Jump to content
kitakaze

Patterson/gimlin Vs Independence Day Footage - A Closer Look.

Recommended Posts

Squatchy McSquatch

http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/whats-up-with-dr-jeff-meldrum-the-bigfoot-professor/

 

Quoted from Meldrum in the link:

 

  "  â€¦using photogrammetry, [bill Munns is] able to create, using triangulations on landmarks visible from varying perspectives in the film, a model of the [Patterson-Gimlin filming] site. We then visited the site and he was able to resurvey the whole area and found that there were some discrepancies between his model and the actual survey. And that was to be expected because we believed that the camera lens was not only not corrected for chromatic aberration, but it was a very low focal length lens, it was a panoramic lens, which would have a slight fisheye effect on the view and distort the image around its margin. The degree of distortion then corrrelates with the focal length.
Well, that was very important to establish, because if you know the height of the subject on the film itself, and you know the focal length, the actual focal length of the lens, and you know the distance to the subject, then it’s just a simple proportionality to solve for x, the height of the film subject. There’s been a lot of controversy about how big his creature really was…trying to use objects in the scene, using the length and appearance of the foot in the film, correlating that with the tracks, and so forth. This shows very clearly that the subject was about 7 feet 3 inches tall, was just over 7 feet tall. So work with the scene itself is very important. Using his abilities with makeup and materials that were and weren’t available in 1967, he’s done a lot of re-creation…"

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

^^ This seems interesting to me. Can you post a link showing where he (Dr. Meldrum) has done this recently?

 

18:32 start of comments

Given in West Branch Michigan  August of 2013, long after Bill Munns retracted his 7'3" height

 

An excerpt of the point in question at 19:40-

 

Dr. Meldrum actual transcript:

 

There’s been a lot of controversy about how big his creature really was…trying to use objects in the scene, using the length and appearance of the foot in the film, correlating that with the tracks, and so forth. This shows very clearly that the subject was about 7 feet 3 inches tall, was just over 7 feet tall.

 

Bill Munns withdrew his 7'3 or 7'4 height claim in 2009 after it appeared on the Monsterquest episode.

 

http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/whats-up-with-dr-jeff-meldrum-the-bigfoot-professor/

 

Bill Munns Original Height Claim (Before being withdrawn in 2009 after MQ)

http://themunnsreport.com/tmr_site_022.htm

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber

Thanks for those links. Are you thinking that he has other motives for maintaining the 7' tall Patty in his presentation(s)?

Edited by masterbarber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Jeff Meldrum's motives are irrelevant, masterbarber. :) This is simply an error which can be very easily corrected, in his future presentations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

His motives are relevant.

 

He is charging people a lot of money, and enthralling them with the 7'3" monster walking along the river bank, confirming their beliefs, knowing that Bill Munns has disconfirmed that 7'3 height 3 years before his presentation.

 

He can correct it in the future, but what were his motives for saying this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

I don't think anything could ever be proven, Drew....regarding Jeff's motives. About the most anyone could do is offer-up an accusation.

 

So, if there is no way to prove something, or provide strong evidence in favor of it....then any alleged 'illegitimate motive' is irrelevant...for all practical purposes. :)

 

 

What I think does need some investigating....especially in light of Bill Munns' upcoming book...(supposedly proving Patty was a real creature, on multiple points, according to Bill).....is kitakaze's claim of "having seen the Patty suit".

 

Does not Bill's finding mean, definitively, that kitakaze's claim is false?

 

In fact, I would even request that the Administrators of the Forum investigate kit's claim....to determine if this is a case of fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber

His motives are relevant.

 

He is charging people a lot of money, and enthralling them with the 7'3" monster walking along the river bank, confirming their beliefs, knowing that Bill Munns has disconfirmed that 7'3 height 3 years before his presentation.

 

He can correct it in the future, but what were his motives for saying this?

 

 

I think it might be prudent to ask Bill whether he and Dr. Meldrum have ever discussed the revision. He is most likely just giving the same presentation he has for many years. I'm not convinced he has any motives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Kind of hard to prove Patty real on multiple points when Patty's height is still undetermined, the lens size is still unknown and the original in camera film has never been examined.

 

(see the second quote in my sig)

 

I don't know what Meldrum's motives are for spreading disinformation in 2013 that had been disregarded by his own 'partner' back in 2009.

 

Meldrum was publicly duped by the snow walker video. There's no reason he cannot be wrong about the PGF.

 

Good luck with your witch hunt Sweaty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

Good luck with your witch hunt Sweaty.

 

 

I'm requesting that the Administrators make it their "witch hunt"....based on 'probable cause'....found within Bill's breakthrough book... :)

Kind of hard to prove Patty real on multiple points when Patty's height is still undetermined, the lens size is still unknown and the original in camera film has never been examined.

 

 

It can be proven on one point...'arm proportion'. Fortunately, that point is independent of Patty's 'body height', and the lens issue. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

I think it might be prudent to ask Bill whether he and Dr. Meldrum have ever discussed the revision. He is most likely just giving the same presentation he has for many years. I'm not convinced he has any motives. 

 

Dr. Meldrum was asked about the 'mistake', he admitted to using preliminary info to emphasize the giantness of Patty.  Also take into account that Bill retracted the 7'+ height in 2009.  This talk was in 2013.

 

An incomplete study is not without preliminary results. My intent was to emphasize that Bill’s reconstruction provides another line of evidence pointing to a height in excessive of simply “a average man in a fur suit.†Perhaps I didn’t qualify that point sufficiently. Do you have evidence to contradict that generalization? If not step down from your bully pulpit and if you have a question for personal clarification, use a PM rather than attempting to draw attention to yourself on my timeline.August 17 at 11:24pm · Edited

 

 

Bill's reconstruction put's Patty at Jim Mclaren height +/-    1-2"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber

Dr. Meldrum was asked about the 'mistake', he admitted to using preliminary info to emphasize the giantness of Patty.  Also take into account that Bill retracted the 7'+ height in 2009.  This talk was in 2013.

 

So, Your take on that is that he is intentionally misleading people then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

I have no way of knowing what his intentions are.

I do think that when someone is in a position such as his, making money off of people who rely on him for their info, there should be a certain amount of responsibility to make sure that the info you are presenting is fairly up to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber

You have no way of knowing whether he knew (or knows) about the revision, either. Do you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 This is a fine example of Drew and McSquatch not understanding process, or even how presentations work. An overall lack of understanding of public speaking, or the taking into consideration that Dr. Meldrum has far more on his plate, than just Bigfoot. All it really means is he had not updated his presentation notes at the time. It is a simple and common error, something I see examples of almost weekly. I attend, and give presentations constantly these days, and often I encounter something that needs to be updated, or is simply an error. Is this a reflection of competency? Is it deliberate misinformation? Of course not. Skeptics tend to attempt to split hairs on such issues because they really are not sure how to apply critical thinking. The idea is to make some amateur attempt at eroding Dr. Meldrums credibility. That may work within the tight little circles of self proclaimed "critical thinkers" but really carries no weight in the real world, this is why you never see an actual scientist address discussions like this. If you have to take the time to explain every little mistake made in a general presentation to unqualified critics, you would have no time to do any real science. 

 

 Hey Drew, Kit, McSquatch......how is the rebuttal paper coming?  You guys making any real scientific progress at presenting a properly organized and supported paper to refute BIll Munn's and Dr. Meldrums? Maybe you guys can time the release of the paper with the release of the documentary that Kits working on. The suit would really help your cause, I am looking forward to comparing it to the film, and seeing how the suit was modified to come up with the proportional issues Sweaty has been demonstrating. If I where guys I would put BobH in it, and have him walk across that kind of terrain and demonstrate how "exactly" he pulled of that walk. Simple enough isn't it? Don't be shy guys, you don't have to be real scientist to do real science, just dot your eyes and cross your t's, and submit it for review. I bet if its done well enough Dr. Meldrum would even publish it on his site as an alternative view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

So let me get this straight: Meldrum is saying 7'3"+ 4 years after the  retraction by the person whom Meldrum has partnered with and published, yet he is not aware of the revision and I'm the one whose mistaken?

 

Okay. Sure thing.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...