LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Sure, it does today. What is that supposed to mean?
Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot film patterson gimlin
- Status
Sure, it does today. What is that supposed to mean?
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Unclear to who? Bigfooters? So what?
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Sweaty looks left, looks right... Where's he gonna go now people? Moved the goalposts all over, tried the old BoP switcheroo and bombed... Wait just a second... What's that?
Hey Sweaty, think fast! Patterson- pinned by horse or slid of the back, camera in hand?
Yes! Yes it is. Just what Sweaty needed, a newbie BH reference! Live another day, Sweaty makes a break for it.
Ohhh, that made Sweaty happy.
Hey Sweaty, think fast! Patterson- pinned by horse or slid of the back, camera in hand?
I do not know why Dr. Meldrum choose to quote Mr. Green on this point. Maybe because it was phrased in a chapter on statistical analysis in his book Sasquatch Legend Meets Science. I could find no quote by Dr. Meldrum that said he agreed or disagreed with these comments (I looked). Just because he included that in his book does not mean he either agrees or disagrees - he simply created a chapter on it - and opened up the information for discussion and conversation.
Dr. Meldrum does say (and I quote) Pg. 212 paragraph 1 " Taken individually we are not only at the mercy of the veracity of the story teller, but also limited by the witnesses' individual power of observation and accuracy of interpretation. Furthermore, the compiled data do not represent a systematic, regimented sampling taken under controlled conditions. These data represents the sum of scores of serendipitous encounters, which may or may not be credible, that happened to get reported and happened to make their way into the files of John Green".
*emphasis mine*
Dr. Meldrum then goes on to say: Pg. 212 paragraph, 2 " However, upon reflection it will be recognized that this sort of anecdotal data forms the basis for many valid statistical analyses".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree to be honest. While there is no information within the number of reports compiled by Mr. Green that amounts to absolute evidence, it is information that does help build the case, and it is information researchers can use to help in the work they are attempting to do.
If we are to find out if this mystery is in fact real or hundreds of misidentification's - we need information to start with. We need something to work from. These reports help us do that. I will be honest, I am much more curious about reports that were turned in prior to the internet. I personally think there is too much information out there for hoaxers to latch onto, and use.
But thats just my personal opinion.
I have no idea if Dr. Meldrum supports the comments made by Mr. Green or not. You would have to ask him, but the quote you used was taken out of context - just because he puts something in his book, or relays information from someone else - that does not mean he is in full support of those comments.
Mad Hom
Loose Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 475
Here is a statement from your BFF post....
Easy....
When you look at the picture on the left....it takes approximately 1 second to realize it's a guy-in-a-suit.
In SHARP contrast...people have been looking at the picture on the right for approximately 40 years, and are still scratching their heads, wondering...."is it a real creature...or a man-in-a-suit???"...
[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/BobHaHaHaHa2.jpg[/qimg]
Do you see the difference, Ray?
1 second for positive determination....versus 40 years of wondering...
That's what determines what "as real-looking as Patty" is.
Keep in mind ONE SIMPLE THING, Ray....all anybody's asking for is a picture, or a video, of a suit that takes more than a few seconds to determine it's a guy-in-a-suit.
Nice try...but an "exact match" of Patty is not required....by anybody.
Got REALISM?
...and in 40 years you have nothing....absolutely...NOTHING to corroborate your and the rest of Bigfoot Nation's contention that this is in fact a real flesh and blood hairy Biped of Unusual Heighth.
We the less fanciful beings of earth have countless other video which obviously depict schmoes in suits along with a list as long as my arm of Class A sightings (yeah right) that happen on the fringe of suburbia in the vast unexplored wilds of such exotic,remote locales as Indiana,Kansas and Ohio,and countless examples of how Roge and Gimlin contradicted each other at damn near every oppurtunity.
Not to mention the fact that time is on the side of skeptics...it has been 40 years and you have absolutely...BUPKIS!!!
You have exactly ONE...single...solitary ambiguous to the nth degree film made by a con man on his very first attempt to go out a film a Bigfeetsus.
Oh and you also have ,folders and folders of sighting reports, probably about 10,000 or so feetprints casts,countless hoaxes,loads of Blobsquatches....some bison hair,a huge pothole in the mud, Biscardi...Freeman...that nutty broad in Tennessee who has a group of Bigfeetsuses who borrow sugar from her...and so on and so on...and so on...
This is why Bigfoot Nation clings to the Con Man's Flick so tightly....without it they basically have a giant heaping pile of....NOT FREEKING MUCH!!!
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I don't think the info does anything to build the case.
If anything, the inconsistencies in descriptions only hurt the case. The lack of critical examination of the reports also hurts the case. Often, no real investigation is done.
The failure to weed out and denounce the kooks is still hurting the case, imo.
If bigfoot is ever to be taken seriously, then a major shift needs to occur within the community of believers.
Those who are serious, and want to approach the subject in the proper scientific manner, need to distance themselves from the cranks, and the dollar hunters, and woo-woos, running around the woods in packs of idiots hollering, beating on trees, and scenting the area to death with baboon sweat and gorilla pee.
The next group that needs to be weeded out are the experts who manufacture data in support of Bigfoot, such as Meldrum. His mid-tarsal break nonsense is not helping any, imo. Nor is the invented skeleton, and the invented walk, etc., shown in LMS. Chilcutt's dermal ridge baloney has now come home to roost, too. Time to cut your losses...
These people are what is killing sasquatch. It's not the skeptics.
It's the BFRO... It's the Skookum cast...
Kitakazee said:
As opposed to the generalized comments about those active in research? I have been in the field many, many times - and experienced nothing I could say was positive proof of a bigfoot. Yet, I am called a "believer" and lumped in with those who hear a bigfoot every time they hit a tree line. If you don't like broad sweeping generalizations and assumptions, try not to do the same. Thanks.
Kitakazee said:
I have addressed this issue many times on my blog. I am a member of a group of researchers. Most of my research is out with them. I do not speak for that group and do not want to be placed in that position. We have a person who has been assigned that task. Now, I have discussed my own research on my blog - and if you ask me questions that are pointed toward my own personal work in the field thats fine. I just haven't seen any. I am always happy to discuss what I do - but it isn't very exciting, I have never seen this animal... But, as I have said here, I have had a very interesting experience which you can read about on the TBRC website, and if you have questions about it (my involvement) I will be happy to answer them. Here, I will even give you the link - TBRC
I think this report among others shows the TBRC is interested in doing research that is of a scientific nature. We employ a variety of methods in scouting areas for operations and we go in with all the necessary equipment and gear. While we have yet to document the animal in Texas - our effort is not that of a group of idiots strapping on backpacks and just simply heading out into the woods. We utilize reports from specific areas and actually put feet to the ground before we even consider the area a good place for research. The TBRC actually has an ongoing Camera Trap operation employing numerous game cams that photograph areas in East Texas as well as Oklahoma. These camera traps stay out for months at a time and to retrieve them and reload requires a large group of hikers and days out there to get to them, and get out. These are tough areas, and extremely remote- they are not day hikes by any stretch of the imagination. We have had members injured and a couple contracted serious illness - these areas are dangerous, but the decision was made to employ these types of ongoing operations because it is felt they are necessary. But, they are volunteer only, and separate from other operations performed. I myself have come dangerously close to heat stroke, and just this past weekend became very dehydrated and sick, but I am willing to put myself out there to help figure out what people are seeing.
But, reports are all we have to work off of at this point, because this animals presence in one specific area has yet to be documented. We use reports and field observations to help determine where to look.
Now, if you have any questions about these operations I will be happy to answer what I can, but my knowledge of the camera trap operations is very limited and I have only been on one of those operations - but I don't remember you ever asking any serious questions about my actual work - that wasn't filled with ridicule. I am out there to help figure out what is going on - regardless of what I find out. I think its great when someone can identify a vocalization, as a known animal and take it out of the category of possible sasquatch, because it narrows the field down - and gives us something to work with as a known cause when we receive reports from witnesses who may have heard this very sound. I personally am unwilling to call anything a bigfoot - until I see it with my own eyes.
Kitakazee said:
Thank you. I appreciate your kindness.
Also, sorry for the slow response, but I have had a very rough few days - and I just got back late yesterday from a weekend in the hot and humid wilds of Texas.
LTC said:
Manufactured data? How is information and data compiled from witnesses manufactured? Whether you think it is valid information is your opinion - but Im not sure whatelse we would have to work from. Assumptions? Guess work? How appropriate is that? If we simply ignore the information being put out by witnesses - then what do we have to go on?
Why is it that the 14 seconds of footage for Cornell University so much better information on the Ivory Billed Woodpecker and various other sightings - than the information I as a bigfoot researcher receive? There is no difference in my methods and theirs - other than their work is accepted because of 14 seconds of fuzzy footage (thats worse than the patterson film) and the Ivory Billed was known to exist at one point. But they are not employing methods any different than what bigfoot researchers use every time they go into the field.
Giganto was known to exist - we just cant put it here in North America.. Yet, but remains have been found in other areas outside of China. So - that case has yet to be built.
Oh, and the Ivory Billed hunters have had no better luck than we have had. So it seems scientists in the field cant find something a lucky person with a camera could find. So, does that mean the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is truly extint? Who knows, until science finds one living.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
WRONG.
They are employing different methods. They have actual data of what an IBW looks like, what features it has, it's size, its characteristics, and so forth. These are what was compared to the video to see if it matched. They know the types of environments in lives in, what it eats, and other such information that confirms it could be living in the are reported. Even then, there is still doubt (but they've also recorded audio calls and compared them, nit just video).
With bigfoot, there's no reference. No one knows what its environment is. No one knows what it eats. No one knows what size it should be, or what it should sound like, or what features it should have. There is no way to determine what is a "real" bigfoot from a "fake" bigfoot, or an accurate report from an inaccurate report, even assuming Bigfoot exists. Which makes all this "information" from Meldrum and the like bad science, at best, and outright fraud at the worst.
And if Giganto looked anything like the reported Bigfeet (beyond big hairy ape) you might have the beginnings of a case, As it is, that straw won't hold you up for long.
Yeah, but they've only spent a couple years looking for it. And, as I stated, they have gotten closer, some audio calls for example. Also, birds are smaller and require less food and territory, and can hide more easily than a 7' biped.
Again, you're trying to falsly gain legitimacy by trying to compare the Bigfoot forever-fiasco to legitimate research founded in reasonable claims.
Do you have a case at all, or are you simply going to continue this blatantly false analogy (that you've already been corrected on once before)? Do you actually understand logic and scientific method? Because if you do, you're being intentionally dishonest with this comparison...so are you ignorant or decietful?
ETA: And just to continue this, to show how extremely silly your comparison is...how long do you think they'll look fdor the IBW? DO you think that, 40 years down the line, if nothing has still been found except that initial video, that people will still be looking for it? IF all they had at that point was a grainy video and a mound of anecdotes (many of which contradict each other) do you think the mainstream would still be saying "but it could exist! We need to spend money on it!" Do you think they'd be making up things about it actually having featherless wings, or digging burrows, or having gills, to explain why no physical evidence can be found?
You need to quit insulting the real scientists who are working in fields of biology and ecology, especially since your understanding of science is so inadequate.
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, manufactured. There is no evidence at all to support the Krantz/Meldrum foot skeleton ideas or the Meldrum MTB idea.
The foot skeleton is made up. The MTB is made up.
What else can you call it?
You answered your own question about the IBW.
I am thinking the person who wrote the book: The Human Foot: A Companion to Clinical Studies
Might disagree as to the evidence of midtarsal break being made up or not.
Here is one quote from that book on the issue of Midtarsal break:
So, while Dr. Meldrums theory may be based on anecdotal information at this time, there is precedent for such a theory. The only way it will go from anecdotal evidence to concrete evidence is for a body to be brought to a lab.
Might disagree as to the evidence of midtarsal break being made up or not.
Here is one quote from that book on the issue of Midtarsal break:
No, I dont think the issue of Midtarsal break was made up, as it has been identified in other primates, with the same reference to the flexible midfoot.
So, while Dr. Meldrums theory may be based on anecdotal information at this time, there is precedent for such a theory. The only way it will go from anecdotal evidence to concrete evidence is for a body to be brought to a lab.
Last edited:
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Melissa:
There's no evidence at all for his flexible foot. That's the problem. It's a feature he's made up not to explain evidence, but to expalin away discrepencies instead of admitting that particular evidence doesn't support his conclusion. The tracks he uses to "prove" a felxible foot are the same type of tracks a human foot can make in sand, as one example.
He draws an inappropriate conclusion from insufficient data in order to prevent having to modify his pet thesis. Yes, it is manufactured evidence. There is NOTHING out there that can show a mid-tarsal break. And nothing that shows this is a feature of Bigfoot, of which we have no accurate data on what its features are.
Meldrum (and other BF researchers) simply play buffet with the anecdotes in the adsence of evidence. They pull out things like "mid-tarsal break" so they can keep this bit of story. Then they pull out another bit of story for some other point. Seriously, has Meldrum discarded all the BF prints that don't show a mid-tarsal break as not evidence for Bigfoot? Something like, oh, I don't know, the PGF and PAtty's prints?
There's no evidence at all for his flexible foot. That's the problem. It's a feature he's made up not to explain evidence, but to expalin away discrepencies instead of admitting that particular evidence doesn't support his conclusion. The tracks he uses to "prove" a felxible foot are the same type of tracks a human foot can make in sand, as one example.
He draws an inappropriate conclusion from insufficient data in order to prevent having to modify his pet thesis. Yes, it is manufactured evidence. There is NOTHING out there that can show a mid-tarsal break. And nothing that shows this is a feature of Bigfoot, of which we have no accurate data on what its features are.
Meldrum (and other BF researchers) simply play buffet with the anecdotes in the adsence of evidence. They pull out things like "mid-tarsal break" so they can keep this bit of story. Then they pull out another bit of story for some other point. Seriously, has Meldrum discarded all the BF prints that don't show a mid-tarsal break as not evidence for Bigfoot? Something like, oh, I don't know, the PGF and PAtty's prints?
Huntsman said:
Well, where is the video? Where is the body? Here we have a University effort to find something that was captured on video - where is it?
Man, your a hateful person. Where did I insult anyone involved in the IBW research? They have been working hard to try and determine if this animal exists. I SAID they have had no luck - how is that being insulting? Why is it not ok to question those who would question me, and be insulting in their remarks? There is no more proof that the IBW woodpecker exists today - than there is of a bigfoot. That video could have been hoaxed for all you know. Yet because it was known to exist at one time, a university devoted resources to find out if this fuzzy footage was for real.. I say, good for them. But they have no more concrete evidence than I have.
One search is excepted one is not. Why you keep getting your panties in a twist is beyond me. Im not saying anything that isnt true.
You may want to read my post before this one. This was not something "made up". It is being discussed as a possible trait to be aware of in Tracks, and there is a precedent for it, but it is not made up. So, your wrong.
Last edited:
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
They're looking for it.
When you comapred the Bigfoot farce to the valid efforts being conduscted to find rthe IBW. The comparison is insulting on it's face, like comparing a paper-airplane club to the Blue Angels as if they were the same type of thing.
No, you implied that they had nothing more substanstial than the bigfoot evidence, which is false and insulting. You're discarding a lot of knowledge and work beyond that, not to mention compeltly ignoring the fact that science builds on past knowlewdge.
Where did I say that? Please quit making up what you wish I were saying.
Actually, even here you are wrong. The video they have is better evidence than the PGF. Why? BEcause that video can be compared tot he known traits and characteristics of the IBW and obtain a level of authenticity. The PGF film ahs nothing it can be compared to to determine its accuracy. You may have the same quantity of evidence, but the quality is substantially different.
And unlike the footers, I leave that possiblity open.
Yep. All correct.
And this is why I say you are either ignorant or decietful.
One search is based on a real creature and has been going on a few years. The other is based on stories, with no concrete evidecne the creature ever existed, and still no evidence after 40 years of searching. THIS is the type of comparison that is insulting. You insult the real researchers working on actual issues in science and you insult the intelligence of those you're arguing against. It's like telling someone "Because I said so"; it may be a valid argument for a two-year old, but not an adult.
Yes youa re. You're also implying a heck of a lot that isn't true. In addition, you're showing an amaxing lack of ability to understand evidence in context, to seperate things by both quality and quantity, or to understand the difference between evidence and explanation.
ANd agaion, you have no clue what you're talkign about, and absolutely NO ability to understand a statement in context. Yes, mid-tarsal breaks exist in some primates. NO ONE HERE DISPUTES THAT. You simply want to strawman us into that position because that's the only one in which you might have a case. Show me ANY evidence that Bigfoot has a mid-tarsal break. That's what's mad-up. It's something Meldrum picked up from legitimate research in order to keep from having to discard any of his "evidence".
Last edited:
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Melissa:
From your responses, I'll put you down as "decietful."
From your responses, I'll put you down as "decietful."
Huntsman said:
Now, if I went on any board and used that as an excuse - I would expect to be torn to shreds. That is not a valid excuse. As someone who is skeptical of anything I can not see with my own eyes - I say "Show me the bigbird". Otherwise, your chasing legends the same as me.
Then you go on to say:
Back atcha. They have no more proof than I have - so what makes their cause more noble or necessary than what I am doing? They have no more proof this animal exists than I do a bigfoot is out there - but they are searching none the less, and they should be commended for that search, yet you would call me nuts - and I have about as much info for my search as they do.
You sound like an IBW researcher - or someone who has profited off the tourism increase in Arkansas
The IBW and that fuzzy footage sure has done tremendous things for tourism (from what I hear). We can go back and forth about this until one of these animals is discovered.. But the truth of this is simply - you are basing your opinion on information that is incomplete. There is no body of an IBW, there is no more footage..No feathers nothing. Yet you will strongly defend the reason for that research - yet insult me for the research I do with no more information than they have.
I find that a bit funny.
Well, you can put me down as anything you like - your opinion of me personally really makes no difference, as you do not know me. It does say a lot about you.. You are making decisions before having all the available information - in this example it would be me. You don't know me or anything about me, yet you have decided in a few posts I am deceitful - I think you should actually take the time to know someone before making a statement like that - you are making a judgment about a subject you have little to no real information on.
Thats not really making an informed decision based on actual knowledge. A decision based on emotion is not an informed or educated decision.
By the way, how many years had people been discussing the IBW in Arkansas before that video?? I know its been more than a couple years.
So, all those people were just crazy too - LMAO.. Did you apologize to those witnesses? LOL. Yes, it is two different animals, but Im pretty sure the witnesses were treated the same way. "There is no way the IBW was spotted in your neck of the woods, its been extinct for years".. LOL.
Taadaaaa
So, all those people were just crazy too - LMAO.. Did you apologize to those witnesses? LOL. Yes, it is two different animals, but Im pretty sure the witnesses were treated the same way. "There is no way the IBW was spotted in your neck of the woods, its been extinct for years".. LOL.
Taadaaaa
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Ummmm.....Sasquatch's MTB is made up. There is no evidence for an MTB in bigfoot, anecdotal, footprint, or any other kind. None.
No one said MTB's in general were made up.
No one said MTB's in general were made up.
- Status