|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
4th April 2010, 08:07 AM | #721 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
This graphic illustrates how the 2 error factors cancel each other out....to a large degree.....leaving only a very small 'degree of error', which is insufficient to account for the LARGE difference in Patty's and Bob's measured 'elbow-reaches'...
Can YOU say "physically impossible"??? Later.....an actual physical model will demonstrate this, also. |
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
4th April 2010, 08:36 AM | #722 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Vort wrote:
Quote:
Astro wrote:
Quote:
Drapier wrote:
Quote:
The "skeptics" ASKED for numbers.....they GOT numbers....they couldn't REFUTE the numbers.....they CHOKED on the numbers....they RAN from the numbers. Read all about it... http://www.internationalskeptics.com...+Patty&page=35 |
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
4th April 2010, 05:20 PM | #723 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
kitakaze:
important questions for Bob H: 1) did you look back immediately or was it well into the walk? 2) how deep was the hole you jumped into? 3) was the hole near the edge of the sandbar? 4) did you walk in pretty much a straight line? 5) did the feet extend well beyond your toes, and if so how did you keep from stumbling? |
4th April 2010, 06:21 PM | #724 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Hi, parnassus. Welcome to the JREF.
Regarding your first question, Bob recalled looking back at Roger twice. Roger had instructed Bob to look directly at him to give the impression that the animal knew exactly where he was and was unafraid. When Patty is first seen in the PGF, she is just standing there legs together, not walking. Patterson's made-up story was that the Bigfoot was crouching by the creek twenty feet away from them when they first encountered her. The creature is supposed to have immediately raised up and left. Patterson is supposed to then have either fallen under his horse when it reared and fell, bending a stirrup and hurting his foot, or gracefully slid off the back of the horse, extracating his camera one-handed and hitting the ground running, depending on which horse$#!% story they were telling. Bob says that Roger instructed him to go stand in an area and wait for his command to start walking. This is exactly what we see - Patty just standing there at the beginning. On top of that, when you see Patty later in the sequence from behind and far away, oops, she's not stooped over anymore with the big arm-swinging. Bob apparently didn't realize he was still being filmed. Regarding the feet he wore, he said they were like slippers and had wrinkles on the bottom. After he jumped in the hole he doesn't recall if it was Roger or Bob that helped him get the suit off and if it was in the hole or out of it. He was freaking out a bit because the suit made him feel claustrophobic and he was worried about hunters. Bob never mentioned making any significant turns. The feet were big enough that when he wore them, he had to raise his feet up each step so as not to trip himself up. |
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
4th April 2010, 06:37 PM | #725 |
Student
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 35
|
SweatyYeti,
You must understand that "if" Patty is a man in a suit, then the suit would add a lot of bulk and distortions. Your supposed rock solid picture analysis is not lined up properly. Bob H's chin is where Patty's nose is. You must understand the Patty suit would add extra bulk to Bob H's height below his feet and above his head. Your comparisons are fatally flawed to start. Using your logic I may as well start having expeditions looking for Barney the Purple Dinosaur as no human being could possibly have a body that wide and arms that short. |
4th April 2010, 06:39 PM | #726 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
Kit: thanks for your reply.
I have read Long's book and have spent some time looked at MK Davis' stabilized version of the film. His stuff about a "slaughter" is weird, but his stabilization is very important, and neglected. The PGF(s) show(s) clear evidence of editing (flipped frames) yet this subject is seldom explored as it should be. The film, imho, does not show a single continuous sequence. There are two discontinuous segments. Davis did not understand the significance of the two sequences. They are reversed, imho. In the first, which is seldom studied, "Patty" is "small", thus is presumptively far away, and walking almost directly away from the camera. To me, she seems to be walking NORTH. Sweaty has been showing greatly magnified images from this sequence. This sequence ends with "Patty"s appearing to go down into a shallow depression. In the second part of the film, the Look Back sequence, "Patty" is larger and is seen more from the side. This sequence ends with "Patty" walking out of sight. Based on the apparent sizes of the subject, the angles from which it is seen, and the directions of the sunlight, I believe these two sequences are reversed, edited from their original order eg. the "second" or "lookback" sequence occurred first--because of the observations that the camera is fairly close, and looking more west, showing the side of the subject. The "initial" shakey "small" sequence, I would suggest, was actually the end of the walk, and shows the north end of the sandbar. Perhaps someone more experienced in film analysis can comment on this hypothesis. I would caution that some versions of the film show reversal of frames in the "small" portion of the film, complicating the analysis, particularly sun position. These reversed frames show the creek in the foreground. This editing was done for an obvious reason: Patterson couldn't end the film with the "creature" still in view. One further note: the shaking at the beginning of "small" sequence (the beginning of the edited film) occurs imho as the cameraman moved from his original position during the lookback phase, to a position where he could film the "small" sequence. |
4th April 2010, 06:46 PM | #727 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
Bob also said that Roger was sitting on his horse when he started filming....but, unfortunately, that simply wasn't the case.....as we can see that, in actual fact, Roger was on significantly lower ground than Patty was... Also...Patty did not have her feet side-by-side...(standing still)...at the very start of the film. I'll post a few frames from the start of the film later tonight....to show that. |
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
4th April 2010, 06:50 PM | #728 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
the size discrepancy has been previously noted here, but I cannot link to it because I am a newbie. The significance, however, was not grasped.
|
4th April 2010, 06:53 PM | #729 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Parnassus wrote:
Quote:
The ground Patty was walking on was basically level...but it was higher-up than the ground Roger was standing on....and, on the opposite side of the creek, from Roger. In this animated-gif, you can clearly distinguish the two sides of the creek, from each other... |
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
4th April 2010, 07:06 PM | #730 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
Swetty: your statement shows you have finally understood that it was a man in a suit:
Roger was on significantly lower ground than Bob was... |
4th April 2010, 07:08 PM | #731 | |||
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Here we have Bob Gimlin on a BBC production of Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World and he's screwing up the script...
Patterson and Gimlin said they came upon the creature crouching by the river and that it may have been drinking water. Here Bob is saying they came around a bend in the creek and the creature was standing there staring at them. He says it then turned and slowly walked away. Oops for Gimlin. And footers say he never changes his story. This, by the way, is the BBC show that Bob Heironimus talks about in Making of Bigfoot where Bob Gimlin comes up to Heironimus at their work, Noel Corporation (Pepsi bottler - Bob G drove long haul truck), and sticks a hundred dollars in Bob H's pocket and says he feels bad. Gimlin told Heironimus the BBC paid him $250 for the testimony. ETA: Website for the company that both Gimlin and Heironimus worked for... http://www.noelcorp.com/ |
|||
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
||||
4th April 2010, 07:16 PM | #732 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
Sure, a suit can add all kinds of bulk to a person's shoulders, arms, legs...and, whatever....but, in Patty's case, it cannot move a person's elbows 'up and down' along the arm, or further away from the person's backbone. ONLY a longer 'collar bone' and/or 'humerus' bone can accomplish that feat. And that's what Patty has....longer bones than an average human's...in exactly the "right" locations.
Quote:
Happy hunting! |
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
4th April 2010, 07:18 PM | #733 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
|
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
4th April 2010, 08:04 PM | #734 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
|
4th April 2010, 08:47 PM | #735 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
to see a comparison of the relative sizes of the images of " Patty" in the two discontinuous sequences in the LMS video, see post 12838 page 321 of the PGF thread
|
4th April 2010, 09:11 PM | #736 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Coming across clear indicators that Patterson was a hoaxer is far too easy to do for a guy that footer fanatics tell us was just some happy-go-lucky cowboy. Here are some examples of things about Patterson that believers like Sweaty want nothing to do with...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...31#post5787231 People who know those things and think Patterson actually filmed a Bigfoot are like three rungs lower on the creduloid ladder than Scientologists and those people that drink their own pee. There is no doubt that Patterson believed Bigfoot. He was obsessed with Bigfoot. The thing is that he simply didn't have a problem putting his creative abilities to use to hoax Bigfoot in order to create interest that would generate opportunities for him to make money looking for Bigfoot. Wherever he went Bigfoot would start showing up. Jerry Merritt is a perfect example of friends Patterson would manipulate and lie to in his obsession with Bigfoot. Jerry was a major rockabilly player with Hollywood connections out the whazoo. On Jerry's property in Yakima he created "Dry Gulch", a mock western town with eighteen buildings meant to be a movie set. Jerry did not want Roger getting all Bigfoot on his plans with the town and that's exactly what he did. He ran up huge phone bills using Jerry's home and left Jerry to pay them. He had Wiley City welder Charles Davis build a massive Bigfoot observatory bird cage contraption that Patterson put in a cottonwood tree on Merritt's property against his permission. Patterson would show up to Merritt's with his wife and kids and leave them while he spent the night on the roof of the barn looking for Bigfoot. And wherever Roger went, Bigfoot showed up. Roger starts bringing Bigfoot crap to Merritt's and then Bigfoot never seen before shows up. Suddenly Jerry has Bigfoot tracks near his garden beside his house, but oops, all the tracks were the right foot only. Then Bigfoot is looking in the window at his wife. Then Merritt's coming outside to find his dogging clamped onto Bigfoot's nards. Wherever Roger goes, Bigfoot follows and whoever knows that and thinks this man was not a con and a hoaxer has serious issues. |
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
4th April 2010, 09:25 PM | #737 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
|
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? |
|
4th April 2010, 11:01 PM | #738 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
SweatyYeti:
I have reviewed your elbow thing. Several posters have tried to help you understand foreshortening, but you seem impervious to reason. Try this: Do you think that Bob H.'s left arm was only long enough to allow his fingers to reach the top of his jeans pocket? And do you know what shoulder retraction is? It produces foreshortening of the clavicle. What do you think a lateral view of Bob would have looked like? Think about it. Put on a pair of tight jeans and try to imitate Bob's pose. Look in a mirror. I find it hard to believe you don't understand how foolish this elbow stuff is....? You're embarrassing yourself. |
4th April 2010, 11:14 PM | #739 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
By the way, many don't realize there are TWO look-backs on the PGF film. Just like Bob H said. The first one, early in the "lookback" sequence, is so shaky you can hardly see it, but "Patty" stops and looks back, then goes on to the second (and famous) lookback frames where she doesn't stop.
|
4th April 2010, 11:44 PM | #740 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Sweaty is as impervious to embarrassment as he is to reason. That is the nature of things when you think Bigfoot lives across the continent, UFO's are being blasted at in orbit and ruins of ancient civilizations connected to Earth dot the face Mars.
Let's put on our banker hats for a moment and look at Patterson and Heironimus. One guy says he filmed Bigfoot and the other guy says that he was that Bigfoot. Well, they can't both be telling the truth so let's look at who's the more likely liar... On the one side we have Heironimus who the footer fanatics are telling us is lying about being Patterson's Bigfoot for money and or fame. He has no criminal record, constantly employed since his teen years, has been a happily married family man for over forty years and has a solid reputation as a hard working, honest man. He spent ten years as the manager for Hansen Fruit and Cattle and was also the manager of Decker Cattle Farms handling company credit cards, large amounts of cash and payroll. He admits that he was stupid and young when Patterson offered him $1000 to wear the suit and wishes he had made a legal agreement with Patterson. Patterson, on the other hand, arrested for grand larceny and a major target at the time for Yakima Adjustment Services, a collection agency. He swindled $700 from Vilma Radford and told her she couldn't prove she had lent him the money when she tried to collect. His own next door neighbour he screwed out of another $700 by using his phone for long distance calls without telling him. By one of his best friend's account, that of Jerry Merritt, he was unfaithful to his wife. His own buddy Jerry he screwed for $350 in long distance charges. He was obsessed with Bigfoot and was widely regarded as a bum and scheister in his community. He abhorred regular employment and anyone who knew him knew he was trying to get rich through Bigfoot. The film he took in Bluff Creek he told at least three people beforehand that he was going to get. Best of all he had already admitted to at least one person in his community that he was a hoaxer of Bigfoot tracks and he told the brother of that person years before the PGF was shot that he had filmed a Bigfoot by the Section Three Lake in Yakima. Hmmm... if you are not a creduloid fanatic, who are you putting your money on? |
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
4th April 2010, 11:54 PM | #741 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
I don't doubt Bob did look back twice, but I can't see it here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOxuRIfFs0w |
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
5th April 2010, 12:20 AM | #742 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
|
5th April 2010, 12:32 AM | #743 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
I really like the idea of using stilts to create dynamic tracks with long strides. But the actor in the film is demonstrating steep leg angles for at least some of the steps. If the actor was 6' tall then he demonstrates a 40" step on the film. IMO, Bob needed to take long strides. Maybe he did it as a natural response to the long feet, but Bob needs to confirm this was the case.
It sounds an awful lot like Bob was describing the "wrinkley" Morris bigfeet to me. I'm still convinced the actor created the trackway (except maybe the flat tracks) and imo they weren't Morris feet. I think Bob needs to describe the trackway, his walk, the conditions of the substrate and the costume in greater detail, if possible. These are things we can correlate to the film. That said, some of Bob's recollections over the years seem to follow a pattern of mirroring revelations of the film, especially influenced by Greg Long. I haven't read Long's book, "The Making of Bigfoot", but he certainly dishes out a lot of juicy dirt on Roger the scoundrel/swindler in a very gossipy format. So do you buy all of it? How much was from the horses mouth and how much was agenda? Just askin, cause some of these stories seem outrageous. And Roger can't exactly rebut. However, I agree that if all these stories are true, then the PGF was just Roger pulling another hoax. But I'd sure like 1 more source besides Long to seal the deal. So Kit, get on it. |
5th April 2010, 12:46 AM | #744 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 660
|
Bob H wasn't such an honest man if he donned a bigfoot costume and participated in a hoax for cash. He's a stinking hoaxer, not a hero.
Quote:
|
5th April 2010, 12:47 AM | #745 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,206
|
I got bored and stabilized a not so good copy. I'll mess around with it some more later. Cleaned it up a bit at 0:06 to 0:09.
The walk is a little more clear to see ETA (From 0:06 to 0:09). Still quite shaky.
Hard to see the arms move before the S branch. |
|||
5th April 2010, 01:43 AM | #746 |
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
|
Bob Heironimus is no hero and does not pretend to be. He certainly is not the guy going to the Bigfoot conventions and smooth talking the crowd the way Gimlin does. He is very straight up about what happened. Patterson and Gimlin promised him an easy grand and he was young and stupid and didn't care what they were doing with the film. He went down to Bluff Creek and stayed one night with Patterson and Gimlin, got up the next day, put the suit on, did the walk and went home. I think many people at that age and time would have easily jumped at the same circumstances.
The simple fact is that he has been a stable, hard working, honest man all his life where Patterson was screwing people left, right and center. Patterson was a force. For all his flaws, he had unwavering drive for what he wanted. He wanted to prove Bigfoot so bad he could taste it. Hoaxing the PGF for him was a means to an end. PGF supporters say that if he faked the film, why did he keep on looking? It's very simple. He wanted nothing more badly than finding Bigfoot for real. He cared about little else.
Quote:
Bob always felt that he had one ace up his sleeve to prove that he was the one who wore the suit, but it was wholly dependent on the suit being found. That was the fact that he allowed Roger to use one of his prosthetic eyes on the suit to cover the black hole of the right eye. This was information that Greg Long coaxed from Heironimus and that Heironimus tried to persuade Long not to put in the book for fear of losing his advantage. I think you can see that fake eye here... http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/assets/...oot_face02.jpg |
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer. 2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum. I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6 |
|
5th April 2010, 07:00 AM | #747 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
It's as if a director yelled "Swing your arms, stupid!"...
|
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? |
|
5th April 2010, 08:00 AM | #748 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
[quote=kitakaze;5791440]I don't doubt Bob did look back twice, but I can't see it here...
It happens at about :21. I have a stabilized version but I guess I can't post it yet because I'm a newbie. This is probably what you are referring to when you say that the subject is standing still when you first see it. |
5th April 2010, 08:58 AM | #749 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
the frames that Sweaty posted above are at the end of the "small" first walk sequence in the PGF. Note that the subject is walking directly away from the camera, is almost to the woods, and that the sun is coming from behind and over the left shoulder, at about 130 pm. This means the camera is facing NORTH. The sand bar runs basically north and south, and Patty walked basically NORTH. Add in the fact that the image of Patty is very small.
The inevitable result: this sequence is OUT OF ORDER. It shows the END of Patty's walk, as Patty reaches the north end of the sand bar. In real life, it occurred AFTER the "look-backs" sequence, but has been chopped and spliced into the beginning of the PGF. |
5th April 2010, 09:03 AM | #750 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
|
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
5th April 2010, 09:07 AM | #751 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
|
parnassus wrote:
Quote:
Actually, parnassus...Bill Munns has already connected together the background foliage from the first part of the film, to the foliage in the middle part of the film. There is no possibility that the sections have been 'reversed'. |
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes.... "So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world." tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear." |
|
5th April 2010, 09:22 AM | #752 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
actually Sweaty, that can't be done, Munns or no. You may be referring to some similiarity in debris piles. Show us what you're talking about and I'll show you that it doesn't match.
And you cannot deny the other factors of camera and walk directions and distance. look at the arm shadow on the back of Patty in the famous "lookback" frame. It shows the camera is looking westnorthwest and Patty is walking north. You can see she is paralleling the general direction of the western border of the sandbar. This is nearer the beginning of the action, when the camera is panning from initially west, across the creek, to northwest, following Patty as "she" walks north along the sandbar. |
5th April 2010, 09:56 AM | #753 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
Did Meldrum ever reply to the email on the issue of the mysterious changes in the apparent sizes of some of Titmus' Bluff Creek casts? Recall the "group photo" on a black background which shows them all to be precisely the same length, while Krantz showed them against a grid, and they are clearly not all the same.
|
5th April 2010, 10:32 AM | #754 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
and speaking of Meldrum, he will have to live off the residuals....the Monster Quest television series, on which he has been the "resident Bigfoot authority" has been cancelled. Even the 'footers were fed up with the show.
|
5th April 2010, 11:01 AM | #755 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
Yes.
I asked Dr. Meldrum about the footprints being different sizes.
Originally Posted by My email to Dr. Meldrum
Here is his response:
Originally Posted by Dr. Meldrum response
|
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
5th April 2010, 11:37 AM | #756 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
The overflow of plaster? The depth? Aging?
None of those would do a darn thing to the track length in this case. Even the roll of the foot would fairly irrelevant unless Patty was crossing steep slopes or rough ground. I would not expect much track length difference on the PGF trackway. |
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? |
|
5th April 2010, 12:59 PM | #757 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
Meldrum, paraphrased: "the technician ate my homework, and it doesn't matter."
My impression: The technician isn't responsible for this, imho, and the illustration appeared as an important piece of evidence in Meldrum's "footprint" article. I don't know much about the paleontology literature, but I suspect this wouldn't pass the smell test. Any other academics out there agree with me? |
5th April 2010, 01:14 PM | #758 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 835
|
Standard practice is to have a scale bar in the figure. A figure like that would not get past an editor or even make it to review in a scientific journal.
|
__________________
"He is a sick, demented yeti." They only poo in other dimensions! |
|
5th April 2010, 01:53 PM | #759 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,216
|
The use of possibly fraudulent data is a real no no. In his article, Meldrum makes very little mention of the concerns about the authenticity of his data. In particular, he makes no mention of Patterson's background, nor of the statements of two of Patterson's movie collaborators, Al DeAtley and Bob H, who both felt the film was a fraud (not to mention another collaborator, Howard H.). Nor does he mention the inexplicable provenance of the film and its processing. This material was demonstrably known to Meldrum.
The distortion of scale of the data, imho, escalates his selective presentation and unscientific bias into the realm of deception. Meldrum arguably does a Patterson. I don't see this as trivial. Am I wrong? |
5th April 2010, 02:38 PM | #760 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
|
In the "bigfoot world" its not profitable to look too closely at the evidence. You have to be able to gloss over those (less than) subtle issues in order to keep getting booked for speaking engagements, and encouraging the flow of misinformation.
That applies to nearly all of the so-called big names of bigfootery. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|