• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The PG Film - Bob Heironimus and Patty - Part III

Even if Murphy wrote this in say 2006 why would Meldrum
A. not correct the obvious problems and
B. not get him to incorporate Munns’ work, or even just mention Munns?!?
I think the most likely answer is that he doesn’t give a $hit.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
 
Last edited:
DennyT said:
For those of you who don’t follow Meldrum’s pitiful Relict Hominoid Inquiry, I would call attention to a piece by Murphy (he of the Hancock House PGF picture books) in the Brief Communications Section last year. It is quite odd and quite bad and very outdated. And he says Meldrum (he of the Todd Standing camp) helped him with it!!! It makes me wonder if this is some old thing from like 2006 before Bill Munns got involved.
Click to expand...

O.K., you have my attention..

Where do we find this piece?
 
Meldrum struggles to get even enough terrible papers to keep the lights on at the RHI. In one of the calendar years there were no new full length papers at all. Zero.
 
In Meldrum’s PGF tracks paper in 2007 he wrote:
“Patterson selectively cast a pair of footprints representing a right and left foot (Fig. 1-2). The substrate consisted of fine dampened sand that took the imprints with exceptional clarity. A sample of the substrate collected from the vicinity of the sandbar in 2003, resembles the material adhered to the original casts made by Titmus, and is characterized as a fine to very coarse lithic sand. Grain size ranges from fine upper (177- 250 microns) to very coarse lower (1000-1410 microns), with isolated grains as large as very coarse upper (1410-2000 microns). The dominant grain size is coarse lower (500-710 microns). The sand is moderate-to- poorly sorted and the individual clasts are dominantly of subangular shape. The clast composition is dominated by metamorphic lithic clasts (schist and gneiss, ~85%), with small amounts of quartz (~10%) and other constituents (~5%, including altered siltstone lithics and other lithics). The angular nature of the clasts facilitated excellent preservation of footprint detail. The Patterson footprint casts are exceptional facsimiles of the feet themselves with little distortion resulting from dynamic artifacts of foot movement during the step.”

This paper has many problems, some of which have been discussed here.
Now, as far as I know, prior to this paper, Meldrum visited Bluff Creek only once, in 2003. I assume that was when the sample was collected. At that time we know that he was directed to the wrong filmsite. He almost acknowledges this by saying “...the vicinity of the sandbar.” It’s actually 100 yards away from the real site. Furthermore, he doesn’t describe how and at what depth he collected the sample, 36 years after the film. While it is possible that the substrate he describes is similar to that what Patty walked over in 1967, we can say for certain that the fluid dynamics of the two sites on the Creek were different, and therefore it is entirely possible that the detail of the material deposited during the 1964 flood differs between them. We can also be certain that material collected on the surface is not representative of the 1967 substrate. Meldrum exceeds reasonable bounds in relying on the specific characteristics he describes to explain the tracks.
 
Last edited:
This is all a demonstration of how thin the layer of fraud is in acadamia.

You aren't going to be "unusual". You're going to be a really bad circus freak side show. The Lizard Boy. No really, I am half lizard and half human. I have this paper in my own journal saying so.
 
I recently learned about the sideshow gaff.
https://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/gaff-gaffe/
The “gaff” of interest to us is the one that began as a gimmicked or rigged prop often used by magicians or illusionists to imitate sword swallowers. The evolution of “gaff” was them applied to a created “creature” such as a “FeeJee mermaid,” to pull people into the sideshow. The term “gaff” comes from the “gaff” fishing tool used to pull fish in; in sideshow terms, a “gaff” can be used at sideshows to “hook” or pull people into the sideshow.
...
Interesting discussion...”Chupacabras...The original idea was never to show the gaff ‘creatures’ claiming them to be ‘REAL!’ but to let the viewer make up their mind as to what IT was and to say only it was a strange ‘thing’ to be questioned and wondered over. It seems in at least one case the important Question Mark was dropped and Claims were made which I feel is not the proper way to to go…”
 
Last edited:
DennyT said:
I recently learned about the sideshow gaff.
https://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/gaff-gaffe/
The “gaff” of interest to us is the one that began as a gimmicked or rigged prop often used by magicians or illusionists to imitate sword swallowers. The evolution of “gaff” was them applied to a created “creature” such as a “FeeJee mermaid,” to pull people into the sideshow. The term “gaff” comes from the “gaff” fishing tool used to pull fish in; in sideshow terms, a “gaff” can be used at sideshows to “hook” or pull people into the sideshow.
...
Interesting discussion...”Chupacabras...The original idea was never to show the gaff ‘creatures’ claiming them to be ‘REAL!’ but to let the viewer make up their mind as to what IT was and to say only it was a strange ‘thing’ to be questioned and wondered over. It seems in at least one case the important Question Mark was dropped and Claims were made which I feel is not the proper way to to go…”
Click to expand...


Tube - a member of this forum and former carny - has written in detail about gaffs in threads discussing the Minnesota Ice Man.
 
Last edited:
Murphy writes a news letter online called Bits & Pieces in which he touts his PGF site model and “hominology” whatever Russian Thing that is.
 
DennyT said:
...and “hominology” whatever Russian Thing that is.
Click to expand...
In Russia, "hominology" is Bigfootery. At first I didn't know what that term meant because I hadn't seen the word before. I thought that maybe it was their term for anthropology. No, it's their word for the Bigfoot thing.

A Hominologist in Russia is a Bigfooter. A believer. A dude who studies their own version of Bigfoot and also the American one. They believe the PGF.

A Hominologist is one who reads the sighting reports and talks to witnesses and believes them. The Russian Bigfoot is called Almas, or something like that. Of course it's a hairy wildman thing with big feet. Some of those Russians are crazy believers just like we have here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom