Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

Sweaty, doing a bit of research before getting excited and posting is not a bad idea at all... For example, you seem to accept it may be a human footprint and even consider it may be a bigfoot footprint solely based on the info available at the newspaper article. But there are two questions you should have asked before even considering it may be a human footprint. Here they are-
1. What is the age of the rock where the alleged footprint was found?
2. The alleged footprint was found at what type of rock?

A quick Googling indicates that the odds are not very good for it being a preserved human (or bigfoot) footprint. Cookesville is located over a karstic area. This means the most common rocktype are limestones. Regardless of the age, limestones are chemical or biological sediments deposited in water bodies (lagoons, reefs, shallow seas, etc.). Now, do you think a bigfoot would be wandering around those environments? Not to mention that it seems the age of the rocks is Paleozoic. No primates (actually no mammals at al) back then.

Of course, there may be some younger deposits of the right age and environment, but I would not hold my breath. On the other hand, being a karstic area, it offers preservation chances for younger animal remains inside the caves. But this is valid only for real animals.

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_94148.htm
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005AM/finalprogram/abstract_94320.htm

 

[LAL]

The Bible is a mixture of myths from various sources and historical (as well as semi-historical) accounts with varied amounts of fiction, written by many individuals. Some places cited at the Bible are real, some people were real, some accounts are of real facts.Nope. Saying an individual is using poor methodology and biased analysis is not an ad hom, since person is not being attacked. My critics are directed towards what I consider to be poor methodology, and this includes taking the literal veracity of a religious text as the immutable starting point and then start looking for reasons to prove it correct (or not wrong). It is an analogy with the way I see his bigfoot research- the starting point (bigfeet are real) is based on belief, not in good reliable evidence and is not subject to change. No, he is not alone, many a footer do the same thing.

Some of the sites existed in the 7-8th centuries when most of the OT was written, but not when the events supposedly happened (Jerico was abandoned, e.g.) or were destroyed but by earthquake, Egyptians or the Sea People. There's a lack of outside corroboration and physical evidence on the people so we don't know they existed in the way we know Julius Caesar or Ahmose existed. I'm not at all interested in looking up the thread you mentioned. I get my kicks arguing with creationists on YouTube and reading books.

Note Meldrum refutes creationists and says the DNA evidence does not support the Mormon story. He does say nice things about his wife. We have a constitutional right in this country to believe any cockamany religious thing we wish and I have never seen where he's mixed his religion into his work on our North American ape.

I don't think you're in a position to know what "footers" do.

He may be an expert, but the evidence (or the lack of) indicates he is wrong when it comes to bigfeet being real.

In your opinion. He shot down your "improbable foot" agument quite handily, IMO.

He examined and scanned all those casts and obtained exactly what? Has he found two with the same "dermals"? Has he found "dermals" which can not be explained as casting artifacts?

There are a total of about four casts that show dermals at all. Jimmy Chilcutt gave the word on those (Meldrum does not pretend to be a forensic fingerprint expert), and he requires a line to have the characterisics before he'll call it a dermal ridge. Casting artifacts might bear a superficial resemblance to dermatoglyphics, but they aren't the same. Do you think dermals are the only marks of a living foot?

The scanning is so others can examine them without having to go to his lab. It's a service. I've seen a few of the first ones. Apparently the work is now complete so I'll have to find the link and look at the rest.

He used evidences suspected of being a hoax (PGF and the casts produced by Paterson) as the backbone of his paper. This is weak evidence and poor data handling IMHO.

Suspected of being a hoax is not the same as IS a hoax. Some people think the moon landing was a hoax.

In his book, Dr. Meldrum is very thorough in explaining why the PGF and associated prints and casts were not a hoax. Krantz' book was unique in not relying on anecdotal evidence. Meldrum's does much the same. Remind me to start saying "Read Meldrum".

I see a pattern too. Weak evidence (misidentifications and hoaxes included) accepted as reliable pieces of evidences and being used to build flawed reasonings and conclusions. Belief creating analysis bias. Even in the highly unlikely case of bigfeet being real the methodology he is using will still be poor.

IOW, these animals don't exist therefore all the evidence is hoaxed or misidentified and anyone thinking otherwise is a fruitcake.

I posted the Shoot the Messenger fallacy as much for the poster who didn't get it when I referred to it earlier as for you. I think it does apply. A theory has to stand on its own without regard for the belief system of the person proposing it. Darwin studied for the ministry, but the ToE still holds up.

Here's two of them, you will find more of after some Googling if you want.
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bf-me/

Rillo777 is not the SN of anyone I've ever encountered in life or on any of the boards I've seen. Coleman's is a public forum and being a member of any BF related organization is not a requirement for posting.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=22995&st=33

Are you talking about Pywacket? He's a member of several groups, including one southern one that has an annual bigfoot hunt. Wish them luck. He's no more typical of people in the organizations than I am, and at least one has kicked him out.

No. I have "a problem" with religious fundamentalism and pseudoscience.

And I have a problem with people labeling investigations they don't approve of as "pseudoscience". Even some of Meldrum's critics have praised his methodology as well as his persistence.

Any new idea gets its share of flak before it becomes the consensus. A hundred years ago it was considered sacreligious to even contemplate the atom. The early quantum physicists were opposed by no less a personage than Einstein.

If and when someone brings in a body or a large piece of one Meldrum's science may look a lot less "pseudo".

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...One other thing is that there must be a margin for error somewhere. This is why I asked for the actual measurements. Exactly, how much did Meldrum, et. al. allow for possible error? A range of 80-90 indicates a large margin of error IMO and it easily could go the other way to the more human measurement of 72.

Behold the NASI report...
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm

 

[LAL]

Folks - this thread has been running pretty much continuously for over 3 years! And it has grown a tad unwieldy to say the least. My intention is to make a split from it to a new thread from some point in the last 2 weeks - any suggestions where would be a good place to make such a split would be much appreciated!

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

Oh, no! Don't split it! We're trying to set a record!

 

[mangler]

Lu,

There is this from Knights the wanna be where he describes the last part of Long’s trip down.

“a. traveled south on Route 96 until he came to “Willow Creek” (p. 347) (later amended to “or one of those little towns”), and that “right outside town” (p. 347) or “right as you hit town” (p. 368)”

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=4395&st=429 somewhere on that page

BH also said something to the effect of “I went up a hill after I left the main road”. That pretty much describes the beginning of Cedar Camp Road. Once topside the road follows ridgelines until it gradually drops down into the Bluff Creek drainage, no major elevation gain or loss.

“…but the Christmas flood of 1964 washed out most of the Bluff Creek section, and in 1965, the proposed road was rerouted. Using a timber-access road already in existence (the so-called Eyesee Road, north from Orleans), it would climb quickly onto the high ridges, then follow the ridge systems north to a point beyond Flint Valley…” A Road Runs Through It, pg. 80

In 1967 the Cedar Camp Road was a pretty damn good mountain road. When someone like Knights has issues with BH using the term “pull up a long hill” all I can say is that’s exactly the term I would use, switchback or not.

Now don’t get me wrong I think Long’s book sucks and I think this for the same reason I believe most PGF research sucks, nobody ever goes the distance in nailing things down. There is simply too much bum information from both skeptics and proponents, all we get from this is nit picking and that gets old fast. At present it all seems to be rhetorical BS, round and round we go.

Interpret this info. any way you please, but be aware that I am not basing any conclusions on it.


m

 

[Correa Neto]

Some of the sites existed in the 7-8th centuries when most of the OT was written, but not when the events supposedly happened (Jerico was abandoned, e.g.) or were destroyed but by earthquake, Egyptians or the Sea People. There's a lack of outside corroboration and physical evidence on the people so we don't know they existed in the way we know Julius Caesar or Ahmose existed. I'm not at all interested in looking up the thread you mentioned. I get my kicks arguing with creationists on YouTube and reading books.

Darius and Cyrus are cited at the OT. So, there is external corroboration for some individuals. Others, such as David, are of dubious historicity, despite having some interesting realistic personality traits. Of course, most probably are not backed by anything other than the texts and oral traditions, eventually.

Note Meldrum refutes creationists and says the DNA evidence does not support the Mormon story. He does say nice things about his wife. We have a constitutional right in this country to believe any cockamany religious thing we wish and I have never seen where he's mixed his religion into his work on our North American ape.

So what?
My critics are aimed at the use of poor methodology to defend the veracity of a religious text. The text in question has a number of claims. If these claims were real, there would be reliable pieces of physical evidence left.
This has nothing to do with saying good things about wives and constitutional rights. These things can not make the Book of Mormon or bigfeet more real.

In your opinion. He shot down your "improbable foot" agument quite handily, IMO.

I don't think so, since he left all the questions I raised unanswered. Do I need to dig the linkies?
Note that a very similar argument was raised by a specialist at that "Best Evidence" bigfoot episode. And once again, no answer (OK, in this case it may have been edited or the questions just never posed to Meldrum).

There are a total of about four casts that show dermals at all. Jimmy Chilcutt gave the word on those (Meldrum does not pretend to be a forensic fingerprint expert), and he requires a line to have the characterisics before he'll call it a dermal ridge. Casting artifacts might bear a superficial resemblance to dermatoglyphics, but they aren't the same. Do you think dermals are the only marks of a living foot?

The scanning is so others can examine them without having to go to his lab. It's a service. I've seen a few of the first ones. Apparently the work is now complete so I'll have to find the link and look at the rest.

Two identical dermal patterns in consecutive footprints?
No.
Patterns that exclude the possibility of casting artifacts?
No.
Features that can be unequivocally attributed to the real feet of real bigfeet?
No.

Suspected of being a hoax is not the same as IS a hoax. Some people think the moon landing was a hoax.

False analogy. The evidence that backs Moon landings are incredibly superior to the evidence that bigfeet are real.

Do you really thing its OK to back a paper on data suspected of being hoaxed?
I say no.

In his book, Dr. Meldrum is very thorough in explaining why the PGF and associated prints and casts were not a hoax. Krantz' book was unique in not relying on anecdotal evidence. Meldrum's does much the same. Remind me to start saying "Read Meldrum".

Meldrum's or Krantz's books contain reliable evidence?
No. The best they can do is try to convince the reader that the available evidence are better than they actually are.
Meldrum's book does not rely on eyewitness reports? These are anedoctal pieces of evidence, LAL.

IOW, these animals don't exist therefore all the evidence is hoaxed or misidentified and anyone thinking otherwise is a fruitcake.

Its the second time you make this false sweeping statement. Can you prove I think every single person who believes in bigfeet is a fruitcake? You can not and this is not true. The fact that I don't think bigfeet are real does not mean I consider everybody who believes in them a fruitcake or whatever other insulting term you like. These emotionally-driven arguments can not help your cause.

I posted the Shoot the Messenger fallacy as much for the poster who didn't get it when I referred to it earlier as for you. I think it does apply. A theory has to stand on its own without regard for the belief system of the person proposing it. Darwin studied for the ministry, but the ToE still holds up.

Nope. Ad hominen means offense to the person, not to his/hers position. What I say is that there is evidence that when belief is at stake, he may loose objectivity and impartiality. I backed this with his article on DNA and Mormonism. I fail to see how this can be a personal offense.
Darwin's work "still hold" because they were based on good data. This is not bigfoot's case. Darwin, as far as I know, never used data suspected of being hoaxed to back evolution. I hope I will not read something about Piltdown man in your reply.

And I have a problem with people labeling investigations they don't approve of as "pseudoscience". Even some of Meldrum's critics have praised his methodology as well as his persistence.

Persistent? Yes, he seems to be.
But using data suspected of being a hoax to back a paper is poor methodology IMHO.
Like it or not most of bigfootery currently is pseudoscience, despite of the efforts of some footers. As long as bigfootery keep depending on flawed data it will still be pseudoscience. Bring on reliable evidence and sound reasonings and its status may be upgraded.

Any new idea gets its share of flak before it becomes the consensus. A hundred years ago it was considered sacreligious to even contemplate the atom. The early quantum physicists were opposed by no less a personage than Einstein.

Oh, yes... "They laughed at Columbus and Galileo"... Another common fallacious line... Heck, LAL, if you want to build a solid case you should try to avoid falling in to the traps/tactics described at this link (http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm).

It was just another false analogy, LAL.
Look at the quality of the evidence and methodology presented by QM folks. Now compare this with what’s been used to back bigfoot's reality.

If and when someone brings in a body or a large piece of one Meldrum's science may look a lot less "pseudo".

I will not be holding my breath.
As I wrote before, even in the highly unlikely case of bigfeet being real the methodology he is using now will still be poor, the evidence will still be of questionable quality.

 

[LAL]

Getting back to the "IM index". Since LAL was not going to provide numbers, I chose to look at Wikipedia. According to it, Meldrum states his IM index is 80-90. That is a wide range to make it "the same as". Most important is that the average human is 72.

See? Anybody can Google. I'm sure I've already posted a link to John Green's article and Dr. Meldrum's comments sometime within the last three years. It's been so long I forgot the frame#. It's 72, not 52.

http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp

Dr. Napier's article was probably on Bobbie Short's site. The australopithecine IM index showed up somewhere, but I don't remember where and I had no time to do a search. I have 2500 articles on evolution saved in my AOL favorites and it's likely to be in there, but the AOL browser crashes the desktop and who has time for all that?

In his book Dr. Meldrum noted Steindorf's measurement fit well with his own aproximation of 80-90. There's a picture of the arm and leg from the digital skeleton showing they're the same length.

Lest anyone think Dr. "Moroni" Meldrum only appears on TV between writing on the children of Lehi and sasquatch foot morphology, this a page of links to some of his other works and accomplishments, including getting a grant for his NAAP from the Mayfield Foundation.

http://www.isu.edu/search/?cx=017622041740386324724:9ygqcyufsao&cof=FORID:11&q=Meldrum&sa=Search#942

He's published and tenured.

Publications

Journals:

2006 MacPhee RDE and DJ Meldrum. Postcranial remains of extinct Antillean monkeys (Platyrrhini, Callicebinae, Xenotrichini). American Museum Novitates 3516, 65 pp.

2004 Meldrum, DJ. Midfoot flexibility, fossil footprints, and Sasquatch steps: New perspectives on the evolution of bipedalism. J. Scientific Exploration 18:67-79.

2003 Meldrum, DJ and Stephens, TD. Who are the Children of Lehi? Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12:38-51.

1998 Kay, RF, Johnson, D and Meldrum, DJ. A new pitheciin primate from the middle Miocene of Argentina. Am. J. Primatol. 45:317-336.

1997 Meldrum, DJ, Dagosto, MD and White, J. Hindlimb suspension and hindfoot reversal in Varecia variegata and other arboreal mammals. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 103:85-102.

1997 Meldrum, DJ and Kay, RF. A new genus of pitheciine primate from the Miocene of Colombia. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 102:407-427.

Edited Volumes:

2004 Meldrum, DJ. Fossilized Hawaiian footprints compared to Laetoli hominid footprints. In DJ Meldrum and CE Hilton (eds.), From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Modern Human Walking, Running, and Resource Transport. pp. 63-84 , New York: Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publishing.

2004 Hilton, CE and Meldrum, DJ, Walkers, Runners, Transporters. In DJ Meldrum and CE Hilton (eds.), From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Modern Human Walking, Running, and Resource Transport. pp. 1-8, New York: Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publishing.

2004 Meldrum, DJ and Hilton, CE (eds.), From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Modern Human Walking, Running, and Resource Transport. New York: Kluwer Academic and Plenum Publishing.

2002 Hartwig, WC and Meldrum, DJ. Miocene platyrrhines of the northern Neotropics. In WC Hartwig (ed.) The Primate Fossil Record. pp. 175-188, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2002 Meldrum, DJ and Jenecke, S. An Eocene titanothere from the Pahsimeroi Valley, Idaho. In: Akersten, WA, Thompson, ME, Meldrum, DJ and Rapp, RA, and McDonald, HG (eds.). And Whereas—Papers on the Vertebrate Paleontology of Idaho Honoring John A. White, Volume 2. Idaho Museum of Natural History Occasional Papers 37, pp. 18-22.

2002 Akersten, WA, Thompson, ME, Meldrum, DJ and Rapp, RA, and McDonald, HG (eds.). And Whereas—Papers on the Vertebrate Paleontology of Idaho Honoring John A. White, Volume 2. Idaho Museum of Natural History Occasional Papers 37, 192 pp.

1998 Akersten, WA, McDonald, HG, Meldrum, DJ and Flint, MET (eds.) And Whereas—Papers on the Vertebrate Paleontology of Idaho, Volume 1. Idaho Museum of Natural History Occasional Paper 36, 216 pp.

1998 Meldrum, DJ. Tail-assisted hindlimb suspension as a transitional behavior in the evolution of prehensile tails, in E Strasser, JG Fleagle, and HM McHenry, (eds.): Advances in Primatology: Primate Locomotion. New York: Plenum Press, 1998, pp. 145- 156.

1997 Kay, RF and Meldrum, DJ. A new small platyrrhine from the Miocene of Colombia and the phyletic position of the callitrichines. In RF Kay, RH Madden, RL Cifelli, and J Flynn (eds.): A History of Neotropical Fauna: Vertebrate Paleontology of the Miocene of Tropical South America. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 435-458.

1997 Meldrum, DJ and Kay, RF. Primate postcranial fossils from the Miocene of Colombia. In RF Kay, RH Madden, RL Cifelli, and J Flynn (eds.): A History of Neotropical Fauna: Vertebrate Paleontology of the Miocene of Tropical South America. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 459-472.

Monographs:

2006 Meldrum, J. Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. New York: Forge Books.

2001 Stephens, TD, and Meldrum, DJ, with Petersen, FB. Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding, Salt Lake City, Signature Press.

http://www.isu.edu/bios/Professors_Staff/meldrum_j.shtml

 

[LAL]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/slideshows/bigfoot.html

LAL- you should check this out.

It is a slideshow showing the reasons Bigfoots existence is implausible.

Found it already, thanks, while looking for a particular show on the schedule.

Note it's the ever-impartial Benjamin Radford. If he thinks you can't lose 10,000 sasquatches in the PNW, including Canada, he must not have gotten out of the car.

Discovery brought us the glitzy but totally innacurate Exodus Decoded and the Nephertiti mummy that turned out to be a male, didn't it?

 

[LTC8K6]

It's a human print except for the claw mark?

What? Another bearfoot???

 

[LAL]

A "footprint" found fossilized in solid rock in Tennessee. How old would that be?

Carved footprints are found in Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana and Ohio. It wouldn't have to be more than a few thousand years old if that's what it is. I'd guess it's older than the Burdick print from Paluxy.

 

[RayG]

See? Anybody can Google. I'm sure I've already posted a link to John Green's article and Dr. Meldrum's comments sometime within the last three years. It's been so long I forgot the frame#. It's 72, not 52.

http://www.bfro.net/news/challenge/green.asp

LAL, have you done the actual math on that page? Green's numbers just don't add up. He's making no sense. He starts with Patty having 30" arms (shoulder to wrist), and his own arms being 24". Do the math, it's a difference of 6".

Prior to that, Green uses the IM index as a means to "calculate how many inches must be added to the arms of a man of known size in order to make his arms long enough to fit the supposed suit." He even says "it is simple to calculate", yet the result he obtains for his own arms is about 10". How can that be, when he says the difference in measured length is only 6"? Why does he need an extra 4"? Why resort to IM indexes when simple subtraction does the job? What sort of math is he using that about 10" is equivalent to 6"?

Then it gets really wacky, when Green says the extra 10" must be added to his lower arm, and the end result is his arms would be 12" above the elbow and 29" below it. Do the math. 12" + 29" = 41"

So far we have three different lengths. 41", 34", and 30".

Then Green goes on to say the creature in the film "has normal-looking arms". So which is it and why the convoluted math calculations that end up with measurements that are up to 9" off?

There's a picture of the arm and leg from the digital skeleton showing they're the same length.

The same length compared to what? Forget the digital skeleton, what actual bones did they use for comparison purposes?

RayG

 

[Astrophotographer]

See? Anybody can Google. I'm sure I've already posted a link to John Green's article and Dr. Meldrum's comments sometime within the last three years. It's been so long I forgot the frame#. It's 72, not 52.

Frame 72 is a poor choice because the limbs are not coplanar with the camera. Exactly how can one get an accurate measurement of the limbs? If you try it with others, I am sure you can arrive at different values.

The 80-90 value is quite a large variance IMO and not an "exact" value (so it is not the same as). Did the other source come up with 80-90 as well? Seems to me that people are giving themselves a lot of "wiggle room". To me these inexact numbers (and that is what they are) are not proof of anything.

I am still curious why Bob in a suit comes up with a higher than normal IM index? Could it be the suit makes it difficult to measure the IM value?

 

[clayflingythingy]

blah blah blah MELDRUM

blah blah blah KRANTZ

blah blah blah JOHN GREEN

blah blah blah....

 

[Skeptical Greg]

............. Had he spent less time admiring of his own opinions and not been so contemptuous of the work of those who investigated the film in the beginning and those who have studied it since he could easily have avoided making such a fool of himself."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/reviews/long.htm

Certainly no bias in that review..

Speaking of making a fool of oneself...

 

[Mad Hom]

Oh, no! Don't split it! We're trying to set a record!

For the first time in this entire thread...I have to agree with Lu here.

 

[bruto]

Oh, no! Don't split it! We're trying to set a record!

Yes indeed, this time I agree with LU. For one thing, considering the length of it, this thread has remained surprisingly on topic. What would you split it to?

 

[George 152]

Oh, rubbish dumps are always open for discarded bigfoot skins along with banana and old paint skins

 

[Crowlogic]

If one of those 2001 apes was filmed in the way Patty was filmed, it would have been obvious to folks that it was a fake ape, right?

Of course, it wasn't even obvious to folks when they saw 2001...

The 2001 manapes were so convincing at the time that the film failed to win an award for that part of it because the judges thought that Kubrick had used real apes. If you put a 2001 manape at bluff creek and filmed it with a 35mm on a tripod it would have left no doubt that what was filmed was real. They used dancers BTW for the manape mimes.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I read the post on BFF. Did you read mine?

Yes, that's how I knew the podcast had the answer for your question.

Is the podcast different? I'm not through downloading yet.

Think of it as an "extended edition" of the posts by Mr. Langdon.

I'm not convinced either were hoaxes

I knew it. I absolutely freaking knew it. LAL, why do you still cling to the Minnesota Iceman after it's been thoroughly debunked? Click that link (and listen to the Langdon podcast) and it should become quite obvious why the Iceman is a hoax.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Tree knot comparison