The Conceptual Bigfoot

[ohiobill]

Agreed Hiflier, preferably in the premium section where juicy details can breathe a little easier. Plus I'd like to hear Yuchi1's candid take on other matters!

 

I'll buy if you'll fly Yuchi1? Free premium membership going once...

[Bonehead74]

I'll buy if you'll fly Yuchi1? Free premium membership going once...

[hiflier]

Hello All,

Watch my six- I'M GOIN' IN!

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

The thread is now up. Get your Premium Access Memberships while they're hot and see you there.

[Incorrigible1]

Hello All,

 

The thread is now up. Get your Premium Access Memberships while they're hot and see you there.

That's good, as I was revolting at the thought of watching your six. Now, Chelefoot, on the other hand.............

[hiflier]

Hello Incorrigible1,

LOL. Hey got an idea, how 'bout you and your "six" mosying on over and strutting some of you famous (infamous) wit on the topic?

As far as this topic goes sure there is without doubt a certain "look" that says Bigfoot. I think most shy away from the images that have little or no facial hair for one thing. I know at first I shied way from that because of Patty, Hollywood and the media- and even BF Forums. Somehow clean shaven(??) BF's don't fit the mold but maybe they do because there really isn't a mold. Hairy faces, non-hairy faces, big flat nose/Human nose (which can also be a big flat nose) and other distinguishing features speak of individualism. I would say if one were a deer then all the deer would have differences that we Humans don't really see. We have minute differences even when born as twins that takes someone familiar with those individuals to tell them apart. From far away Humans look the same up close is a completely different story.

[norseman]

by M.K Davis

 

Bigfoot shows, in recent years, have catapulted to the forefront of the public consciousness. What exactly makes Bigfoot such a focus for all the fanfare? The very subject of Bigfoot is one of very scant hard evidence. So…what is it that people are so enamored with?

 

Bigfoot has the distinction of surviving in two realms at the same time. The first realm is the realm of hard proof. While there is not a lot of hard proof, it is not without at least SOME evidence that makes a person scratch their head. Several films have been made with at least one showing some decent images which are good enough to determine that it’s either a Bigfoot or someone trying to look like one. In other words…not a mistake.

 

A second realm, where most aficionados and newbies are at, is the realm of the conceptual Bigfoot. Generally the less hard evidence there is, the more concepts flourish. A concept is simply an idea in your head about a certain subject. Some concepts are formed quickly and disappear quickly. Here’s an example of a concept. “Bigfoot are immune to snake venom.†Where did that come from? Well…how many Bigfoot have we seen dead from snake bite: “someone might say� Well…none actually. Bingo says the conceptual mind. But…how many Bigfoot have we seen dead from being run over by trains? The conceptual mind may deduce that Bigfoot will not cross railroad tracks. There is no limits to what can be learned about the conceptual Bigfoot, nor is there a limit to how wrong the concepts might be.

 

People, who are pursuers of the conceptual Bigfoot, tend to also pursue the more famous of the Bigfoot pursuers. Perhaps they feel that these people may be a link for them to the other realm of hard proof. “I’ll follow him or her because they saw Bigfoot, or, they filmed Bigfoot, or in some cases, they shot Bigfoot.†This has never proved fruitful, and in many cases leads to disappointment.

 

Sometimes the hard evidence spawns a universe of concepts. This is what has occurred with the Patterson Bigfoot film of 1967. Less than a minute of film has exploded into an ocean of concepts about what a Bigfoot is, how it lives, what it eats, and the list goes on for miles. Even the academic world has fallen prey to this type of thing. Here’s an example: “Bigfoot is a giant bipedal ape.†Why is that? “Because I see it in the Patterson film.†Can a concept be based upon a hard evidence event? Well…in some cases, but in most cases people are more in love with the concept than any hard evidence there might be. The concept that Bigfoot is an ape is an old one. When the Patterson Bigfoot film came along, people were so enamored with the concept that the film and the subject of the film was retailored to fit that concept. How was this done? By using bad copies of the film where 2/3 of everything on the film was ambiguous. Then an overemphasis on the person’s level of expertise and education was followed by session of training the mind to see the ape. In recent years, however, better versions of the film have surfaced and it has become apparent that the realm of hard evidence, at least for the Patterson Bigfoot film, does not lean toward any ape. All the tools are there to describe a human being. Large size does not disqualify it as a human, neither does unusual Body hair. All other features are there exactly as are the features of a human being. Anything beyond that is conceptual. Concepts should never trump hard evidence.

 

Science is the “truth…in it’s simplest form.†If a person tries to pass off a concept as fact by the over use of scientific jargon, it is a good sign that the person is enamored with that concept and is not likely to follow facts or even acknowledge them. They may even go as far as to try and destroy hard evidence so that their concept can flourish. They will indeed throw out the baby with the bathwater, and not even blink an eye. Beware of such ones in the academic field. They love to write papers and acquire grants. They are marching madly to nowhere. Don’t get in their way.________________M.K.Davis

I would trust Munns over Davis anytime......

And a human head does not fit in the Munns Patty recreation head. Never mind the huge size and copious amounts of body hair. A different shaped skull that is more sloped than our own does indeed point to an Ape. Sorry.

[Yuchi1]

How does Patty's head compare to Neanderthal or any of the earlier primates?

[norseman]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O0a5eaoR1U0

And a Ape is indeed a primate.

Edited December 29, 2015 by norseman

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

 

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Patty's head seems to closely match the Lovelock cave skull that was found in Nevada. It's a human skull, except it has a more pronounced brow ridge, a more diagonally sloped forehead and a thick nuchal crest like what we see in the film. 

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest DWA]

I don't think M.K. Davis is saying we know squat about Bigfoot. 

 

I think he is saying that certain people have fallen in love with the idea that Bigfoot is an ape, instead of a person, and they pursue this romance by overlooking the visual evidence to the contrary offered in the Patterson-Gimlin film: "In recent years, however, better versions of the film have surfaced and it has become apparent that the realm of hard evidence, at least for the Patterson Bigfoot film, does not lean toward any ape. All the tools are there to describe a human being. Large size does not disqualify it as a human, neither does unusual Body hair. All other features are there exactly as are the features of a human being. Anything beyond that is conceptual. Concepts should never trump hard evidence."

 

He is saying that even academics, who are supposed to be careful studiers of evidence, discount and throw out evidence right in front of them, if it interferes with their theses. 

 

He is kind of saying, Trust you own eyes. Trust the film. Do not be fooled by people who are pursuing money and fame by proposing theories that do not fit the facts as they appear in the film in front of you.  

No question that in terms of P/G, no one who comes down on "hoax" is acting on anything other than a belief unshaken by evidence.

 

I wouldn't say "human."  At least I wouldn't say "Homo sapiens;" nothing we have so far points to our species either on physical characteristics or advanced material culture, both of which are hallmarks of Homo.  But such specificity awaits taxonomic classification anyway, and that awaits the specimen we do not have.

 

^ Sure, we can lean towards human, or we can lean towards ape.  But taking all he has said in that piece, he is basically saying we know nothing for sure about Bigfoot.  Unless there is something I missed in the last few decades, what do we actually KNOW about Bigfoot?  We have plenty of theories and suppositions, but no hard facts as MK has pointed out.  I'm hoping that someday soon we will have all of these missing knowns.

In the sense science *knows* things, we know nothing.  But there is enough known to provide a firm trail for science to follow, which really should have been done within a year or two of P/G, latest.

[Guest]

If BF does not exist, then one would have to explain all the thousands of sightings, many by ''credible'' people. What exactly is the social phenomenon that is making people talk about BF? It would be unprecedented.

 

Even the Loch Ness Monster could rationally be real with all the sightings, as a Greenland Shark, of course.

[norseman]

Patty's head seems to closely match the Lovelock cave skull that was found in Nevada. It's a human skull, except it has a more pronounced brow ridge, a more diagonally sloped forehead and a thick nuchal crest like what we see in the film. 

 

I think Pattys skull is way more peaked than that...

[ShadowBorn]

If this creature was an ape there would be one on a slab some where in a lab. The Genbank would have its DNA in its Database and we would not be having these conversations. No there is more to these creatures then we are led to believe and every time the DNA keeps coming back as human. But they keep making the mistake of saying that it has been contaminated so they throw it out rather then further testing of the sample.