Comments on: Humboldt’s D.A. Asked To Investigate “Bigfoot Massacre”

By: theprof

theprof — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:50:34 +0000

I choked on my coffee when I read this. Charles Fort would have loved this for its ridiculous -but sincere- humour!

By: Ranatemporaria

Ranatemporaria — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:51:48 +0000

Other points aside, can I quickly pose a question?

If you did genuinely believe you had evidence of any form of mass murder, and were truly concerned, is this how you would handle it?

Go public, risk everything, and allow the details to be posted on an internet forum?

I don’t know.

By: gavinfundyk

gavinfundyk — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:32:24 +0000

There was a tribe of individuals, in Brazil that were recently discovered.

They had a village. They are obviously human. They may not be “civilized”, but they are not animals either.

Even IF there were a family of Indians that are all afflicted with hypertrichosis, they would NOT act like the animal in the P/G film.

And before someone says “how do you know how they would act”, humans are still humans. Isolated tribes may view the world differently, but they are still PEOPLE.

Patty most certainly is not human.

Unfortunately, this will only allow persons to humiliate those actively searching for Bigfoot or other cryptids.

Thanks for nothing.

By: Rangoon

Rangoon — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:20:39 +0000

This only gives more credence to my theory that Scott is off his rocker!

By: Rapscallion

Rapscallion — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:28:35 +0000

At what point do we cross the line from theorizing garbage to espousing the relative “truth” of garbage. Honestly, as much of this foolish “non public” “theorizing” that has been quoted and referenced here i still note a disturbing lack of voices demanding the “middleman” evidence that can somehow link this whole jumbled mess of off-the-cuff trash together into anything even remotely resembling a theory worth investigation. Firstly, we have track marks that may or may not exist. Your kidding right? Prove those track marks exist, then somehow (good luck) establish it was in fact a backhoe that left those track marks. Secondly, bloody puddles? Honestly, where do we begin?. From what i can glean the theory states that a family of apparently defenseless giant and most likely powerful animals were at some time previous to filming accosted by one or more people and engaged with a fire-arm. In the ensuing melee the family of … well, whatever, were killed. Lets start with the fact that shooting an animal is a simple matter of point and squeeze. Keeping said animal still after shooting it is something entirely different. So lets assume that said blood puddles are actually from wounded ….whatevers… Arent we remarkably fortunate that at least one of the wounded ….whatevers…. happened to run in EXACTLY the same direction and elevation that the video camera would later track the wounded …..whatever… as it fled yet another aggravated shooter. Lets get serious, just guessing that blood puddles on the ground would happen to be in the “field of view” of the wounded …whatever… as it egressed is beyond mere coincidence, and to me personally, smacks of non-existance. Also, lets take the time to consider the blood itself, anyone who has ever seen blood, and that should be most everyone, would realize that both its color and consistancy would be dramatically altered when exposed to the elements, no matter how mild, for even a very short period of time. Lets move on then to the notion that the ….whatever…. in the film itself is wounded in the leg with a “high-powered” (on a side note, please, for the love of god, enough with this catch phrase. if it can kill you, its high enough powered, and who determines whats high enough to be considered high-powered?) rifle. Garbage of the highest and smelliest order. Who here has ever made even a slight motion and scared off elusive game?. Any animal capable of existing with only limited human observation is by its own habitual instincts extremely wary. Now add the joy of being both fired at AND injured by something outside normal experience and i think the safest bet is to imagine is for our filmed …..whatever…. to make a great and hasty departure with all due haste. Clearly this is not evidenced in the video. Not unless great haste resembles me getting out of bed in the morning as i hunt for something with with a stimulant in it to drink, as i observe my small children destroying something electronic and expensive over my shoulder. Lets get real here, the evidence presented to the best of my understanding points in direct opposition to this “murder” theory. And ive merely pointed out simple observations and opinions i myself have. Lets assume for the briefest of moments, any of this evidence did exist as stated, then we still lack any of the evidence linking these stand-alone “items” into anything representing a chain of events that could in any way be imagined as a cohesive timeline. Sure, im a bit of a run on, and ive likely mispelled more words than not. My thoughts and ramblings are about as likely to be understood as this ridiculous conjecture could ever be. But i certainly hope everyone gets my basic jist, and for those of you that dont, ill summarize, in plain english.
Stupid unfounded theory. Almost as believable as the grubby homeless guy on the street corner peddling “real” non stolen rolex watches.
Just my opinion, and whats that worth.
Rap

By: subrosa

subrosa — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:20:58 +0000

It is really hard to watch a simple case of ‘matrixing’ get so far out of hand, and become an embarassment to those who take Bigfoot research seriously.

By: Munnin

Munnin — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:58:26 +0000

I’m with Bill Green and eyeofnewt. It seems to me that, since all the evidence for a murder case is based solely on a unique interpretation of images in a film already considered by many “authorities”, over decades of analysis, to be spurious, neither the local nor State authories are likely to delegate precious funds to such an investigation. Personally, I think the late Dr. Grover Krantz, among others, made an excellent case for the film’s authenticity. However, I don’t feel at all convinced by the arguments put forth so far in support of the bigfoot murder cover-up theory.

By: sschaper

sschaper — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:57:59 +0000

There is only one word for this:

Uf-da!

By: Kathy Strain

Kathy Strain — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:38:55 +0000

scmarlowe responds: June 15th, 2008 at 7:16 am

“Yes, I’m sure those profiteers who were planning “guided tours” of the kill site are highly disturbed by my letter and the possible reaction to it by the authorities and park service.”

Just to help you out Scott - the Forest Service owns that land where the Patterson/Gimlin film was made and were any fictional burial site might be, not the Park Service. In particular, it is the Six Rivers National Forest, Orleans Ranger District.

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:58:19 +0000

trust me folks, the DA has more important things to do. Humbolt county is full of pot smoking students that get into trouble. The DA is not going to investigate the accusations that any killings happened, what…40 years ago, to a “mythological” creature (using that term because big foot isn’t an official animal yet) when the only footage of this creature has her walking completely out of camera range without any indication of being injured. Crime investigation is about facts. The facts are: 1) there is only 1 creature seen in the scene. 2) the gunshot is very faint (after all it took 40 years for someone to say there was one). There usually needs to be an actual crime with definite clues to follow before the DA will even attempt checking things out, especially here in California. Sorry, but this has gone way too far. Like I said in my last blog about this idea…the gunshot (if there actually was one) was for 1 or 2 things. Trackers use that trick to either get the animal to look towards them (face shot where she turned to the camera), or to make sure the creature leaves the scene. Now, I don’t know about the rest of you, but if I was just standing there and a very large female thing could just walk right over and do who knows what…I would fire a warning shot. I’ve done it with a black bear. This is ridiculous.