Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

Who you gonna believe? I'll take the words of Larry Lund, since Meldrum can't possibly see any of what he clims in the video, and he didn't do much investigating.

 

[LTC8K6]

A still from the redwoods video, and "science" done to it....

This what they have, and what they wish for....

 

[Orthoptera]

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.)

Well you are right, and I am wrong: I thought it was general knowledge that the Redwoods video had been admitted to as staged, but I cannot find any record of that, so I'll retract my statement, and the implication that Dr. Meldrum had something to apologize for. Mea culpa.

I still feel it is an obvious hoax, and that far too many suppositions regarding Bigfoot have been derived from the video, which is apparently almost forgotten, judging by the information I could dig up on it. I will ask you, LAL, in real curiosity, why is it so little-regarded that almost nothing is made of it as far as I can tell? It makes claims just as great as the P/G film, and is much more recent, yet the video seems almost invisible, and I can find essentially no discussion of its merits outside of the BBC Wildlife article.

Since you quoted so much of the website, in fairness, you should have also quoted that last portion that argued against the veracity of the video, namely Dahinden's and Lund's assertions that the video was a hoax:

"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"

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/video/redwoods.ram EDIT: Dead linkage fixed.

Well, here is the video. Remember, this is the video that convinced Meldrum that bigfoot is real.

Meldrum claims he was skeptical until he analyzed the Redwoods video. He traveled to the exact location, calculated the scale and concluded the creature in the video is 7-and-a-half feet tall. Meldrum's academic specialty is primate locomotion: how did 4-footed Apes evolve into two-footed humans. He claims details of anatomy, posture and gait suggest the Redwoods creature is something like a two-footed ape.

Meldrum: "At least for me, opened up the possibility, hey, maybe there is something going on here."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/trail.htm

 

[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.

Apparent uncertainty or caution? Seems more than apparent when he states, as a response during an interview, and posted in 2005, "I have actually never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling." Did he somehow forget the prior statement he had made in an Idaho State University Press Release dated October 23, 2000? The one where he calls the Skookum cast "significant and compelling new evidence."

Did Swindler flip-flop on his opinion as well? I'm not sure I see the similarity.

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.

It seemed to have little bearing on the factual information I pointed out.

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

Not sure how that relates to his flip-flopping on the Skookum cast as compelling evidence.

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

His credential list might be a mile long and he still might be wrong. Stephen Hawking was wrong about black holes, and he had spent significant time writing, lecturing, and forming hypotheses about them.

<snip big portion that seems to have no relevance whatsoever>

And this has Caddy's opinion:

How does Caddy's opinion have any relevance to Meldrum's statements? Did Caddy also flip-flop on his opinion? Did he also put out a press release calling the Skookum cast "significant and compelling new evidence", only to later claim that he "never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling"? Did Swindler?

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

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.

I didn't include the entire statement because it wasn't relevant. Meldrum never suggested the Skookum cast is all that compelling? He's either forgetful, or spewing bullspit. Surely you've read his pronouncements on the BFRO website from his press release of October 23, 2000, where he called the cast "significant and compelling new evidence."

The rest of the newsletter article is a waste of space, as it has no bearing on Meldrum's flip-flopping attitude about the Skookum cast.

Emphasis mine. Now, what was your point again?

I think I have addressed the facts a number of times in this reply, but once more just so there's no misunderstanding about my point:

Dr. Meldrum initially called the Skookum cast "significant and compelling new evidence", and then later toned it down to, "I have actually never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling."

That's neither my point, my opinion nor wishful-thinking, it's a fact.

RayG

 

[LAL]

But it doesn't bother you at all that St. Meldrum has pictures of Wallace Tracks and bear tracks on his website ?

a) It's not his site.
b) They are not a match.
c) He's not a saint, he's an associate professor of anatomy at Idaho State. If you enroll in his classes maybe you could learn to distinguish prints made by living feet from those made by fakes.

I have yet to see an explanation of how a "bear" track got into a line of forty clearly hominid tracks that were photographed, examined and cast (7 of them) by an expert in primate foot anatomy. Maybe I missed the post.

By actual measure, Wallace's fake feet do not match casts of any trackway, with the possible exception of one referred to by Coleman - no photos for comparison provided. This was all tested when the Wallace family "confession" was picked up by a gullible press.

Does it bother you that this whole line of argument is laughable? If you grasp at enough straws, you may have enough to build a strawman.

 

[LTC8K6]

The circumstances surrounding the discovery of the skookum body print preclude any serious consideration of it as evidence for bigfoot, imo.

 

[LAL]

Apparent uncertainty or caution? Seems more than apparent when he states, as a response during an interview, and posted in 2005, "I have actually never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling." Did he somehow forget the prior statement he had made in an Idaho State University Press Release dated October 23, 2000? The one where he calls the Skookum cast "significant and compelling new evidence."

Did Swindler flip-flop on his opinion as well? I'm not sure I see the similarity.

Not to my knowlege. He just seems to be getting left out. His health prevented him from attending the Willow Creek Symposium, that's all I know, although I seem to remember running across a paper of his evidently published after his retirement.

It seemed to have little bearing on the factual information I pointed out.

Not sure how that relates to his flip-flopping on the Skookum cast as compelling evidence.

I don't think he's flip-flopping.

His credential list might be a mile long and he still might be wrong. Stephen Hawking was wrong about black holes, and he had spent significant time writing, lecturing, and forming hypotheses about them.

<snip big portion that seems to have no relevance whatsoever>

Ah. Standard Creationist argument. Stephen Hawking changed his mind, therefore scientists don't know what they're doing, therefore Goddidit. Shame, on you, Ray. Actually, Hawking himself revised his opinion to match that of the quantum physicists. He now believes information can escape a black hole, but it would be mangled.

I've read Johanson may have revised his opinion on Afarensis in light of Deloison's findings, therefore evolution didn't happen.

Meldrum's credentials should show he's not a crackpot, as some would like to portray him.

How does Caddy's opinion have any relevance to Meldrum's statements? Did Caddy also flip-flop on his opinion? Did he also put out a press release calling the Skookum cast "significant and compelling new evidence", only to later claim that he "never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling"? Did Swindler?

Caddy has to do with your earlier arguments concerning the cast. The ground next to the mud was hard, therefore the right foot didn't print. If it had, you might not be doing the very thing Meldrum mentioned.

Swindler was very clear.

I didn't include the entire statement because it wasn't relevant. Meldrum never suggested the Skookum cast is all that compelling? He's either forgetful, or spewing bullspit. Surely you've read his pronouncements on the BFRO website from his press release of October 23, 2000, where he called the cast "significant and compelling new evidence."

The rest of the newsletter article is a waste of space, as it has no bearing on Meldrum's flip-flopping attitude about the Skookum cast.

I don't see it as flipflopping as much as clarification. This is the whole statement as reported in the Idaho release:

" “While not definitively proving the existence of a species of North American ape, the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence that will hopefully stimulate further serious research and investigation into the presence of these primates in the Northwest mountains and elsewhere,” Meldrum said."

He didn't say it's "all that" compelling.

He's pointed out reporter error in another story regarding Chilcutt's examination.

I'm especially wary of reporters anyway having been interviewed a couple of work-related stories. In one I was quoted as saying something I didn't remotely say, and I'm afraid to read the other. The reporter had nothing but misconceptions.

You wouldn't be quote-mining, by any chance? Context is always relevant. He's been convinced for many years by other evidence; I see nothing to indicate he's changed his stance. Swindler wasn't convinced until the Skookum Cast and gets ignored.

Some posters here have tried to claim "Bigfooters" are hiding the evidence. The newletter article clearly shows that isn't the case. See ISU.

I think I have addressed the facts a number of times in this reply, but once more just so there's no misunderstanding about my point:

Dr. Meldrum initially called the Skookum cast "significant and compelling new evidence", and then later toned it down to, "I have actually never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling."

That's neither my point, my opinion nor wishful-thinking, it's a fact.

RayG

And I'm not certain your interpretation is correct. Let me know when Meldrum actually retracts. Did you understand what he was saying about the heel and tendon, or did you snip the article without reading it?

 

[Z]

Even after reading that post with as open a mind as I can manage, LAL, it still sounds like Meldrum is backpeddling. He once called it compelling, then later claims he didn't. He is only human, and likely to forget; isn't it easier to say he forgot that he called it compelling, and leave it at that, than to make a fool of him and yourself by trying to justify his wording away?

 

[Correa Neto]

[DISCLAIMER]
I am not defending Meldrum's conclusions.
[/DISCLAIMER]

I think anyone has the right to change his/hers mind to any subject (*hint to footers*). So, he may have changed his mid on the cast for some reasoning of his own.

Honestly I fail to see any major importance of this particular issue regarding the central discussion: The quality of evidence used to back the claim that bigfeet are real - or not. Might have some -little IMHO- influence regarding the methodology used, but thats all.

 

[Starrman]

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.



Thanks for the admission of truth.

Well - just let me know when you are drinking your nickels, and I will make it a point to be drinking a beer at the same time. Not quite as fun, but I do feel good that any nickels I lose will be turned into something good.

 

[Huntster]

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

Human footprints with sign of manufacture all around the purported sasquatch prints. Signs of driving the print down into the ground to make them appear that a heavy creature was involved. Uniformity among the prints, lacking the dynamism of a living foot walking on uneven terrain.

...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

That is incorrect. I want desperately for researchers to indeed be or get into the woods. But it should be obvious that the vast majority of humans actually out in sasquatch habitat are hikers, hunters, loggers, fishermen, boaters, etc.

Based upon the number of sighting reports compared to the overall human population, the odds for anyone in the woods seeing a sasquatch are nearly astronomical. Separating trained biologists from the total number of people out in prime habitat makes that astronomical chance exponentially higher.

 

[William Parcher]

Human footprints with sign of manufacture all around the purported sasquatch prints. Signs of driving the print down into the ground to make them appear that a heavy creature was involved. Uniformity among the prints, lacking the dynamism of a living foot walking on uneven terrain.

How are we supposed to try to determine that with the "Patty tracks"? Here is that famous Patty footprint photographed by Lyle Laverty. It is a tight-cropped (or framed) photo that doesn't allow us to see any bootprints that may be around it. There are 3 other Patty print photos by Laverty. All are tight shots that don't show the surroundings. What boggles my mind is that Laverty observed the Patty trackway (which must have included many dozens of prints) and yet we only have 4 (maybe 5) photos taken by him. That is weird and begs questions. Again, here is a case where the available evidence doesn't even much allow for good inquiry.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, prints like these. Flat and showing no sign whatsoever that a living flexible foot left them. They're genuine sasquatch prints, though.....

What I can't figure out is how Meldrum reconciles such board flat prints like those in his paper...

With his mid-tarsal break foot theories? It just doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Correa Neto]

Human footprints with sign of manufacture all around the purported sasquatch prints. Signs of driving the print down into the ground to make them appear that a heavy creature was involved. Uniformity among the prints, lacking the dynamism of a living foot walking on uneven terrain.

How would you differentiate between prints left by the hoaxers during the hoaxing (if they indeed made any) and those from people that visited the site later? Not to mention that there´s no need for the hoaxer to have left any prints other than the fake ones if he/she walked with fake feet.

If a person is walking with wooden feet on uneven terrain, he/she will create "dynamism". If the person changes the stride, "dynamism" will also be created.

How would you differentiate a print made by someone pressing his/hers feet harder on the ground from one created by a heavier person? Both will sink deep in the substrate. Note that the effect can be achieved in a number of ways, adding extra "dynamism".

That is incorrect. I want desperately for researchers to indeed be or get into the woods. But it should be obvious that the vast majority of humans actually out in sasquatch habitat are hikers, hunters, loggers, fishermen, boaters, etc.

Based upon the number of sighting reports compared to the overall human population, the odds for anyone in the woods seeing a sasquatch are nearly astronomical. Separating trained biologists from the total number of people out in prime habitat makes that astronomical chance exponentially higher.

You are not taking in to account key factors:

Experience and training.
A trained professional has more chances to keep his/hers temper and make a better and precise observation, rather that letting the "Look! A bigfoot!" feeling take over. He/she would be less likely to make a mistake, and maybe that's why they don't see them. With more calm, they just realise the "bigfoot" was a regular animal or some shadow/light interplay.

How many people report failed bigfoot sightings?

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
What I can't figure out is how Meldrum reconciles such board flat prints like those in his paper...
With his mid-tarsal break foot theories? It just doesn't make any sense at all.

Simple...

The bigfoot has not bended its mid-tarsal break...

Or:

Bigfoot walks in mysterious ways...

 

[RayG]

I don't think he's flip-flopping.

That depends on how you define it. I meant the informal definition of flip-flop, as indicated on dictionary.com. -- A reversal, as of a stand or position: a foreign policy flip-flop.

Originally (October, 2000) Meldrum found the Skookum cast to be "significant and compelling new evidence", which more recently (June, 2005) has been watered down to, "I have actually never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling." That appears to be a reversal of a position he earlier held.

Ah. Standard Creationist argument. Stephen Hawking changed his mind, therefore scientists don't know what they're doing, therefore Goddidit. Shame, on you, Ray.

No, I'm pointing out the problems with adhering to what a scientist has said in the past, even if it was wrong. No Gods required. Unless you consider either Meldrum or Hawking Godlike. I don't.

Actually, Hawking himself revised his opinion to match that of the quantum physicists.

Exactly. Meldrum's more recent comments seem to indicate he no longer thinks the Skookum cast is as significant and compelling as he first stated. He has revised his stance somewhat, and I base that on what he has said, not what I think he's thinking.

Meldrum's credentials should show he's not a crackpot, as some would like to portray him.

I've never said Meldrum is a crackpot. I have shown that even men of learned science are sometimes wrong, and they sometimes revise their stance about something. According to you, that's not so with Meldrum even though his own statements don't support your assertion.

Caddy has to do with your earlier arguments concerning the cast. The ground next to the mud was hard, therefore the right foot didn't print. If it had, you might not be doing the very thing Meldrum mentioned.

Yet the cast supposedly shows the nutprints of a giant primate. Them must be really big dingle berries.

Swindler was very clear.

HIS opinion has no bearing on what Meldrum has publicly stated.

I don't see it as flipflopping as much as clarification. This is the whole statement as reported in the Idaho release:

" “While not definitively proving the existence of a species of North American ape, the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence that will hopefully stimulate further serious research and investigation into the presence of these primates in the Northwest mountains and elsewhere,” Meldrum said."

He didn't say it's "all that" compelling.

You're joking right? Not all that compelling? He says, and I quote, "the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence". Whether it's signifcant and compelling enough to stimulate further serious research is irrelevant, in HIS mind it was significant and compelling new evidence.

I'm especially wary of reporters anyway having been interviewed a couple of work-related stories.

Meldrum wasn't quoted by a reporter in either instance. His initial statement was one he made himself in a press release, the second statement was made while being interviewed by Autuum Williams for her bigfoot newsletter. In both cases he seems to have been quoted directly, not paraphrased.

You wouldn't be quote-mining, by any chance?

Nope, just pointing out exactly what Meldrum said, and when.

Context is always relevant.

And no matter how I twist things about, it ends up with Meldrum initially seeming to think the Skookum cast is compelling, and then later not so compelling. Are you suggesting he didn't mean it? He still finds the Skookum cast significant and compelling new evidence, even though he now says he never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling? Which is it? Compelling or not?

He's been convinced for many years by other evidence; I see nothing to indicate he's changed his stance.

I'm not talking about other evidence, I'm speaking specifically about his compelling evidence opinion on the Skookum cast. Why not ask him directly? Well, I corresponded with him once upon a time regarding the Skookum cast, but he didn't seem to like the questions I was asking and wouldn't respond further. You however, could ask him why he initially thought the Skookum cast was "significant and compelling new evidence", but now claims he "never suggested that the Skookum cast is all that compelling". Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

Swindler wasn't convinced until the Skookum Cast and gets ignored.

Who cares, I'm talking about Meldrum.

And I'm not certain your interpretation is correct. Let me know when Meldrum actually retracts.

So it's only a reversal (flip-flop) if you retract the statement? Since when?

Did you understand what he was saying about the heel and tendon, or did you snip the article without reading it?

Do you understand what he was saying about the Skookum cast being compelling evidence?

RayG

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Human footprints with sign of manufacture all around the purported sasquatch prints. Signs of driving the print down into the ground to make them appear that a heavy creature was involved.

You mean like this?

Note the ridges that look like the heel was pressed several times.

And what about the features that make BF tracks different from human tracks .. Other than length, this print looks remarkably human; as do so many others that are supposedly from BF..

 

[LTC8K6]

Meldrum occasionally sounds a bit crack-pottish to me.

JO: Do you think the Roger Patterson film is authentic photographic evidence of a sasquatch?

JM: I am convinced of the authenticity of the Patterson film. If based on nothing other than the footprints associated with that film, it appears to be authentic. The dynamics of the footprints correlate with the kinematics of the foot evident on the film itself to the careful observer, which in turn correlate with the particulars of gait and anatomical distinctions exhibited by the film subject.

The kinematics of the foot evident on the film....?

I must not be a careful observer......

The kinematics of the foot of a subject that fills very little of a 16mm frame????


http://www.normalpeoplelikeyou.com/article_assets/sasquatch.htm

 

[William Parcher]

Dr. Jeff Meldrum with the Skookum Cast. This guy likes to be photographed with various forms of Bigfoot evidence, as if it were a childhood obsession...