Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
@ Tube:

I think you pics show that Patty's walk can be duplicated by a human.

Regarding the footprints, the flexibe feet don't seem to be able to create deep marks of fingers. I am assuming a human foot would create such marks in the sand you used. Rigid feet would leave better finger impressions.

2 questions:

(1) Have you tried to create footprints walking backwards?

(2) What about whenever you happen to have a chance to test rigid feet, compare the shape of finger imprints they create with the impressions created by real feet? I think many bigfoot footprints -including some of those considered the best ones- show little if any variation in finger imprints, as opposed to prints of real feet. This would be a tell-tale mark of a fakery.
 
...snip...
No. I’m stating that any sign of creating a trackway had to be eliminated immediately.
...snip...
Pristine isn’t the point. The point is that the creation of a trackway would show sign of manufacture.

Exactly what would be these signs? How would you recognize them?
Remember the context.

...snip...One of the “scientists” that Correa wants so desperately to be in the woods.
...snip...
And you want so desperately that researchers are NOT in the woods...

Otherwise you are left with the annoying question on why the weekend tourist see bigfoot, while the seasoned wildlife expert don't. Oh, I see, your prejudice forces you to believe that "sicentists" are just lab rats.
 
Very severe gaps that look like the smoking gun of a hoax.



I have mentioned this before. Lyle Laverty (on "the scene" the next day) and Bob Titmus (on "the scene" nine days later) could not have easily distinguished human observer tracks from human hoaxer tracks. Bootprints in the sand directly alongside "Patty Bigfoot prints" could either be P&G casting and observing the real things, or creating the fake tracks.



This is something I have not yet expanded upon. We are told that two different footages of Patterson show him in direct contact (casting) with big footprints. One is a demonstration of plaster casting of created fake footprints. The other is of him casting the "Patty footprints" after the encounter. This is supposed to be on the "2nd Roll" that Patterson loaded into the camera after the Patty encounter. If this is true, there sould have been (and still could be) two different film footages of Patterson plaster casting tracks. One would show him casting created fake tracks as a demonstration. The other would show him casting the Patty tracks not long after his encounter with her. I did post some still frames of Patterson casting tracks here (they are missing because of the non-functional BFF). Those still frames showed very short shadows which suggests a near mid-day filming.


We've been through this already. Didn't I say there'd be a thread on it on BFF? You said "Don't count on it." What did I win?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42523&page=11

This suggests that these still images were from the fake track demonstration footage. But where is the footage (or any still images) from the Patty trackway filming? This is from what is known as the "2nd Roll". We are told that the original PGF is missing. Is it also true that the "2nd Roll" is missing?

Can anyone provide the primary physical evidence (early copies of the films) concerning the PGF, so that modern inquiry may examine it?

The originals were studied by people with better credentials than any I've seen claimed here. Dahinden took the first reel to Russia, at his own expense, where it was examined by experts in biomechanics. (Biomechanics was in it's infancy. Dr. Nelson doubted anyone in 1967 could have had the knowlege to pull it off, but never mind the opinion of a contempory expert in biomechanics.) Dahinden had the "missing" 10' showing the tracks from roll 2. Didn't we find out it was used in a documentary and never returned? Was the producer part of some giant conspiracy to hide the shots of BH in his BVDS donning the unpadded suit?

John Green has a first generation copy of reel 1.
 
Exactly what would be these signs? How would you recognize them?
Remember the context.


And you want so desperately that researchers are NOT in the woods...

Otherwise you are left with the annoying question on why the weekend tourist see bigfoot, while the seasoned wildlife expert don't. Oh, I see, your prejudice forces you to believe that "sicentists" are just lab rats.

Does yours force you to ignore evidence in the form of a trackway in the Canadian wilderness that was found by a seasoned wildlife expert?
 
According to Murphy, at least three footprint casts have been given to museums:

"The two casts and mould seen at the bottom of the case in this photo are from the Blue Creek Mountain event, and are in storage at the Royal Museum. I borrowed them for the sasquatch exhibit at the Vancouver Museum. I am sure Abbott was more than impressed with the find as there were more than 1,000 footprints, and they were of two different sizes as seen by the casts."

(from an obituary on Don Abbott)

Shades of Raiders of the Lost Ark!

"Bob Titmus was evidently given a cast copy (or an original) made by Jerry Crew. Titmus cleaned it (sanded and smoothed out) and presented it to the Vancouver Museum, British Columbia. On the back of the cast he wrote: \"This is an actual cast of Bigfoot imprint made Oct. 2, 1958 in Bluff Creek in Humboldt County, California. 'Bigfoot' is not a hoax.\

Bob Titmus
Taxidermist,
Anderson, California"

(Pg.108, Meet the Sasquatch )
 
Gill's been mentioned. This seems to be the paper his comment was from (I'm posting the whole thing even though the figures won't copy in hopes someone will read it). It's hard to see how patterns like this could emerge from random misidentifications, hoaxes and delusions.

Population Clines of the North American Sasquatch As Evidenced By Track Lengths and Estimated Statures 1

George W. Gill

This article notes that there is a striking degree of internal consistency amongst reports of purported Sasquatch sightings and footprints. The author applies zoological rules of distribution to the reported stature, track length, and fur colour of the creatures and finds that the conformity of sighted characteristics to these rules is high. He concludes that such evidence argues against considering all such sightings as hoaxes and that it supports the possibility that these beings are natural phenomena.

Scientific attention to the mystery of the North American Sasquatch has increased markedly over the past decade due to the rapidly expanding body of "soft evidence" for the actual existence of this giant hominid primate. Evidence for its existence consists of a large number of supposed eyewitness accounts reported by both American Indian and white hunters, trappers, and others; 2 reports, photographs, and casts of tracks, 3 feces and hair found near the tracks; a large body of American Indian folklore relating to the subject; 4 tape recordings of purported vocalizations; and the famous Patterson film which apparently shows a fleeing female Sasquatch. 5 Most reports come from the heavily forested region of western North America, extending from northern California in the south to British Columbia in the north, and encompass a temporal span of some ninety-four years. A few accounts do antedate these and come from the earliest centuries of European settlement.

Grover Krantz and John Napier have been the first physical anthropologists to undertake serious examination of much of this Bigfoot evidence. Even though some appear to be obvious hoaxes, the degree of internal consistency within most of them is striking. Napier, in his thorough examination of both track evidence and the supposed eyewitness reports, also notes this high degree of internal consistency. Regarding the tracks Napier states,

There is a curious and persuasive consistency about the hourglass footprints. They present an aberrant but, nevertheless, uniform pattern. This is hard to reconcile with fakery. One might pose the question: who other than God or natural selection is sufficiently conversant with the subtleties of the human foot and the human walking style to 'design' an artificial foot which is so perfectly harmonious in terms of structure and function? 6

Krantz provides further specific details about the unique anatomy of the Sasquatch foot. 7 He has discovered a large width of heel, a double ball, and an unusually straight row of similarly sized toes. Close examination of several of the more consistent and convincing sets of tracks reveal these features. He thinks these traits are due to changes in proportion of the various bones of the feet — an adaptation to great body weight upon a pair of bipedally adapted legs.

Even more convincing to Napier and some other scientists have been the Bossburg tracks, a series of 1,089 prints in all, from an area near Bossburg, Washington. The remarkable feature of the Bossburg tracks is that they appear to have been made by a crippled Sasquatch whose right foot was a clubfoot, technically referred to as talipes-equino-varus. Napier has diagnosed the deformity as most likely being the result of a crushing injury to the foot during childhood, a condition that would be almost impossible to deliberately fake.

John Green, journalist and author from Victoria, British Columbia, has collected over fifteen hundred Sasquatch reports over the past twenty years, and has noted a number of remarkable consistencies within them. Of particular interest here is his observation about range and distribution. He has noted that, "where the annual rainfall is under 20 inches a year there are hardly any sasquatch reports," 8 as opposed to the situation in moister areas, especially in the Northwest, where sightings are frequent. Regarding this point Green goes on to say, "Why mankind's supposed need to imagine monsters should dry up where it doesn't rain much I will leave to someone else to explain." 9

The particular kind of consistency within the reports considered here, however, is not the combination of features described either by Napier, Green, or Krantz (even though these certainly constitute important lines of evidence), but rather it is the consistent variation in size, geographically, of not only Sasquatch tracks but of the hypothetical animals themselves.

Analysis of Evidence
Attention to the Bigfoot reports led to the discovery of what was thought to be a clinal pattern within them regarding body size. Reports of both the tracks and the eyewitness sightings seemed to characterize a larger creature in the northern part of the hypothetical species range.

Subsequent compilation of data in 1973 (both track measurements and estimated statures) from the collections of reports available at that time, strongly reinforced this hypothesis (see Table 1). The particular reports utilized in that preliminary study were all of those listed by Napier10, a few others collected and published by Roger Patterson and not included by Napier11, additional Canadian reports compiled by John Green 12, and some 1973 Canadian newspaper accounts. The Sasquatch File, a more complete compilation of reports than the earlier ones, was not available at the time of preliminary analysis, but it has since been screened for pertinent information about both tracks and estimated statures. Also, additional files of more recent reports, from 1974 to the present, have since been offered for study. Comments concerning recent findings will be made at the end of this section.

The results of the preliminary investigation, listed in Table 1, show that the average length of tracks (n = 44) vary gradually in a south-north direction from an average of 15" in California to 18.5" in Canada. Corresponding to this is a gradual increase in average stature, as estimated by alleged eyewitness observers (n = 47), from 7'4" in California to 8'8" in western Canada.

A statistical test of the Table 1 data shows that the clines are in all probability quite real and not the product of chance sampling bias. By plotting track lengths and estimated statures against latitude, regression lines were produced, and the t-test was applied to the slope estimates 13. Application of the t-test to the slope estimate of the track-length regression lines shows that if the true slope were zero, then the slope of .12 inches/degree of latitude shown in Figure 1 would have less than a 15 per cent chance of being produced. Application of the same test to the slope estimate of the stature regression(.0746 feet/degree of latitude) shows less than a 10 per cent chance that such a slope would exist in face of an actual slope of zero. The two regression lines, then, appear to be showing actual clines and not sampling bias. This is not to say that the Sasquatch itself has to be real, only that the reported size variations are real and apparently regular from south to north.

All of this is of particular scientific interest because the suggested increase in body size from south to north within the hypothetical species range is exactly what one would predict in nature according to the well-known ecogeographical principle, Bergmann's Rule. Bergmann's Rule states that, among many species and genera of homeotherm vertebrates, those populations closer to the equator tend to have a smaller mean body size than those toward the poles at cooler latitudes. The size differences are thought to exist because of the relationship of body mass to exposed surface area. A large body simply has a smaller surface area per unit volume than does a small one, thus heat conservation is promoted in the cooler regions and heat loss in warmer regions. 14

Table 1: North American Sasquatch size variation following Bergmann's Rule Location Tracks Stature
Mean No. Range Mean No. Range
Califonia 15" 17 12.5" - 18" 7'4" 11 6' - 9'
Oregon 16.9" 5 13.5" - 20" 8'0" 7 6.5' - 9.5'
Washington 17.1" 15 13.5" - 22" 8'4" 12 7' - 10'
W. Canada 18.5" 15 15" - 24" 8'8" 17 6.5' - 14'

For many years North American hunters have known that the moose, coyote, wolf, and several other mammalian species vary in size according to this rule from south to north. Actual studies have been conducted on some of these, such as the cougar and the barren ground caribou; as well as several species of birds. Basically, these studies show conformity to Bergmann's Rule; the deviations among some of the bird populations probably result from local influences and other variables not well understood at present.


Figure 1: Linear regression lines and correlation coefficients "R" for foot length and estimated heights vs. latitude.
• = one point x = two points * = three points

Perhaps more important to our concern here is the fact that the various geographical races of Homo sapiens likewise show marked conformity to Bergmann's Rule. Various studies of both stature and body weight over the years have tended to confirm this even though local exceptions do exist within human samples. 15 The reason that human conformity to Bergmann's Rule is of particular interest here, of course, is due to the assumed phylogenetic closeness of the alleged Sasquatch to Homo sapiens.


Figure 2: Body size (weight) clines within the geographical races of
Homo sapiens showing a marked conformity to Bergmann's Rule.

The very few recent reports that have been examined thus far (since the 1973 published data) seem to conform generally to the established clines, but a much broader study of this information will be necessary before anything meaningful can be said about trends within it.

Results of a recent tabulation from The Sasquatch File, however, have presented a few problems in terms of comparability with the earlier findings of our preliminary study. The Sasquatch File is no more current than the sources utilized in our 1973 preliminary analysis, but it is much more complete. It contains over two hundred reports from California to western Canada that contain mention of track lengths, estimated statures, or both. The tabulations from these data show a certain conformity to the patterns established in the preliminary study, but the clines are not as sharply defined. Furthermore, recent calculations by Green from his entire file (both published and unpublished reports) show the expected increases in track sizes and estimated statures only from California through Oregon, but not farther northward 16; that is, from Washington through British Columbia sizes decline again. In fact, his reported sizes from Washington and western Canada are smaller than for either Oregon or California.

This raises the question of why the results differ between the various tabulations. Examination of procedures used in the three approaches does show some important differences between the sources used in the original study presented here and the later tabulations that draw from broader samples of reports. First of all, in the preliminary study those Sasquatches reported as definite juveniles were eliminated from the samples. This type of screening was not performed in Green's 1978 tabulation, nor was it in our own tabulation from The Sasquatch File. Screening becomes a more difficult task with a greater volume of reports and even more of a problem when only tracks are reported. Secondly, according to Green there are clearly more females and juveniles reported from the more northerly parts of the range, particularly in Canada, than from California or Oregon. Therefore, if Green's generalization bears up under the close scrutiny of future examination, it could certainly account for the drop in northern average statures found in both of the more recent, broader surveys. Lastly, the earlier published accounts which constitute the basis for the results presented here come from newspapers and popular books containing only the quite "readable" and sometimes sensational accounts, mostly of direct encounters with what appear to be in almost all instances male Sasquatches.

Therefore, at this point it would seem as though the only data studied thus far which actually traces from south to north a single age group (and to some extent a single sex group) is the original data of the preliminary study presented here. The other tabulations, as they come to include a broader spectrum of reports, seem to entail more and more reports of females and juveniles, and this then reduces or even reverses the cline.

Of course it is also possible (although statistically improbable) that the two clines have been produced fortuitously as a result of the relatively small samples in the initial study. In this case, if the clines are not real, then a broadening of the samples could also be expected to eventually remove all appearances of the clinal differences. Further study utilizing some established standard for screening reports to eliminate obvious hoaxes as well as reports of juveniles will likely settle the question as to whether the clines are real or have been accidentally produced by sampling bias.

Perhaps it should be mentioned at this point that during the screening of Sasquatch reports it appeared as though not only size but also coat colour varied in similar fashion from south to north. Coat colour variations do exist within mammalian species, and they do often vary by latitude. This zoological principle is sometimes referred to as Gloger's Rule, and holds that darker shades tend to occur more frequently in moister, warmer regions (such as the more southerly zones in North America) and that blender tones are more frequent in cooler, drier places. Among the California and Oregon Bigfoot reports surveyed so far, only 13.6 percent are reported beige or white in colour and the vast majority are listed as brown or black. In Washington and western Canada, on the other hand, 26 percent are reported as beige or white. Still, the majority in Washington and Canada are reported as brown, reddish, or black, but the much larger percentage of light coat colours in the north may be significant. Since, however, Gloger's Rule is not well undersood (and often imperfectly expressed within mammalian species), little more can be said about the whole subject of coat colour at this time.

Summary and Conclusions
The present analysis of reports of alleged eyewitness sightings and tracks of the Sasquatch was undertaken as a result of the increasing seriousness of this anthropological mystery. The preliminary results of our study support the hypothesis that the Sasquatch actually exists, in that population clines in reported body size and track lengths (and apparently coat colour) not only seem to exist but conform to ecogeographical rules. Statistical tests applied to the track and stature data support the assumption that the clines are actual and not the function of sampling bias. Of course, the problems presented by the addition of more recent data and broader samples must be re-examined, and the generalizations presented here tested further. This will be accomplished by careful screening of additional reports with regard to group and perhaps sex group. Also, attempts will be made to plot reported sizes against mean annual temperature within the hypothetical species range, not merely latitude. According to the principles of Bergmann's Rule this should produce a steeper cline since adaptive size features are actually more climatic than geographic.

If further analysis confirms the clinal patterns shown within this report and in light of the fact that the reports constituting the data base for the study encompass a geographical span of over a thousand miles and a temporal span of ninety-four years, the likelihood of a hoax would appear: minimal. The possibility of a hoax is still possible, however, even if the clines are eventually proven real. Such a hoax could be perpetrated perhaps by zoologists or other very knowledgeable individuals conversant in the basic tenets of Bergmann's and Gloger's Rules.

In summary, assuming that future analysis does demonstrate that random data have not fortuitously produced the meaningful results shown here, then the following alternate hypotheses must be listed as the two possible explanations for our results:

That the most complex and sophisticated hoax in the history of anthropology has continued for centuries without being exposed;
that the most manlike (and largest) non-human primate on earth has managed to survive in parts of North America and remains undiscovered by modern science.
Either conclusion appears totally preposterous in light of the problem-solving capability of modern science; yet, one of these two possible conclusions must be true.

Notes
Travel funds to the conference were provided by the University of Wyoming.
See Roger Patterson, Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? (Yakima, Wash.: Franklin Press, 1966); Don Hunter and Rene Dahinden, Sasquatch (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1973); John Green, Bigfoot: On the Track of the Sasquatch (New York: Ballantine Books, 1973), The Sasquatch File (Agassiz, B.C.: Cheam Publishing, 1973), and Sasquatch: The Apes among Us (Sannichton, B.C.: Hancock House, 1978); and Peter Byrne, The Search for Bigfoot: Monster, Myth or Man? (New York: Pocket Books, 1975).
See Roderick Sprague and Grover S. Krantz, The Scientist Looks at the Sasquatch (Moscow, Idaho: University Press of Idaho, 1977) and John Napier, Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality (London: Jonathan Cape, 1972).
See Wayne Suttles, "On the Cultural Track of the Sasquatch," Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 6, no. 1 (1972): 65-90.
See Hunter and Dahinden, Sasquatch, and Green, The Apes Among Us.
Napier, Bigfoot, p. 123.
Grover S. Krantz, "Anatomy of the Sasquatch Foot," Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 6, no. 1 (1972): 91-103 and "Additional Notes on Sasquatch Foot Anatomy," Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 6, no. 2 (1972): 230-41.
Green, The Apes among Us, p. 171.
Ibid., p. 172.
Napier, Bigfoot, Table 2, pp. 210-12.
See Patterson, Abominable Snowmen of America.
In On the Track of the Sasquatch.
A University of Wyoming colleague, R. Lynn Kirlin, plotted the regression lines and performed the statistical tests. His contribution to the study is particularly significant because it required researching the reports that formed the data base for Table 1 in order to obtain the actual latitude for the sightings.
See L.S. Dillon, Evolution: Concepts and Consequences (St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, 1973).
See C.S. Goon, "Some Problems of Human Variability and Natural Selection in Climate and Culture," American Naturalist 89 (1955): 257-80 and The Living Races of Man (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965).
In The Apes Among Us.
From: Manlike Monsters On Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence, Marjorie Halpin & Michael M. Hames (eds) (University of British Columbia Press, 1980.)

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/gill.html
 
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.

Article from BBC Wildlife magazine, September 1998.

Please present evidence that the Redwoods film is "an outright and admitted hoax". (Somebody said the Playboy Playmate said it was doesn't count.) Last I saw, it was deemed inconclusive. A couple of other researchers (Byrne and Dahinden) challenged the height estimate by measuring with another RV. Height within human range doesn't=human. Little Bigfeet have to grow to become big Bigfeet.

Meldrum exposed the Snow Walker hoax (yes, RayG, I know he thought it was authentic at first.)

More on the Redwoods video:

"Notes from David Bittner, Pixel Workshop Inc.

I personally performed one of the image enhancement sessions to the above mentioned video footage. I was provided with a Beta SP, first generation dub from the Hi8 original. The footage was consistent with what one would expect to see from a Hi8 camcorder shooting under low-light conditions, with a large amount of chroma noise.

We digitized the footage and tried several different kinds of image enhancement, including level and gamma adjustments, magnification, slow motion, noise reduction, as well as an edge enhancing unsharp mask filter. Several combinations of the above techniques were used, each yielding various degrees of enhancement.

The low contrast and high noise of the footage made the enhancement process difficult at best. Still, we were able to see many details with more clarity than was possible in the original footage. Our analysis of the footage reveals nothing that would indicate a hoax. There is no visible evidence of a costume, and there is nothing that indicates any doctoring of the video or other use of special visual effects. A major television network is currently in production of a Bigfoot documentary that will include the Redwoods Footage, and they are performing an independent enhancement of the footage."

<snip>

With regard to the videotape made by Craig Miller on August 28, 1995, around 8:30 p.m. the term "Playmate Video" or "Redwoods Video" are interchangeable - just like Sasquatch and Bigfoot - but it means the same
thing. Historically speaking the film shot in 1963 in Dallas, Texas is widely known as the Zapruder film and the film shot in 1967 in Bluff Creek, California is commonly referred to as the Patterson-Gimlin film. So, one is
inclined to wonder why the videotape shot in northern California is not called the "Miller videotape." Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Richard Greenwell were on site to investigate the Redwoods videotape and I didn't have an
opportunity to get there until December 1995. All three of us, though, were of a very positive opinion about the videotape, and I later went down and interviewed the videographer, Craig Miller, who lives in southern
California, which only reinforced my opinion of the case. Interestingly, Peter Byrne, the late Rene Dahinden and Larry Lund were of an opposite opinion, that the videotape was a hoax, yet not one of them ever bothered
themselves to interview the witnesses. Not one of them ever conducted on-site investigation. Byrne even went so far as to say the subject in the videotape was wearing sneakers, yet the claim was never substantiated with photographic information to back up such a claim. Daniel Perez"
- ---

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/films/redwoodsfilm.htm

Roger Thomas collects articles and posts them on his website. There's quite an array, including some from sceptics. I get irritated at a site that's had one of Cliff Crook's bogus photos on it for years, but I have no control over webmasters who don't update their websites.
 
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.

And Meldrum was the one who exposed it. It wasn't a "crude hoax". It was done by professionals.

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.

In fact, he addresses this in the appendix of Sasquatch/Bigfoot Evidence. He seemed baffled, especially by Dahinden's reaction. (Dahinden was behind it, according to Noll.) A couple of fingerprint experts evidently supported his conclusions, which leads me to wonder if one of Dahinden's casts (he was selling replicas) might have been used in the manufacture. There were other indicators of authenticity besides the toenail prints and scars. Dennett uncovered the Indiana man, BTW. As I recall, Noll said all the Indiana man did was forward the cast to Krantz. He also noted René could be mean. (This was in a debate on BFF; I'd even come up with an article on it. I didn't know who I was arguing with at the time.) We've been over this before.

One mistake and all his other work is out the window?

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

Phooey. Both published in the Journal of the American Ass'n of Physical Anthropology.

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

jefflab1.jpg


Welcome to Bigfootery. They are desperately seeking respect. Won't you give a small handful, or at least a nickel?

As I've mentioned before, I wrote to Meldrum about that page. He replied the original photo had him in front of a still from the Redwoods video but the person who did that page edited in the snowwalker image. I've even used part of his reply in my sig line.

He's no longer with the BFRO. The whole page should be removed from their site, IMO.

Desparately seeking respect? Meldrum's been praised for his methodology and got his tenure even though some of his collegues dislike his one of his areas of interest.

Welcome to sceptical misinformation.
 
Last edited:
You seem to have it backwards. He initially described it as compelling and then later claims he never suggested the cast was compelling.

RayG

"With his background in primatology, he felt compelled to tackle the task of solving the mystery of Sasquatch.

"Clearly, we needed a system to evaluate this," he said.

Meldrum took casts and photographs of the seven footprints he discovered. Those are part of a collection of more than 100 prints that he and colleagues at other colleges have acquired. The collection is the only one of its kind in an academic institution as well as the largest in the world.

The diverse library of cast footprints is his most compelling piece of evidence. According to Meldrum, the details of anatomy including unique toes, joints and flexibility would be impossible to imitate. With consistently intimate details of tracks dating all the way back from prints found in the late 1950s, if it is a hoax, Meldrum wonders, "who's passing out the instruction manuals?"

And listening to trembling voices in eyewitness accounts, Meldrum says, is something "you can't put in a test tube."

Although Meldrum has yet to find himself face to face with Sasquatch, he did experience a close encounter on an expedition through Northern California when he awoke at 2 a.m. to something rifling his backpack. The creature was walking on two feet and left a 16-inch oval imprint as it brushed near his tent. He and fellow campers were miles from the main trail and had not informed anyone of their whereabouts. The mystery animal also seemed to clack its teeth, a common phenomenon of Sasquatch encounters.

Meldrum hopes that collecting DNA and hair tissue in the future will further bolster ideas of the existence of Bigfoot.

He is currently working with producer Doug Hajicek in the production of a Discovery Channel special, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, tentatively scheduled to air Jan. 9, 2003. His intensive study of Sasquatch footprints will be featured in the documentary. Also featured will be analysis of the Skookum body cast, a plaster cast of what may be the first documented body imprint of Sasquatch. Meldrum contributed a great deal of research on the cast."

http://www.isubengal.com/media/pape...html?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.isubengal.com


Dr. Swindler unequivocably stated his position on LMS. Did he later retract? As a Professor Emeritus he could afford to be bold (although he had to revise his stance as the "obligatory sceptical scientist" he'd been before his four examinations of the Skookum Cast).
 
Last edited:
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam.....


Oh, did I say ' Spam ' ?

An excerpt and a simple link wil do Lu.. Thank you..
 
I disagree, Diogenes. Her information this time around does present a fairly reasonable sounding counter-opinion. The facts of the case do seem obscure, at best. She quoted relevant material and did provide some linking, so I think she's within her rights.

I would like to see the evidence myself that the Redwoods video was definitively shown to be a hoax - well, admitted to be one, anyway.

If true, it does show that Meldrum has a propensity to see 'evidence' in a biased light, and may not be the best expert to consult on issues of Bigfootery, after all. If false, it also could show that some skeptics have taken the concept of mudslinging too far.
 
RayG said:
You seem to have it backwards. He initially described it as compelling and then later claims he never suggested the cast was compelling.

"With his background in primatology, he felt compelled to tackle the task of solving the mystery of Sasquatch.

"Clearly, we needed a system to evaluate this," he said.

Meldrum took casts and photographs of the seven footprints he discovered. Those are part of a collection of more than 100 prints.... <big snip>

Also featured will be analysis of the Skookum body cast, a plaster cast of what may be the first documented body imprint of Sasquatch. Meldrum contributed a great deal of research on the cast."

Not sure how your response relates to my post. Meldrum once found the Skookum cast "significant" and "compelling", now he "never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling."

I made no mention of Dr. Swindler, was only pointing out what Dr. Meldrum himself had said.

RayG
 
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam.....


Oh, did I say ' Spam ' ?

An excerpt and a simple link wil do Lu.. Thank you..

Spamming the board, at least on AOL boards, is posting the same message (it has to be identical) several times on the same thread or posting the same message on several different threads or boards. I have not done that.

If you don't like what I post, don't read it, but don't accuse me of doing something I'm not doing, please.

FYI:

"Spam Defined
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Internet spam is one or more unsolicited 1 messages, sent or posted as part of a larger collection 2 of messages, all having substantially identical content. 3


The anti-spam community on the Internet has long grappled with a problem of terminology. Just as one U.S. Supreme Court Justice once said about pornography ``I can't define it, but I know it when I see it'', we in the anti-spam community have generally preferred to leave our definition(s) of the term ``spam'' somewhat loose and ambiguous, in part, because spammers have shown great inventiveness, over time, in finding new, different, and unique ways to annoy us, to invade our peace and privacy, and to use our equipment and bandwidth for their own entirely selfish purposes. The time has come however to define our terms, and to make our position clear.

In contrast to redefinitions promulgated by spammers and their friends, including those on Capitol Hill, and others who ardently advocate ``free speech'' (so long as someone else is footing the bill for the costs of carrying and delivering that speech), this page presents a precise definition of the term ``spam'' as that term has generally come to be used and understood by a majority of its victims, and by a majority of the people who are getting stuck with the bill for carrying, storing and delivering this unsolicited mass junk.

In order to insure that the definition provided here carries the weight it should, we also provide a list of signatories of Internet users who endorse the definition given here. It is our hope that this document will lay to rest any attempts to redefine ``spam'' in ways that would cause some forms of bulk unsolicited electronic messages to not be labeled as ``spam''.

Internet spam is defined as follows:

Internet spam is one or more unsolicited 1 messages, sent or posted as part of a larger collection 2 of messages, all having substantially identical content. 3


Please view the list of current signatories to the definition of spam provided above.

Please add your name to the list above and become an official signatory of this definitions of spam. We need to have as many people as possible stand up and be counted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

1 To understand the definition of Internet spam given here, it is critical to fully understand what does and what does not constitute an explict overt solicitation to other parties for communication. An explicit overt solicitation for electronic communication does not come about in ways that are not deliberate or that are not immediately apparent and understandable to the party that will actually receive the subsequent electronic communication(s).

Intelligent people who do not have financial, political, or religious motivations to do otherwise have generally shown themselves to be fully able to understand what does and what does not constitute an explicit, overt solicitation, e.g. for participation in electronic communications. However many on the Internet who do have financial, political, or religious motivations to ignore both common sense and common courtesy have repeatedly attempted to stretch the definition of ``solicited'', often to, and past, the breaking point. For their benefit, and for the sake of general public clarity, we provide here a list of things that do not constitute solicitations for participation in bulk messaging:
A mere visit to a web site does not constitute a solicitation, by the visitor, for further communication from the party that owns or operates the web site.


Transmission of an electronic message, or even a set of electronic messages, either from one party to another, or from one party to a public discussion forum, such as a USENET newsgroup, a chat room, or an IRC channel, does not constitute a solicitation for the recipient (or any one of the recipients) to place the sender of that message on any list which will later be used for bulk messaging unless the obvious and clear intent of the original message is to request exactly such further messages, and unless reasonable precautions are taken to insure that the sender of the request is in fact the valid and authorized owner of the e-mail address, ICQ address, or other designator to which the subsequent bulk messages will be directed.


Placing, or causing to be placed, one's own e-mail address, ICQ identifier, or other unique electronic contact identifier in some public place, such as on a web page, a USENET newsgroup, a bulletin board system, or a public-accessible domain name registration record, never constitutes a solicitation to participate, as a receiver, in bulk messaging unless such publications (of contact information) is accompanied by an explicit and overt solicitation, from the owner of that contact address/identifier, to participate, as a receiver, in subsequent bulk messaging. Publication of contact information, by itself, is not a solicitation for bulk messages.


The mere existence of a public discussion forum, such as a USENET newsgroup, a chat room, an IRC channel, or a bulletin board system, does not, in and of itself, constitute a solicitation to any party to send a message, or multiple messages, to that public forum as part of a larger bulk messaging process or campaign unless the rightful current owner of that forum (or the maintainer of the charter or FAQ for the relevant forum, in the absence of any clear owner) has explicitly encouraged the transmission or posting of bulk messages to that forum.


A solicitation to participate in one particular type, category, or class of bulk messaging (such as a request to be added to one particular mailing list run by one particular party) does not constitute a solicitation to participate, as a receiver, in any other or additional types, categories, or classes of bulk messaging, either when initiated from the same sender, or from a different sender.


A solicitation to participate, as a receiver, in any given type, category or class of bulk messaging can never be made by one party on behalf of another party. Only the party that will participate, as a receiver, in the bulk messaging may create a valid solicitation for himself, or herself, to participate, and to receive such messages.


With repect to postmaster, abuse, security and other such role accounts that are designated, either by relevant Internet RFCs or by the owners or operators of a given server or network as accounts whose purpose includes the reception of communications relating to the operation and/or maintenance of the relevant server or network, message senders should be allowed the widest possible latitude with regards to the question of solicitation of communications. For electronic messages directed to such role accounts, a single packet of any kind send by, or from, the network or server hosting the role account in question (as long as it is not merely a response to some earlier packet) to some other party, server, or network, may be construed as a form of solicitation, by the sending server or network to the recipient person, server, or network (or to responsible administrators thereof) for further pertinent communication to any or all of the role accounts associated with the original sending server and/or network.
Although the clarification of solicited versus unsolicited provided here may seem to be entirely a matter of common sense to most readers, it is important to draw this distinction as clearly as possible so as to lay to rest the all too frequent claims, by spammers, that they have failed to adequately understand this simple distinction. Most of us on the Internet have already been been victimized, repeatedly, by spammers who say things like ``You sent me an inquiry, so I added you to my mailing list'' or ``You have your e-mail address listed on your web site, so you must be open to communication from strangers'' or the ever-popular ``Somebody else, perhaps one of your relatives, must have signed you up to our mailing list.'' This footnote clarifies that unless it was the obvious and clear intent of the receiver himself (or herself) to participate, as a receiver, in bulk messaging (of a particular type, category or class) initiated by a given sender, then any messages sent from that sender to that receiver are, by definition, unsolicited. If any such messages are also components of a bulk messaging process or campaign, then the sender is a spammer and he/she/it is engaged in the act of spamming.

2 In this context, there is no defined lower bound below which a set of duplicative messages can be said to no longer include one or more ``spam'' messages. Within any set of two (2) or more messages having substantially identical content, any messages from that set that are unsolicited relative to the specific recipients that received them, do qualify as ``spam'' under the definition given here.

3 In a recent judicial decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, the justices of that state's highest court formally endorsed the view that:
The term 'spam' refers broadly to unsolicited bulk e-mail (or ''junk' e-mail'), which 'can be either commercial (such as an advertisement) or noncommercial (such as a joke or chain letter).'

Although the justices failed to adequately take account of the term's broader meaning (which includes all forms of duplicative unsolicited electronic messages, not just e-mail) they did at least correctly pinpoint both of the two key aspects of what we know as ``spam'', namely its duplicative and its unsolicited nature."

http://www.monkeys.com/spam-defined/definition.shtml
 
I disagree, Diogenes. Her information this time around does present a fairly reasonable sounding counter-opinion. The facts of the case do seem obscure, at best. She quoted relevant material and did provide some linking, so I think she's within her rights.

I would like to see the evidence myself that the Redwoods video was definitively shown to be a hoax - well, admitted to be one, anyway.

If true, it does show that Meldrum has a propensity to see 'evidence' in a biased light, and may not be the best expert to consult on issues of Bigfootery, after all. If false, it also could show that some skeptics have taken the concept of mudslinging too far.


Thank you.

Noll noted nothing was done to the perpetrators in the Indiana cast case. With Dahinden behind it I can see how a fake could be convincing. Krantz suffered a serious blow to his reputation and Dahinden got away with it. Amazing.

Meldrum interviewed the witnesses in the Redwoods case and found no reason to disbelieve them. Whatever ran in front of the camper was no longer there when he investigated, so how, exactly, would he be able to examine it? The film itself seems to hold up to scrutiny. The hoax case seems to be along the lines of what is the likelihood a Playmate and a film crew would be in the right place at the right time (any more than a couple of Yakima ranchers would?). Sometimes eyewitness testimony is all there is. I know I've belabored this point, but if something is a hoax, let the evidence be seen. Saying something is a hoax doesn't make it one.

On the one hand Meldrum is criticized for cautious statements and on the other for incautious statements. What a position to be in! But, as he said, exposing hoaxes is part of the effort.

I think this paper shows how thorough Krantz was in his work.

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/dermal.html

Note how many experts he consulted:

"Addendum (Opinions by Other Experts)

Tatyana Gladkova, Dermatoglyphics expert at the USSR Institute of Anthropology. Saw photographs of casts, including enlargements of key areas. (Response provided through Dmitri Bayanov, Moscow, USSR.)

I see dermal ridges of the arch type distally directed. I see sweat pores. If it's a fake, it's a brilliant fake, on the level of counterfitting, and by someone well versed in dermatoglyphics.

Anthropologists Mikhail Urisson and Vladimir Volkov-Dubrovin (Deputy Director of the Institute) agreed with the above opinion.

Henrietta Heet, Candidate of Biological Sciences and Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Saw several photographs and brief description of circumstances of discovery. (Response provided through Dmitri Bayanov, Moscow, USSR.)

Regarding photographs of skin imprints sent over by G. Krantz. I fully agree with his opinion on these footprints, as well as the opinion of Benny Kling. The structure of the dermal ridges is very much like that of man. The sweat glands have large openings because the ridges are much bigger than in man. It was great luck that the footprints were left in the soil that revealed fine details of the imprints. As for the patterns of ridges, some irregularity in ridge lines in separate places in the photos may be connected with the peculiarity of the material in which the imprints were made (unevenness of soil, various inclusions, such as small pebbles, pine needles, etc.). Another possibility is scars and skin injuries.

Incidentally, even in ideally made human imprints there can be such irregularities. There is even a whole branch of dermatoglyphics studying genetic irregularities in ridge lines, i.e. medical and genetic dermatoglyphics.

In the imprints shown by the available photographs, I cannot detect anything unusual, except digit I, left foot, which shows, apparently, a pattern of the arch type (in man the whorl type is more frequently found).

Douglas M. Monsoor, Supervisor, Criminalistics Unit, Department of Public Safety, Lakewood, Colorado. Certified Latent Print Examiner, and fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom. Was sent detailed photographs in late 1982, examined original casts in December, 1982, and again in June, 1983, for two hours on each occasion.

I see the presence of ridge structure in these track casts which, in my examination, appears consistent with that type of ridge structure you would find in a human. Under magnification, they evidence all the minute characteristics similar to human dermal ridges. The sizes, distributions, and orientations of the ridge patterns are consistent with those found on a human foot. Of the ridge structure visible in the impressions, I believe it was produced concurrent with the creation of the overall impressions, and not added later.

If hoaxing were involved, I can conceive of no way in which it could have been done. They appear to be casts of original impressions of a primate foot — of a creature different from any of which I am aware.

Robert D. Olsen, Sr., Criminalist, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Topeka, Kansas. Certified Latent Print Examiner, Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom, Member of International Association for Identification, etc. Was sent detailed photographs in late 1982, and Silastic lifts in early 1983. Examined original casts and two-color lifts in June, 1983, for several hours.

Based on everything I see, there is nothing in these tracks that is inconsistent with the impressions of an actual living primate foot. Ridges and pores are consistent with real primate skin. I'm convinced that this represents real friction skin and shows no inconsistencies in structure or orientation.

If they are faked, the individual would have to know an extraordinary amount about fingerprinting. I could not have done it. A faker would have to be an accomplished artist as well as an expert on dermatoglyphics. He would also need a knowledge of gross anatomy of feet. The amount of time needed to do all this work is beyond the realm of believability.

Edward Palma, Fingerprint examiner for the Laramie County Sheriff's Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Had latex lifts from the footprints in late 1982 — inked these and traced print pattern extensively. Had cast copies to examine at leisure. Saw original casts for several hours in early 1983 — made Duplicast impressions of critical parts, and took photographs for further study.

My professional opinion of the three casts is that they represent footprints of a living higher primate of an unknown species. The over-all configuration of the foot is roughly human, but it is too wide — a human foot would not be over five and one half inches [wide] for this length, and thus these impressions could not be human. The actual width is represented and supported by ridge pattern.

My study of the tracks concentrated more on the sole than on the more conspicuous details of the toes. I traced the ridge pattern over the entire breadth of the forefoot, finding triradius landmarks appropriate in their respective positions with intervening ridges flowing in proper directions. It could not have been patched together from smaller parts that were copied from skin of a known primate.

The detailed morphology of the ridge and furrow structures and patterns are especially convincing to me. In all details, they conform perfectly in design and size to real friction skin. The sweat pores are clear and are lined-up and spaced just as expectable, and can be distinguished from occasional air bubbles in the casts.

I began this investigation with the goal of showing how these prints were, or might have been, faked. All evidence now tells me that any faking would be impossible.

Benny Kling, Instructor, Law Enforcement Academy, Douglas, Wyoming. Had latex lifts from the footprints in late 1982, and cast copies shortly thereafter. Saw original casts for several hours on two occasions in early 1983.

These track casts show all the characteristics of real friction skin derived from a higher primate footprint. The ridge details, in all respects, duplicate that found in human feet. Parts of the pattern on right and left feet are near-mirror images; some displacia is indicated in the areas where it could be expected; smoothing by wear shows on the weight-bearing areas. In addition, the footprints indicate that an unusual proportion on the body weight fell on the front of the foot, and the arches are evidently flat.

This kind of print could not have been made by a human foot, nor that of any known animal. It could not have been manufactured by any hoaxer; the design is too dermatoglyphically correct, and the engraving job would be beyond the capabilities of the best forger. Descriptions of the supposed Bigfoot, or Sasquatch, are consistent with the traits found in these footprints."
 
Not sure how your response relates to my post. Meldrum once found the Skookum cast "significant" and "compelling", now he "never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling."

I made no mention of Dr. Swindler, was only pointing out what Dr. Meldrum himself had said.

RayG

I know. Meldrum's apparent uncertainty or caution has been mentioned before, but nary a word about Swindler's opinion. Meldrum's a lightweight compared to him.

I posted part of the article because it establishes Meldrum's cast collection is housed at a University, that he accepts Sasquatches are real on the evidence and that his research, including on the Skookum Cast was used on LMS, which was in the works at the time. He sounded pretty certain there.

This is from the webpage where William Parcher found the photo:

"Something" is leaving large footprints...
...in the mountainous forests and dense swamps of North America -- be it hoaxer or unknown hominoid. These tracks constitute the most readily assessable form of evidence for Sasquatch -- if they are made accessible to scientific researchers.


Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology
Idaho State University
Affiliate Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology
Idaho Museum of Natural History

Affiliate Curator of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization




Dr. Meldrum has been investigating the ways monkeys, apes and human ancestors get around, or locomote, for nearly fifteen years. Some of his research has focused on the way in which the human foot has adapted to the habit of walking on two feet (bipedalism). His research compares and contrasts the anatomy and function of diverse primate feet -- the interaction of the muscles ligaments and bones, as well as the sole pad and skin ridges. He has also taught courses in comparative primate anatomy, the fossil record of primate and human evolution, and currently teaches human anatomy in the Health Professions Programs at Idaho State University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Publications:

Meldrum, DJ and Wunderlich, RE. (1998) Midtarsel flexibility in ape foot dynamics, early hominid footprints and bipedalism. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. Suppl 26. (In press)

Hamrick, MW, Meldrum, DJ and Simons, EL (1995). Anthropoid phalanges from the Oligocene of Egypt. Journal of Human Evolution. 28:121-145.

Meldrum, DJ (1993). On plantigrady and quadrupedalism. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 91:379-385.

Jungers, WL, Meldrum, DJ and Stern, JT, Jr. (1993) Evolutionary and functional significance of the human peroneus tertius muscle. Journal of Human Evolution
25:377-386.

Meldrum, DJ (1991). The kinematics of the cercopithecine foot on arboreal and
terrestrial substrates with implications for the interpretation of hominid terrestrial adaptations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 84:273-289."

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MELD/jeffrsch.htm

And this has Caddy's opinion:

"When I come to view the cast, Noll opens the garage door and removes the tarp with the help of Owen Caddy, a local park ranger and former primate researcher. (Caddy, a recent BFRO convert, has been working informally with Noll to interpret the cast. His background suits the job. From 1995 to 1997 he studied chimpanzees in Uganda's Murchison Falls National Park and became an expert at recognizing primate tracks.) "Owen'll walk you through it," Noll tells me. "It's kind of hard to know what you're looking at."

No kidding. The cast looks like a congealed vanilla-caramel pudding the size of a twin bed.

"When I first looked at this thing, I saw the elk tracks," says Caddy, pointing out two obvious hoof prints. "I'm a pretty skeptical guy, but I kept on mapping the impression order." Next, he indicates what he has determined to be heel and Achilles-tendon impressions; they're too wide, he says, to be elk, but just right for a large primate. The heel trench, arm print, and butt divot suggest that something bipedal sat down, dug in its heels, and leaned on its forearm.

As Noll removes excess dirt from the cast with a dental pick, Caddy and I sit on the driveway and simulate the creature's position. "Now," he tells me, "put your hand under your butt." I grab a cheek. "Lift your thigh." OK. "You feel that bone? Feel how it digs in?" I do, but I feel a lot like an infomercial stooge for saying so. "Now come look at the cast."

Caddy, Noll, and I gaze in wonder at the bone-shaped bump in the butt print. I'll be damned.

"I'm not saying this was a Sasquatch," Caddy says. "But seeing that bone depression was kind of a turning point for me." "

http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200208/200208_sasquatch_4.adp

He's still not saying it's a Sasquatch, but he's saying what it isn't. I'll post Skookum Roll instructions if his e-mail survived the hacking of the board.

And Meldrum said this in the same article:

"For Meldrum—who is a curator in the BFRO—the discovery of the Skookum Cast was also momentous. "The ridge detail I saw in the skin eliminates bear, elk, and coyote," he told me. "That sort of detail is characteristic only of primates." "

http://outside.away.com/outside/news/200208/200208_sasquatch_7.adp

And here's a "never suggested" quote in context in an interview with Autumn Williams:

"INTERVIEW: Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Associate Professor of Anatomy, Idaho State University

>>Dr. Jeff Meldrum is a well-known figure among Bigfoot researchers, having contributed a vast amount of knowledge and credibility to the field of Cryptozoology. His painstaking examination of Sasquatch track casts and footprint photographs has led to some intriguing discoveries. Thank you, Dr. Meldrum, for lending your expertise to this subject!

Autumn: Please describe your educational background and field(s) of expertise.

Dr. Meldrum: BS, MS Zoology (Anatomy & Physiology emphasis) Brigham Young University, PhD Anatomical Science (physical anthropology emphasis) SUNY Stony Brook, Visiting Assistant Professor Duke University Medical Center, Assistant Professor Northwestern University Medical Center, Associate Professor Idaho State University


Autumn: What particular event sparked your interest in the Bigfoot phenomenon?

Dr. Meldrum: Initially, it was Patterson's appearance in the Spokane Coliseum to show his documentary and film footage, followed by an article in National Wildlife Magazine. I read quite widely on the subject as a youngster ( I learned world geography through Sanderson's tome). Eventually, I became completely out of touch with the subject, until crossing paths with Richard Greenwell. I was invited to examine the "Redwood's video." While this intrigued me, it was the opportunity to examine what appeared to be fresh tracks outside of Walla Walla, Washington that set the hook as far as my intellectual curiosity.

Autumn: What did you set out to discover when you began studying this subject?

Dr. Meldrum: I wanted to conduct a more extensive and systematic assessment of the footprint evidence, since that was an area of research expertise. My aim was to assemble as much of the available footprint cast and photographs as reasonably possibly. I was looking for repeat appearances of recognizable individuals, signs of dynamics, and most importantly indications of the underlying functional morphology of the foot.

Autumn: Please describe your track collection. Where and from whom did the casts come from? Approximately how many are there?

Dr. Meldrum: I have secured the bulk of Freeman's collection from the Blue Mtns of Washington and Oregon. I also have the bulk of Dr. Grover Krantz's collection. In addition, many individuals have been very generous in sharing their discoveries with me and permitting me to duplicate their casts or photographs, for which I am considerably indebted. They have contributed greatly to the picture of the sasquatch foot that has emerged. Each additional specimen has the potential to add another piece to the puzzle.

Autumn: Let's talk for a moment about dermal ridges. What precipitated this discovery? What have you found and why is it significant?

Dr. Meldrum: Krantz is to be credited for first widespread drawing attention to this feature of a limited number of casts of footprints left under specific conditions. I have pointed out additional examples that appear to suggest the presence of dermal ridges. Officer Chilcutt has examined examples of these and has identified typical characteristics of ridge detail that seem to be of a more coarse texture and that exhibit details of flow pattern that are unusual. He also recognized what appear to be healed scars. A great deal of work remains to be done to complete the analysis of this evidence.

Autumn: What other things of interest have you found in your cast collection or in tracks you've studied in the field?

Dr. Meldrum: By examining a large series of footprints, I think I have a better feel for the underlying consistency and the range of variation about the typical pattern. I think we have a better sense of the proportions of the foot and its articulations or joints. The apparent presence of a midtarsal break places the sasquatch locomotor adaptation at the very least parallel to the evolution of bipedalism in Pliocene hominids.

Autumn: As a scientist, what do you feel we really KNOW about this species so far?

Dr. Meldrum: With the emphasis on KNOW, I would have to say very little. I think we can draw reasonable inferences based on consistently reported anatomies and behaviors. It seems a rather generalized and adaptable species that may have a great deal of plasticity in its behavioral ecology.

Autumn: What kind of field research have you conducted?

Dr. Meldrum: I have spent extended time in various regions of the Northwest and Intermountain West in collaboration with several very apt and talented investigators. We have experimented with the application of a variety of devices and instruments familiar to all those who have attempted the same. As funding permits we will continue those efforts as well as explore novel methods.

Autumn: The synopsis for the Rocky Mountain Bigfoot DVD describes hair samples and fingerprint evidence you've examined and found compelling. Can you describe some of this?

Dr. Meldrum: This DVD was produced as a class project by a handful of ambitious and talented ISU students. It focuses on some events, historical and contemporary from this general region. My comments about hair reiterate the conclusions drawn by Henner Fahrenbach, regarding his growing collection of hair samples. As an anatomist, the existence of this distinctive assemblage of hair is quite intriguing, while acknowledging the challenges and difficulties associate with precise hair identification. Similarly the "fingerprint" evidence is in reference to Jimmy Chilcutt's observations, and those who have preceded him.

Autumn: What made you decide to become involved in the "Rocky Mountain Bigfoot" project?

Dr. Meldrum: The course director, Professor Mike Trinklein, is a friend of mine and has been very supportive of my interest and pursuit of this question. I was happy to make myself and my resources available to his students. As I said, I think they did a quite professional job and viewers will find interesting information about this region.

Autumn: What were some of your findings in the field?

Dr. Meldrum: A report of our initial fieldwork in the Siskiyous was published in the journal Cryptozoology, which can be had from the International Society of Cryptozoology (http://www.internationalsocietyofcryptozoology.org/). Other research efforts are ongoing at this time.

Autumn: What about that area suggests that the environment might be suitable for these creatures? Is there evidence of a substantial population?

Dr. Meldrum: There is certainly indication of a dependence on abundant moisture. It is revealing to compare maps with distributions of reports with an annual precipitation overlay. I suspect that population densities overall are less that in the Pacific Northwest, but a consistent presence is indicated and appropriate to the available habitats.

Autumn: Based on your findings and studies of the Pacific Northwest, can you speculate on a population estimate?

Dr. Meldrum: I prefer to approach the subject from the perspective of what seems to be a reasonable population in a given region. If we can speculate on the most likely social structure, It is probably a noyau -- a dominant male with a range overlapping that of several females. They seem to range widely - one estimate based on analysis of data suggests 1000 square miles (this would certainly vary with habitat productivity and season). Take such a unit and extrapolate to the area of suitable habitat and you might have an approximate number.

Autumn: In your opinion, what would constitute "proof" of these creatures' existence? Are dermal ridges, hair samples and footprints enough?

Dr. Meldrum: Traditionally, a type specimen is needed to establish the existence of a novel species. It is my hope that definitive DNA data will suffice in this case, although there is no precedent for that. Without a type, it still remains an inference that the tissue yielding the DNA indeed came from a sasquatch.

Autumn: The Skookum cast - what makes it so compelling? What's your final determination?

Dr. Meldrum: I have actually never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling. It is rather obtuse, in that its significance is lost on all but those who have the specialized knowledge to recognize it for what it appears to be. Had there been a clear sasquatch footprint associated with it, much of the silly speculation would have been avoided. The most striking feature for me was the especially clear heel and calcaneal tendon imprint. I was gratified that Daris Swindler, a fellow primate anatomist, confirmed my identification of this anatomy.

Autumn: What would you suggest as a viable approach to successful field research for an unknown, elusive hominid?

Dr. Meldrum: It must be a proactive, rather than a reactive approach. We need to become familiar with the habitat and its food and shelter potential. Solitary, reclusive animals are notoriously the most difficult to observe and to document. It will require a long-term, sustained and concerted effort in the field.

Autumn: How has your interest in this field been received by your colleagues in the scientific community?

Dr. Meldrum: As you might imagine, the response has spanned the gambit of imaginable reactions, from the enthusiastic support and endorsement to blatant visceral rejection.

Autumn: What, in your opinion, will it take to gather enough interest for a scientific/academic study of these creatures?

Dr. Meldrum: A DNA sequence from an independent lab.

Autumn: Finally, on a personal note, have you thought about how you might react if you were to come face to face with one of these creatures?

Dr. Meldrum: Sitting in a secluded blind at night gives one a great deal of time to reflect on that question. I think I have an informed attitude towards the prospect of that situation should it arise and I hope that I will have the presence of mind to maximize the opportunity. Time will tell."

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/newsletter/01_05.php

Emphasis mine. Now, what was your point again?
 
I get irritated at a site that's had one of Cliff Crook's bogus photos on it for years, but I have no control over webmasters who don't update their websites.
But it doesn't bother you at all that St. Meldrum has pictures of Wallace Tracks and bear tracks on his website ?
 
But it doesn't bother you at all that St. Meldrum has pictures of Wallace Tracks and bear tracks on his website ?
No, because you can't prove that they're Wallace tracks or bear tracks. Even if you had a signed and notarized affidavit, the bear probably forged it.
 
Playmate/Playboy -> Redwoods video

Perhaps some more detailed notes should be kept. Not only did I talk to two of the Playmate participants within four days of the airing of the show, I also contacted the program staff and obtained an uncut version of the videotape shot in the motor home just prior to and leading thru the "Sighting Incident." The group was clearly in a party mode and a large percentage of the language was unfit for TV viewing.

Peter Byrne and his Bigfoot Research Project, also obtained information within a couple days and did in-depth research into the sighting. The difference between what we saw, Peter, Rene Dahinden and I, is that we found it to be quite false.

I even showed Dan Perez when he stayed at my place, that the subject could not have been very tall, as you had to look down at an extreme angle from the motor home windshield. Perez and I re-enacted that one by using his own motor home. If the creature were as tall as even 8 feet, it would have been looking straight into the drivers face. It was not...it was below the bottom edge of the windshield.

Perez commented to me then..."You're right...it couldn't have been that tall!" Also did a demo with the headlights, as it clearly shows in the video that they turn on the brights.

They later said in a couple interviews that the creature was no more than 9 feet from the front bumper of the motor home. Perez and I re-enacted that also. I stood there at the correct distance, measured by Dan and he turned on his bright lights. The beams hit me at exactly the same height as it did on the subject in the video. I am 5 feet 7 inches tall. It should have hit much lower on a creature 8 foot plus in height. Dan immediately agreed with me again. I then showed the video I had acquired from the studio to him several times, confirming what our experiments showed us. I also pointed out that just before the creature crosses from left to right, you can see something walk from right to left up in the top right hand corner of the screen. Again amazement and agreement that this video was definitely in doubt of being anything more than a hoax.

As all related material goes, it is all subject to opinion and none have ever been proven fact. I just wanted the facts to be known that Peter Byrne and I did investigate this incident and along with many who viewed our results, I feel this was just another hoax. Thank You, Larry Lund posted Monday, April 29, 2002 10:42 AM


The crew of Adventures television were shooting an episode featuring a drive up the California coast highway in August 1995. The fifth and final day of shooting was in [a redwood forest near Cresent City, in Del Norte County, CA]. After finishing, the camera crew were breaking down the equipment and the other 5 were relaxing by driving around through the redwoods and partying. The music was up, they were goofing off for the hi-8 camera that they used for behind-the-scenes shots and just to generally document the trip when the betacam wasn't on. They had turned onto a narrow side road and realized there was nowhere to turn around. It was getting dark and had started to rain and they were finding it rather difficult to back the 34 ft. RV out.

At some point the driver spotted what he thought was a bear on the road about thirty-five yards ahead. Their first thought was wouldn't it to great to have some wildlife footage to include it the episode. But as the object walked at an angle across the road and away from them bipedally, arms swinging, they began to question whether it was a bear. They drove forward to within about 5 yards of it, when it retreated back across the road in the direction it had come, directly in front of the RV, the headlights illuminating it up to about the waist. It appears a little startled or intimidated by the RV and lights, but continues across the road to disappear behind a large redwood. Two of the witnesses immediately ran outside to try to get more footage but it was too dark and the forest was extremely dense.

What one sees on the video is a large (about 7.5 ft. tall) somewhat shaggy male "Sasquatch", that bears a striking resemblence to the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin film. In fact, I have juxtaposed frames from both in which the subjects are in similar poses and the similarity in posture, shape of head, configuration of neck and shoulders, proportions of torso and limbs, et., is very clear.

There are a number of anatomical features suggested on the video that are very intriguing -- head shape and position, genitalia (?), muscle definition and action, foot and ankle anatomy, and more. These observations alone are enough to cause me to give the video serious consideration. I have arranged for two independent enhancements of the video, giving particular scrutiny to the points I mentioned. There is a frame that should give some detail of facial features as well. We will have the results in the near future. I have also been at the site, personally interviewed one of the witnesses, and read the testimonies of the others. So far nothing to suggest any lack of credibility in their account. Jeff Meldrum




http://www.bigfootencounters.com/films/redwoodsfilm.htm
 
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