Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film

[wiz cool c]

Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film this film is very interesting 47 years old and no body has ever proved it to be a fake. and no one ever made any other film that stood out like this since. there are even some modern scientist that believe it is a real film. what is your opinion?

[David Jamieson]

They exist. They aren't stupid beasts. They loathe us for the most part and stay away. Their populations are small in the US but good as you get into the NA rainforests of the northwest coast and all across Canada and Russia. Round the top of the world. They have been actively retreating from our encroaching civilization.

Consider this, the Gorilla was more or less a myth until the 19th century. In fact, there were several species of large mammals that were only known very locally until the mid 19th century when "scientists" started to be able to get out in the world.

Native peoples of North America have known of Sasquatch (Bagwajiwininiwag in Ojibwa) for a long time and regard them as people and not animals.
:)

[GoldenBrain]

Native peoples of North America have known of Sasquatch (Bagwajiwininiwag in Ojibwa) for a long time and regard them as people and not animals.
:)

In my experience this is very true, at least with regards to the tribes now living in Oklahoma. The SE part of oklahoma is sparsely inhabited so it's supposed to be one of the areas the bigfoot lives in or travels through. I'm sorta on the fence, but leaning toward they exist. I've spent a lot of time in the forests of this country and even though we have a large population it's only 300 million, and they are mostly in the metros. When you fly over the US you can really get a perspective of just how much wild lands we still have. If there is an animal out there that resembles a gillie suit, and also is fairly intelligent then it would be hard to find. As far as the why don't we find the bones argument. My wife is a forensic anthropologist so she could speak to this with some authority, however I'll attempt a layman's version. The best way to make a carcass disappear is to just leave it on the forest floor. It can be eaten and scattered to non existence within a couple of weeks. So, we would need to be very lucky to find an animal with this low of a population.

Just the other night we heard some loud tree knocking on our property. The squatchologists out there say that is one of the ways they communicate. (shrugs shoulders) Who knows, but it was pretty weird in that you could hear the knocking traveling in a straight line, and very fast through the forest. The knocks were spaced apart only seconds but it was moving so fast and at such a distance that I don't think it was a person. I can run these woods at sprint pace and wouldn't have been able to do that, especially at night. I know what our wood******s sound like also, and they don't come out at night so that one is easily ruled out. Who knows, maybe it was a bigfoot. I suppose it could have been a drunk deer. Run 100 yards…hit tree...get back up…run…hit tree…repeat…etc.


Hahahahahaha! The filters edited wood******s! Good god, is that the worst word in the whole wild world or what!

[Jimbo]

Regarding the question of why hasn't anyone stumbled across a Bigfoot body, a great counter-question would be: How often does anyone stumble upon the carcass of a bear that died naturally in the wild? And if 'Bigfoot' is more intelligent than a bear (which I believe they would be), you would be doubly less likely to find a corpse.

Interestingly, the tracker Tom Brown once made a brief statement about the Bigfoot phenomenon having something to do with vibrational shifts. Now, some people may say that he's full of it, or 'WTF?', but IMO, his explanation is as good as any. And I highly doubt he'd have even mentioned it if he didn't either believe it or know it.

If they are real (and I tend towards feeling that they are), I also believe that they aren't 'dumb' animals, but a type or types of people.

[GeneChing]

This is really why you gals are into this, isn't it? :eek:



What “Monster Porn” Says about Science and Sexuality (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/01/07/what-monster-porn-says-about-science-and-sexuality/)
By John Horgan | January 7, 2014

“What does woman want?” Freud once whined. Turns out quite a few women want fantasy sex with T. rex, Sasquatch or a boar-headed god. That, at any rate, is the implication of “monster porn,” which serves up X-rated versions of such demure classics as Leda and the Swan, King Kong or Beauty and the Beast.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/files/2014/01/screen-shot-2013-12-20-at-10.58.09-am-206x300.png
Evolutionary psychology and other gene-oriented modern paradigms cannot explain why many women enjoy reading "monster porn."

Also known as “cryptozoological erotica” or “erotic horror,” monster porn has flourished in the Internet era, which offers abundant platforms for self-publication. According to a report in Business Insider, some authors—most apparently female–are making serious moola peddling tales of humans—most apparently female—coupling with “creatures of every possible variety, from minotaurs to mermen, cthulhus to leprechauns, extraterrestrials to cyclops.”

Prudes have attacked monster porn for promoting sexual violence and bestiality. In response, Amazon and other purveyors have at least temporarily blocked access to some e-books, like a popular series featuring Bigfoot. Defenders of monster porn accuse Amazon of inconsistency, noting that the company still offers works of the Marquis de Sade, who extolled the joys of sexual torture and murder.

Trying to explain monster porn’s appeal, freelance writer Bonnie Burton, host of the “Vaginal Fantasy Book Club,” writes: “Regular male characters in romance books tend to be over-the-top perfect glistening warriors and knights, but I want an imperfect monster who needs love to show that he can be just as sweet as his human competition… Why deprive the imagination of a great romance just because the protagonist happens to live for 600 years or has the occasional bout with fleas?”

Here’s what I love about monster porn: It’s a wonderfully wacky reminder that human sexuality is too weird, wild and woolly to be captured by modern science, and especially by theories that reduce our behaviors to genes.

Take, for example, evolutionary psychology, which seeks to find some adaptive purpose—adaptive for our Paleolithic ancestors if not for us–underpinning our thoughts, emotions, actions. Evolutionary psychologists assume that everything we do and feel must in some direct or indirect way promote our genes’ perpetuation (or have promoted it in the past). Evolutionary psychology is hard-pressed to explain ****sexual lust, let alone lust for Godzilla.

Another popular bio-paradigm is behavioral genetics, which attempts to link specific traits to specific genes. The behavioral geneticist Dean Hamer claims to have discovered a gay gene, but this assertion–like virtually all those emanating from behavioral genetics—has not held up to scrutiny.

The key to our sexual tastes, Scientific American columnist Jesse Bering, my favorite sexologist, proposes, may lurk not in our genomes but in our childhood experiences. That, of course, is a foundational assumption of psychoanalysis, the steampunk theory of human nature devised by Freud more than a century ago.

In spite of his flaws and confessed befuddlement in the face of female desire (he once called it a “dark continent”), Freud offered far more insight into the twisted contours of sexuality than evolutionary psychologists and other genophilic modern scientists. He recognized that our desires are all tangled up with our fears.

In essays such as “The Uncanny” and “Medusa’s Head,” Freud suggested that some men are repulsed as well as entranced by female genitalia, which remind them of castration and death. [*See Postscript on "The Uncanny."] Wombs morph into tombs. I can’t find it, but no doubt somewhere in Freud’s oeuvre he discusses an analogous female ambivalence toward phalluses.

In her recent essay “Forceful Female Fantasy,” the literary scholar Laura Frost argues that modern scientific investigators of female sexuality—in spite of all their new-fangled instruments and theories–have not progressed much beyond Freud. Science still cannot explain why some women are “aroused by the idea of sex with strangers, dangerous sex and sex between women, men and animals.”

Researchers should supplement their clinical research with investigations of “the immense body of fantasy literature that already gives voice to women’s desire,” Frost says. Science must “open its eyes to culture rather than just confirm what is obvious.”

In other words, as I argue in a recent post, we need the arts and humanities as well as science to understand ourselves. Freud expressed a similar sentiment toward the end of his career. In his 1933 essay “Femininity” he wrote: “If you want to know more about femininity, enquire from your own experiences of life, or turn to the poets, or wait until science can give you deeper and more coherent information.”

Or read Taken by the T-Rex.**

*Postscript: I was distressed to discover while reading “The Uncanny” that Freud was a free will doubter. The old grouch mocked “all those unfulfilled but possible futures to which we still like to cling in phantasy, all those strivings of the ego which adverse external circumstances have crushed, and all our suppressed acts of volition which nourish in us the illusion of Free Will.” Freud was wrong about free will, just as he was wrong that what women really want is a *****.

**Post-postscript: See my next column, in which I describe my relationship with a real-life monster.


;)

[David Jamieson]

lol, 2 points for Gene for taking it to rule #34.

fwiw, I don't believe, I know they exist. :)
Sorry to sound like one of those sanctimonious dicks. I can't prove anything. Heck, I won't. They deserve their forest solace. :)

[GoldenBrain]

****-it Gene! Now I have to wonder... When my wife calls me a beast, is it because I am, or is she role playing and not telling me.:confused::D

I didn't want to mention this because it is a bit out there but what Jimbo said about the tracker is very similar to how the local native Americans tell the story. They say if the Bigfoot doesn't want you to see him then he can shift somehow or become invisible or something like that. They consider him to be a magical creature.

[pazman]

... no body has ever proved it to be a fake.

The onus is on those who claim this film to be real.

There are numerous indicators that this film is a hoax. You can wiki it.

[wenshu]

http://i.imgur.com/wHJRTVe.gif

definitely not just a guy in a gorilla costume

/sarcasm

[Syn7]

A part of me wants to throw on a gorilla suit and go **** with squatchers. Good way to get shot, though.

I want there to be a giant ape in the pacific northwest, but I don't see it happening. I need more than random stories to make that leap. Jane Goodall seems pretty sure they exist. I think that's partly just wishful thinking though. It is possible for animals to be in these rainforests w/o being seen, especially when they have low numbers. Lately we keep finding wolverines in places you wouldn't expect. I think a lot of people don't realise just how dense the bush is up in here. You can be ten feet away from someone and never know it. **** is THICK!

About natives... It's possible the stories are rooted in times when other ****nids were around and the oral history just kept it going.

[wiz cool c]

The onus is on those who claim this film to be real.

There are numerous indicators that this film is a hoax. You can wiki it.

there are people claiming it is fake ,but without any good proof, on the other hand there are experts,hollywood make up experts that believe it is real. and a few modern scientist,that also believe it is real. think about it, a guy that was a cowboy making a bigfoot suit in 1967 that fools scientist and hollywood special effect experts 45 years later! now that is hard to believe.

another example, the bionic man 1976,one of the biggest shows on tv at the time,had a bigfoot episode. so we got the biggest tv show on at he time in america,making a bigfoot suit,then 9 years earlier some unknown cowboy made a suit. which one is more convincing? well the bionic man suit you can see the clothe hanging off the body like clothes, where in the paterson video you see muscle movement,a technology they didn't even have back then in making fake suits, so how can a cowboy make a better suit 9 years earlier then the biggest tv show in hollywood?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKUwdHex1Zs

[David Jamieson]

The onus is on those who claim this film to be real.

There are numerous indicators that this film is a hoax. You can wiki it.

What are these numerous indicators? The Patterson film is regarded as genuine by many. And it just so happens some of the bigger names are also Anthropologists.
Check the wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film

Simply stating "I don't believe it" debunks nothing. The opposite is true as well.
The film has been reanalyzed as late as 2011/12 and measurements taken of the exact area as Gimlin was still alive to take people there.
Simple math indicated the creature to be near 9 feet tall.

As for the "man in an ape suit. Why have breasts on an ape suit? The Patterson film shows a female of the species. It is worthwhile to keep an open mind on this film and to know this, truth is stranger than fiction and what you and I don't know could fill the largest warehouse ever made. :)

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Syn7]

What are these numerous indicators? The Patterson film is regarded as genuine by many. And it just so happens some of the bigger names are also Anthropologists.
Check the wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film

Simply stating "I don't believe it" debunks nothing. The opposite is true as well.
The film has been reanalyzed as late as 2011/12 and measurements taken of the exact area as Gimlin was still alive to take people there.
Simple math indicated the creature to be near 9 feet tall.

As for the "man in an ape suit. Why have breasts on an ape suit? The Patterson film shows a female of the species. It is worthwhile to keep an open mind on this film and to know this, truth is stranger than fiction and what you and I don't know could fill the largest warehouse ever made. :)

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


Argumentum ad ignorantiam. There simply isn't sufficient evidence to say either way. In regards to the film, that is. It's an exercise in futility. All conjecture. We don't know if it's reeal or fake. We will never know whether it's real or fake, therefore it is not worthy of discussion, in my opinion anyways. That being said, I would hardly call this compelling evidence. Personally, I need more to make that leap.

[wenshu]

As for the "man in an ape suit. Why have breasts on an ape suit?

To fool gullible chumps like you.


It is worthwhile to keep an open mind on this film and to know this

No, no it is not.

[SoCo KungFu]

Oh brother. When you say, you are inclined to believe this is true, I doubt anyone here has thought of just what all must come along with that.

What possible evolutionary link could they hold? There are NO apes evolving in the New World. The only ape to have reached New World is us humans.

How could such a low population of a species so spread out, possibly maintain reproductive capability? How could such a low population maintain genetic viability?

If, we were to hypothetically assume for a moment the opposite of reality, and that there are higher apes in the New World, why do none of them have behavioral patterns indicative of higher primates? There are commonalities among all known, extant great apes (gorilla, orangutan, bonobo, chimpanzee, human).

Why do these supposed uncatalogued apes not conform in anatomical properties? Upright, bipedal apes necessitate a modified pelvic structure only present in humans. If a sasquatch were to exist, they would require this anatomical alignment to move the way people claim. However, by the time genus **** arose, the superficial ape-like features were already being lost (pronounced zygomatic arch, complete body cover of hair, etc.) Yet all of these so called footage retain these very features.

How could such a species survive against human pressure in resource use? The only other recent pre-human to have existed alongside humans, **** neanderthalensis, had the stature and pelvic breadth often attributed to sasquatch...and it was out hunted to extinction because contrary to the physical feats attached to sasquatch by believers, these same features made neanderthalensis far too slow and lacking in agility to track and kill the ever smaller and faster prey that existed following that last great ice age. So tell me, how did these apes survive not only that ice age, but all the little ice ages since, and compete in food acquisition with humans (which we know hunted a great many of the Pleistocene fauna to extinction)?

What possible niche space could this organism function within?

How could forests, with so many game cameras (hunters aren't the only ones using them, scientists, forest management, park law enforcement, etc. all put them to use) not have any viable footage of their presence? To put it into perspective, we can not only find, but reliably camera capture arboreal felines that are endangered, in the densest forest on the planet. Temperate rainforest of the American north west and Canada has absolutely nothing when compared to the density of the Amazon. So why is there no footage other than drunk hunters and nut bags thinking they're scientists?

A shoddy video doesn't overturn the mountain of biological and ecological hurdles that need to be addressed before this can even be contemplated as possible, let alone plausible...

[GoldenBrain]

Okay, so here are some thoughts. I reviewed some of the most recent video of a debunker who walked the exact same path as the supposed bigfoot in the Patterson Gimlin video. I'm not going to post all of the comparison photos or video because they are easily googled. The bigfoot in the Patterson Gimlin video was estimated to be approx 9 foot tall and the person who reenacted the walk was a normal sized man. It doesn't really matter if he was 5'9 to 6'4. The real telling factor to me is the size difference of their thighs in relation to their hips, height and gait. In our family we work with animals, especially dogs. That is to say we are experts in guard, hunting and sent dog training as well as horses and others…etc. The thing that struck me as odd is that if the supposed bigfoot had added padding around his thighs, this extra padding would definitely affect his gait. The hips would have to be spread out beyond normal to accommodate the added girth. The Patterson Gimlin bigfoot's thighs look about as big around as the torso of the man who is supposed to be debunking this myth. If most of you put that amount of padding around your thighs you'd be standing in horse stance. So, my question to all is have you ever worn a suit that is used for training attack dogs? Well, I have! It is heavily padded, but nowhere near the size of the torso of a normal sized man, or this supposed bigfoot's thighs. With all this padding you have no choice but to waddle when you walk. The bigfoot in that video did not waddle, but rather had a relatively smooth gait, and still had thighs the size of a normal mans torso, so to me it doesn't look like padding, but actual muscle, and the hips accommodate that added girth and height. I'm not totally convinced, but for the sake of argument, the thigh to hip and height ratio is one huge factor leaning towards the credibility of that video. Also, in 1967 the best gorilla costumes didn't even come close to this supposed bigfoot costume, so if this is a hoax it is a masterpiece, even in black and white. Of course I could be totally wrong here, but for the sake of furthering this thread I am thinking out loud with my personal experiences and thoughts, so please don't beat me up for this.

Personal disclosure: My wife, a forensic anthropologist with a specialty in ostelogy is completely against my argument. I don't think there's anything I could do short of providing a bigfoot carcass to convince her. Thats cool, and it's no argument among us, but a healthy debate with me loosing to the tides of the multitudes of scientists out there. Ah well, so be it, I have my beliefs and experiences and as much as she trusts me she just won't back down from the need for empirical evidence on this one, which is to say she needs to see a bigfoot carcass.

Now with that said, I have some very personal (visual and auditory ) experiences from spending much of my life in the forest. Many of these experiences are of such an odd nature that I haven't and unless asked about I wouldn't even share them with my wife or anybody else for that matter. People believe what they believe so that is what it is. I don't expect anybody to believe this, so I absolutely will not go into detail except for possibly private message with those I trust. Nobody want's ridicule so why would I open up to this? Let's just see where this discussion leads to.

What I don't understand is how a forum with thousands and thousands of members doesn't have more than a few posts on a really interesting if not completely far fetched topic. For that matter, why don't most of the interesting topics on this forum generate more than a few members thoughts. They get hundreds if not thousands of views so what gives?

[David Jamieson]

http://www.yellowmaps.com/maps/img/CA/thematic/DensityMap2001.jpg

Scoff all you like insular city people. lol
If it makes you feel better to think your whole world is just the constructs of men plopped onto the land, that's your prerogative.
If it makes you feel better to think that native people are silly and backwards, that's your issue.
The bottom line for me is that it doesn't matter what is believed in the same way that some of you would ridicule others belief or point of view.
Your ridicule is as invalid because really, you don't have a clue and are arguing from your own ignorance as well and merely posturing as if you know.
You don't. You might some day , but right now, you don't.

Source: Lived and worked a trap line in the far north and can tell the caterwauling of city bound high population density dwellers easily. :p