MovieChat Forums > Finding Bigfoot (2011) Discussion > What if?

What if?

posted 9 years ago by khodan
6 replies | jump to latest

What if the Patterson Gimlin film didn't exist? Would the interest in Bigfoot be what it is today? Would we have a show like "Finding Bigfoot" on the air?
Do you think, since the P-G film, anything else equals this Patty evidence?
Kerping an open mind, IMO, the film has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be either real or a hoax? Or has it?
As the years go by....almost 50 years, actually...does your opiniom of it being real or hoax start to shift one way or the other?
Are there more Bigfoot encounters among those who weren't actively searching, or those who were in the woods specifacally seeking evidence and/or encounters?
The Finding Bigfoot folks believe Bigfoot is nocturnal, yet just about all filmed evidence is in the daylight..(probably because most folks can't photograph in low light.) And of course, there are more people out and about in the woods during daylight hours, hence the greatet number of encounters.
Those who have witnessed a Bigfoot are 100 per cent sure of its existence. For those that haven't had an encounter, does the more time that passes and the more people searching without producing undisputed proof....well, does that prove that Bigfoot does not exist? While the saying "absence of proof is not proof of absence" is true, how much time must pass before searching without finding becomes an exercise in futility?

[–] khodan 9 years ago

Sorry for the spelling goofs...big fingers, little iPhone!

[–] Naughty-God 9 years ago

I think we're past the era of Bigfoot being a serious contender for 'new species discovered'. It has become a cottage industry unto itself with a bunch of insiders conducting confirmation bias circle jerks to maintain the "buzz" that they're close to something. Even certified scientists like Jeff Meldrum have received valid criticism for participating so long in the effort only to come across as opportunistic and driven by fame and fortune which is what most, if not all, Squatchologists are in it for anyways.

That said, the Patterson film has been examined in so many ways I don't think anyone looks to it as the basis but rather a footnote in the Sasquatch lore...kinda like that submarine Loch Ness monster toy picture from 1933.

[–] Crustacean_Predation 9 years ago

I think without a doubt the P-G film has inspired a lot of people to research the subject. Whether they believe it and go searching for it or not really doesn't matter since the point is it keeps interest alive and gets people thinking about the possibility. But it's actually probably better for these creatures if we don't go out looking for them. But if it helps people think about conservation and nature it's still a good thing.

As for if it's really a sasquatch on that video I don't know, there are compelling arguments both ways. I think they are real but I can't decide if that is one. But it doesn't bother me at all about the amount of time that passes without finding one. It's really only been a very short span of time since the video only a very small percentage of people are actively looking. Most of the sightings are just people getting a once in a lifetime glimpse out of pure luck. The 300 reported sightings a year tell me they're out there, so eventually a body will be recovered. It's like pumas, we know they're there, but how often do you see one on the side of the highway?

[–] WhoToTrust 9 years ago

by khodan » While the saying "absence of proof is not proof of absence" is true, how much time must pass before searching without finding becomes an exercise in futility?

I personally don't see what passing time has to do with whether anything has been proven about the existence of BF. The fact that you brought up the P-G film proves that considering when it was taken.

All that passing time does is give more skeptics more time to dispute evidence that's presented, but all of that disputing has never proven the P-G film isn't authentic, so back to square one to the fact that passing time hasn't proven skeptics to be correct.

While the P-G film may not be considered proof in and of itself, it's somewhat telling that's what skeptics always point towards while ignoring all of the documented eyewitness accounts that occurred before and have occurred after.

The real question is, "Why do skeptics always try so hard to dismiss the P-G film?"

The P-G film: easy to dispute, impossible to dismiss.

So in this case, the more accurate comment would be:

"Suggested absence of evidence/proof is not proof of absence", since there IS an abundance of evidence, it's just that skeptics seem prone to simply dismiss it all suggesting finding BF is an exercise in futility.

[–] sonomagirl2120 9 years ago

I have seen the film and heard about Bigfoot all my life but never gave it much thought one way or another until recently. I started watching this show and it made me want to dig further and gather more info. I am now a believer of their existence and kind of hope they never catch or kill one. I also know of two people who had two separate experiences seeing/hearing one.
As for your last paragraph re how much time must pass before it becomes an exercise in futility...well, if you do some research you can go back in time quite a ways and see that stories of their existence have always been around. But now, with our planet getting so polluted and overcrowded, the species might die out before we can ever prove that they do or did exist.

[–] uscfan 9 years ago

There is zero "evidence" bigfoot is real. In fact when all hair and supposed evidence is put to scientific testing it always comes back as another known animal. Eye witness accounts are terrible, ask any cop or DA. In every case it is mistaken identity, and I'm going with bears as the culprit. Bears make all the foot prints as they can walk/run in a way that makes bipedal prints, which has been scientifically proven. The so called evidence these guys tout is flimsy at best and total crap in all other cases. They are not using scientific methods and just assume any noise or broken branch is squatch evidence. Look if a giant bipedal mammal existed we would have found at least a tiny piece of actual evidence, we have nothing. Based on the number of so called sightings we have a population in the thousands, that would leave concrete evidence, just like the loch ness monster, bigfoot is a pipe dream and they will never find one, because there isn't one to find. They are chasing bears and gullible peoples money. Occams Razor is best used here

If your mind is too open, your brain will fall out, too closed and you are a sheep