-
-
That reminds me I have to send you Luke's Stormtrooper outfit. Ah-hah! You thought you were finished.
Can't wait to see Luke and the gang. I'm working on Thundaar right now.If a Mego figure of God did not exist, it would be necessary for EMCE to invent him.Comment
-
Bobcat Goldthwait was on the radio this morning promoting his new Bigfoot movie, "Willow Creek."
I think he made some interesting arguments for the possible existence of sasquatch [to save Brazoo time, what I'm doing is an "Appeal to Authority", btw
].
He said:
1. Planes have crashed in that forest and have not been found. Easy to believe we don't know everything that lives in those woods.
2. Trail cams in that area recently caught a creature thought long extinct (some badger-ish animal, I believe... I don't remember the name)
3. He believes the Patternson Gimlin footage doesn't move like a guy dressed in a suit
But the other thing he said, which is what really made me think of this thread:
"Sadly, I think sasquatch believers are the most picked upon sub-culture. It's like Ren Fair people, then Trekkies, then Al Quaeda... and then sasquatch believers."Comment
-
^The Patterson film is absolutely genuine. If anyone has any doubt, all they have to do is compare it to a Hollywood Bigfoot costume...namely the one worn by Andre the Giant in SMDM a decade later. That was the best a Hollywood studio could come up with and it still has nowhere near the detail of the Patterson creature, where you can clearly see muscles moving beneath the hair. Aside from the face, which uses appliances, even the current Jack Links commercials suit isn't as realistic.
A guy in 1967 with no background in special effects, with lesser materials and no money made a suit better than anything Hollywood could produce then or now? Not a chance.Comment
-
These "footprints" are straight out of Scooby Doo.Even My Henchmen Think I'm Crazy.Comment
-
Yep, and that only adds to the credibility of Patterson's film, IMO. How could a guy who couldn't even make a convincing fake footprint construct the most anatomically perfect ape suit ever made? Patterson may have been a huckster, but I honestly believe he was caught totally off guard that day in 1967.Comment
-
Bobcat Goldthwait was on the radio this morning promoting his new Bigfoot movie, "Willow Creek."
I think he made some interesting arguments for the possible existence of sasquatch [to save Brazoo time, what I'm doing is an "Appeal to Authority", btw].
He said:
1. Planes have crashed in that forest and have not been found. Easy to believe we don't know everything that lives in those woods.
2. Trail cams in that area recently caught a creature thought long extinct (some badger-ish animal, I believe... I don't remember the name)
3. He believes the Patternson Gimlin footage doesn't move like a guy dressed in a suit
But the other thing he said, which is what really made me think of this thread:
"Sadly, I think sasquatch believers are the most picked upon sub-culture. It's like Ren Fair people, then Trekkies, then Al Quaeda... and then sasquatch believers."
Haha - I didn't know about this movie. I'm a Bobcat fan, even when I'm not nuts about his movies he's usually got an interesting take on the subjects he's tackling. I'll check this one out for sure!
I know you're half-kidding, but I can't resist:
I'm not sure what you're doing is a proper "appeal to authority" fallacy, because you're offering his opinions, not just arguing something like 'because he's a famous person his opinion must be true'. He's not really a qualified authority in this, so I can see what you mean, but I don't think that means we have to dismiss what he's saying because he's not an authority. I don't agree with his points either way though...
1. Planes have crashed in that forest and have not been found. Easy to believe we don't know everything that lives in those woods.
That seems like a clear "Argument from Ignorance" logical fallacy. For example, it's like me saying "fire-breathing pixies with mermaid tails exist" and then say my evidence is based on the fact that we can't explore every square inch of the earth to prove it's NOT true. Logically people arguing FOR something can't use non-evidence as evidence to support their belief.
2. Trail cams in that area recently caught a creature thought long extinct (some badger-ish animal, I believe... I don't remember the name)
Truthfully I have no idea what the logical fallacy is here, I wish I was better at this, but the logic seems faulty to me. Here's my take: Bigfoot is humongous compared to a badger - this badger must have a very small populace since people thought it was extinct, where as Bigfoot sitings have happened all over North America - I'd guess that way less people have been searching for this badger than the thousands of enthusiastic people who have been looking for Bigfoot for the last 30 or so years - so couldn't this info also be used as an argument to show that Bigfoot isn't that likely? Like, why aren't the cams also seeing Bigfoot? See what I mean?
3. He believes the Patternson Gimlin footage doesn't move like a guy dressed in a suit
I can't really argue or make points against this, because I don't know the specific reason he thinks the P&G Bigfoot doesn't move like a guy in a suit. I know from other arguments I've heard that people often talk about unusual gait the alleged Bigfoot has, or it's non-human proportions. In my mind, both arguments make assumptions that the guy would have to be an average build when it's just as likely they got someone with a slightly odd build to play the roll. The arguments about the level of expertise it would take to make this suit never make sense to me, I just can't "see" what those folks are seeing here because it does not look that great to my eyes. The footage is zoomed in from quite a distance, shot at a slower speed, shaky - I'm sorry, but I can't see how people insist that it's detailed enough to make a solid assessment about how great it looks.
"Sadly, I think sasquatch believers are the most picked upon sub-culture. It's like Ren Fair people, then Trekkies, then Al Quaeda... and then sasquatch believers."
Haha - well, except for the terrorists, I don't think any of these people should be picked on! Humanity NEEDS people to believe in and do so-called strange things - we NEED Bigfoot hunters - but there has to be a balance too. We still need to have some universal understanding of logic and scientific process - and some ground rules for how we argue things out. Not so much because of Bigfoot, but because of the other really important issues people argue about that seriously effect us.
From my perspective I'd argue that skeptics get picked on WAY more than Bigfoot believers though! Logical, rational people are always misrepresented as unfeeling, unimaginative and awkward, like Spock. OR they're often depicted as immoral or even sociopathic. I see people calling skeptics "closed minded" constantly. Culturally, most of us believe that ignoring logic for "guts" is always correct, sexy, exciting and more heroic.Comment
-
Gimlin's account of that day sheds some light on their encounter. They were riding horses and he thinks that's why they were able to catch Bigfoot by surprise and get it on film. The sound of horses hooves walking, and not people walking, didn't alert the animal and it waited until they were close before it ran away. He said that there was a definite expression of displeasure on its face over being discovered by people and being seen so close which is interesting. If he interpeted the animals face correctly then that suggests an emotional reaction and sign of intelligence. Any animal will flee from us for survival but to say this animal was angry or embarrassed,(?), that it was seen so close-up by people is pretty significant. If Patterson had kept the camera at the ready or the horses had not reared up upon coming face to face we might have had closer shots better footage of it.
As for discussion of footprints, possible handprints, and the whole thing, I recommend this book by the late Dr. Grover Krantz. Things are explained in layman's terms in many chapters. Dr. Krantz was not a kook but a real prof. and a scientist. He has looked over many footprints and separated fake from authentic. He even had people from the FBI verify the prints he considered real as real as fingerprints cannot be successfully faked, (because if so criminals would use the method to commit crimes), and they found details he didn't even spot in some casts. Of course if you've made up you mind his credentials and the book will be of little interest to you:
Comment
-
Great book...Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum are the big two when it comes to serious investigation. If they say something's real, you can take it to the bank.Gimlin's account of that day sheds some light on their encounter. They were riding horses and he thinks that's why they were able to catch Bigfoot by surprise and get it on film. The sound of horses hooves walking, and not people walking, didn't alert the animal and it waited until they were close before it ran away. He said that there was a definite expression of displeasure on its face over being discovered by people and being seen so close which is interesting. If he interpeted the animals face correctly then that suggests an emotional reaction and sign of intelligence. Any animal will flee from us for survival but to say this animal was angry or embarrassed,(?), that it was seen so close-up by people is pretty significant. If Patterson had kept the camera at the ready or the horses had not reared up upon coming face to face we might have had closer shots better footage of it.
As for discussion of footprints, possible handprints, and the whole thing, I recommend this book by the late Dr. Grover Krantz. Things are explained in layman's terms in many chapters. Dr. Krantz was not a kook but a real prof. and a scientist. He has looked over many footprints and separated fake from authentic. He even had people from the FBI verify the prints he considered real as real as fingerprints cannot be successfully faked, (because if so criminals would use the method to commit crimes), and they found details he didn't even spot in some casts. Of course if you've made up you mind his credentials and the book will be of little interest to you:
Comment
-
-
From memory, what Matt Crowley did was question the idea that these prints could capture details like dermal ridges (basically finger prints) through plaster casted in dirt. So he tried to falsify that claim (something Dr. Krantz and the FBI did NOT do) by making fake footprints and seeing what happened. And what happened was that he got very similar dermal ridge like patterns in the casts that were supposedly un-fakable.
I thought even Jeff Meldrum was convinced by this - but I could be wrong.Comment
-
I recall you brought this up before in a long ago thread. Estiban Sarimento was on a NatGeo special and explained, showed, how you can make fake footprints. But his fakes were never submitted to the FBI experts who can tell fakes from real one or to the FBI expert who also appears on some of these specials and has studied primate footprints. If this method were successful at fooling experts astute criminals would've adopted this method to commit crimes and fake finger prints. I found the special on youtube and watched it again and Sarimento's casts are pretty sloppy. There were signs in the cast that these were made prints and not organic-real feet.
This is where the double-standard comes into play. Sarimento showed how it can be done but never submitted his handiwork to see if it can fool the FBI and I doubt it would. We cannot conclude all footprints are fake just because someone can carve a foot out of wood-which is the preferred method by many admitted hoaxers. Nor can we conclude all the good quality foot prints showing dermal ridges are fake just because it was shown on a TV special you can copy your own foot details and make a custom cast which is a lot of work and not the preferred method of many hoaxers.
Of the footprints found there are also the factors of weight and hardness of the ground. For the prints to be made and imprinted so deeply whoever made the footprints would have to be a certain weight, much more than an average man, to leave a deep print in the ground. Experts, FBI and Dr. Grover Krantz, also take this into account.Comment
-
Lets take something more real-world. D.B. Cooper parachuted from an airplane in the Pacific Northwest with ransom money. After all these years the man and the money have never been conclusively found. Some money and some clues as to the area where he may have landed have been found. Chances are he died in this scheme, because he's never been caught and the money has never been spent. Yet despite the fact that his body would likely still be harnessed to a parachute, or the landing sites where each pack of money rested should be noticeable because of parachutes, man made objects that should be visible and discernable to anyone looking for them and there were search parties looking for them, they've never been found.Comment
-
Sorry, I don't know anything about the NatGeo/Sarimento special.
I'm referring to the Matt Crowley casts that showed the dermal ridges might be artifacts of casting. I seem to recall that Meldrum investigated and admitted that they looked the same as the impressions in the supposedly real casts. I tried finding direct sources for this, but it seems like some of the original articles aren't online now. I'll try again later.
Can you please clarify, when you say Krantz had the FBI look at the casts are you referring to the investigations Chilcut did?Comment
-
Comment
Tweet
Comment