Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
....Meldrum's extrapolations of Patty's foot motions are ludicrous and don't even rise to the level of testimony. What they are based on is ridiculous in the first place......

Meldrum's qualifications are well publicized.

And what are your qualifications to pronounce Meldrum's theories as "ludicrous", and worse?

Are we to dismiss a recognized university professor in order to accept the opinion of the great LTC8K6?

Qualifications, please?
 
.....When a skeptic starts to question the reliability of eyewitnesses reports to beck a claim such as bigfoot as a real creature, creduloids say the same sort of data is used and accepted in our legal system. However, when a skeptic starts to look for contradictions and incorrections in the sighting report (what is also done in court with eyewitnesses' reports), the creduloid gets upset. Double standarts......

Frankly, I've decided to put you on a full ignore status. However, I'll entertain you once more:

Your term "creduloid" is meaningless to me. It's a name you want to attach to people whom you disagree with. It has no more meaning that the term "denialist" when I use the term loosely.

However, the term "denialist" applies very well to you.

You have taken the denial of the possibility of the existance of sasquatch to personal levels. This isn't an issue to debate for you; it's a passion. What is so fascinating is that a passion of denial is very different from a passion of believing. It is understandable that someone who believes might spend time and energy trying to find that which he believes in. But a denialist? What is his reward? "Correctness"? Saving face after prematurely pronouncing things which he knows not?

Diogenes is on a similar campaign. He even goes to the extent of defending the deception that Dfoot attempted in his digital manipulation of his suit.

I think maybe we all need a rest. I don't need to be wasting my time with endless debates with people who don't matter, and you don't need to be searching me out in order to foist your pathetic attempts to discredit me regardless of the subject.

Adios, amigo. Vego con Dios.
 
You're getting rather bizarre with your posts.

I guess in that respect, nobody can ever confuse you with another.

Didin't expect you to get it .. ( look up ' obtuse '...


Most of our contributers did...


Don't let the door hit you in the , urr uh......

That would get me censored and warned here.. Unlike BFF, where I can be as obscene as I want, as long as I don't take Patty's name in vain...

Sure is quiet over there... All I can hear are crickets...

:mrocks
 
Last edited:
With the evidence at hand, we are all equally qualified to talk about, and speculate on, anything concerning sasquatch.

Now, once there is some actual evidence that sasquatch exists, and evidence of exactly what it is, that will change. Then we can all look to experts in the field of whatever sasquatch turned out to be, or turned out to be related to.

Right now, there isn't anyone who knows anything concrete about sasquatch. Anyone may be correct with their theories or ideas at this point.

There is also that fact that experts are expected to meet higher standards than laymen. It's generally okay for a layman to do what Meldrum and Krantz have done with sasquatch, speculate wildly with very little hard info, but it is not okay for professionals and experts to do so.
 
Is Dr. Meldrum actively searching for bigfoot? Raising money? Doing fieldwork? Testing for DNA?

He's a bona-fide scientist who believes bigfoot is real. The holy grail of primate studies. He specializes in primate locomotion, too. A real bipedal hominid in North America! A possible missing link is actually roaming the PNW! Holy cow! He is sure of this.

So what is he doing about finding one? We know he went into the field once. We know he bought casts from a known hoaxer. We know that he studies alleged bigfoot tracks. What is he doing to actively seek out this marvelous creature that he believes in?

The complaint has been ongoing that science doesn't look into the issue at all because it is biased. That can't be true because of Jeff Meldrum. He is a scientist and a believer and he doesn't appear in too much of a hurry to get to the bottom of the issue, either.
 
Frankly, I've decided to put you on a full ignore status. However, I'll entertain you once more:

Your term "creduloid" is meaningless to me. It's a name you want to attach to people whom you disagree with. It has no more meaning that the term "denialist" when I use the term loosely.

OK, so be it, and I will generously retribute the favor and "entertain" you one last time, since for now on you are on my "ignore" list.

Creduloid is not a term created by myself. Thus, its not "mine". And I don't attach it to all people who disagree with me. Only to those who fit in the definition of the term. Do some googling and you'll find the meaning, if you already don't know it.

However, the term "denialist" applies very well to you.

You have taken the denial of the possibility of the existance of sasquatch to personal levels. This isn't an issue to debate for you; it's a passion. What is so fascinating is that a passion of denial is very different from a passion of believing. It is understandable that someone who believes might spend time and energy trying to find that which he believes in. But a denialist? What is his reward? "Correctness"? ...snip...

Nope. If you cared about reading what I posted, you would have seen that my position is something like "Bigfeet may be a real creature, but given the presented evidence, I think this is unlikely". Actually, the position of most people here is quite similar. However, creduloids have a problem with this. They want full conversion of the skeptical infidels. Thus if one does not accept and -oh, even worse sin- question the dogmas, one becomes a denialist, close-mined skeptic, etc.

And the disussion of the evidence, that should be what it is all about, is forgotten. Standard creduloid behavior.

and you don't need to be searching me order to foist your pathetic attempts to discredit me regardless of the subject.
I have "attempted to discredit" you? I have questioned your claims. Prove I have attempted to discredit your person. Or nowdays if Bob says he has a different opinion on a subject than Joe and exposes the reasons, Bob is attempting to discredit Joe?

You seem to be considering the possibility that I have actively searched for you on the boards. You overestimated your importance. I posted an answer to an argument of yours at a thread on another subject that happens to interest me. Be my guest: if you do think -and can prove- I am stalking or hunting (or have stalked ot hunted) you Huntster, file a complain against me to a moderator.

Adios, amigo. Vego con Dios.
I must remind you that in Brazil we speak Portuguese. That would be "Adeus amigo, vá com Deus".
 
Huntster said:
That is speculation.

:jaw-dropp

Yeah, so is stating that a set of prints were made by bigfoot, so is saying that the PGF shows a bigfoot, so is drawing bone shapes inside a cast of a footprint. So is the mid-tarsal break theory, the birthing and mating rituals, the population density figures, and on and on and on.
 
Didin't expect you to get it .. ( look up ' obtuse '...


Most of our contributers did...


Don't let the door hit you in the , urr uh......

That would get me censored and warned here.. Unlike BFF, where I can be as obscene as I want, as long as I don't take Patty's name in vain...

Sure is quiet over there... All I can hear are crickets...

:mrocks

Quiet? With Dr. Meldrum posting on two threads? Here's one:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14377&st=

Here's the other:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14342&st=0

Do you need some help finding the good discussions on BFF? Maybe I could point you to the one where a poster characterized the posters here as a "peanut gallery".

The closing of the For Dfoot thread was unfortunate, IMO, but I can see where the administrator would need to take a look at it. Hoaxes of any kind aren't taken lightly.

Evidently you still haven't read BFFs TOS. Obscenity, except for the mildest kind is not tolerated. Evidently you didn't get in any trouble over taking stuff from the board without attribution and the thread that was locked because of us was passed and didn't stay locked. I didn't get a warning. Did you?

I think Paul's pretty fair, although there are those (mostly in SRI) who would disagree.
 
Last edited:
Huntster, the "touched up" remark was a very obvious crack/joke at Dr. Meldrum, who said he thinks it's okay.

Note to self: Stop trying out humor on the bigfooters.

Bears and humans do not have several different types of feet in the manner that sasquatch has to.....

He did not say it's okay. He said he thought the print had been "touched up" prior to casting. The rest of it looked authentic.

Have we even established which cast it was?
 
Creduloid is not a term created by myself. Thus, its not "mine". And I don't attach it to all people who disagree with me. Only to those who fit in the definition of the term. Do some googling and you'll find the meaning, if you already don't know it.

Though I understand the 'meaning' you're associating with the word creduloid, there seems to BE no such animal on dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Creduloid

No entry found for Creduloid.

No entry found for Cred uloid.

No entry found for Cred-uloid.

However, there IS an entry for credulous

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Credulous

adj 1: disposed to believe on little evidence; "the gimmick would convince none but the most credulous" [ant: incredulous] 2: showing a lack of judgment or experience; "so credulous he believes everything he reads"

Any definitions I can find by Googling are almost exclusively associated with skeptical websites. Like the bad astronomy blog for example:

As a kid, my brain went through many years of training as a creduloid, someone who believes just about anything, simply because someone told me so. UFOs, astral projection, the Bermuda Triangle– at some point, I believed in it. Over time I figured out how to ask for evidence, how to evaluate it, and how to form an opinion based on that evaluation. I’ve had a long time to make that procedure second nature.

Correa Neto said:
And the disussion of the evidence, that should be what it is all about, is forgotten. Standard creduloid behavior.

I agree, it's all about the evidence, not name-calling. (and that should be the goal for both sides of the argument).

There are numerous quotes that come to mind whenever debates about bigfoot occur, but these three invariably apply:

"If you can't answer a man's arguments all is not lost; you can still call him names." -- Elbert Hubbard

"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1838

"The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits that favor that theory." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1787

RayG
 
Is Dr. Meldrum actively searching for bigfoot? Raising money? Doing fieldwork? Testing for DNA?

Yes to all but the last (he applied for a grant for study in the southern Rockies). There's no testable DNA as yet, and he would probably send it to a lab if there were.

He's a bona-fide scientist who believes bigfoot is real. The holy grail of primate studies. He specializes in primate locomotion, too. A real bipedal hominid in North America! A possible missing link is actually roaming the PNW! Holy cow! He is sure of this.

I know of no one claiming it's a "missing link", although creationists and scoftics seem to think we think that.

So what is he doing about finding one? We know he went into the field once. We know he bought casts from a known hoaxer. We know that he studies alleged bigfoot tracks. What is he doing to actively seek out this marvelous creature that he believes in?

There is no evidence Freeman faked prints, except for Dahinden's opinion on one because he found dermal ridges under debris. I still don't know what kind of dermals they were. Krantz borrowed twenty out of thirty Freeman casts for mold making.

Meldrum's been in the field a lot more than once and has examined tracks in situ on five occasions. Read this for an idea of what more he's done.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com

BOOK REVIEW by Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Ph.D.
"Bigfoot of the Blues"
Author Vance Orchard, 1993
197 pages $9.95 plus $2 S & H (p)
Earthlight Books
321 East Main,
Walla Walla, Washington 99362


In November of 1995, Richard Greenwell handed me a copy of Bigfoot of the Blues. as we flew from San Francisco to Eureka, California on our way to investigate the Redwoods video site. During lulls in the conversation I paged through the book. I was initially intrigued by what I did not find. Surprisingly, there were no illustrations - -no photos of footprints, no casts, no persons straining to match step length, no sketchy eyewitness renderings. There were few or no obligatory speculations about Gigantopithecus, migratory routes or extraordinary senses or physical prowess. Instead, there was a narrative, focusing on events in the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington State spanning a ten-year period between 1982 and 1992. Occasional forays were made in time and space to lend context and continuity to the story line. But always the thread returned to the Blues and the activities of a band of witnesses, perhaps most prominent among them Paul Freeman and [the late] Wes Summerlin.

Vance Orchard is a journalist having covered the region for the Walla Walla Union Bulletin for some 40 years and for the Waitsburg Times for the past seen years. His interest in Bigfoot was kindled in 1966 when reporting on the discovery of big human-like tracks up Mill Creek Road. The book strings together a number of his outdoor columns that featured regional developments in the bigfoot saga. He presents the facts in a no-nonsense, matter of fact style with an amiable countrified tone that lends personality to otherwise obscure names, places and events.

It seems to me the only way to evaluate the merits of such a narrative was to gain a better appreciation of the people and events myself. There was no shortage of individuals eager to enlighten me about the character of Paul Freeman and incredibility of the Walla Walla evidence. Freeman had achieved notoriety in 1982, when he claimed to have encountered a bigfoot on the border of the Mill Creek watershed. The events that ensued focused national attention on the region. Dr. Grover Krantz, of the Department of Anthropology at Washington State University described the appearance of dermatoglyphics in the footprint cast, but received a cool reception from both the scientific and bigfoot communities. Joel Hardin, an acclaimed U.S. Border Patrol tracker pronounced the l982 tracts to be fakes. Later in l984, Rene Dahinden, a life long Bigfoot investigator, examined a trackway and declared it hoaxed. Then, in l989, Edward B. Winn "surreptitiously" removed fibers from a twisted tree branch presented by Freeman at the l989 Membership Meeting of the International Society of Cryptozoology and tested them for chemical composition and melting point. He later concluded that the fibers were a synthetic modacrylic fiber and he labeled the entire presentation as "scientific vandalism" (Edward B. Winn, l99l Physical and Morphological Analysis of Samples of Fiber Purported to be Sasquatch Hair, Cryptozoology, Vol. 10: 55-65) Others promptly hopped aboard the bandwagon.

I first contacted Vance Orchard in late l995, after my first read of Bigfoot of the Blues. He was very friendly and candid, providing me shortly thereafter with a long list of names, addresses and phones numbers and copies of his original column and related materials. I was impressed by his even-handed representation of the personalities and events. He was genuinely interested in the negative reports that had escaped his attention and more than willing to weigh them in the balance.

Orchard immediately laid to rest the assertion that there was no Bigfoot in the Blue Mountains until Paul Freeman arrived on the scene in l982, recounting incidents dating back to l900. Frequent reports of witnesses not connected with Freeman's involvement further contradicted such allegations. For example, incidents were reported to the U.S. Forest Service in the late l960's as described by USFS employee Wayne Long. This was further corroborated by additional reports from the files of John Green and from the newly-formed North American Science Institute (NASI) of incidents throughout the Blue Mountains in both Washington and Oregon.

On February l8, l996, I paid an unannounced visit to Paul Freeman who, after persistent questioning about the footprints, confided that he had located the first tracks of that spring that very morning. Too coincidental? I thought so until I examined the string of prints, numbering in excess of 40. They measured nearly 14 inches (35cm) in length. The ground was wet from recent rains that continued sporadically over the weekend. The last fleeting traces of dermatoglyphics were still visible in some tracks indicating they had likely been laid down the previous night. Variations in toe position, indications of mid-foot flexibility and dynamic interactions with the varying soil conditions were clearly evident. In one print, the splaying toes pressed the first and fifth toes into sidewalls of the deep impressions, producing profiles of the respective digits - - to my knowledge, the first time this had been documented. I personally cast seven footprints; further details will be the subject of a separate report. These tracks gave every indication of being "alive" as Vance Orchard puts it. Suffice it to say the incident spurred me on to further investigation.

During subsequent visits to Walla Walla, I examined and documented Wes Summerlin's and Paul Freeman's cast collections and interviewed them at great length, hearing firsthand many of the stories recounted in the book Bigfoot of the Blues. I eventually arranged for the procurement of the entire Freeman case collection, which is now on loan in my laboratory for further analysis and is accessible for the study to any seriously interested party. I have personally visited with or spoken to many of the personalities discussed by Orchard: Paul Freeman, Wes and Peewee Sumerlin, Swede Sumerlin, Phil Farnes, Bill Laughery, Dick Cockle and Kevin Lindley. I have encountered no discrepancies in the recounting of events by Orchard. In fact, with the second, more informed reading of his book, I was even more impressed by his succinct and incisive style of reporting.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/reviews/blues.htm
____
The complaint has been ongoing that science doesn't look into the issue at all because it is biased. That can't be true because of Jeff Meldrum. He is a scientist and a believer and he doesn't appear in too much of a hurry to get to the bottom of the issue, either.

He's an associate professor, he's writing a book, he's writing papers for publication and he does field work on unfunded weekends. If you think he's not busy enough, join BFF and tell him yourself. Maybe he'll have time to answer you.
 
Last edited:
Quiet? With Dr. Meldrum posting on two threads? Here's one:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14377&st=

Here's the other:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14342&st=0
...........................................

I'm sure you find it exciting LU, but in case you haven't noticed, I have pretty much restricted my participation to the discussion of a piece of film..
Something we can all see, and and comment on, based on our perception of an actual piece of evidence ...

I do respect Meldrums credentials, but find it sad he takes this seriously.. ( If he in fact does..
He may be doing a little chain pulling .. I really hope so ..)

I have no reason to believe Bigfoot exists.. It is pointless ( beyond the entertainment value ) to debate anatomy based on footprints and anecdotes .. I don't expect you to understand that ..

It is pointless to discuss vocalizations without a vocalizer..
What caliber rifle to bring one down..
What kind of bait to use..
How fast they move.
What they smell like.

Shall I continue ?
 
The ground was wet from recent rains that continued sporadically over the weekend. The last fleeting traces of dermatoglyphics were still visible in some tracks indicating they had likely been laid down the previous night.
Is the the trackway with the bear tracks in it ?

I think we have been over that..
 
Yeah, I know..

Read the link LU.. Who do you think ' meldd ' at ' isu.edu ' might be ? Huh ?


http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/jpg/Titmus_01_BG.jpg

That should give you the identity of the cast, too, shouldn't it? It's one of Titmus', but I don't know which one from where. Dr. Meldrum purchased Paul Freeman's casts.

It's still not his site, and I don't know who constructed the page. Do you?
 
Last edited:
I'm sure you find it exciting LU, but in case you haven't noticed, I have pretty much restricted my participation to the discussion of a piece of film..
Something we can all see, and and comment on, based on our perception of an actual piece of evidence ...

I do respect Meldrums credentials, but find it sad he takes this seriously.. ( If he in fact does..
He may be doing a little chain pulling .. I really hope so ..)

I have no reason to believe Bigfoot exists.. It is pointless ( beyond the entertainment value ) to debate anatomy based on footprints and anecdotes .. I don't expect you to understand that ..

It is pointless to discuss vocalizations without a vocalizer..
What caliber rifle to bring one down..
What kind of bait to use..
How fast they move.
What they smell like.

Shall I continue ?

No need.

But since you've done quite a bit of hoohahing over tracks and casts on this board I see no reason you shouldn't join the discussion on foot anatomy on BFF and show everyone how clueless you really are. You could start with "Rogerfoot".
 
Last edited:
Are you taking obtuse lessons from Lu now ?

Let me see ...

If I am not going to question someone who said it rained,
then I shouldn't question them if they suggest the rain was being sucked back up into the sky ?

No difference between the two huh ?


Aw, c'mon .. Is that you Lu ? Is Huntster your sockpuppet ?

Aren't you the poster who was accusing me of ad homs?
 
Just some pointers to help the Gentle Reader stay on track:

Huntster (who will likely return, and soon) is also the same religious creduloid who mindlessly follows the dogma of the RCC and believes he has no authority to question the beliefs fed him by the church.

As for Lu - well, she lives in NC. Need I say more? :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom