• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher said:
Daniel, it's great to see you here. I would love to see you write a follow-up to Bigfoot, Big Con. Do you think there is more for you to speak of three years later?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the welcome. I'm not sure that I do have much more to add to that story just yet; I'm only relieved that it stands up to date. (I was in the first crop of reviewers for Long's book, so there was plenty of room for a misstep. A lot of people seemed to be getting carried away in one direction or the other.)
 
Last edited:
Anyone have a matching cast for these?

I swear I've seen some casts that are damn close to this.

Can anyone see midfoot flexibility on the last one?
 
I was just watching a show on bears last night. They were Brown or Grizzly, but they could definitely flex their back feet. They had an apparent mid-tarsal break in their hind feet which was clearly visible. There's a definite line there where the foot is flexible.
 
An article about Jeff Meldrum and Bigfoot prints is now in Scientific American Magazine.

The 14-inch-long prints Freeman showed him were interesting, Meldrum says, because some turned out at a 45-degree angle, suggesting that whatever made them had looked back over its shoulder. Some showed skin whorls, some were flat with distinct anatomical detail, others were of running feet-imprints of the front part of the foot only, of toes gripping the mud. Meldrum made casts and decided it would be hard to hoax the running footprints, "unless you had some device, some cable-loaded flexible toes."
Click to expand...

Cryptomundo blog on the article with photos of Freeman casts.
 
Tube and DY more than once showed how flawed are Meldrum's reasonings. There's not a single feature in the alleged bigfoot footprint casts that can not be created with fakefeet (rigid or flexible) as well as human feet.

Guess I'll have to bump the thread on Meldrum's paper...
 
If anyone wants to hire these guys to recreate the PGF costume, they said they would quote it, but they need a budget.

I asked; 'would you be able to reproduce the bigfoot costume in the PGF film?'

They Responded:
Dear Mr. xxxx,

If you are interested in recreating that costume, then we need to ask you what price range you are shopping in. Not an estimate of any work we would have to do, just an idea of what range of costs the project has allocated to the costume.

Thanks,
Jim

---------------
Jim Boulden
Animal Makers, Inc.

Designing and Performing Signature Characters
for the Advertising and Entertainment Industries Since 1979
www.animalmakers.com
Phone 805-527-6200 / Fax 805-527-6210
Click to expand...
 
Just a thought - I wonder how many other 'enquiries' they have had since I posted that link (if that's where you got it from that is*)?
----------------------------------------------
John

*ETA - I posted a link to that company some time ago elsewhere - accessible to both proponents & sceptics alike.
 
Last edited:
:hb: :nope:

mystery_man responds:
November 16th, 2007 at 5:11 am
All I can say is that whoever the people are who were able to design a cable loaded, flexible toed foot device for hoaxing that could fool a physical anthropologist who specializes in bipedalism, is perhaps wasting talent that could be used in more useful pursuits than hoaxing.
Click to expand...
 
The Scientific American Magazine article on Jeff Meldrum is excellent. I strongly suggest that skeptics and believers read this. It is probably available on local retail racks right now.
 
mystery_man responds:
November 16th, 2007 at 5:11 am
All I can say is that whoever the people are who were able to design a cable loaded, flexible toed foot device for hoaxing that could fool a physical anthropologist who specializes in bipedalism, is perhaps wasting talent that could be used in more useful pursuits than hoaxing.
Click to expand...
Oh carp. mystery-man, you're a nice guy. Would you like to observe some Memorial Day Footage boobs? They're very apparent.
 
DWA puts the BF skeptics in their place. We know that Coleman didn't delete this posting...

DWA on Cryptojnugle said:
So there it is, skeptics. You are REQUIRED to defend the hoax scenario with evidence. (Find that spring-loaded foot - sorry, both those feet - for me. Better yet, find the guy who made ‘em. He could score a couple billions applying that knowledge to, say, orthopedic medicine.) Saying that scientists like Meldrum are required to do your work for you - and remember that he entered this arena sniffing for a hoax - is something no serious scientist, or anyone with a working knowledge of how science operates, would try to do. You can’t hold scientists to hard standards while you yourself get to be flighty, silly and harebrained. If you are in the debate, take off the clown outift and the makeup, and help those of us who are serious to take you seriously.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
No need to buy the Scientific American Magazine anymore. Apeman on BFF just posted the entire article. Copyright be damned.

That post is followed by the brilliance of Meldrum sycophant Hominid, WA...

Hominid said:
Good for Dr. Jeff! If it were not for outside-the-box thinkers, were would we be today? With persistence and valid science, may one day sooner rather then later, he be vindicated, as well as so many of us here. Good work!
Click to expand...

Yes, where would we be today without out-of-the-box thinkers? We would never know that HIV does not cause AIDS. Rock on, you rebel thinkers!
 
BFF rules be damned...

6. Respect For Copyright

Substantive violation of copyright in any way is expressly forbidden. If you are the copyright or trademark holder of material posted to this forum, and wish for it to be removed, please contact an Administrator immediately.
Click to expand...
 
The Scientific American article is good. Daegling's comment that Bigfoot "evidence doesn't look better on deeper analysis, it looks worse", sums up about two years of my life very well... And this is a bummer, of course, as Bigfoot works so well on an aesthetic, social, and legendary level.

The great problem for me was accepting that not only were the "Bigfoot experts" wrong, but that they were SPECTACULARY WRONG. This is something that I think prevents a lot of the Bigfoot believers from becoming skeptics, as you have to have to realize that these people are not just a little bit wrong, they are DEEPLY wrong. Because one of the social functions of Bigfootery is hero veneration, and it is very difficult to come to terms with your hero failing in a spectacular way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom