, as opposed to being vocal regarding bigfoot?

 

 

 

I will lay out what I think, although I don't know if I would use the word "belief" regarding many of the unknowns, simply because to me there has to be some form of evidence to go on. Speculation is amusing and sometimes enjoyable, but at the end of the day that is all it is. Having seen one of these animals as well, I cannot accept the argument that they don't exist. Not only do they exist, there MUST be explanations for some of their characteristics, as well as explanations for why we haven't discovered them yet. But technically speaking, they have been discovered by thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people; it is just that science has not really attempted to document them.

 

Sure, if a body was found, and it made it to some scientists who were qualified to analyze it and present their findings, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But if one looks at the energy that has been put into getting to the truth regarding known and somewhat more boring animals, and then compare that with what has been done towards sasquatch, and it becomes relatively obvious that virtually zero scientific energy has been expended, at least by professionals.

 

Anyway, I will lay out some of my thoughts. First and foremost I believe sasquatch to be a normal mammal. I do not think it is connected with any inter-dimensional or inter-planetary beings of any sort. I believe it has gone undocumented to date due to both its instinctual behavior, and probably more importantly its learned behavior through intelligence. This has provided the animals sufficient skills to evade us when necessary, although I believe that the majority of the animals actually rarely come into contact with a human, due to the idea that they live in quite remote places. The ones that are most often seen, those near more populated areas, might be living there due to an increasing sasquatch population that is pressing on them from the inside...while the human population presses from the outside.

 

 

Thousands of sightings, not found because they are remote.

 

Welcome to Bigfootery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

One guy does not substantiate a "majority", not even a dozen.

 

It's like taking the PGF massacre believers and mashing them in with PGF hoax believers, and then generalizing you all as 'PGF Conspiracists'. Both are seen as a cover up so they could easily be blanketed as having a singular viewpoint, yet the difference is obvious and conflicting.

Edited by roguefooter
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

I think there is approximately between a 0.01 - 1% chance that Bigfoot actually exists. 1% at most may seem insignificant, but it is that 1% possibility which gives me an interest in examining claims of reliable evidence because like any Bigfooter, I think it would be awesome if Bigfoot did exist.

 

 

That is not an answer to the question I asked. I did not ask you for 'numbers'.

 

Here, again, is my question...

 

 

So, to make sure I understand that statement of yours, kit...you think that there is a "reasonable degree-of-probability" that Bigfoot exists?

 

Is that correct?

 

 

I asked it in response to this statement of yours...

 

 

 

Simply believing in Bigfoot existing does not equate being unreasonable..

 

 

In that statement, you stated the probability in (simple/roughly approximate) terms of "reasonable" vs. "unreasonable"....rather than in specific numbers.

 

Can you answer my simple question with a simple 'Yes' or 'No'...

 

Do you think there is a "reasonable probability" that Bigfoot exists....within North America?

 

....followed by whatever length of convoluted "word magic" you would like to add, after it. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

From kit's post, last night...

 

I would think it (Bigfoot's existence) is reasonable, and this is really pushing it, four American states - Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California and two Canadian provinces - British Columbia and Alberta. 

 

 

And....kit wrote:

 

"In the real world, Bigfoot does not exist, the reasons for thinking it should are either the purview of anecdote or an embarrassment to empirical methodology, and the belief in it does not represent any manner of "freethinker" status. When myths don't make bodies, the world rightly understands them to be myths. Bigfoot is the 20th century mermaid. It's not 21st century and has no place in it. It's an idea, a belief, that is becoming naturally more bizarre as each year carries on without something on a table anyone could agree is this manbeast you believe in."

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30016-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell/page-140

 

 

Eeeehhh....doesn't sound "reasonable" to me, Doc...

 

 BugsBunny2_zpsd177d547.jpg

 

 

 

Oh....just one more thing....kit wrote:

 

 

Simply believing in Bigfoot existing does not equate being unreasonable...
Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigfooters: A great many of you are doing research on the P-G film and I wanted to ask if anyone ever got the name of the person who did the lie detector test for Roger Patterson before he was interviewed for the magazine, National Wildlife. I was reviewing my own files and stumbled upon some information, from a highly reliable source, that indicated that Roger Patterson never took a lie detector test. I was stunned, to say the least.

 

What I find interesting is the National Wildlife magazine piece never named the person that did it, so, I wonder.

 

I can't find George H. Harrison, the guy who penned the piece, anywhere, and I just get a form reply from National Wildlife. I think George is still living, and I certainly want to ask him about this. If the National Wildlife magazine fabricated this information, it would be just one more blow to the P-G film.

 

Thanks,

 

Daniel Perez

Bigfoot Times

Bigfoot At Bluff Creek

Big Footnotes

951 522-7334

 

If anyone has any info to share, I think you should.  The thing we all want is the truth.

 

Daniel, Did you post this on the Coalition Facebook page?

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

That's correct. Slowly but surely you're getting there. I believed in Bigfoot for most of my adult life and was not in any way unreasonable.

 

 

Yup...coming-up on Revolution #5,555...or so...approx... :rowing in circles:

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I used to think that way, but there are remote places in the east as well. 

 

They could be anywhere in Canada that is forested and the Canadian taiga goes from salt to salt. Canada's great plains do not split the nation like the US.

 

http://www.borealforest.org/images/canada_forest_map.jpg

 

In the US they could follow all three mountainous spines down to the south. The Cascades/Sierras, the Rockies and the Appalachians.

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