Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum - America's "Bigfoot Professor"

[River]

River
While your work certainly “indicts” that short sequence of film, Meldrum does NOT use that as part of his “holotype.” It is a disconnected fragment claimed by some to be authentic but is not central to the dogma. ....a proof of fakery would have to depend on debunking the 12 specific casts linked to the PGF as used by Meldrum in his paper.

It is possible to prove every single prominent bigfooter a liar. It is possible to prove by ordinary standards that the timeline is impossible. It is possible to prove by ordinary standards that Bob Heironimus was at Bluff Creek. On and on. All this is the sort of stuff that might go into a book about what probably did and didn’t happen...an update to Greg Longs book if you will.

What I am saying is that Meldrum can easily retreat to the “so what?” position if that clip isn’t Patterson casting the PGF trackway.

We will have to disagree on my bold. The foot casts and trackway Meldrum bases his paper off of are the PGF tracks. It is not only directly related -- but positive proof that these gentlemen presented in the film itself, showing those very footprints and casts to be hoaxed/fake.

 

[Castro]

Know him by the company he keeps:
...Bigfoot researcher Judy Carroll recounted the evolution of a months-long “discussion” she’d been having with a supposed tribe of Sasquatch near a favorite hiking area, conducted with a kind of fluid symbolic glyph-based “language” of rock, stick and food arrangements.

Jeff Meldrum, a professor of Anatomy and Anthropology at Idaho State University, dissected key frames of the famous 1967 Patterson–Gimlin film, espousing at length and in great detail the specific scientific observations made possible by the contentious short and its importance in the history and lore of Bigfoot research.

Rich Germeau, a former sheriff’s deputy in La Push, recounted a dramatic personal Bigfoot interaction and discussed the possibility that the creatures may be able to “project” psychological power somehow, even manipulate humans for their own ends.”
https://www.bainbridgereview.com/li...p-sasquatch-symposium-draws-seekers-skeptics/

Oh my...it seems that the America's Bigfoot Professor finally found his happy place, right between Nutty Lady and the Great Simpleton of La Push.

 

[DennyT]

We will have to disagree on my bold. The foot casts and trackway Meldrum bases his paper off of are the PGF tracks. It is not only directly related -- but positive proof that these gentlemen presented in the film itself, showing those very footprints and casts to be hoaxed/fake.

R
I admire your work. If you are basing that statement on the identication of the cast based on the edge contours of the top side of the cast while it is in the ground, I just don’t think it is strong enough to go to bat with. Just like a bunch of pretty good stuff I have come up with in the past.

 

[River]

R
I admire your work. If you are basing that statement on the identication of the cast based on the edge contours of the top side of the cast while it is in the ground, I just don’t think it is strong enough to go to bat with. Just like a bunch of pretty good stuff I have come up with in the past.

There were only two casts taken/presented as evidence by Patterson correct? Which part do you dispute? Are you saying we cannot distinguish between the right and the left cast from the top side? (that would be false)

 

[The Shrike]

I agree that a proven-fake Patty-print brings Meldrum crashing down (except in the eyes of his true believers for whom he is a classic unsinkable rubber duckie). To do that, i.e., establish to even more people than are today convinced that Meldrum is a crank, here's what needs to be done:

1) demonstrate how Meldrum's thesis re: mid-foot flexibility is completely reliant on a real, live Patty and that the casts he used for his analysis were absolutely created from the impressions of the footfalls of the subject seen in the film

2) demonstrate how the casts Meldrum used in his analysis absolutely could NOT have been created from the impressions of the footfalls of the subject seen in the film

If anyone is in a position to do that, it might be you, River.

 

[DennyT]

Restatement not a quote:
1) demonstrate how Meldrum's thesis re: mid-foot flexibility is completely reliant on a real, live Patty and that the casts he used for his analysis absolutely must have been created from the impressions of the footfalls of the subject seen in the film

I wondered about your first requirement. I have reworded it slightly and removed the quotes. Is my restatement correct? Or...

 

[DennyT]

....They were presented as proof of the event....

River, who presented them ie the pouring sequence and the trackway frames, as proof of the event?
I know that Fig 6 and 9 in Meldrum’s paper come from the doubtful trackway sequence and he seems to claim it is one of Patterson’s, but I don’t think Patterson claimed them to have been made by Patty. Meldrum cites Murphy 2006 as the source. Can someone pull up that ref?

Maybe I missed it but have you compared the image of the flat top of that cast with Meldrum’s 3D scans of the Patterson casts?

 

[DennyT]

I assume the Murphy ref is Meet the Sasquatch. I have the sequel aka second edition 2010 Know the Sasquatch and on p. 143 he writes

The story of these images [cast in the ground, Patterson pouring, track, and Patterson displaying casts.]
Patterson gave René Dahinden about 10 feet of film from the second roll. In about 1996 René had these images produced from that film strip. There is a second image showing Patterson holding casts. I used that image in the first edition of this book.

That is of virtually no help. I would guess that Dahinden came to Patterson in 1971 when he was about to go on his “world tour” to find anyone who would endorse the film. He wanted something new, anything, hopefully the stomp footage that Gimlin talks incessantly about. Patterson didn’t have it, DeAtley took it.
So he gave Dahinden this which could be a patchwork of stuff copied from who knows where or when. Why 10 feet? We know that Patterson made many copies of the PGF. I doubt he was giving away anything original. Most likely Roger just snipped out a section of one of his many “Tour” copies that he would never need again. We know only that if there was a second reel made at Bluff Creek it contains the stomp footage. Without attached stomp footage no footage can be known to be from Bluff Creek that day. The “second roll” name is also applied to “another roll” that Mrs. Patterson sent to the BBC when they also wanted more, something new for yet another Bigfoot show. That was probably the spring footage, which is also now lost.

 

[River]

River, who presented them ie the pouring sequence and the trackway frames, as proof of the event?
I know that Fig 6 and 9 in Meldrum’s paper come from the doubtful trackway sequence and he seems to claim it is one of Patterson’s, but I don’t think Patterson claimed them to have been made by Patty. Meldrum cites Murphy 2006 as the source. Can someone pull up that ref?

Maybe I missed it but have you compared the image of the flat top of that cast with Meldrum’s 3D scans of the Patterson casts?

Not sure I'm with you here. Are you trying to ask if someone has proof that Patterson presented these films as documentation of his claimed event? Both of what is labeled "reel 1" and "reel 2" footage were allegedly shot at Bluff Creek by Patterson and Gimlin during their trip there. That is pretty well documented. If you're asking specifically about the casting footage and who shot it, and where; here is your answer.

 

[River]

I agree that a proven-fake Patty-print brings Meldrum crashing down (except in the eyes of his true believers for whom he is a classic unsinkable rubber duckie). To do that, i.e., establish to even more people than are today convinced that Meldrum is a crank, here's what needs to be done:

1) demonstrate how Meldrum's thesis re: mid-foot flexibility is completely reliant on a real, live Patty and that the casts he used for his analysis were absolutely created from the impressions of the footfalls of the subject seen in the film

2) demonstrate how the casts Meldrum used in his analysis absolutely could NOT have been created from the impressions of the footfalls of the subject seen in the film

If anyone is in a position to do that, it might be you, River.

Maybe so. I have held many exchanges with Meldrum via email regarding this topic. (years ago) I even offered to video a debate about it and have real accredited scientists judge the outcome with a payment going to charity. He did not accept. Meldrum is only interested in one thing; perpetuating the myth.

Perhaps I'll consider writing up a more formal response.

 

[HarryHenderson]

Maybe we need a no-name housewife from the mid-west to pose as the provocateur in this case, but with River feeding her the input to do it. That way the Omaha Times salon.com article headline could read "Nebraska Housewife Destroys Idaho Professor's Life Of Lewd Women And Stupid Theories". No?

 

[Drewbot]

River, who presented them ie the pouring sequence and the trackway frames, as proof of the event?
I know that Fig 6 and 9 in Meldrum’s paper come from the doubtful trackway sequence and he seems to claim it is one of Patterson’s, but I don’t think Patterson claimed them to have been made by Patty. Meldrum cites Murphy 2006 as the source. Can someone pull up that ref?

Maybe I missed it but have you compared the image of the flat top of that cast with Meldrum’s 3D scans of the Patterson casts?

Do we know for sure if the pouring footage shows the 'patty casts'?

 

[DennyT]

Maybe so. I have held many exchanges with Meldrum via email regarding this topic. (years ago) I even offered to video a debate about it and have real accredited scientists judge the outcome with a payment going to charity. He did not accept. Meldrum is only interested in one thing; perpetuating the myth.

Perhaps I'll consider writing up a more formal response.

I applaud your assertive approach to Meldrum. He plays only to the rubes/base when it comes to Bigfoot. I think your objections to the 10 ft strip are valid. And I do think the day is coming. However I don’t think debunking the 10 ft strip is the same as debunking the PGF.
Suppose best case he were to concede that there is uncertainty about that 10 feet of material and just say basically it is not central to his claims, and neither he nor his journal is withdrawing the paper.

 

[River]

I applaud your assertive approach to Meldrum. He plays only to the rubes/base when it comes to Bigfoot. I think your objections to the 10 ft strip are valid. And I do think the day is coming. However I don’t think debunking the 10 ft strip is the same as debunking the PGF.
Suppose best case he were to concede that there is uncertainty about that 10 feet of material and just say basically it is not central to his claims, and neither he nor his journal is withdrawing the paper.

At that point it doesn't matter what he claims or doesn't. The "10 foot strip" represents alleged documentation of the trackway Meldrums paper is on. That same film proves those footprints to be hoaxed. Also of note: You're only speaking on the footage of the trackway when you mention the "10 foot strip". Not the plaster casting footage of Patterson. The "10 foot strip" is alleged to be all that remains of the "second reel" footage they presented. We now know why the other portions disappeared.

 

[Drewbot]

At that point it doesn't matter what he claims or doesn't. The "10 foot strip" represents alleged documentation of the trackway Meldrums paper is on. That same film proves those footprints to be hoaxed. Also of note: You're only speaking on the footage of the trackway when you mention the "10 foot strip". Not the plaster casting footage of Patterson. The "10 foot strip" is alleged to be all that remains of the "second reel" footage they presented. We now know why the other portions disappeared.

But we know that RP had footage of him making casts in the same way, on film, but he handmade the prints.

This is from Grover Krantz' book I believe.

Couldn't Meldrum just say this footage is from that?

 

[River]

But we know that RP had footage of him making casts in the same way, on film, but he handmade the prints.

This is from Grover Krantz' book I believe.

Couldn't Meldrum just say this footage is from that?

Those are most likely one in the same. The footage that was presented, was allegedly shot by Gimlin the day they had the encounter. Gimlin confirms this when I spoke to him on the phone. It's obvious from the film itself that all the footprints were not made at the time of the plaster casting. Those casts made, were the only two presented and brought back from Bluff creek. Gimlin has never claimed there were more than one casting scenes shot on film by him. No one has, except footers looking for excuses.

 

[DennyT]

I assume the Murphy ref is Meet the Sasquatch. I have the sequel aka second edition 2010 Know the Sasquatch and on p. 143 he writes


That is of virtually no help. I would guess that Dahinden came to Patterson in 1971 when he was about to go on his “world tour” to find anyone who would endorse the film. He wanted something new, anything, hopefully the stomp footage that Gimlin talks incessantly about. Patterson didn’t have it, DeAtley took it.
So he gave Dahinden this which could be a patchwork of stuff copied from who knows where or when. Why 10 feet? We know that Patterson made many copies of the PGF. I doubt he was giving away anything original. Most likely Roger just snipped out a section of one of his many “Tour” copies that he would never need again. We know only that if there was a second reel made at Bluff Creek it contains the stomp footage. Without attached stomp footage no footage can be known to be from Bluff Creek that day. The “second roll” name is also applied to “another roll” that Mrs. Patterson sent to the BBC when they also wanted more, something new for yet another Bigfoot show. That was probably the spring footage, which is also now lost.

Murphy’s “Bigfoot Film Journal” is dated 2008 and contains more info on the various frames and sequences variously claimed to be part of the “second roll”, pp. 46-7. The free copy online
https://wwwDOTsasquatchcanadaDOTcom/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/bf_film_journal_ebook_25_feb_2013_s.pdf
does not show the contents of the footnotes unfortunately.
But the appearance of these various frames and sequences seems to have hit and miss and poorly documented at best.

 

[River]

It might be important to keep in mind -- one of the two gentlemen claimed to be there (a third, heironimus?) Bob Gimlin is on record saying he filmed the sequence of Patterson casting those tracks at Bluff Creek.

 

[DennyT]

It might be important to keep in mind -- one of the two gentlemen claimed to be there (a third, heironimus?) Bob Gimlin is on record saying he filmed the sequence of Patterson casting those tracks at Bluff Creek.

Unquestionably it is important. No argument there. But it seems to me to be a good body blow to Meldrum’s paper, not a knockout. The knockout has to be related more closely to the PGF itself. JMHO.

 

[River]

Unquestionably it is important. No argument there. But it seems to me to be a good body blow to Meldrum’s paper, not a knockout. The knockout has to be related more closely to the PGF itself. JMHO.

It is part of the pgf. You mean the walk sequence? The paper is on the footprints, and the casts.