http://www.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.p...3/t/000680.html

This "Barbara R."'s rather glib assessment of the Patterson footage, namely how she "knew it was a man in a gorilla suit all along," has irked me to the point that I've registered to post at Snopes.com's BBS (and have posted here for the first time in I don't know how long); unfortunately, I can't vent my spleen just yet, as I must wait out a time delay during which the moderators of the site must appraise my profile, confirm my bonafieds, run a background check, examine if and when I've involved myself with radical leftist groups, etc. For anyone who's already primed to post at Snopes.com's website, though, please get the ball rolling by posting a link to the comparisons between Patty and Bob H. performed at _this_ website; oh, and remind Babs that most people don't prefer the sensational per se, but prefer, instead, whatever confirms the belief systems they already hold. I mean, why else would these yearly "Exposed: Bigfoot is a Hoax!" claims receive so much press compared to dirth of sober, even-handed examinations of the subject making (or, rather, not making) the papers? If this thing exists, it is likely only a link removed from the human on that proverbial Great Chain of Being, and that's an unsettling thought, too much so for most to entertain comfortably, I'd imagine.

Normally, I hate smilies, but...darn it...it's just that I feel so

I understand how you feel. Just today while talking to one of my brother in-laws he asked me if I still believed now that the new proof that the Patterson film is fake has come out. Every one in my family and my wifes family know how I feel on the subject. Really anyone who knows me as I have not hid it from anyone and will talk about it any chance it comes up.

Anyway so I calmly tried to explain to him that this is not the first time some fool has tried to say he was in on the making of the film. I also tried to explain to him just how what that fool is saying could not be true. I explained that back in 1967 even big budget movies in Hollywood could not make costumes that well and he could watch any movie made back to to compare it to.
We went back and forth on it on the phone for over a hour. And it ended by him telling me that I am just to hard headed to accept the truth when someone gives it to me. I am sure that the next family get together him and I and a few others will be going around and around about this.

You know every time some fool comes out with this crap it just drives another nail into the real researcher's coffins ;-( It makes every one of us that believe in Bigfoot and other cyrptos look like a pack of fools that should not even be aloud to walk around with "Normal people". That is why I hate the fact that almost every site on the subject has some pictures and films that are plainly fakes on them. If a none believer looks at the site they say look at these fools they really believe in this fake picture as they have it on their site. I wish that 90% of the pictures and films that are online would just go away as I feel it is hurting the real ones to much.
What really drives me nuts is when I (And I am just a normal person that used to be a plumber and Vocational Instructor) can look at the picture and film and see right off it is fake. And yet they have it on their sites and saying that they are real or could be real. I will not name names or sites as it is not my place to.

I even seen this one show on TV where they tried to make their own copy of the Patterson film. I am sure you know the one I am talking about it is on the front page at BFRO site. It does not look anything like the Bigfoot in the patty film. It to me anyway does not come close to the walk and just body movements. Yet none believers point to it and say see they made it themselves and it looks just like it. I even had someone tell me one that that if the hair was the same color and it had been shot at the same place that they could not tell the two apart. I just looked at the person and did not say another word. After a few min I changed the subject and have made a point of never talking to that person about the subject again.

It just boils down to this. Some believe and some do not believe. I feel that as believers it is our responsibility to not only try to pass on the facts as we know them but to try to keep the none believers from using our own stuff against us. By giving them obvious fakes to work with we are only making their jobs easier. It would be like BFRO selling shoes that leave tracks like a Bigfoot track.
If we as believers ever want to both prove that they are real and get them protected we must try to stop others from thinking it is a joke.

About the worse case of a Bigfoot person breaking that responsibility was the case of one doing a beer commercial. He was close to the camera talking while the Bigfoot went behind him to steal some beer. It was played out as a big joke and done nothing but make him a few bucks and give any none believer who seen it a good laugh.

Well I have went off the deep end here again and talking about stuff not related to the post :-(

I would think the best thing to do would be to let it go. By going there and starting a argument in my eyes will only hurt us. By us I mean the Bigfoot community. I know it is hard seeing others say stuff that we know in our hearts is not true. But going down to their level is not the way to win the war. Sure you just might win that battle but it would only cause a lot of the innocent bystanders to think bad about the Bigfoot community as a whole. Most none believers already think we are a bunch of kooks. So I personally do not think it would benefit the cause by damaging it any more.

Print out and hand him a copy of my Patty-Walk Scorecard posts and tell him that a reenactment by BH matching those scorecard items would be tough to do. (PG film experts: Please "fill in the blanks" on my scorecard so it's more presentable. Thanks in Advance.) And PM me your address if you'd like me to send you free copies of my Bigfoot Business Card to hand out.


This was the motivation for my recent little jihad against the fruit label giant. (I wasn't arguing so much against the possibility that the motivation for the drawing and for the name California Giant might have been a consciousness of past Bigfoot sightings in the state, but rather against the claim that the picture closely resembles a Bigfoot.)


Nightwing, do your stuff! (Pretty Please.) A comparison of the shoulder widths, arm lengths, torso lengths, and torso depths of the BBC critter to Patty would be most illuminating! Once done, you (Micahn) could print it out and ask him to compare the lengths of the yellow and purple lines on both subjects.

InRepair!?! I had heard you were eaten by wolves or something. Good to see you!

I'm not saying anyone should "start an argument" with those people over there; whenever I get the green light, though, I plan on at least posting a link to Nightwing's comparisons so that anyone who opens that thread can see that the situation is a little more complicated than this Barbara makes it out to be. I know it's sort of hopeless, but I can't help it sometimes. I mean, ultimately, so few Americans are interested in anything not related to Must See TV or the leg room in the new line of SUVs that the majority of people are going to be just plain apathetic toward something as superficially silly sounding as BIGFOOT, while the majority of the minority that remains hasn't looked into the subject, but "knows" it simply can't be true, nonetheless; of what's left, there's a small contingent of fence-sitters and believers. It's sad, but this last contingent is negligable when it comes to size and gatekeeping power, so nothing short of a corpse is going to change any belief systems on a large scale. So I know that debating "plantar-weight distribution" and "flexion extensions" and blah blah blah in the Patty video, while making for an interesting and rewarding intellectual exercise, isn't going to produce a revelation with the power to sway the decision-making masses. Like I said, though...I can't help but sometimes feel that angry burn inside of me that makes me want to try, at least.

Well, I registered over there simply to combat the ignorance that will ensue. If we all just let it go without making a polite and diplomatic attempt at education, then we are just as responsible for the perception as are those that walk around with their head in the sand.

Post our information, answer all questions (if any) and invite those wishing to learn more, here.

InRepair, I am registered at Snopes (same screen name), but I have already been in a BF discussion on the Spook Central section of the snopes board. Most of the people in the thread were open to discussing the evidence, but I don't think I even got close to changing any of the prevailing opinions. The one thing that did amuse me is that some of the same people that discount BF also believe in other paranormal things like ghosts, ufo's, etc.

Right. Like I said. Ghosts or UFOs piloted by intelligent extraterrestrials, if real, would mean that the human being is part of a mystical, magical tapestry, a cosmic ballet that will save us all in the end no matter how crappy our earthly lives are. The existence of sasquatch, on the other hand, would demonstrate, once again, that perhaps humans aren't as special as we sometimes make ourselves out to be. I've heard different estimates, but chimp DNA differs from human DNA by...what?...1 or 2%? That's kind of humbling. What if sasquatch exists? How different are we from they? The fundamentalist Christians alone would sh--ah, poop a brick.

Humans have 46 chromosomes, chimps have 48. That would be roughly 4.35% difference in JUST the number of chromosomes...

HERE is a site that goes into MUCH MORE DETAIL.

Quatch On,
The QuatchWatcher

It's amazing how small percentages can equate to huge amounts. More recent studies seem to have modified that number down to about a 5% difference.

Even a 1% difference however, is huge (about 19.8 million base pairs) when you consider the total number of DNA sequences. That 5% for example, turns into a difference between 150,000,000 DNA base pairs.


RayG

Well, an animal that walks bipedally would blow a lot of minds, exact genotype nonwithstanding.

It is hard sometimes to feel like the gullible oddball, been there, done that. You just have to take comfort in the knowledge that you know more about the subject than your brother in law (I forgot his relationship to you) and one day if bigfoot is proven to exist, they will admit that "Wow, you were right all along." But then again, when (if) that happens, everybody and their brother in law, will say that they too believed in Sasquatch.
I read the other site (referenced in this thread) talking about human genetics and relationship to chimps. Although the site was full of facts, I was extremely skeptical of its claims. I found it over simplisitic and suspected an alterior motive.

Jim, was that one of the links I had provided? Which specific link do you mean? Which percentage were you skeptical about? What made you feel skeptical about the article?

There are also claims that we share 90% of our genes with mice, 60% with the fruit fly, and 50% with bananas. I don't find those percentages at all surprising, though future studies will probably modify those numbers.

Some additional links:
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/...se_053102.shtml
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...4_dnachimp.html
http://genome.pfizer.com/hsl3.cfm

RayG

I'll admit my knowledge of genetics is very limited. When I made that first reference the other day to the "98.5" figure, which appears may be a myth on par with other percentage myths that supposedly reveal deep truths (we only use 10% of the brain, etc.), I remember thinking to myself, "If a chimp is 99% similar, then how might a sasquatch, which looks and apparently acts more like a human than a chimp does, get any closer to the human genotype than the chimp does without actually being a human?" Admittedly, it was a dumb question in that it assumed A.) 1% of genetic material is a small amount (which it isn't, according to Ray), and B.) Just because the sasquatch, if existant, walks bipedally, it's closer to the human in genetic terms than the chimp is to the human. Of course, my purpose in mentioning these things was ultimately to illustrate a social, not a biological, truism (or, if not a truism, per se, then a trend): I think a lot of people would feel more comfortable knowing such a thing didn't exist, glaring reiteration of our animalian nature that it would be.

I think a lot of people would feel more uncomfortable if bigfoot was "completely" proven to real. I dont think many people would enjoy the thought of a large hairy ape like giant romping through the woods. I for one would love it if it was completely proven...just dont think i'd like what would happen afterwards.

It looks like someone we are all familar with sniffed out the snopes forum. He is spreading the good word about "Big Brother Bipto's" to peole who have no idea who he is talking about and making himself comfortable with a first post sentence saying "Barb: you do not have the right to even hold an opinion on Bigfoot unless you do field research on it, as I do at ".

Oh, Christ on a crutch. Well, how about I try and contain this fire?

I think the fire is beyond putting out. Any evidence you put forward there now would likely be pre judged in favor of BF's nonexistence. The majority of the public does not and will not believe in BF's existence without more solid evidence.

Rabid, I know, I know! I agree! I even said as much in an above post. But sometimes I just get pissed off. So...I responded, for what it's worth...you and all others can go read it (I'm sure to get reamed in the coming posts by these folks, but, oh well...) If nothing else, it makes me feel a little better...at least until I encounter the same sort of prejudice again.

Ive added a few replies myself. I hope that there are some folks there that are willing to at least come here and read some of the information we have and some of the evidence that we feel is important.

Nightwings work and MK Davis's work are some good examples.

I hope that they understand that EB does not represent the typical "believer".

Hey, Inrepair...good to see you back...

Um, guys, I think that site is a lost cause. Apparently they think "the unmentioned" one has a great web site that we should pay more attention to. That is, those of us in the "cult". :rolleyes:

Thanks, Jim. I hope I did okay explaining myself over there.

Or, rather, I hope that Bipto, the grand high master of our "cult" (as it was called at Snopes) finds favor in my carefully selected words; I wouldn't want him to have to take time from tending to his harem of underaged wives to discipline me...you know, how he usually does...with the alligator clips and the car battery...

(If I have to hear his speech about the Seventh Seal one more time, I may have to just destroy my earthly vessel and hop on the next comet I see.)

I hope its not a lost cause... they seem humored by it if you know what I mean

APT, I noticed you caught the attention of the "unmentioned one" over there.

What a loon!

I wouldn't waste my time on them. I would only hope some day.. they are walking along in the forest and a BF comes along and smacks them on the ass.. hard. (How's that for a wake up call?)
Even then, they still may not open their eyes. :rolleyes:

The "unmentioned one" .. is.....

Signed,
Harem member of the BFF cult

ohh time for my meditating: ("ohhmmmmmm" to the great high and mighty..Master Lord Biptoooo)



(forgive me.. I haven't had my daily allowance of caffeine yet today)

Yeah, I noticed that too...yay :pinch:

Oh well, it was worth a shot