• 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.
Drewbot said:
I swear I've seen some casts that are damn close to this.[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_19705473c868f851c0.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_19705473c869ebe340.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_19705473c86ba9b263.jpg[/qimg]

Can anyone see midfoot flexibility on the last one?
Click to expand...

Great find, Drewbot! I can definitely see the "midfoot flexibility" (in fact, I think that Meldrum's drawing of a hypothetical Sasquatch foot/leg looks like that of a bear). I also think I've found a "Bigfoot track" that's a near match to those pictures

Speaking of bears and Dr. Meldrum, I couldn't help but notice that this track looks a lot like the Himalayan black bear track shown here. Features on this American black bear track casting (found here) also show features that remind me of stuff I've seen on Meldrum's Bigfoot page. I also couldn't help but think of some Bigfoot sightings after reading "It climbed up on the fencepost behind it in one big leap. (Black bears climb very quickly.)" on the page where I found that bear cast picture.

I wonder if Dr. Meldrum ever read this. I'd imagine not, seeing as how the original .PDF seems to be broken.
 
Well, if by "skin whorls" Meldrum means Chilcutt's dermals, he is putting himself at a position very vulnerable to flak.

Tube's showed that casting artifacts can display a morphology that is identical to the alleged dermals. The best one could say about casts with such features is that they are not strong evidence that a real primate foot was the cause of the tracks.

So, ignoring this fact and stating they are "skin wholrs" is not very wise IMHO. Of course, I'm assuming Meldrum is talking about the "dermals", instead of some other features and that the article has not ommited any "it may or may not be" statement he made.

As for the alleged toe movment, similar claims were made by pro-bigfoot posters. Still have not seen anything convincent.
 
Skin whorls? Dermal ridges?

Meldrum won't lead his scientific colleagues to Tube's webpage and experiments. They will only find that if they dig around inside special-interest Internet forums.
 
Drewbot said:
I swear I've seen some casts that are damn close to this.
Click to expand...

Which ones?

thum_19705473c868f851c0.jpg


Can anyone see midfoot flexibility on the last one?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but where are you going with this Drew? Bigfoot print casts that show something like a mid-tarsal break are rare. Meldrum seems to settle on the Titmus cast (plus photo of the actual impression in the sand) from Patty as being the 'type specimen' for the Bigfoot MTB. No way that is a bear print.

The Blue Mountain ones (Freeman/Meldrum) could be bear tracks...

004.jpg


...but we have something that looks like a big toe with decreasing size towards the little toe. IMO, these look nothing like bear or hominoid footprints. They don't look like they were left by any kind of walking animal.

014.jpg

015.jpg


Why are the toes smoothed-out on the bottom - but the sole area is all chunky and textured? To me, these look less like bear tracks than they do like crappy fake Bigfoot tracks.
 
It came from Youtube...

Geno said:
Yes, 1975 Sun Classics picture with Peter Graves.
Click to expand...

Thanks Geno! I should point out that the riding scenes apparently shot at Cowiche Canyon re included in that clip.

Oh, and it looks like someone forgot to send this guy the memo that adding breasts to a hairy costume is too hard. Come to think of it, I wonder how this matches up to the supposed erection in the Redwoods video?
 
William Parcher said:
Why are the toes smoothed-out on the bottom - but the sole area is all chunky and textured? To me, these look less like bear tracks than they do like crappy fake Bigfoot tracks.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, the bear foot in the picture Drewbot posted has (relatively) smooth-looking toes and textured feet. On the other hand, the shape of some of those "Bigfoot tracks" also kinda reminds me of the fake feet that tube used in his experiments.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Which ones?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_19705473c868f851c0.jpg[/qimg]
Maybe, but where are you going with this Drew? Bigfoot print casts that show something like a mid-tarsal break are rare. Meldrum seems to settle on the Titmus cast (plus photo of the actual impression in the sand) from Patty as being the 'type specimen' for the Bigfoot MTB. No way that is a bear print.

The Blue Mountain ones (Freeman/Meldrum) could be bear tracks...

[qimg]http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/004.jpg[/qimg]

...but we have something that looks like a big toe with decreasing size towards the little toe. IMO, these look nothing like bear or hominoid footprints. They don't look like they were left by any kind of walking animal.

[qimg]http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/014.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/015.jpg[/qimg]

Why are the toes smoothed-out on the bottom - but the sole area is all chunky and textured? To me, these look less like bear tracks than they do like crappy fake Bigfoot tracks.
Click to expand...

I was just saying that the front paw, looks like the front half of a bigfoot print.

The back half looks awfully similar to those Blue mtn photos.

I think the grizzly bear foot may have been the working model for the original hoax feet.
 
Drewbot said:
I was just saying that the front paw, looks like the front half of a bigfoot print.
Click to expand...

The front half of which Bigfoot print?

The back half looks awfully similar to those Blue mtn photos.
Click to expand...

The back half of the front bear paw?

I think the grizzly bear foot may have been the working model for the original hoax feet.
Click to expand...

Which original hoax feet? The ones that Freeman may have used in the Blue Mountain mud field, or some others?
 
William Parcher said:
DWA puts the BF skeptics in their place. We know that Coleman didn't delete this posting...
Click to expand...
What a cable-loaded crock. Peer review, anyone?

BTW, does this mean that Elk Cast Guy has changed his position from actively discouraging people from taking casts because of their perceived evidentiary worthlessness? That'd be good to know.
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Who is DWA?
Click to expand...
Woops. Disregard my above BTW. I got my wires crossed and was thinking DWA = Rick Noll. I was probably thinking DDA (damndirytape), which is Noll's handle on the BFF.

DWA is some guy at cryptomundo with stinky logic. Oh look, here's some more:

DWA responds:
November 16th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
stevencrawley78:

you are wrong. Let me show you why you are wrong.

Welcome to the Land Of LOTOH, Where the Skeptics Dwell.

The Legend of the Omnipotent Hoaxer (LOTOH) is my favorite skeptical dodge, because instead of only being stupid, conspiracy-theorist crazy or simply uninformed, it’s actually funny. Not, of course, intentionally funny. But bery funny nonetheless.

The Patty-not-Patrick case is the quintessential application, the type case, if you will. Every time the question comes up: why are there breasts on this one and not on any of the ape-suit hoaxes? We hear “simple. This is how a hoaxer makes it look real.” No discussion of why NOBODY else, in the whole history of fakesquatchery, has tried to do it. (I don’t think anyone has! I’ve never seen another one.) So, what, Patterson is THE ONLY ONE WHO WANTED TO MAKE IT LOOK REAL? He’s a genius! No discussion of how one reason nobody does breasts on a fake is that they’re too afraid it’ll make the fake obvious. (They’re right.)

The Roe drawing? Simple. Patterson copied from Roe. (Patterson’s a genius, and he doesn’t see that the Omnipotent Hoaxer would “make it look real” by shooting a MALE. They do have to reproduce, don’t they?) Dermal ridges? They’re all casting artifacts. Bossburg? REALLY clever one there, Bossburg. Making it look like a cripple? Sheer genius. The midtarsal break? THAT one is so unreal that you’d HAVE to think it’s real, Unless You Know Better. And so on and so on. No discussion of how all these geniuses would rather make no money in a field everyone laughs at (but of course no one laughs! Ridiculed for saying you saw Bigfoot? Never happens, prove it!) than make billions off of stratospheric talent. No discussion of how these geniuses, traveling all over the continent, even to its remotest corners, all happen to be making something that looks like the same species. Or how they’re all comparing notes; is there some clandestine convention or professional society of sas hoaxers we’ve never heard of? Or how One Genius Guy has been running this whole scam, apparently since before whites occupied the continent.

I’m betting that when the animal is confirmed we’re gonna hear somebody say, “See? THAT’s EXACTLY WHAT A HOAXER WOULD DO TO MAKE IT LOOK REAL!” That’ll probably be what Ben Radford says.
Click to expand...
 
kitakaze said:
BTW, does this mean that Elk Cast Guy has changed his position from actively discouraging people from taking casts because of their perceived evidentiary worthlessness? That'd be good to know.
Click to expand...

But speaking of Rick Noll... he has said that he no longer makes castings of Bigfoot tracks. The reason given is that nobody is placing a high evidentiary value on track casts anymore. He does still find them with some regularity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom