Cliff Barackman interview

[Huntster]

24 minutes ago, MIB said:

.......All in all, I think the better question is with so little human traffic, how much more evidence is available to be seen that nobody ever does see?   

 

That is most definitely a great question. When I think about it, I actually have to admit to myself that there very well might be more of these creatures than I tend to think there are.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

Humans can get to any point on the surface of the Earth, the surface of the moon and walk on the ocean floor.

 

So by your definition nothing on Earth or the Moon is “remote”.

 

And yet? We find new species every year.

Yes we do and none of them are 7foot man apes. 

 

3 hours ago, norseman said:

 

 

 

3 hours ago, norseman said:

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Patterson-Gimlin

[norseman]

4 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Yes we do and none of them are 7foot man apes. 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Just now, norseman said:

Yet.

Agreed 

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

That is most definitely a great question. When I think about it, I actually have to admit to myself that there very well might be more of these creatures than I tend to think there are.

If they exist at all. I would agree. 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Some are pretty "darn" remote.   

 

The first tracks I found were not "far" from a trail but they were across a deep, swift river in a section very unlikely to cross without a boat.   Since they were fresh, definitely less than 4 hours old, and there were no boats other than me in the area, that's practically impossible.  Not absolutely impossible but vanishingly unlikely.    Other tracks I've found in places where I subsequently set up trail cameras, often quite a few, and in a period of over 4 years I got NO humans on camera in those places.   This means if someone was ever there, they never came back.    In other areas not so far from those spots I did indeed get pictures of people on camera, rare, maybe 1 (or if 2, they were together) every couple years, so that confirms that I'm setting up the cameras right to catch glimpses of any humans passing by.

 

All in all, I think the better question is with so little human traffic, how much more evidence is available to be seen that nobody ever does see?   

Thank you for responding, but you are human and you go there.

I do like your way of thinking about the better track  evidence.If they even exists would most likely not be seen by humans. I  am not impressed with the known tracks.

Off topic, but I would  be more open to the undiscovered animal  theory  than 

Man apes surviving in the current world. 

[norseman]

2 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Agreed 

If they exist at all. I would agree. 

It seems like there is a logical fallacy among skeptics.

 

We cannot talk about evidence without proof? So if Bigfoot does not exist? Then we cannot talk about foot casts, films, etc. Because they MUST be a hoax…. Its all junk.

 

Im not trying to shift the burden of proof. Im only asking that we examine the evidence open mindedly. Because some of it is not easily explained away and could lead somewhere.

 

Just as Cliff stated its going to take a body. No one is arguing that point. So in this thread we are talking about evidence. Not proof.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

1 hour ago, OkieFoot said:

When I mentioned Broadwater Co., Montana, I was referring to BFRO report #37974. It's been on here before. It's a pretty compelling report.

A brief synopsis: an elk hunter was in an area where he had hunted numerous times before and never saw another hunter. He came across a trackway that was 15 miles from the nearest drivable road, on the side of a mountain, Barefoot prints that appeared to be 6-7 inches longer than his 12" boots and twice as wide as their 4" width; it was thought snow melt may have accounted for a little of the length and width, estimated 5ft. step length, clean with no drag marks, curving uphill, he had to leap to match the estimated 5ft. step. He thought it very unlikely they were from another hunter, considering how remote and rugged the area was.

 

MIB, your very last point was a good one. If the elk hunter in this report had not been on the mountain at that time, the trackway he came across would very likely have never been discovered by anyone else and would have simply disappeared in time. 

Thanks for sharing. Is there any other evidence besides his 

Words . 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

18 minutes ago, norseman said:

It seems like there is a logical fallacy among skeptics.

 

We cannot talk about evidence without proof? So if Bigfoot does not exist? Then we cannot talk about foot casts, films, etc. Because they MUST be a hoax…. Its all junk.

 

Im not trying to shift the burden of proof. Im only asking that we examine the evidence open mindedly. Because some of it is not easily explained away and could lead somewhere.

 

Just as Cliff stated its going to take a body. No one is arguing that point. So in this thread we are talking about evidence. Not proof.

The common fallacy among believers is too accepting of flimsy evidence. 

However, you make good points. It would make more sense if there was any good evidence. 

Tracks, blurry pictures , pariedolia hoaxed films and the worst of all humans.

 

I am not totally dismissing all of it. I really like sounds and of course one great film of a convincing unknown animal or man in a suit. 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Patterson-Gimlin

[OkieFoot]

4 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Thanks for sharing. Is there any other evidence besides his 

Words . 

 

P-G, he took the one pic below of his boot next to the track. It's not real distinct and hard to make out a lot from the photo, so I'm betting it showed up better in person than in a picture. He thought the tracks were a few days old. He had worked for the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and was not really a believer in Bigfoot's existence, but after seeing the trackway and the  size of the tracks, along with the other observations about them, and knowing they weren't bear tracks, he felt a sasquatch was the only explanation for what made them. He said he regretted not taking more pictures; it was the last day of elk season and he said he was focused on his hunting. 

So other than this one photo, we only have his account of what he discovered.

 

[hiflier]

12 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

The common fallacy among believers is too accepting of flimsy evidence. 

 

Agreed, but that doesn't hold for ALL believers. You've been around long enough to know who the minority is that don't "believe" and who knows what would constitute proof. The process of elimination gets us closer to defining what is necessary to close the case. Might you have an idea for a program that would accomplish either yes they exist or no they don't? Being a skeptic is easy if one is comfortable with not investing in a solution or methodology. Saying one will shoot one on sight introduces a lot of variables, such as time spent looking for a target species. It also introduces a truckload of logistic difficulties post-takedown.

 

Avenues for securing proof are few indeed. One is to shoot the thing, the other is to not shoot the thing but still arrive at the same end, which is proof of existence. It comes down to what format science, the final arbiter, will accept.

 

 

[norseman]

29 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

The common fallacy among believers is too accepting of flimsy evidence. 

However, you make good points. It would make more sense if there was any good evidence. 

Tracks, blurry pictures , pariedolia hoaxed films and the worst of all humans.

 

I am not totally dismissing all of it. I really like sounds and of course one great film of a convincing unknown animal or man in a suit. 

 

 

Accepting of what? Do I not advocate for the need of a dead body as proof? You act like this is a poker game and the player with the most chips wins. So you try to block the other side from receiving chips…. This isn’t a popularity contest. Or a contest to sway belief or disbelief.

 

If I’m gonna follow tracks to shoot one? One must be prepared to follow hoaxed track ways too. The only set of tracks worth anything are the ones the creature is standing in. But I will pay attention to what Cliff or Jeff thinks are good tracks versus suspect ones. Because it will save me a lot of hiking, yes?

 

Your pretty dismissive of all of it. And that’s your prerogative. Usually it takes a experience to knock you off the fence.

[norseman]

21 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

 

P-G, he took the one pic below of his boot next to the track. It's not real distinct and hard to make out a lot from the photo, so I'm betting it showed up better in person than in a picture. He thought the tracks were a few days old. He had worked for the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and was not really a believer in Bigfoot's existence, but after seeing the trackway and the  size of the tracks, along with the other observations about them, and knowing they weren't bear tracks, he felt a sasquatch was the only explanation for what made them. He said he regretted not taking more pictures; it was the last day of elk season and he said he was focused on his hunting. 

So other than this one photo, we only have his account of what he discovered.

 

Obviously that’s a moose doing a tap dance in one spot and then the sun melted it….. no man apes required.😉

[Patterson-Gimlin]

3 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

P-G, he took the one pic below of his boot next to the track. It's not real distinct and hard to make out a lot from the photo, so I'm betting it showed up better in person than in a picture. He thought the tracks were a few days old. He had worked for the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and was not really a believer in Bigfoot's existence, but after seeing the trackway and the  size of the tracks, along with the other observations about them, and knowing they weren't bear tracks, he felt a sasquatch was the only explanation for what made them. He said he regretted not taking more pictures; it was the last day of elk season and he said he was focused on his hunting. 

So other than this one photo, we only have his account of what he discovered.

 

Thanks for sharing. Not a good track.  Good story and his background makes it somewhat credible. 

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

6 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

In areas where few humans go. People can get there, but few do. Indeed, there are mountain peaks within view of my bedroom window where nobody has trod.

Agreed and I am jealous of your view. 

[Twist]

If not for my own suspected encounter I would 100% be on the same side of the fence as Patterson-Gimlin.   Proof of BF is non existent and evidence of BF is subjective and objective at best.   The fact that in the 50+ years since the PGF was filmed we have not produced anything remotely close to it is NOT promising.    Sure, there are claims of better evidence, there are countless stories by people that are 100% confident in what they saw,  there are countless reasons why proof is not able to be validated.  In the end it has added up to nothing tangible.   DNA has added up to nothing tangible.   We believers are on the wrong side of the fight, we are the ones with a burden of proof.  

 

IB4 we are not trying to prove anything.    

Edited December 4, 2021 by Twist