Patterson’s Old Woman Bigfoot
Posted by: Loren Coleman on April 24th, 2007
One of the subjects that often is debated is whether Roger Patterson based a supposed and alleged staging of a filmed hoax of a female Bigfoot on his idea of what a female Sasquatch might look like. And did he show his hand in his only book?
In Patterson’s Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? (self-published in 1966), he drew the “old woman,” the seemingly more mature female Sasquatch seen by Albert Ostman, as shown, near Toba Outlet, British Columbia in 1924.
Here is the comparison between that sketch and the well-known black & white apparent public domain photograph taken on October 20, 1967, at Bluff Creek, California, the famed frame from the Patterson-Gimlin footage.
What do you think? Did the 1966 sketch have anything to do with the 1967 Bigfoot? Do you see more similiarities or differences between the two? What are your thoughts on this matter, as we rush forward to the 40th anniversary of the taking of this film?
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
Greg(Not that Greg):
Exactly. Scofftics (not skeptics! Read all posts!) refuse to focus on unquestionable evidence.
Examples?
1. Sightings. I’ve never heard a scofftic who doesn’t sweep them under the rug, in toto, despite their painting an almost complete, and totally consistent, biological picture of a species, complete with key population concentrations that one would expect for such a species. That this would happen with no real animal to back it up is a longer shot than hitting Powerball every week, buying one ticket each time.
2. The unquestionable LACK of evidence that P/G was hoaxed. Scofftics are particularly intellectually lazy on this point (if they’re not lazier on 1. It’s really hard to decide). If you posit a hoax, you must propose a reasoned scenario. Never been done.
2a. You have a P/G scenario? Good. Now for the scenario that all of this evidence is faked. Yep. You need that too. Not a scrap. Scofftics have had a half-century. C’mon.
3. The experts in relevant fields who have pored over P/G and either propose it genuine, or say they can’t tell. (Right they can’t. They can’t say they can tell because of what they would say and what it would do to their livelihoods.)
That’s three; and that’s plenty.
The key scofftic mistake is misunderstanding what “unquestioned evidence” is. It doesn’t mean “unquestionable proof,” just that it is, beyond a doubt, evidence, and merits following up. Sightings that adhere to a pattern which suggests a source external to the observers (Nessie: NOT an example; UFOs: NOT an example; ghosts: NOT an example; the sasquatch: BIG TIME example) are unquestioned evidence, not only of the existence of something, but of the need to search where sightings are concentrated to see what the something that people are seeing might be. You can’t get scientific evidence for something science doesn’t acknowledge. (In other words: the absence of scientific evidence is science’s fault.) That doesn’t mean that there’s no evidence.
It is most certainly skeptical to focus on questionable evidence. Not focusing on the good evidence?
Scofftical.
You have to consider all the evidence. Scofftics consider an infinitesimal fraction of it. (Many sas scholars don’t even consider P/G a major piece of the evidence. Which should indicate how much there is, and how good it is.)
To paraphrase John Green: how odd that people’s imaginations dry up in areas with less than seventeen inches per year annual rainfall. Or that the lower their population concentrations, the more vivid their hallucinations.
Yeah. THAT must be it. That’s the ticket…
Just from reading the anecdotal evidence, I know more about the sasquatch than I know about most animals that science considers to exist. Not what you’d expect from a bunch of folks making stuff up, or seeing things.
Why would any of those examples be unquestionable ?
It is all hearsay and opinion.
Nothing that can be verified .
_________________________________________________
” To paraphrase John Green: how odd that people’s imaginations dry up in areas with less than seventeen inches per year annual rainfall. Or that the lower their population concentrations, the more vivid their hallucinations.”
Funny you should use that example, when it has been shown with actual rainfall data, that it simply isn’t true …
Mr. Green could make statements like that and not be questioned, when he had a receptive audience, and no internet; where in a few seconds anyone can actually Google the facts and show it isn’t true..
Funny how science really works..
G(nG): you need to read what I wrote.
When it’s not recognized by science, it’s not scientific evidence. Doesn’t mean it’s not evidence. And when it shows a pattern that only a scientist could stitch together – and most of the observers aren’t scientists – a scientist who’s thinking (big if there when it comes to the sas) will scratch his head and go, hmmmm.
And all of it can be verified. The sas is a critter. All you have to do is find it. bingo. Verification. Just ask Roger Patterson. Who’s going to look at those reports then and say the observers were lying?
And as to Green’s example, it’s not only true but it’s been corroborated by others. (Like me. I’m telling you. READ SIGHTING REPORTS. I will keep saying it until the blind do see.) Sas sightings are, always, closely correlated with nearby water. And the rainfall that implies.
Unless you have evidence. Which is how science works.
G(nG): elegant example of how science confirms Green.
Bigfoot/Sasquatch Sightings in Texas: Correlations to Annual Rainfall Totals, Waterways, Human Population Densities and Black Bear Habitat Zones
That’s how it works. 😉
DWA: Your example is neither elegant nor reliable evidence for the existence of bigfoot. By whom and how were those sightings compiled? I can cherrypick data, too. Bigfoot isn’t claimed to be encountered in desert areas? Science has not confirmed BF in any way, shape, or form. Simply, there is no reliable evidence for bigfoot whatsoever. Please don’t make the mistake of confusing reliable evidence with proof.
In answer to a request for ‘unquestionable evidence’ what have you offered?
1. Sightings
How reliable are sightings? People have consistently claimed to see UFO’s, el chupacabra, Nessie, and Jesus incarnate. Odd that for this pan-continental beast reported from Alaska to Iowa to NY to Florida that not one alledged encounter has led to any manner of reliable evidence.
2 & 3. The PGF
That the PGF hasn’t been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been hoaxed is unquestionable evidence? You don’t seem to understand what you have been asked for. If you really want the people who count to take the notion of an unidentified North American primate seriously then you’d best be advised to set aside a 40 year old questionable film taken by a questionable man under questionable circumstances of a questionable subject at considerable distance. Surely you have something more substantial to support your claims.
Here you are presented with the fact that Patterson in his only book made a rather skillful drawing (for an ‘aw shucks’ rodeo clown) of a female bigfoot and miraculously in the following year produces what he claims to be a film of a live female bigfoot. Many of the responses here say far more about the nature of BF belief than they do about the subject of the film itself. ‘The picture doesn’t match the film.’ ‘The hair flow is different.’ ‘The boobs are so natural.’ (!?) ‘There is delicate finger movement.’ ‘What about all those sightings?’ Who’s clutching at straws?
BTW, DWA, I noticed another poster credit you with the term ‘scoftic’ and ‘skepticals’ which interestingly you did not refute. Are you in fact the originator of those terms or did you just not find it worth acknowledging?
Let’s have a look a few bigfoot myths-
Scientists/field researchers are not consistently in areas reported to be bigfoot habitat. (Ever heard of the Vancouver Island marmot?)
Hunters have not brought down a bigfoot as they look too human. (Tell that to the dead humans accidentally brought down by hunters.)
Nobody finds bears dead of natural causes. (Come to the JREF for some not so lovely pictures.)
DWA, you say that skeptics ignore the full body of evidence. I think I’ll pass on the invitation to weak coffee. Would you be interested in a lovely knitted sweater? You can have and enjoy it on the condition that you don’t pull at all the loose threads hanging all about it as it will quickly and completely fall apart if you do. Just like the case for bigfoot.
If the position of bigfoot skeptics is so flawed then I invite you, DWA, to come and demonstrate this to us at the JREF where we discuss the bigfoot phenomenom. Many of us would be thrilled to be served a fat dish of crow where bigfoot is concerned because really, how cool would that be? I’m looking forward to any reliable evidence (again, not proof) you have to offer in support of bigfoot’s existence. Otherwise, I’d suggest coming up with a more meaningful distinction between ‘scoftic’ and ‘skeptic’or at least being a little more forthright about knowledgable BF skeptics.
kitakaze
kitakaze: I can wait until you read my posts again. People who don’t read carefully come off looking like scofftics.
Scofftic: skeptic who pays no attention to any evidence that doesn’t fit pet theorems.
And who serves up lots of weak coffee. (All those “bigfoot myths”: easily refuted. Been done lots of times on this site. Mostly by me. Use that Search, man. Please don’t make me do it again, OK?)
Oh, BTW: Bigfoot have been shot, more than once. At least once fatally. One shot, good rifle. Yep, I’ve put up the link to that one too, right here, read all about it. READ SIGHTING REPORTS. I know, broken record. But folks just ain’t doing it.
Waiting for a sas to climb into your truck ain’t gonna get it done. Following evidence? Now THAT has a track record.
DWA: I read your posts carefully. Interesting yet typical that you responded to mine without answering any of the questions posed to you. Where is this reliable evidence of bigfoot? Bigfoot has been shot? Lovely. Reliable evidence? You were stating it as fact, you know. I’ve been reading sightings reports for the better part of my like. Again, el chupacabra, Nessie, UFO’s, and Jesus Incarnate. Nice try with the reversal but a whole lotta paltry evidence is indeed weak coffee. Funny that when you are faced with an actual informed BF skeptic you offer nothing but evasion. I’m taking it that you’re declining an invitation to step up to bat with us at the JREF.
DWA, all your base are belong to me!
All right, kitakaze, all right. [sigh, here we go again…]
(BTW: I don’t have much use for scofftic forums. If the thinking in your post is typical of the breed of “skepticism” at whatever-JREF-means, I can skip. Open minds are my meat, closed ones my punching bag. But my arms get sooooooo tired.)
Let’s knock off the myths first.
“Scientists/field researchers are not consistently in areas reported to be bigfoot habitat. (Ever heard of the Vancouver Island marmot?)”
Yep, the wolf too. How many of them do you think the marmot researchers saw? How many cougar, how many wolverine? Added up, probably many more of those animals on VI than there are sas. Plus the sas seems a damsight smarter. Plus, the marmot people weren’t looking for sas evidence. This scofftic idea that you’re gonna see everything when you’re looking for one thing is an idea whose time has went. But it’ll remain live, as long as scofftics don’t get out much.
Hunters have not brought down a bigfoot as they look too human. (Tell that to the dead humans accidentally brought down by hunters.)
Humans kill humans hunting for precisely one reason: they DO NOT SEE THEM AS HUMAN. They fire at movement, or at a patch of color they haven’t identified as to what it might be. What you are saying – know it or not – is that hunters deliberately commit murder. (Don’t believe me? Think about what you wrote. See, I read what you post.)
Oh. And I said this: hunters – and fools with guns – have shot at sas, deliberately. One’s been killed, but accidentally. (Manitoba. On the BFRO database. Come back when you’ve read it. BFRO.net. Surf from there; it’s easy.)
“Nobody finds bears dead of natural causes. (Come to the JREF for some not so lovely pictures.)”
I’ll pass. But I’ve hiked in woods packed with bear for over a quarter century and haven’t found so much as a claw. Sure, I’ve seen plenty live ones. Woods packed with them, remember? There are fewer sas in North America than there are bears in PA or VA, maybe fewer in the continental US than there are bears in NJ or MD. For any big animal, you’ll see many live ones for each corpse you find – unless there ain’t many. (Oh. Like two deer carcasses for me, lifetime, in country beyond packed with deer.) But again, scofftics don’t get out much.
The absence of carcasses is an eyebrow raiser for skeptics like me. But not as eyebrow raising as the idea that all the evidence has been cleverly – and I mean really cleverly – faked. You need to find someone that clever. good luck with that. I can see how no one’s REPORTED – that’s REPORTED – finding sas remains. It’s a stretch; but not a big enough one for a biologist (like, oh, say, George Schaller) to find implausible. The Omnipotent Hoaxer? Nonexistent cryptid; but one scofftics firmly believe in. I described him to my kids; they laughed, and they still believe in the Easter Bunny.
And now for your take on sightings. (And yes, sighting report databases are the source of the above estimates – like they are for known animals.)
“How reliable are sightings? People have consistently claimed to see UFO’s, el chupacabra, Nessie, and Jesus incarnate. Odd that for this pan-continental beast reported from Alaska to Iowa to NY to Florida that not one alledged encounter has led to any manner of reliable evidence.”
That’s a typical scofftic take, the scofftic making the mistake of lumping the sas with those characters. Big mistake there. Sighting reports there are for all those para-critters. And they’re all over the map as to what’s being seen. (Quick! Describe a chupacabra.) I hate repeating myself, but here goes for the 1,000th time: sas reports can be plotted on a bell curve that when you look at it you go: that’s what a species looks like. The odds against that happening, if these people are seeing things? Don’t play them, man. BTW, “seeing things” is the most laughable explanation I have ever heard for anything, particularly anything seen this often, with reports this consistent. I can say with confidence, in fact, that I have never seen-things, one time, in my entire life. Neither has anyone I know. But scofftics lean on this, all the time. Bad crutch.
Somebody needs to stretch somebody’s comfort zone. READ SIGHTING REPORTS. (It’s OK. I have a machine type it for me now. 😉 )
And what do you say to people like MultipleEncounters, who know? Hmmmmm? (I peeked. I know what he says to you. 😀 )
And guess I have to toss this in too.
“Here you are presented with the fact that Patterson in his only book made a rather skillful drawing (for an ‘aw shucks’ rodeo clown) of a female bigfoot and miraculously in the following year produces what he claims to be a film of a live female bigfoot. Many of the responses here say far more about the nature of BF belief…”
Not really. But that passage says much about scofftic belief. You guys see a drawing – you note yourself that it’s too good for Patterson to have done it, and it doesn’t look like Patty even if he did – and you immediately think hoax. When there’s a much more logical explanation.
Nice straw, man! 😀
Whoa what have I just walked in on? 🙂 I can see some good points being made on both sides actually, but a bit of fire being spewed here! Kitakaze, being originally a pretty out and out skeptic myself, I can relate to a lot of the ideas being put forth by you and if I was in a devil’s advocate mood, I might be supporting some of what you are saying. But DWA does have some good counter points to be made as well. It’s too late here in Japan for me to really start a long post right now, so I’ll see how long this debate has dragged on tomorrow. It is good to see a full fledged debate roaring here, but I do hope that you don’t lose your heads too much and remain civilized!
Kitakaze- By the way, since I live in Japan and am fluent in Japanese, I could not help but notice that your name means North Wind. Were you aware of that and if so, any significance to it? I’d be interested to know. I know, off topic, but I am curious.
Note, mystery_man, when you come back here tomorrow :-D, that I haven’t labeled an individual a “scofftic,” yet.
I wait until I see the evidence that they just aren’t reading to do that. Because brother, I read.
Sorry, guys, but I’m off work today.
kitakaze says: “DWA: Your example is neither elegant nor reliable evidence for the existence of bigfoot. By whom and how were those sightings compiled?”
Answer: by someone who reads sighting reports, and notes what they say. (TBRC is doing real science in TX. Elegant? ohyeah. Not acknowledging that there’s something going on there – and elegantly pointed out and summed up – is sounding suspiciously scofftic to me. Don’t MAKE me call you a scofftic.)
“I can cherrypick data, too. ”
Don’t I know THAT. 😉
“Bigfoot isn’t claimed to be encountered in desert areas?”
Um, yeah. (Saaaaay. You DIDN’T read that link, did you?) Along or near waterways, always.
“Science has not confirmed BF in any way, shape, or form.”
And you’re blaming me for that? Go get mad at them; they’re the lazy ones.
“Simply, there is no reliable evidence for bigfoot whatsoever. Please don’t make the mistake of confusing reliable evidence with proof.”
As I didn’t. Saaaay. You’re not reading ANYTHING that doesn’t agree with you….? Don’t MAKE me call you a scofftic. 😉
quick post for Mystery_Man. I live in Japan also. I’m a Canadian ex-pat and have been here 4 years. My wife, son, step-mother, and extended family are Japanese. Before coming here I lived with Japanese in Canada since I was 16. Naturally, I’m fluent as Japanese is my primary mode of communication. I’m well aware of what kita kaze means as it was the title of the first record I produced as a house and techno music producer when I was still a teenager. ところで、日本のどこに住んでるのか？僕は東京に住んでる。
DWA: For someone who talks so much of reading post properly and getting out you’re not doing so well.
The Vancouver Island marmot is Canada’s most endangered species and one of the rarest mammals in the world. Field researchers work tirelessly to preserve this species and it’s habitat is right where bigfoot is supposed to be. A wolf eats a marmot, they know about it. A cougar eats a marmot, they know about it. You’re not doing your homework as you think wolverines are on Van Isle. Bigfoot stars such as Kathy Strain have at least the intellectual forthrightness to say ‘good point, I don’t know’. Researchers meticulously work in the field document exactly what’s going on in that environment. If an 8ft bipedal primate which according to your sightings reports often exhibits engaging behaviour to human activity is there than evidence will be found.
On the hunter point you are showing particularly poor reading comprehension. Nevertheless, you have assisted me. Hunting accidents involving human fatalities involve hunters firing at movement. Yes, there’s far too many such cases. Anyway, oops, I shot a bigfoot. I mean, yay! I shot a bigfoot! I asked you for reliable evidence of a fatal bigfoot shooting. What did you give me? Manitoba. Come back when I’ve read it? I’ve read it many times. Nice illustrations. You’re not doing to well by offering anecdotes. How about Ape Canyon? You don’t seem to comprehend the meaning of reliable evidence but that’s no surprise.
Don’t fancy a debunk on dead bears? That’s fine. Never heard of the JREF? Wow, not too versed, are you? The point is that your body of sightings evidence contradicts the fact that there is no carcass. Proponents talk about sas in the deepest, most inaccessible, untouched places but hey, man, one word. Iowa. Nevermind that, recent BFRO entry- farm on the outskirts of Victoria, BC. Cherrypicking time, no?
I’m sorry that you don’t like the point about el chupacabra, Nessie, or UFO’s but they are reported in a consistent descriptive manner. You respond by trotting out Fahrenbach. That’s sad. He also thinks Mary Green’s hair samples have shown that BF is genetically indistinguishable from humans. Ouch.
More DWA reading problems- you think I said the old lady drawing was too good for Patterson. Try again. Proponents often appeal to an image of Patterson as too simple to have made such a hoax as what we see in his film. Here in a book a year prior to his famous film we see an skilled illustration by him of a female sasquatch. Why do I need to repeat myself?
Unfortunately, you’re wearing your experience on your sleeve by saying that bigfoot hasn’t been reported in desert areas. Three words- read the sightings.
Again, DWA, all your base are belong to me.
kitakaze
kitakaze:
“DWA: I read your posts carefully. Interesting yet typical that you responded to mine without answering any of the questions posed to you…”
OK, you’re NOT reading.
Come back when you have some info.
DWA wrote: “OK, you’re NOT reading.” How so? I think you’re confused.
“Come back when you have some info.” About? You are the one who seems woefully lacking in that department. Posting a lot and repeating yourself doesn’t strengthen your points in any way at all.
kitakaze: show me what you know. ONE post.
You’ve given me what I consider the Urban Objections to the sasquatch: those that could be given by anyone whose total exposure is one screening of the P/G film at their book club – and no time outdoors at all.
If you could get beyond that, we could talk. I do have to say this, though: I don’t consider anyone who tosses sightings, out of hand, as evidence worth wasting time on. It’s indicative of, well, an Urban Objector.
I need someone who’s read up a bit. Someone interested in true skeptical discourse could have come up with at least ten leading questions – check that, forty – from what I’ve put up.
But a scofftic posts something like, well, you did.
But I do have to say something about one of the funniest Urban Objector fixtures: the idea that a scientist seeing a sasquatch in the backcountry would come running out of the woods trumpeting the fact.
If a cougar ate one of those marmots, they’d know. If a wolf ate one, they’d know.
If the evidence pointed clearly to the sasquatch as the single greatest threat to the marmot: you can bet your last grant dollar that no one outside of those researchers would EVER find that out. “Um….er…..lotta cougars here, huh?…”
Biologists care about where their next dollar is coming from, and they sure aren’t going to jeopardize that, ya think?
Kitakaze says:
“You’re not doing your homework as you think wolverines are on Van Isle.”
Really? OK, then I’ll let you talk to someone who is: Try this.
Which of course says nothing about the sasquatch. About which the evidence – take it from a true skeptic – says that its existence is still a VERY open question.
kitakaze: stop speed-reading, man!
You asked the same question twice. The first time:
““Bigfoot isn’t claimed to be encountered in desert areas?”
I answered:
“Um, yeah. (Saaaaay. You DIDN’T read that link, did you?) Along or near waterways, always.”
[Translation: YES there are desert sightings. Always near water, indicating that the animals use watercourses as travel routes to get from one well-watered area to another.]
Then you said: “Unfortunately, you’re wearing your experience on your sleeve by saying that bigfoot hasn’t been reported in desert areas. Three words- read the sightings.”
I agree, man. DO it. But SLOW DOWN. Then I won’t have to repeat myself.
At least I’m slowly making a convert. Man, they’re right. Missionary work is TOUGH. 😀
Kitakaze- I have lived in Japan for 11 years. My wife and extended family are also Japanese too. Interesting about your name. I won’t keep this off topic too much, just interesting to see someone in similar circumstances to me. oh and by the way 私も東京に住んでいる。
DWA: I’ll get to the rest of you post a little later this evening as I’m short for time now but I wanted to apologize about my blunder concerning Van Isle wolverines. I should be doubly embarrassed as I now distinctly remember making the exact same mistake some time ago at the JREF. I’m sorry.
Now, as for sightings as evidence, I long argued at the JREF that they should be considered but the simple fact is that without corroborating evidence they will never singularily or as a whole rise to the level of reliable evidence. It’s hard for many not to look at people like Dr. Matthew Johnson’s claimed encounter and not find it credible but one really needs to take careful heed of the circumstances surrounding such claims. What do you think of the current state of the BFRO’s database?
You stated as fact that a sasquatch has been fatally shot. I asked for reliable evidence of this. You then responded with the very old Manitoba anecdote. Can we agree that your assertion is not an established fact?
Sorry, one more thing- you still haven’t clarified whether or not you refute claim to being the originator of the terms ‘scoftic’ and ‘skepticals’.
Please stay on topic about the “Old Woman.”
If you wish to talk about “scotific,” please go here: Is “Scoftic” A Useful Term?.
If you wish to get into personal issues, take it offline and go private.
Thank you.
kitakaze: I’m presuming the following aren’t too too far off topic as yours is still up.
Wolverine: hey, stuff happens. It’s appparently barely hanging on on VI because, well, wolverines need lots of room and VI is, well, an island. But it once ranged over it, east to west.
The only thing that can be done with sightings is to vet them for reasonability; note where there are concentrations of them; and follow those concentrations up to collect better evidence. If you could consider sightings proof I’d take MultipleEncounters’ word for it and be done. Boy, he sounds like it happened to him. But until the rest of us see the confirmation, we’re stuck where we are, wondering. I’d just like to see the field go somewhere, and so far hashing over 50-year-old evidence hasn’t cut it. That’s what makes sightings important, to me: that’s where they were JUST seen, not in 1967.
I wish I knew what to think about the BFRO in general. Things are looking a weetad sloppy over there right now. But I sure can’t just take it for granted that the reports up there are faked. Not all of them; not most; not even a significant minority, unless someone can show evidence I can accept. There are too many voices in those reports; they sound like the Great American Novel. They have a genuine ring to them. And I’m cautious about confusing the integrity of the people taking reports with those reporting them. That said: There ARE people of integrity over there; it’s that thing about one bad apple spoiling (or not?) the bunch.
The Manitoba report is like any other. By itself it could be anything. So I don’t know. But when people say, nobody’s shot one, well, maybe someone has. That’s as far as you can go; but it’s not definite that no one has. And why would this guy, if he did it, be the only one who has, and he just decided to say something when, decades later, he found out what it was?
I most definitely refute any claim to having coined any crypto term. But a new thread looks like it took care of that one for me. Sorry I missed it the first time you mentioned it; there seemed bigger fish to fry. 😉
Well, I have been away for a couple of days, so I guess I kind of missed out on the tail end of this debate, and it looks like it has wound down so I look forward to exchanging ideas on another thread in the future.
Kitakaze- I am glad you are on this site and posting your ideas, so as far as I’m concerned please don’t think too much of anyone saying “why are you here?”. Your input is appreciated from my end. I find it very interesting that we come from completely opposite ends of the spectrum as far as our interest in this field. As I understand it, you once were a supporter of the existence of Bigfoot and slowly came to be a skeptic. As for me, I started out a skeptic and a rather close minded one at that, and slowly came to where I am today being quite a bit more open minded based on my own research of what is out there. I am still a long way from saying that Bigfoot definately exists, but I am now more than willing to look at any sort of evidence, circumstantial as it may often be. I am willing to look at both evidence for and against Bigfoot and I am perfectly able to accept either as free as possible from any preconceived belief. I still play devil’s advocate with myself relentlessly. I just am seeking the truth, whatever that may be. Look forward to some interesting input from you in the future.
That’s all I have to say in closing on this thread. Everything else will be about the “old woman”. Promise! 🙂