Friday, January 29, 2016

Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum Removes The Myth Out Of The Bigfoot Equation


Dr. Jeff Meldrum is well known for his scientific approach to the subject of bigfoot. Meldrum was a recent guest on Darkness Radio, where they spoke about demystifying the subject of sasquatch. How much of bigfoot is truth, and how much of it is just made up? Check it out:


\

83 comments:

  1. Doesn't matter what your credentials are, as long as there is no verifiable data, there can never be truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^That's a cute bedtime prayer.

      Delete
    2. bigfoot has never, and will never exist. End of story

      Delete
    3. You must be writing the skeptic bible to sasquatch. But where did it begin?

      Delete
    4. Aren't you the denialist on verified data? You're a fundamentalist who's merely scared of what people think. "Bigfoot" exists in the evidence it leaves and in the sightings that keep you up all night. This subject is, and will never be under your control. You may get your way around the house stamping, kicking and screaming, but the reality is you will never have any bearing on it's reality.

      Deal with it son.

      Delete
    5. You seem to be confused on a few things "lktomi". There is no evidence left behind by bigfoot, only hoaxers. Simply show that the evidence you claim could not possibly be faked. Shouldn't be too hard should it PJ? The bets you have are footprints, which can quite easily be faked today, equipped with fake dermals, that bigfoot would be jealous of. There is no questioning that todays artists, with there cutting edge methods could create fake dermals that bend and flex and would make a bigfoot jealous. Not saying this is practical, but i am saying, you can't say that the best tracks you have could not be faked today. Then you have the patterson film and other such photos and film. Again, they can be faked. Could the Patterson footage by recreated today? Absolutely. Give a big budget costume designer alot of money, a large pool of actors to choose from, cutting edge equipment, etc, and you can recreate that footage, and make it look better than pattersons suit. Heck, with today's technology you could recreate the exact film site, the exact way it was when patterson filmed it. It is just a matter of money. It may not be easily done, but it can be done. Then you have supposed bigfoot DNA. This has NEVER been proven conclusive of anything. The best anyone has ever been able to come up with is human contamination. Thats it. Even your beloeved Sykes got simple bear DNA from his best samples. So basically you have nothing. There is not one piece of evidence supposedly left by a bigfoot that couldn't be faked. This frightens you PJ, oh i mean "lktomi", but one day you will have to do deal with it.

      Delete
    6. To hoax convincing biological dermals, one would have to have a knowledge of primate dermals (that not many on the planet do), have a lottery win's chance of faking the same biological idea, and then fool multiple forensic experts. Stompers don't really cut it. You can buy replica casts, but wouldn't these have been identified within the casting archives? What's more, is that by the early 1980's, the castings that yield the most significant evidence were already forensically verified, way before any replicas were manufactured, or there was any understanding within the field as to what dermals were, let alone unique traits across samples that transcend States and decades. To the best of my knowledge, there were next to no replicas to be purchased at this time, and certainly none with dermal ridges. Allow me to educate you some more... For example, when a genuine foot makes contact with the earth, it makes what is called a sequential print. The foot has dozens of bones, tendons and ligaments that flow in a segmented fashion and a fluid motion creates compression lines in the inner perimeter of the track, and can only be made by a living fleshy foot. Now... Fake tracks are identified by what are called impact ridges that appear on the outer perimeter of the track. What creates this is the simultaneous pushing out from the pressing down of a solid, non-flexible structure like wood or fake plaster cast. You find out his data by testing the source in question. You don't have to be pessimistic of the source to do this, in fact it's expected by 99.9% of intelligent thinkers, not to mention mainstream scientists.

      And to the PGF. For all the big money budgets you can allude to, is digressing from two simply facts. There is no known for cloth technique for a hundred years by any award winning SFX artist that accounts for what we see in the PGF, and Roger Patterson was broke and had nothing of the budget that is required to trump 47 years of SFX techniques with even modern materials. If you Google "bionic man Bigfoot", you'll see what SFX could manage with costume years after the PGF was captured. Using today's tech and the most expensive techniques only strengthens the authenticity of the PGF, and isn't a very clever argument.

      And to DNA... Sasquatch share our exact DNA sequence, which is in line with the results of many samples tested and similar to ancient versions of us that had morphological and anatomical differences in features. Sykes has very recently tested a hair sample that has morphological consistency across many different collected samples, that was verified by two different camps of primatologists to be of an unknown primate, linked to a direct sighting where tracks were also accumulated, that had had a match on a feral human from Uzbekistan.

      It's ok... You're learning.

      Delete
    7. joe just got blown the f#ck out!!

      Delete
    8. That was actually the sound of you blowing your shorts again.

      Delete
    9. His moms gonna be mad! Shes tired of doing laundry.

      Delete
    10. To hoax convincing biological dermals, all one needs is access to a set of primate dermals. Now where would a hoaxer get those? Oh, right, at the end of his arms.

      Forget the footprints. Forget the blurry photos. Forget the recordings. All those can be misidentified or hoaxed.

      To prove bigfoot is real you need a specimen. Nothing less. Bring me a body. Bring me a head. Hell, all I need is a single tooth. Just one little tooth. Surely that can't be that hard to do, what with everyone and his grandma snapping blurry photos of bigfoot in their backyard.

      Just one tooth. That's all I ask. All this babble about dermal ridges and mid-tarsal breaks and body casts and you can't get me even a single tooth?

      Delete
    11. But those primate dermals would have initially have to have been primate in origin but nothing like any known primate, and then somehow be morphologically EXACTLY the same as someone else doing the same thing in another hoaxed track decades and States apart in the middle of nowhere. Might I remind you, that there are simply not enough people on the planet that have a professional knowledge of all the primate dermals, let alone a dumb hoaxer... Your nonsense requires a greater leap of faith than anything that you can accuse enthusiasts as having.

      "Forget the footprints. Forget the blurry photos. Forget the recordings. All those can be misidentified or hoaxed."
      ... Ok... Prove it. If you expect your ideas to be accepted, you need to produce something other than your uneducated, unqualified opinion as a basis for it being a reality. Merely outting things in writing like some therapy exercise doesn't get around to achieving that.

      Nobody is claiming that they don't need a specimen to prove the existence of Sasquatch, but you've got things like this;
      https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/unusual-skull-found-near-lovelock-nevada-in-1967/
      ... Forget a tooth, you can have an entire skull!

      Delete
    12. I've seen the dermal "evidence". The claim that it's identical across tracks is pure bunkum. It's what happens when people who really desire a particular result start seeing things that aren't there to fulfill that desire. In other words, people who want bigfoot to be real see bigfoot everywhere.

      You also don't understand the burden of proof here. You would have us believe that a large, bipedal primate roams North America in sufficient numbers and sufficient proximity to human populations for thousands of blurry photos and dubious footprints to be found but without leaving a single specimen? That is an extraordinary claim, and it demands extraordinary evidence. And the burden of producing that evidence, the burden of proof, lies on you.

      So again, bring me a specimen. A BIGFOOT specimen. Don't bring me a HUMAN skull that lies well within the range of human diversity and try to tell me it's "proof" of bigfoot. That's only proof of your own credulity.

      And that's really the crux of the matter right there. I am not claiming bigfoot doesn't exist. I am not claiming it does exist. What I am saying, however, is that all the blurry photos and dubious casts and wild speculation are worth exactly nothing for proving its existence. Without real, unequivocal, physical evidence, without a type specimen, to back it up, all the furor within the bigfoot community over such worthless "evidence" only serves to put the credibility of the bigfoot community as a whole into doubt. It makes bigfoot supporters look like a mob of gullible fools. And the longer it continues without a real type specimen, the worse that appearance becomes.

      Oh, and insulting someone with statements about their "unqualified and uneducated opinion", especially when you clearly have absolutely no idea who you are talking to, is not helping you. It only adds spiteful and pettishness to gullible and foolish in the popular view of bigfoot "research".

      If bigfoot is ever proven to exist, it will be by someone with a shovel or, better yet, a rifle, not some yokel in the woods with an iPhone camera or a plaster cast of a bear double track or telling stories in youtube videos. And it certainly won't be proven by anyone throwing out wild speculation and petty insults as "proof" on some website.

      Delete
    13. Species traits across samples are not the case? Actually... Anyone with the most medicocre of understanding of this subject matter and dermals knows this to be the case. On the 22mins 10seconds Mark here;
      http://youtu.be/lEbMOipbvfc
      ... You notice one of the few people on the planet who is a human primate and non-primate fingerprints expert verify that there are castings that have the same traits across samples divided by States and decades. At this point, it is not a mere means of insulting you should I call you uneducated (in the immediate subject matter) and unqualified (to tell a forensic expert what's what) when you clearly have a very naive take on the subject. Or is misinformation an angle on your part?

      "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
      - Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

      Extraordinary claims indeed. According to you... For ten thousand years there's been a conspiracy to get your money by a group of gorilla suit wearing menaces! That's your extraordinary claim. Now get the extraordinary evidence! To abide by this ideal is to carry your own burden. You have just been provided an anthropological paper on a hominid skull that should exist. That's a skull that shouldn't be in the United States, as according to most, there are no hominids native to the US... And you want more? For something as large as this we have a steady level of evidence, and if this creature does exist (and in my opinion it most certainly does), then it would naturally have to have evaded classification for hundreds of years... So what is 50 without a modern type specimen being located? Prior to this, we have 150 years worth of science journals that have uncovered giant human skeletons across the US. It is therefore not a stretch to assume that Sasquatch bury their dead. In fact, there is more reason to assume so than otherwise, given the fact that they are quite clearly human and not a dumb animal. Even if we didn't have the hairs that are morphologically consistent with a wild human, if we didn't have the track castings that quite clearly show a large human, then the innumerable reports that basically describe what one would expect from a caveman attest to this. Given the high frequency of science journals that account for such large human remains being found, and the long standing cultures to which state that Sasquatch are another tribe of large humans, one does not require Sherlock Holmes to be able to draw a link from such data. Might I state here that should Sasquatch be more primitive and more animal like, a recent discovery of Homo Naledi suggested that even the smallest brain capacity is capable of burial, which is essentially some form of culture.

      Delete
    14. And to the quotation marks that suggest total cynicism on your part of the evidences I reference;
      To hoax species traits in convincing biological dermals, one would have to have a knowledge of primate dermals (that not many do), have a lottery win's chance of faking the same biological idea, and then fool multiple forensic experts.
      Audio recordings that became the subject of a year-long University based engineering study, with the results determined that the vocalizations were primate in origin, and that at least one of the voices exceeded normal human ranges, that the recordings were spontaneous at the time of recording with no evidence of pre-recording or re-recording at altered tape speed... Cannot be hoaxed.
      Over a dozen unknown primate hair samples, verified by multiple camps of primatologists, all morphologically uniform and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure, found around sightings and tracks... Cannot be faked.
      And thermal hits that have two subjects in the height range of 9 feet tall, and another in the height range of 8.5 feet tall... Cannot be hoaxed.

      So you see, outside of your attempts to reduce this subject to that of only possessing blurry photos, the actual reality of the state of evidence is far more fruitful and what one would expect of a creature that is largely nocturnal, is highly intelligent, evades in social groups and buried it's dead. Mythical creatures do not leave evidence... I don't claim to have the proof, even though after all that I might be totally warranted in using Occam's Razor.

      Delete
    15. Repeating the same debunked argument, and adding in a sad attempt at "proof by authority" (which is especially amusing from where I'm sitting), is not helping your case either.

      There are only so many ways to hoax a print, and hoaxes using the same methods will result in similarities even with unrelated hoaxers. This easily includes features like dermal ridges.

      "For ten thousand years there's been a conspiracy to get your money by a group of gorilla suit wearing menaces! That's your extraordinary claim."

      Oh please. Now you're making up sad straw claims, and insultingly trying to attribute them to me in a pathetic attempt to once again duck and shift the burden of proof. I made no such claim, and you know it.

      Again, I am not claiming bigfoot doesn't exist. I am just saying your "evidence" for bigfoot is crap. It only proves that some bigfoot "researchers" are credulous fools. and zealots.

      So it's time to provide some real evidence. It's time to produce a specimen. Until you can do that, all your fervent claims only server to make you out to be a fool and the bigfoot community looks foolish by association.

      Delete
    16. "Repeating the same debunked argument, and adding in a sad attempt at "proof by authority" (which is especially amusing from where I'm sitting), is not helping your case either."
      ... Ok... So where is this "debunked argument"? By who, you? Where is this debunked argument that you claim is there? You then have the audacity to claim that an argument that you can't explain away is somehow harming my stance? Not very good at this, are you? Ok, let's put your repeated stance into perspective;
      "The evidence of dermals is not valid because lesser qualified scientists that are nowhere to be sourced say it isn't."

      Is that your idea of "debunking"? In your world... Dermals are not valid, because though you cannot provide one solid scientific case that supports your ideas, you use not even a lottery chance scenario out of hundreds of miles of wilderness to the exact yard that these tracks are found, and then another scenario that outweighs lottery chances that a hoaxer, to which has no idea of primate species traits has managed to copy the exact same dermal pattern of someone decades previous? Are you aware of how complex dermals patterns are? Did you actually suggest anyone else is using "straw claims"? Your scenario requires a far greater leap of faith to assume all those unlikely scenarios are valid against something that is seen to exist by not only tens of thousands of people in modern times, but by whole cultures spanning thousands of years that have these creatures deep at their core. Brother... It's not so much anyone's argument to authority as it is your circular reasoning against a source that is supported by consistent scientific method.

      By basic scientific theory, you are expected to provide substance to your claims as a critic of the evidence referenced. In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. Your extraordinary claim is species traits across States and many, years has been hoaxed to represent a species of primate that is outside of 99.9% of the population's understanding of dermals... So shift that burden. Demonstrate just how crap it is and that the researchers I reference warrant quotation marks... Cause from where I'm looking, you're flopping comprehensively at proving something that in your eyes is so "obvious".

      You don't get to bypass the evidence for something everyone acknowledges is already lacking... Because that evidence is used to suggest how likely likely is that a specimen will be found in future. This is a typical stance from your like minded to make the subject matter easier to debate, the fact that you have already been shown a hominid skull found in an area where native peoples have always maintained hairy giant cannibal tribes resided (the same as most tribal people in North America), and ESPECIALLY since you haven't lifted that heavy burden on the evidence presented to you... I really don't think you're qualified to be telling anyone what's real evidence and what's not.

      Delete
    17. > Blah blah blah "dermal ridges" blah blah "cannot be hoaxed" blah blah empty assertions blah blah foregone conclusions blah blah ridiculous assumptions blah blah.

      We've heard it all before.

      Produce a specimen.

      Delete
    18. If "dermals cannot be hoaxed" is an empty assertion; demonstrate how.

      If dermals verified by multiple forensic experts to be consistent with an unknown primate is a foregone conclusion; demonstrate how.

      If anything I have referenced in this thread of comments is the product of ridiculous assumptions; demonstrate how.

      You're running out of chances to substantiate your claims. And you were given a specimen;
      https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/unusual-skull-found-near-lovelock-nevada-in-1967/

      Delete
    19. So you haven't got a specimen yet? Not even a tooth?

      Oh, and that HUMAN skull is still not evidence of BIGFOOT. We're looking for bigfoot here, remember? Tall, broad, hairy, NOT HUMAN.

      Delete
    20. You see... This is why I'm thankful that people like you have not filtered into the educational system... Observation is clearly not your forte.

      Sasquatch are human.

      Delete
    21. So let me get this straight. Eight feet tall. Three feet wide. Several hundred pounds. Compliant gait. Midtarsal break. All things from the Patterson Gimlin film, various foot castings, and so on. And they all show damn conclusively that bigfoot is NOT HUMAN.

      But when you're trying to claim a HUMAN skull is somehow proof of bigfoot, then suddenly bigfoot IS human? You cannot have that cake and eat it too.

      Moreover, if bigfoot is human, then there's no such thing as bigfoot. It's all just humans.

      Delete
    22. I've devoted this amount of time to you so far... I might as well devote some more, you're learning and that's important...

      Take the hair off Patty's face, and she looks like an ancient human;
      http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-human-side-of-bigfoot-comparing.html?m=0

      "Bigfoot trouble: Mid-tarsal break NOT indicative of Bigfoot anymore"
      http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/06/bigfoot-trouble-mid-tarsal-break-not-indicative-of-bigfoot-anymore/

      ... What's more, is that there are two types of regulatory reported Sasquatch types. There is the "gorilla-type" that is akin to what we see in the Patterson Gimlin film, and the Native-American type that is reported to have more ancient homo sapien features (Google Harvey Pratt forensic sketches to see these)... I have to go to sleep now, but I can promise you that I'll be along tomorrow morning to answer anything that is left here. I like learning... Do you?

      Delete
    23. So now there are TWO types of bigfoots out there? So instead of providing extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim that bigfoot exists you are doubling down and making an even more extraordinary claim? And you expect people to take you seriously?

      You seriously think you can back up extraordinary claims with even MORE extraordinary claims?

      It is far far more likely that different "witnesses" are simply misinterpreting bear sightings differently. And that hoaxers aren't all wearing the same ape suit.

      And as to learning, I don't see the need to learn a bunch of made up excuses and bullshit. Especially when all you have to do is produce a specimen to prove your case. A BIGFOOT specimen.

      Where's that specimen? All I need is a single tooth.

      Delete
    24. No, no necessarily two different species... But two description types of what Sasquatch look like, dear boy. We've had this exchange many times before, haven't we? Which doesn't bode well for your approach which is typical of denial. Might I enlighten you that over many hundreds of years there have been Native American accounts of Sasquatch taking native woman for reproduction (Patrick) not to mention the many takes on the origins of native people that state that they originate from Sasquatch. Rhettman Mullis is currenlty partaking in a study of hybrid cases. It's worth noting, though not meant to be a full explanation, that we have evolved from Cro-Magnon that was larger and more robust, and due to agriculture we have got smaller over time.

      And again, we have the rhetorics regarding the extraordinary evidence. You have been given evidence that is impossible to hoax, evidence that you have failed to demonstrate is bunk, yet you still demand more "extraordinary evidence"?
      "The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists."
      ... You have been given a hominid study on a hominid skull that is different from anything anthropologists had seen in the US by 1967, and you want teeth? You have failed to reinforce any of your claims, have moved on from many without addressing them once they have been put to bed, and persistently requested things that have been presented you sometimes in the very comment prior on multiple occasions, and you have the audacity to claim that you don't take me seriously? You need to grow up and take account for your claims and your accusations that simply have no place in adult exchanges of this nature. You quite simply need to grow up if you want to do this with other people down the line, because they wouldn't stoop as low as I have to pay you the time. These aren't so much excuses as they are the instances where you are either learning more about a subject, or being rhetorical.

      Oh... And when bears lose their snout, grow impossible width in the shoulders, grow hands and feet and walk and run with a stride, so much so that they can fool even the most experienced of hunters and trackers, then your EXTRORDINARY CLAIM that descriptions over thousands of years are attributed to bears might take hold... Dear boy. For thousands of years Natives have referred to Sasquatch as another tribe of humans, most of the time cannibalistic. The evidence points to large human feet, hair samples akin to a wild human and basic descriptions that point to a primitive type of human being. I'll leave you with the one thing that appears to be a means of childish avoidance on your part;
      https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/unusual-skull-found-near-lovelock-nevada-in-1967/
      ... And you want teeth?

      (Pffffffft!!!!!)

      Delete
    25. Here's a link that might give you cause to attempt more rhetorics;
      "Dmanisi Human: Skull from Georgia Implies All Early Homo Species were One"
      http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-dmanisi-human-skull-georgia-01474.html

      ... This basically states that modern scientists are theorising that many early homo species were in fact one, regardless of major morphological differences in skull. This applies beautifully to the concept that Sasquatch can have have ancient modern human, and more primitive ancient human features in one species. Also... If you look at the wide diversity in Homo sapiens across the planet, you might have a difficult task in explaining to an alien that we are all the same species. To look at the skull morphology of an Australian aborigine, and then that of a European Caucasian, there are remarkable differences in skull morphology across the same species of homo.

      Delete
    26. http://cdn4.sci-news.com/images/enlarge/image_1474_3e-Dmanisi.jpg

      Delete
    27. That Dmansi skull hypothesis that "all early homo species are one" is really just saying that Homo etceteras might have hybridized, which we already know happened from other evidence, while attempting to use a definition of "species" that is so broad as to be useless. It's also irrelevant to the current discussion because the hypothesis says that all EARLY Homo species might be more closely related than previously thought, not ALL hominids in general. Homo and company have definitely diverged before and since. In other words, that was then, but this is now.

      It says NOTHING about modern humans or bigfoot.

      You would already know that if you knew anything about anthropology beyond what you misinterpret from pop-sci headlines. In the future, try actually reading the articles, or better yet, the original papers they are based on. And THINK about what you've read for a change instead of just trying to shoehorn it into your bigfoot beliefs.

      Bigfoot is NOT Homo sapiens sapiens. It's not idaltu. It's not heidelbergensis. From the morphology shown in the PG film (assuming that isn't just another hoax), the divergence between bigfoot and actual humanity probably lies as far back as erectus or further to Paranthropus, the dubious Meganthropus, or even Australopithecus itself.

      tl;dr: Bigfoot is NOT HUMAN.

      Bring me a BIGFOOT specimen, not just misinterpretations based on your own hope and ignorance.

      All I need is a tooth. A BIGFOOT tooth. Even a single tooth would speak volumes about bigfoot. Why can't you get me even a single tooth?

      Delete
    28. "Traditionally, researchers have used variation among Homo fossils to define different species. But in light of these new findings, Dr Lordkipanidze and his colleagues suggest that early, diverse Homo fossils, with their origins in Africa, actually represent variation among members of a single, evolving lineage – most appropriately, Homo erectus. Had the braincase and the face of Skull 5 been found as separate fossils at different sites in Africa, they might have been attributed to different species,” said Dr Christoph Zollikofer from the Anthropological Institute and Museum in Zurich, Switzerland, a co-author of the Science paper."

      Nowhere in the article do the scientists suggest that this diversity is attributed to hybridisation, and you suggested that I may have not read the article properly? And this is it... The fact that you stated that the "species is so broad" should be reason enough for you to apply the same reasoning to what I'm proposing. You have contradictory standards, probably because you're worming. The fact that this find suggests that the earliest Homo species, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, etc, actually belong to the same species, is as profound as any modern anthropological discovery. Oh, and as for "pop-sci headlines", Dr David Lordkipanidze from the Georgian National Museum in Tbilisi is a lead author of a paper in the journal Science and co-author of a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

      "The braincase of Skull 5 is only about 33.3 cubic inches (546 cubic cm), however, which suggests that this early Homo had a small brain despite his modern human-like limb proportions and body size."
      ... Here we have an example of a species having an even more achaic brain case with modern human-like limb proportions. It is NOT irrelevant because as long as we have an example of homo species being one and the same regardless of morphological differences, and in sheer scientific naivety of what has actually occurred in our lineage, it is indeed possible that this may have occurred in earlier versions of homo sapien. If this example wasn't present in any of the hominids' lineage, you would no doubt demand an example of how this could be so. "But this is now"... And just like you alluded to, why can't hybridisation occur, maybe in the last few thousand years between an ancient version of us and a modern? Surely someone as clued up on anthropology as you wouldn't practice the cardinal sin of assuming that our lineage has already been mapped out, right? People like you cherry pick anthropological tradition when it suits and forget how many times various lineages have been pushed back over the past 20 years when it doesn't... You're with people who know better I'm afraid. "Shoehorning" indeed.

      From what we see in the PGF, one of the very best forensic experts in the entire country has made a forensic drawing to which once the hair has been removed, looks exactly like an ancient homo sapien with a brow ridge and a receiving forehead... Just like the unusual skull found in the Humbolt sync provided for you in that anthropological paper... And you still want a tooth??

      Tee, hee!

      Delete
    29. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    30. Also... The standard arm to height ratio of homo sapien is .44H. The ratio extracted from the subject in the Patterson Gimlin film is .49H. Patty's arm length is 5.5 standard deviations from the human mean which is the 99.9999981 percentile or is present in one out of 52.5 million people. The earliest Homo sapiens had robust bodies with short, slender trunks and longer limbs. Otamids (American Cro-Magnons and what have been documented around native burial areas linked to giant tribes) are defined as long and low headed with elongate distal limbs (ie. they were hunters like Late Pleistocene Europeans), are present right into the eastern Archaic and Middle Woodlands periods and are described simply as plesiomorphic (meaning primitive ancestral or primitive character) relative to 'derived' Americoids, resembling similar populations in Europe and Siberia and lacking Mongoloid features in their cranium and face.

      "Scientists have discovered that about one in thirteen people have flexible ape-like feet (mid-tarsal break). A team studied the feet of 398 visitors to the Boston Museum of Science. The results show differences in foot bone structure similar to those seen in fossils of a member of the human lineage from two million years ago."
      ... Now dear boy, how this is seriously relevant, is because we have modern homo sapien that have genetic throw-back, ape-like feet that predates even Homo Erectus. How is it out of the realms of possibility that an ancient version of us couldn't have more generic throw-backs in morphology (skull)?

      All these traits are associated with Sasquatch anatomy, and are very much modern human traits. Baring in mind, Sasquatch bury their dead and have language, whilst they have always been reported to use clubs (tools)... This is culture in it's purest and humans are no doubt are defined by their cultures. Oh... And just to finish, early human ancestors and most other mammals' brains are wired with straightforward circuits that pick up information from the surrounding environment through the senses and relays that information to motor neurons so the body can move and respond to the surrounding environments.

      Delete
    31. No.

      You cannot have things both ways.

      The only case for the legitimacy of the Patterson Gimlin film rests solely on the morphology of the subject being outside the human range. If, as you say, "Patty" falls within human ranges, then there is no proof it's not just a man in a suit.

      And sorry, but the whole "cannot be hoaxed" canard is not an argument. It's just an assertion of your own personal opinion. It's not proof. And you cannot prove it. And it doesn't matter how many supposed "experts" you get to repeat that same opinion, it's still just an opinion, not proof.

      So wither bigfoot is NOT HUMAN, or "Patty" is just a man in a suit. Which is it?

      And I'm still waiting for that tooth. What's taking you so long?

      Delete
    32. Allow me to explain myself a little better... Though Patty's limb proportions, mid-tarsal break, etc, can all be found in singular examples in a very, VERY small percentage of modern Homo sapiens, we don't know of any one example where a collection of archaic traits can be seen in one person. This is what makes Patty unique. Such a series of traits could be attributed to somethings outside of modern homo sapien anatomical possibilities, an ancient homo sapien.

      There is always a chance that I could be wrong in this respect, and that there are in fact two species of Sasquatch, to which we have repeatedly sequenced the DNA of the more modern Native Americam type. But the descriptions of Zana, for example, that lend to consistency in Patty's case have been the subject of testing that suggests more ancient homo sapien DNA. Not to mention we have the forensic sketches that attest to Patty looking pretty damned human, though not a hotty. Oh... And you'll never see me use the PGF as proof of Sasquatch's existence, because on a scientifically impartial approach, the subject in that footage may have been the last of it's kind and could have died out in 47 years (though I don't endorse that theory at all).

      Like I said, you've got a skull. A feature of the Humbolt skull is the large protrusions of the nuchel crest which is for the attachment of large neck muscles. This is only found in paleolithic peoples (Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal and possibly Denisovan), and Sasquatch are widely accepted to have "no necks" with the head sitting on their shoulders.

      Delete
    33. And might I add that there is more to the authenticity of the subject in the PGF than just the limb proportions.

      Delete
    34. No. You cannot try to weasel out by claiming that it would be "difficult" to find a human to fill the ape suit in thew PGF. To prove "Patty" is actually bigfoot, you have to prove it's impossible. Also measurement of limb proportions on a moving subject in a grainy, low quality film are dubious at best. There are other features to the subject that argue against it being human, and therefore not a human in a suit.

      Also your claim about the nuchel crest being absent in modern humans while being present in Neanderthals etc. is pure bullshit. (Seriously, were are you getting this crap?) I invite anyone reading this to feel the back of their own head for confirmation.

      Put short, trying to emphasize the nuchal crest as proof of bigfoottishness is barking up the wrong crest.

      So again, bigfoot is NOT HUMAN.

      Delete
    35. And I am STILL waiting for that tooth.

      Just a single tooth is all I ask for.

      Why can't you bigfoot believers produce even a single tooth?

      Delete
    36. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    37. That's pretty simple... When Bill Munns compares the proportions of Patty to a "normal human", we see something very obvious in the junction of two points of the right leg when pasted on top of eachother, from the hip socket. It is here where you have an amazing example of the posture of the upper and lower leg of Patty; the upper leg is far shorter. The crotch area of Patty is far more higher than the average human norm and like Bill States; "when you put a costume on, it always adds, it never subtracts". If you were to put the "costume" on a human being, then we would expect the crotch area to be lower than what is clearly not the case when comparing the proportions. (According to Munns and supported by a practical comparison) the arm length of Patty is actually 10% longer than that of a normal human in comparison proportion & scale, the 10% being in the shoulder area. The problem is evident when trying to accommodate this in comparison to a normal human, Patty's knees fall way shorter. Bill even extends this to show the possibility of using football shoulder pads, and it still cannot match the proportions of a normal human. Bill also extends the comparison image's scale of Patty by 25%, but you still have the arm with bending fingers reaching far lower than the proportions of what a normal human can achieve in a suit. The shoulder joint and base of the neck of Patty require to be shifted forward actually into the neck of a normal human for the eyes of the "mask" to align with normal human proportions. It is therefore impossible to get the mask to fit on the shoulders of a normal human and maintain the rest of the proportions to fit on a normal person in a suit.

      Impossible enough for you? "There are other features to the subject that argue against it being human, and therefore not a human in a suit", and what are these exactly?? You keep alluding to evidences you don't seem to have the capacity to reference... Anyone would think you're starting to seem a little out of your depth??

      And to the nuchal crest, the part of the skull where the neck muscles attach. The nuchal crest is LARGER in paleolithic people's, early hominids and especially apes than it is in modern humans because apes are mostly quadrupeds and have to keep their head from drooping... This still being genetically prominant in paleolithic peoples. This is very, very anthropology. In fact... A very well known PHD, Andy White has stated regarding the Humbolt skull in that paper, that he can find no known equivalent nuchal crest in any modern example of human skull.

      You were given a skull... And so far you are countering it with "Sasquatch are not human", a premise you have so far FAILED to demonstrate in the face of comment upon comment of facts on my part to the contrary.

      Delete
    38. So you are still trying to have your cake and eat it too with this "Patty not human, Patty is bigfoot, bigfoot is human" line of self contradictory crap.

      And I see you're backpedaling from your ridiculous claim that modern humans do not possess a nuchal crest, but you're doing it in a way that still shows your ignorance.

      The development of the nuchal crest is an indicator of a lifestyle that includes particular strenuous exercises. It is more developed in ancient people simply because they lived much more strenuous lives than modern humans. In fact, and I may be identifying myself here (though I seriously doubt anyone who could do so frequents these forums), it's one of the indicators that allow us to distinguish the remains of sailors from soldiers. I believe Andy has already been taken to task on that, but if not I have several x-rays of weightlifters, wrestlers, and other athletes I could send him.

      tl;dr: Do you even lift?

      Also "genetically prominent"? Seriously? Don't be stupid.

      And you are still barking up the wrong crest. Do you even have any clue why I keep emphasizing teeth?

      Oh, and forget limb proportions on the PG film. Such measurements in a possibly costumed figure are always dubious at best even in a high quality image (which the PG film is not). Instead, take a good look at the subject's neck, especially when walking away.

      Delete
    39. Both the great apes and early hominids have prominent crests and ridges in their skull morphology with the most obvious being the sagittal and nuchal crests and the brow ridges. The sagittal crests in various hominids provide for large chewing muscles and most prominent in species where diet revolves around hard, tough material that needs significant chewing. It is also used to differentiate from males and females. Brow ridges in hominids is also related to diet, as large brow ridges support stresses placed on the skull by coarse diet. Along with the position of the foramen magnum, a larger nuchal crest in hominid's offers lots of information about a it's posture. It gives anchorage for neck muscles where the skull is not balanced vertically on top of the spine. This is how modern humans have a completely upright posture... The foramen magnum is centrally placed beneath the skull and a nuchal ridge is far, far smaller and pretty much absent in comparison.

      Here's a typical example of the appliance of such a trait for context;
      "The ER 1805 specimen to the left is divided into three main parts, the cranium (pictured from the side and the rear in the bottom two photographs), and a maxilla and mandible (pictured together--front and side views-- in the two photographs to the right). The individual was an adult at the time of death, as evidenced by the third molars. Debate as to the correct classification of ER 1805 has existed ever since it was discovered. It was originally placed in the species Homo erectus. However, based on the degree of prognathism (the degree to which the face projects forward of the braincase) and the shape of the cranium (especially the prominent nuchal crest, visible in the bottom right photo), ER 1805 is now considered to belong in H. habilis."
      - The Smithsonian
      ... So you see, twisting words about about nuchal crests existing, when the empahises here is PROMINANCE in modern humans, doesn't worm you out of very basic anthropology. It also doesn't bode well that you should make up that Andy has been "taken to task" on anything of the sort.

      From their predecessors, modern humans have smaller temporal muscles (meaning a reduction in the size of masticatory apparatus; teeth, jaws and chewing muscles), and the nuchal muscles (due to more upright posture reducing the requirement of large neck muscles to counterbalance the head). The way this works on the cranial vault is to not develop as overly pronounced crests as hominids, and do not share a compound line of attachment on the occipital. The major differences between humans and non-human primates in occipital morphology results from three evolutionary traits within the hominid lineage; brain size expansion, reduction of the masticatory apparatus, and upright posture and bipedal locomotion.

      Teeth are very important because in an apes for example, the teeth have rectangular dental arcade because the left and right cheek teeth are in two parallel lines. Homo species the dental arcade is a full parabola, which means that they are broader at the back than at the front. Regarding tooth size, the cheek teeth of modern humans are smaller than those of relief hominids. Homo sapiens have seen a significant decrease in tooth size over the last 30,000 years.

      Delete
    40. You appear to be far more focussed on working an area of alleged contradiction than working on your arguments.

      Patty is human, because she not only looks like an ancient human, but has singular anatomical traits that are found in not only ancient hominids, but MODERN humans. What lends to the subject being authentic, is that we know of not one living example of human that possesses all these traits in the collective.

      "Oh, and forget limb proportions on the PG film. Such measurements in a possibly costumed figure are always dubious at best even in a high quality image (which the PG film is not). Instead, take a good look at the subject's neck, especially when walking away."
      ... So in your logic, it is important to discard the painfully simple fact that a costume always adds and never subtracts (her legs)?

      "Posterior from the shoulder, her scapula can be seen “winging” or becoming more prominent with the right arm swinging forwards, combined with the head turning back, away from the camera. This is a natural occurrence for the body, since the arm is attached to the triangular-shaped scapula, which is stabilized by several muscles. There is no bone-to-bone contact of the scapula/humerus unit with the rest of the body skeleton, with the exception of a small anterior pivot point provided by the clavicle. This allows for the significant mobility exhibited by the shoulder, and the protrusion of the medial border (“winging”) of the scapula. As with the above described triceps changes, this would be very difficult to replicate in a costume, and would not be a physical characteristic commonly known outside of the medical community."
      - O. Allen Guinn, III, M.D., F.A.C.S.

      Delete
    41. ^ that quote was concerning Patty directly.

      Delete
  2. I'm a professional bigfoot /forest people professional, listen to me, only I can help you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ Now THAT'S the kind of humor I was talking about in the previous thread. Funny stuff!

      More Dr. Matt Johnson please.

      Delete
  3. Dr. Meldrum, bless his heart, does not have a clue as to how many Sasquatch there are in the State of Idaho. With the FBI pegging the U.S. Sasquatch population at 1 million in the early 60's, and 751,229,000 acres of forested land in the U.S. , that works out to one per 751 acres. With 640 acres per square mile, that works out to one Bigfoot per 1.17 square miles. With Idaho having 32.4 million forested acres, that would pencil out to Idaho housing some 43,142 Sasquatch. Dr. Meldrum's pathetic estimate of 60 in the entire State of Idaho, is not even close to the FBI's estimate. This almost makes you want to sleep with one eye open and a powerful hand gun tucked under your pillow, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you sleep they mindspeak with you, don't listen to stoned Indian squaw, it's wonderful, they talk about portals and the mushrooms that you can eat that grow out of cow dung, all great knowledge

      Delete
    2. I don't think there remains any doubt that Dr. Matt Johnson is the most credible voice in the Bigfoot community today. We are blessed that he generously imparts the wisdom he receives with us.

      Delete
    3. 8:43... That's a fascinating comment, can I ask where you're getting your data from?

      Delete
    4. From nowhere Joe. They don't exist!

      Delete
    5. How many times a day are you praying these days? Your anxiety appears to be rising, young man.

      Delete
    6. I got my population information from just about everybody who was alive in the early 60's, in Portland, Oregon. I am not sure whether that number was published, but everybody seemed to know it at the time. Of course, that was "pre-Bigfoot is a top secret days", when the government was attempting to educate the public about the paranormal Bigfoot. They eventually gave up that battle, due to the large percentage of women who were completely freaking out.

      Delete
    7. I sleep with a shotgun its for my SAFETY

      Delete
  4. I am a Dr,and a large man, who cares if my fiancé avoids me after the Streufarts incident, who cares if only the cult listens about SOHA 2, well I care since I sell coffee cups and sweatshirts, but besides that,who really cares? I'm selling truth,not showing it,just selling because you know Streufarts now makes the perfect excuse to show even less evidence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I may interject here those are damn fine coffee cups and sweatshirts. Dr. Johnson has graciously advised me they would come in handy for the portal trip I signed up for and even gave me a discount (5% off when signing up for the portal trip). He said it will have to take place at the new secret location which he hasn't shared with me yet. You just have to trust a big man who speaks loudly.

      Delete
  5. Who cares about the same thing, I'm not showing proof, just selling coffee cups and sweatshirts, see how they hide my truths by blocking my not so good name,fortunately there's always an angle around an angle

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rumferlife don't run ladies

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm well in my cups, shades of Fasano

    ReplyDelete
  8. as it should be. Bigfoot is not a myth but a real live flesh and blood creature .
    Meldrum is on the cutting edge of transforming those in science from skeptics to at least someone with an open mind to the subject unlike a lot of the nasty trolls who hang around this place

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. seriously mike? meldrum isnt changing anyones mind, not even a toddlers. You do realize that pretending to be Joe, even with his consent, is really pretty gay, right? I mean seriously, its gay.

      Delete
    2. ^ you have an obsession with things gay - wonder why. You know it's 2016 , it's ok if you come out of the closet and out of your basement as well.
      Go away you trollish boy and get an education

      Joe

      Delete
    3. I just sucked on the neighbours dogs c ock. It's jizz tasted so good. I used to let the dog f uck me but I prefer taking it in the mouth. Dog jizz is f ucking delicious!!!

      Joe

      Delete
    4. 9:59... Meldrum's only getting the attention of people like the best conservationists on the planet. You can't change the minds of fearful little fundies though.

      Delete
    5. Again PJ, why would anyone be scared? No skeptic is going to be scared if bigfoot is captured tomorrow. They are going to be excited, just like you. So please stop using "fear" as a reason that people don't believe in bigfoot. There are plenty of other reasons not too, including zero evidence that is accepted by the scientific community. Not one body at all. I know that puts a cramp in your undies PJ, but it is true. And who exactly are the "best conservationists in the world" PJ? Please let us know who they are. Why you are at it, please tell us what makes them the "best" conservationsts? And how is Meldrum influencing there lives and views? Meldrum has gained semi cult fame from his bigfoot endeavor, and at this point, could likely quit teaching all together and just make convention appearances for the rest of his life, and still make more money a year than me and you. Wasn't Meldrum invovled in the defunct Falcoln Project? lol. Cheer up PJ, this game you play every single day will one day get old.

      Delete
    6. Oh I think you're very much scared of this subject being a legitimate one... I can state this with all confidence considering how rhetorical you are to the current state of evidence that is far more fruitful than what your little mind is willing to acknowledge.

      You see, for you to claim that there is zero evidence, you have deliver that premise with substance, with a little proof of your ideas. Stating things on a blog, when you clearly have one of the most naive and ignorant takes I have ever come across, is as fruitless as any other person's stance that you can point to. Some of the best conservationist and primatologists are as follows;
      John Bindernagel, PhD Courtenay, BC, Canada, Colin Groves, PhD Australian National University Canberra, Australia, Chris Loether, PhD Idaho Sate University Pocatello, ID, Jeffrey McNeely, PhD Chief Scientist IUCN - World Conservation Union Gland, Switzerland, Lyn Miles, PhD University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, John Mionczynski Wildlife Consultant Atlantic City, WY, Anna Nekaris, PhD Oxford Brooks University Oxford, England, Ian Redmond, OBE Conservation Consultant Manchester, England, Esteban Sarmiento, PhD Human Evolution Foundation East Brunswick, NJ, Zhoua Guoxing, PhD Beijing Museum of Natural History Beijing, China.

      Jane Goodall is a world-famous primate researcher and author, she revealed, in studies of chimpanzees in Tanzania’s Gombe National Park, surprising behaviours in humanity’s closest living relative. Goodall has won numerous international awards for her contributions to conservation, anthropology and animal welfare. Currently affiliated with Cornell University, she serves as the National Geographic Society’s explorer-in-residence.

      George Schaller is an International science director for the Wildlife Conservation Society. His pioneering field studies of mountain gorillas setthe research standard later adopted by Goodall and gorilla researcher Dian Fosse. Schaller’s 1963 book, “The Year of the Gorilla,” debunked popular perceptions of the great ape and reintroduced “King Kong” as a shy, social vegetarian. Schaller’s studies of tigers, lions, snow leopards and pandas also advanced the knowledge of those endangered mammals. In 1973, he won the National Book Award for “The Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey Relations,” and in 1980 was awarded the World Wildlife Fund Gold Medal for his contributions to the understanding and conservation of endangered species. During the past decade, he has focused on the little-known wildlife of Mongolia, Laos and the Tibetan Plateau.

      Delete
    7. "I am convinced that the Sasquatch exists, but whether it is all that it is cracked up to be is another matter altogether. There must be SOMETHING in north-west America that needs explaining, and that something leaves man-like footprints. The evidence I have adduced in favour of the reality of the Sasquatch is not hard evidence; few physicists, biologists or chemists would accept it, but nevertheless it IS evidence and cannot be ignored."
      John Napier MRCS, LRCP, DSC(Lond.) "Bigfoot- The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality"- Sphere Books Ltd.

      Russell Mitterneier is a trained primatologist, herpetologist and Biological anthropologist, he has discovered five new species of monkey, including two very recently. Mittermeier has conducted fieldwork in more than 20 countries around the tropical world, with special emphasis on Brazil, Guyana and Madagascar. Since 1989, Mitterneier has served as president of Conservation International, which has become one of the most aggressive and effective conservation organizations in the world during the last decade. His publications include 10 books and more than 300 scientific papers and popular articles.

      Daris Swindler is an Emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of Washington, Swindler is a leading expert on living and fossil primate teeth and one of the top primate anatomists in general. His book, “An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy,” has become a standard reference in the field. A forensic anthropologist, Swindler worked on the Ted Bundy and Green River murder cases along with hundreds of others.

      Esteban Sarmiento is a functional anatomist affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History, Sarmiento focuses on the skeletons of hominids. In 2001, he participated with George Schaller in a search for Congo’s Bili ape, a possible species super-chimp reported by natives but unknown to Western science. Sarmiento has also studied the Cross River gorilla, a critically endangered subspecies on the Nigeria-Cameroon border whose population is thought to be numbered in the hundreds. He has taught in the U.S., South Africa and Uganda.

      ... Would you like me to continue? Oh, and please don't refer to yourself as a "sceptic"? They are meant to refrain from expressing judgment and question their own long standing ideals, and you simply just aren't clever enough.

      Delete
    8. Also Joe, you did not cite your source. This is a blatant example of plagarism, and the authors need notified of your crime. You directly copy and pasted the credentials of these people from there websites, and not only didn't use quotation marks, but you didn't cite as well. You presented these thoughts as your own. Now try claiming you have never plagarized. You have been exposed, and the authors might just be notified.

      Delete
    9. How's this for context... You have been owned.

      : )

      Delete
    10. Do you have any excuse for your plagarism Joe? Evident here for all to see. Ive copied and saved your conversation, so if you ever try and say you have never plagarized, that your lies come to light. I hope dmaker sees this.

      Delete
    11. I couldn't help myself and I have to admit, I loved it! It made me feel all naughty and wrong and I think I might even end up doing it again!

      As long as your arguments get smashed back in your face, I don't really give a **** kid. And why you gonna do about it?

      : )

      Delete
  9. Did you ever notice that they still haven't proven bigfoots' existence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you ever notice that there are sources of evidence that scare you **** less regardless?

      Delete
    2. Why would any evidence scare anyone Joe, other than you. If bigfoot is proven to exist, most sceptics and nay sayers would actually be pretty excited. But bigfoot is a myth so we don't have to worry about that. No one would ever be scared, that makes no sense. However, the inverse is true, that you are actually very afraid that bigfoot will never be proven to exist, even long after me and you are dead and gone. Try and make your comments make a little more sense PJ.

      Delete
    3. Not only does the thought of something as big as is what's reported scare you, but the things that other people far cleverer than you. Pseudoscepticism is a fundamental quasi-religion;

      "Psychologically, a fundamentalist is a person with an intense fear of being 'wrong'; that is, an intense fear of being judged to hold the wrong' view or to engage in the 'wrong' behaviour. This intense fear of being wrong develops during childhood when one or both parents, and probably teachers, dogmatically refuse to listen to the child, thus denying it the chance to develop its own views and moral code (based on its own experience), while also terrorising (by threatening and using violence or in your case attacking people on the internet like a cyber Nazi) the child into believing/adopting a particular set of values and beliefs, and behaving in a particular manner. It is the intensity of their fear of being judged 'wrong', and the violence they will suffer if they are so judged, that makes the child hold, with phenomenal tenacity, to the 'approved doctrine' with which they are presented. It is this intense fear of being wrong that marks out the fundamentalist from the person who is open-minded and/or conscientious. Fundamentalism is a significant social problem, particularly in some contexts. And to fix it, we need to recognise its psychological origin. Unfortunately, however, this is not easy to do because the terror that holds their value and belief system in place, and drives their behaviour, is deeply hidden within the individual's psyche."

      Delete
    4. you did not cite your source. Thats plagarism!!!

      Delete
    5. I think informing the authors is a start. Not to mention show just how much you lie.

      Delete
    6. Lies? There are no lies in my comments, punk. Go ahead and email the authors, see how much they give a ****. I'm giving their work a plug! Ha ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete