Remember the best concrete way to support this is to…

…here.

Thank you
Loren

“”They weren’t that close to it & I thought they went back a few days later and discovered & cast the tracks”"

No. According to both Patterson and Gimlin they first encountered the subject as close as 30ft when they rounded the downfall tree pile. They more or less stumbled into the alleged sasquatch as it was crouched down by a stream. They were initially much closer to it than we see in the actual film footage.

They saw and cast the tracks THE SAME DAY. Bob Gimlin even mentioned a wet footprint on a rock at some point along the trail.

There is NO WAY Bob Gimlin could have been duped by all this. He HAS to have been in on it if it was a hoax. The very close sighting, the alleged reaction of the horses, the tracks/footprints which were found straight away etc etc.

By the way, it was Bob Titmus who later returned some days later to get more casts. Perhaps you are confusing the two Bobs??

Patterson and Gimlin for sure examined the tracks and cast them the SAME AFTERNOON they obtained the footage. That’s their claim anyway. They remarked on how deep the tracks were and that neither could make the same kind of impressions even when jumping.

I should add this - my cherry on top of the you-haven’t-looked-at-the-evidence sundae:

George Schaller and Jane Goodall - superstars of the natural sciences and maybe the world’s two best known names in zoology - think there’s a significant chance you may be wrong (Goodall is certain you are), not just on the sasquatch but the yeti as well. Add David Attenborough on the yeti. And there are others at least as qualified as these - several, in fact, more so - in relevant areas of study who agree with them. If you could list some names among those - of course I can - I could verify that you might at least know something. But of course you probably haven’t read anything of theirs.

See, I’m not voting with emotion here, as you clearly are. Mine is simply a cold calculating bet on evidence. It’s the only reason I’m here (and, I guess, my dog in this hunt, so there, I do have one). Evidence, and its proper treatment by those charged with that. I want to know; and I don’t want the unschooled continuing to insist the earth is round. (It isn’t, you know. More like a pear than a circle.)

————————————————————–

DWA, I didn’t ask the question because I didn’t know the answer. I know it only too well. You got nothing.
You do bring up a good point, I think. Why do skeptics like me continue to follow the field?
I started out as a believer (in other paranormal topics like UFO’s, too) but as I read and read (believe it or not!) I began to see that no real results were forthcoming. Every book cover promised (and they still promise) fantastic insights and new breakthroughs. But all those promises proved empty.
I am not exactly sure why I still follow things like Bigfoot. But I can tell you one big difference between me and a true believer:
I would be DELIGHTED to find out that I was wrong and that Bigfoot exists.”

——————————————————–

Quick English translation: Patty jilted you and you’re sour.

I think most folks who talk the way you do are Former Raging True Believers, who swallowed the concept without evidence and read all the dreck that clings to topics like this, rather than the review of the evidence by the (sadly too few) people who are qualified to assess it from a biological standpoint – every one of whom disagrees with you.

I consider the paranormal a very bad basis for entry into this topic, and the source of all the dreck that true believers, bitter former true believers, and bigfoot skeptics read. I have never harbored any interest in paranormal topics, and don’t think the paranormal belongs in cryptozoology. But that’s just me. I don’t even have a dog in the hunt; the cohesiveness of the evidence is the only thing that interests me. Sounds like an animal, one that behaves like the known great apes. Science should get off its duff.

I mean sheesh, man! Ben Radford at least does a tap dance that will give him plausible deniability when he’s proven wrong. But you? How did you GET so sure? I’ve never met somebody on this board so cocksure about this.

I’d love to see your face when you find out Patty ran off with the scientists, not the woo-woos. But ‘til then, I know what folks like you do with evidence. (First: you don’t recognize what is and what isn’t. Second: you haven’t even looked at it.)

And I don’t have that kind of patience.

Books do, though; and so does the Internet. Go there. Hints: BFRO.net; texasbigfoot.org. Another hint: volume business is the only kind of business science does. Frequency and coherence, it’s called. The evidence for the sasquatch qualifies, in spades. Little green men, this ain’t.

Ghosts, well, they might be real, man! (UFOs are real; they are - wait for it - Unidentified.) Go back to them.

During the years that I’ve participated in discussions at this blog, I’ve mentioned at least a dozen reasons why I think P/G is a hoax, and I’m not going to drag them all out again here.

I think it’s a hoax. For many reasons. I don’t care to list them all here again; if you want to dig through Cryptomundo archives and read all the discussions that’s up to you. I think that Gimlin was probably in on it, but I can see how a reasonable person in his position could have been duped, so, yes, I think it’s possible that he was not in on it.

Whether bigfoot exist - well, there’s a lot of evidence that hasn’t been “explained away”, so maybe they do. If they do, sooner or later there will be proof.

“”I believe that the Patterson / Gimlin film is a hoax. (She said, dodging rotten fruit flying unbidden through the air : ). For many reasons, previously enumerated in lo, these blog posts.

Was Gimlin one of the dupers or a dupee? I don’t know.”"”

Kittenz,

You see, this doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t add up. If you think the P/G footage was a hoax then you HAVE to accept that Bob Gimlin was in on it. There is no alternative. This wasn’t just a fleeting glimpse in the forest. Gimlin claims they came across the subject close up, the horses reacted and the subject was observed for some time and left many many tracks/footprints. If it was a hoax there is no way in this world that Gimlin was duped. It’s impossible. He would have to have been involved in the hoax himself.

2. To say that you don’t think a particular person can be fooled is Bigfoot science laid bare.

3. And I have seen SEVERAL studies that say EXACTLY the opposite.

4. OK–not linked to known animals yet…

THEREFORE!!!!!! Bigfoot exists!

I have to say that this kind of stuff might work well over beers as you guys review the thousands of photos of raccoons and deer from your camera traps but in the real world it all seems a little sad.

1) As of the last e-mail I got from Dr. Fahrenbach, he had 20 samples of hair he is quite confident are from Bigfoot
2) There are the dermal ridges found on some track casts. Dr. Sarmiento has stated that he could put convincing dermal ridges on casts. But to my knowledge, that’s all he has done. Stated he could do it, but has yet to demonstrate it. I don’t think stamping dermal ridge patterns of various known primates here & there on track casts would fool someone like Mr. Chilcutt for a minute
3) The 2006 analysis by three scientists, of the gait of the subject of the P/G film, that concluded the gait couldn’t be replicated by a person
4) Not all scat samples have been positively linked to known animals