Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
Part of me really wants bigfoot to be found because I am certain that a few prominent bigfooters are going to look like idiots when their ideas about bigfoot are proven to be way off of reality.

Meldrum is going to be the first to go down in flames, imo.
Click to expand...

The first I heard of Meldrum was in this exquisite piece from 1998. The subject in question is the "Redwoods Video" an outright and admitted hoax. I'm sorry I can't link this, but here's address

rfthomas.clara.net/bf_redwds.html

The whole piece is indicative of the authors' (and so many others in the crypto world) propensity to make huge speculative inferences from the most spurious data, but here are a couple of highlights:

"After a site visit — and some careful measurement of trees visible in the video — we arrived at a height of about 2.3m. The subject in the video clearly wasn't just an ordinary man."

Except of course it was. And around the bend comes Meldrum's pet theory:

"Significantly, the heel of the visible trailing foot comes off the ground while the midfoot appears to remain in contact with the ground until it pushes off and the entire foot swings forward. This is quite different from the action of the human foot, in which heel and mid-foot lift together, but characteristic of an ape's foot with its more flexible joints. All the signs are that the bipedal Sasquatch walks with a gait distinct from that of humans"

Two questions come to mind. First, did Meldrum publish an apology or retraction for this? Something along the lines of, "Please forgive me, I am completely incompetent to judge the veracity of a film. I was easily gulled and all too quick to slap my own predetermined interpretation on what I now admit was a obvious hoax. "
My second question is, why do the owners of the website keep this posted without noting, in big bold letters, that it's fraudulent?
Sure, that's a rhetorical question.
 
I had forgotten about that Orthoptera. You are right. Meldrum made a huge error there and even tried to squeeze in his silly mid-tarsal break nonsense.

Here they see all sorts of great details about bigfoot in the video. It's totally ridiculous, and yet they swallow it whole. You can't see anything but a vague shape, period.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/films/redwoodsfilm.htm
 
Hitch said:
Be careful, it'll cost you a few bucks. Between the half dozen or so threads on this topic in the last year or so, there are several thousand posts. I know on several occasions I have posted flatly that Bigfoot does not exist. Do I know that for a fact? Of course not. But the endless arguing in circles about minutia gets on my nerves. If the woos have something to support their claims they need to come out with it instead of pretending that what they've presented so far hasn't been sufficiently refuted to cast doubt on it.
Click to expand...

It will be money well spent - 100 statements will only cost me a fin, and I doubt he will find that many. I also have an unreasonably large jar of change that I'm sure has more than enough nickels in it if I am proven wrong (or if enough convincing evidence is brought forth).

And Huntster - the fact that Hitch just typed 'Bigfoot does not exist' above does not count, that was an example.

(As is where I just typed it above)
 
Read what Jeff Meldrum & Richard Greenwell claim to see in the redwoods video:

The next step was to compare the new video to the Patterson-Gimlin film shot in 1967. Several similarities were apparent -- not only in facial features but also in body form and proportion. On the other hand, we were also impressed by some obvious differences. The Redwoods' video subject is apparently a male and has particularly long and shaggy hair, especially on the extremities, whereas Patterson and Gimlin filmed what appears to be a smaller female, with a sleeker coat and obvious breasts. Sex differences in hairiness are found in other primates, such as the orangutan.

After careful study of the Redwoods' video, we were able to discern numerous additional details. One series of frames, for instance, shows the action of the gluteal muscle of the buttock during walking. A shadowed furrow marks the insertion of the gluteal muscle. Above and forward of this region there is a reflective spot that could be skin with the hair rubbed off. This spot corresponds to a bony protuberance on the thighbone just below the skin surface known as the greater trochanter. This subtle detail appears in precisely the appropriate anatomical position, suggesting a worn spot acquired from sleeping side down or from rubbing a hip against a tree.

The Redwoods' film may also reveal an anatomical detail not reported previously in Sasquatch encounters -- the male genitalia. As the subject passes in front of the RV, a reflective object can be seen at the front of the body, just below waist level. The object in question has a thick hair-covered base and a reflective, tapering portion that curves upward in a sickle shape. One interpretation is that the subject is displaying an erect penis, perhaps as a form of threat -- as has been observed in some other apes.

As the subject vanishes into the darkness behind the redwood tree, we are afforded a last informative glimpse of the leg and foot. The heel is very broad, the ankle thick, and the calf lacks the characteristic taper and straight line of the human Achilles' tendon. Significantly, the heel of the visible trailing foot comes off the ground while the mid-foot appears to remain in contact with the ground until it pushes off and the entire foot swings forward. This is quite different from the action of the human foot, in which heel and mid-foot lift together, but characteristic of an ape's foot with its more flexible joints. All the signs are that the bipedal Sasquatch walks with a gait distinct from that of humans.

These are just the highlights of our analysis, which has encompassed on-site inspection, interviews with witnesses, consultation with video enhancement specialists and careful scrutiny of the subject in the film. In all this, we have detected nothing to falsify the testimony of the witnesses. In fact, we have noted numerous anatomical features on the video that are highly suggestive of and consistent with the image of a large, bipedal, non-human primate.
Click to expand...
 
Orthoptera said:
First, did Meldrum publish an apology or retraction for this? Something along the lines of, "Please forgive me, I am completely incompetent to judge the veracity of a film. I was easily gulled and all too quick to slap my own predetermined interpretation on what I now admit was a obvious hoax."
Click to expand...

Apparently, he didn't. He seems to have not done this with the "Snow Walker" video either. Meldrum once thought this showed an authentic Yeti. It was later revealed as a crude hoax using a bloke in a suit. Krantz once thought that a Bigfoot track casting from Indiana was authentic because it contained his "two secret details" that he proclaimed allowed him to distinguish the real things from fakes. Later, the creator of the fake casting admitted it. Krantz just looked the other way and never admitted fault.

These men have made breaks from the methodology and ethics of the very enterprise that granted them with doctorates.

Here is Meldrum with the "Snow Walker" Yeti...

jefflab1.jpg



My second question is, why do the owners of the website keep this posted without noting, in big bold letters, that it's fraudulent? Sure, that's a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

Welcome to Bigfootery. They are desperately seeking respect. Won't you give a small handful, or at least a nickel?
 
I've been checking out a lot of the bigfoot forums and I'm amazed that people really still believe the evidence is strong............. I always thought the PGF film was dodgy, and now after seeing the "stabilised" film into todays commentary then I'm absolutely 100% certain its a fake. I'm just still amazed at the length people are still going to defend it, not so much on this forum but there are some notable others................

As a true skeptic I cannot say that bigfoot definitely does not exist. However, based on the evidence so far presented then I've got as much chance of winning the lottery as to meeting Mr Sasquatch :-)

FACT: Based on all available evidence bigfoot does NOT exist. Until something new and compelling turns up then the ONLY option is to take a skeptical stance.

Great, I enjoyed getting the off my chest....

Phil
 
LTC8K6 said:
Yes, but there has been a stabilized color version out for quite a long time, so this is not anything new.

It does indeed look like some dork out for a stroll, and I can't for the life of me figure out where all this "compliant gait" talk came from.
Click to expand...

The film subject is indeed walking with a compliant gait. It is much more evident in the earlier part of the film, not seen in the recently posted black and white stabilized version created by Marlon Davis. This is what accounts for the somewhat odd looking "level lower leg lift" seen in I believe, frame 72.

At one time it was suggested by Barbara Wasson in her book Sasquatch Apparitions that this kinematic feature was "impossible" for a human to duplicate. This assertion went unchallenged in Bigfootery for many years, adding to the notion that the gait of the subject was "inhuman".

While schlepping on the beach in Oregon this past Thanksgiving, I felt as though I could raise my lower leg to level quite easily while walking. I didn't get around to photographing this until several weeks later. I posted this photograph, and several others, of myself in mid compliant walking gait stride on Bigfoot Forums. I would link to the thread but the site is down at the moment.

I offer this photograph as proof that a human can lift one's lower leg to level while walking, just as the film subject is seen doing in the early part of the film.

The film subject's gait is nowhere near as "inhuman" as some advocates have
asserted over the years. Now how much a full body costume would, or would not, inhibit fluid walking movement I don't know.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1859.jpg
    IMG_1859.jpg
    73.1 KB · Views: 104
LTC8K6 said:
Huntster, I am referring to reports from Folks such as Fahrenbach and Meldrum being inconclusive about hair, etc. Krantz was certainly inconclusive about some stuff as well.....
Click to expand...

Hair and feces, when not accreditted to other creatures, will come up "inconclusive" every time simply because there's nothing to compare it to.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I have already documented how Meldrum was pretty ho hum on the skookum cast, and later he is basically calling it proof. He went from inconclusive to proof for some unknown reason.
Click to expand...

I really don't know enough about it to comment.

Seems to me that it would be ruled "inconclusive" at best.
 
Starrman said:
Yeah right, science just sits around waiting for proof....
Click to expand...

In this field, yes.

Maybe worse.

It's my opinion that science is invested totally in any bipedal primate of the past as being the ancestor of man.

Actually helping to discover a bipedal ape that dashes previous theories is actually frowned upon.

Scientists are human. They are no different, collectively or individually, than people in any other endeavor.

Claiming otherwise makes you appear like the religious who are so very thouroughly assailed on this forum.

...I believe the debate is about weather or not the evidence that is out there suggests bigfoot exists. The argument is realy over the quality of the evidence....
Click to expand...

I agree.

...I will take your bet - find the number of times someone said outright that there is no bigfoot, and I'll send you a nickel for each occurrence. Your bluff is called...
Click to expand...

Wow, that was a foolish bite. Just as a guess, I'd say that will amount to a few good beers.

No time limit was framed. It will take some time for me to peruse and quote the appropriate statements out of 36 pages.

It will be done, though.
 
William Parcher said:
Right. Patty was a bloke in a suit. The tracks made in the creekbed by this bloke were not cast, filmed or photographed.....
Click to expand...

Yes, they were. And there were independant witnesses, like Lafferty and Titmus.

The photos exist, I've had them, but cannot find them on this computer. I'll provide them when I can.

...Gimlin is with them and assists....
Click to expand...

That means he's an accessory. And an assessory that got ripped off later.

He maintains his story, despite being kept out of the money.

Do you want to continue down this line?


...Patterson has the film developed and begins editing it for maximum "believability"....
Click to expand...

I believe the chain of custody was well documented. I'll have to research it to verify that, but I believe you're barking up the wrong stormpipe.

...Patterson creates a fake trackway at Bluff Creek on October 20 (a Friday). Gimlin is with him. They make plaster castings of some of these fake tracks and also filmed the tracks. The night of October 20th, Patterson begins to inform people that he has filmed a Bigfoot earlier in the day....
Click to expand...

You're saying that they did this without leaving any sign of "creating" the tracks?

In other words, they created this costume that still defies any attempt to expose it as such, then created a trackway that also still defies any attempt to expose it as a hoax?

...On October 21st, Lyle Laverty visits Bluff Creek and observes and photographs some of the fake foot imprints that he finds....
Click to expand...

Do you realize that Lafferty showed up there because there had been a number of reports of tracks in the area at that time?

Are you prepared to accuse him, too, of being in on the hoax?

...At some time, Patterson & Gimlin concoct a mutual fake storyline that melds 1) & 3) so that they are conceived to be a single event that happened on October 20th. They add details to give credence, complexity and flavor to the supposed encounter and filming....
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea of the whereabouts of these men prior to October 20?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to indicate that they left Washington and went to the site "weeks before"?

Do you think that sign of the filming "weeks before" would be so gone that Lafferty and Titmus wouldn't see it?

Was the film taken in one take?

With or without the horses?

Do you think the sign of the horses being there "weeks before" would be gone?




You're making up a story, with nothing to back it.

Patterson's and Gimlin's story sounds better.
 
Hitch said:
Originally Posted by Starrman :
Yeah right, science just sits around waiting for proof.

I believe the debate is about weather or not the evidence that is out there suggests bigfoot exists. The argument is realy over the quality of the evidence.

I will take your bet - find the number of times someone said outright that there is no bigfoot, and I'll send you a nickel for each occurrence. Your bluff is called...
Click to expand...
Be careful, it'll cost you a few bucks. Between the half dozen or so threads on this topic in the last year or so, there are several thousand posts. I know on several occasions I have posted flatly that Bigfoot does not exist.......
Click to expand...

Don't worry, Starman. I like to drink my winnings with company, preferably the loser.

And since we can't do that, you're probably pretty safe.

...I know on several occasions I have posted flatly that Bigfoot does not exist. Do I know that for a fact? Of course not....
Click to expand...

Thanks for the admission of truth.
 
LTC8K6 said:
...Here they see all sorts of great details about bigfoot in the video. It's totally ridiculous, and yet they swallow it whole. You can't see anything but a vague shape, period....
Click to expand...

I don't know about Meldrum, but I wasn't impressed by the Redwoods video.

In fact, the only photo that I'm willing to say is authentic is the PG film.

Many years ago I saw another still photo of the upper half of a sasquatch. The eyes were very clear. I thought that looked like the real thing.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen it since, nor know to whom to credit it to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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