Jump to content
kitakaze

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

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

Zero doubt exists in one place and one place only - a tiny subculture of believers that often tries to tell the rest of the world what is proven and what is objective reality versus subjective opinion.

kitakaze,

 

So...do you think there is a chance you are wrong, an the P/G film depicts a sasquatch, or is it another case of zero doubt etc. etc. ?

 

Pat...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

Um.. any comparisons being done?  P&G vs Independence Day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 The reality is Kit, the film is proven. As I stated, you can debate all you want what it is in the film, but its a living, breathing, walking entity, not a man in a suit. You can attempt to paint it however you like it, and it does not change that reality. The amount of acceptance does not change the reality Kit, its not an opinion poll, or subject to popular vote. You might as well be arguing the moon is made of cheese, or the earth is flat, these arguments carry about as much weight scientifically as your opinions.

 

" The marginalization that comes from this form of intransigent insistence is an inevitable outcome when ardent belief faces empirical reality."

 

 Your right about that, we have seen examples of this through out history as people resist changes to their reality or beliefs. Some people find change threatening for some reason and resist it to the point of manic incoherent behavior. Sometimes they will try and be insulting to those who do not share their beliefs. In extreme cases we see lies, or the false claims of evidence to support their beliefs. In this case we have the film, the story and science. It has been challenged and met with skepticism for decades, yet prevailed. Now technology has caught up with the film, and it has served to prove its authenticity. Your time may be better spent arguing what manner of creature we see in the film, since we now know its real, rather than the dated all ready proven false belief that it is a hoax.

 

Your argument is that Munns and Meldrum's paper on Meldrum's website proves the PGF does not show a man in a suit. My opinion carries no scientific weight for you, that is given. The paper should however be convincing to Meldrum's scientific colleagues. I sent the paper to one of Meldrum's colleagues, NYU Proffesor of Anthropology and many times published primate specialist Todd Disotell. Disotell has not only an interest in Bigfoot, but sits on Meldrum's Relict Hominid Inquiry review board. This is what Disotell had to say about Meldrum's paper and the PGF...

 

"The film is not convincing to me at all and I think the case Prothero makes for fraud/hoax is quite credible, more so than the film." - Prof. Todd Disotell

 

Your paper fails as proof of Patty as Bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chelefoot

In your opinion...

 

ETA:  OH, and Todd's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

This is what Disotell had to say about Meldrum's paper and the PGF...

 

"The film is not convincing to me at all and I think the case Prothero makes for fraud/hoax is quite credible, more so than the film." - Prof. Todd Disotell

 

Kit, could you point out where in this quote that Disotell is talking about Meldrum's paper? Its not obvious to me and only seems to mention the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

He was responding to my asking his professional opinion on Munns and Meldrum's paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

In your opinion...

 

ETA:  OH, and Todd's.

 

I am a laymen and my opinion is as such. Disotell, on the other hand is at the very top of his field in anthroplogy and primatology. It is exactly his opinion professionally that means far more than any of ours. 

 

These are just some of his publications...

 

Publications

Pozzi L, Disotell TR, Masters JC. A multilocus phylogeny reveals deep lineages within African galagids 

    (Primates: Galagidae). BMC Evolutionary Biology 14:72, 2014.

 

Montague MJ, DIsotell TR, Di Fiore A. Population Genetics, Dispersal, and Kinship Among Wild Squirrel Monkeys

   (Saimiri sciureus macrodon): Preferential Association Between Closely Related Females and Its Implications for 

    Insect Prey Capture Success. Int J Primatol 35:169-187, 2014.

 

Pozzi L, Hodgson JA, Burrell AS, Sterner KN, Raaum RL, Disotell TR. Primate phyogenetic relationships and

   divergence dates inferred from complete mitochondrial genomes. Mole Phylogenet Evol 72:165-183, 2014.

 

Bergey CM, Pozzi L, Disotell TR, Burrell AS. A New Method for Genome-wide Marker Development and Genotyping

    Holds Great Promise for Molecular Primatology. Int J Primatol 34:303-314, 2013.

 

Disotell TR. Human Biological Variation. Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, 2nd Edition.   New York, Macmillan

    Reference, 2013.

 

Disotell TR. Genetic Perspectives on Ape and Human Evolution. In Begun DR (ed) A Companion to 

    Paleoanthropology, 1st Edition. Hoboken, Blackwell Publishing, 2013.

 

Disotell TR. Archaic human genomics. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Suppl 55:24-39, 2012.

 

Pozzi L, Hodgson JA, Burrell AS, Disotell TR. The stem catarrhine Saadanius does not inform the timing of the 

    origin of crown catarrhines. Journal of Human Evolution 61:209-210, 2011.

 

Hodgson JA, Disotell TR. Anthropological Genetics: Inferring the History of Our Species Through the Analysis of 

    DNA.' Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3:387-398, 2010.

 

Hodgson JA, Bergey CM, Disotell TR. Neanderthal genome: the ins and outs of African genetic diversity. Current 

    Biology 20:R517-9, 2010.

 

Burrell AS, Disotell TR. Panmixia Postposted: ancestry-related assortative mating in contemporary human populations. 

    Genome Biology 10:245, 2009.

 

Li J, Han K, Xing J, Kim H-S, Rogers J, Ryder OA, Disotell T, Yue B, Batzer MA. Phylogeny of the macaques 

    (Cercopithecidae: Macaca) based on Alu elements. Gene 448:242-249, 2009.

 

Hodgson JA, Sterner KN, Matthews LJ, Burrell AS, Jani RA, Raaum RL, Stewart CB, Disotell TR. Successive radiations,

    not stasis, in the South American primate fauna. Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences USA. 

    106:5534-5539, 2009.

 

Burrell AS, Jolly CJ, Tosi AJ, Disotell TR. Mitochondrial evidence for the hybrid origin of the kipunji, Rungwecebus 

    kipunji (Primates: Papionini). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 51:340-348, 2009.

 

His opinions matters enough to Meldrum to have him on the Editorial Board of his Relict Hominid Inquiry...

 

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/board.shtml

 

If Meldrum's paper is not convincing to such a scientist as Disotell, the claims of Internet Bigfoot enthusiasts that it is proof Patty is not a suit are meaningless, as meaningless as my opinions are to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

It is exactly his opinion professionally that means far more than any of ours.

 

 

And it is what he can show....scientifically....that matters far more than what he can say.

 

'Talk' is cheap.....right?... ;)

 

Ka-Boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

He can show his resume. This is one of the world's best authorities in anthropology, primatology and genetics. He just so happens to also be into Bigfoot. Cool. If Meldrum and Munns showing coloured lines and dots on flabby older people does not count for him professionally as proof Patty is not a suit, the claim that it is such proof has failed. 

 

What have Meldrum and Munns shown and not said that proves Patty can not be a man in a suit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Opinions of primate people as so on are helpful. But we can agree on several things here:

 

1)  Bigfoot --should one exist-- has never been studied by a primate expert or any other scientist for that matter (at least not up close).  They project their idea of a known species such as apes or chimps upon a completely unknown.  So they may have a list of credentials a mile long

 

 

Here is the list of credentials these primate experts have in the study of bigfoot (should one exist):

 

<none>

 

2)  For the PGF to be a hoax it MUST be a man in a suit. Thus, suit makers are the experts in this area. The reason for this is simple: Visual demonstrative evidence has been put out of a film of a creature said to be bigfoot. The only way to counter this film presented by Roger it to put out a counter example. That is, they need to show it is a man in a suit to some degree of reasonable certainty. this is not even absolute certainty.  To do this experts like Walas and Winston and other need to prove or show how it was done and not just state how it could be done. 

 

3)  No primate expert has the same credentials as Munns, Walas, Winston and others.   We cont to see opinions of other experts in THIS field who will state ' I don't know how they could have done it back then"   or "This is the best suit I have ever seen (at that time)"

 

It may give the skeptic comfort to say this or that primate expert says it is fake. Many have not done more than a initial look at the film.  they also are mentioning the prevailing wisdom at this time.  That prevailing wisdom is not universal though.  For example, you have to love it when the lady on one of these show at the very end takes a look at the film (after stating she doesn't think bigfoot could exist due to food supply) and say words to the effect of  "the walk looks weird"     "It is not a human walk or an ape walk"  or words to that effect.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

He was responding to my asking his professional opinion on Munns and Meldrum's paper.

 

Could you clarify that with him? In rereading the quote, it appears that he is only responding the film. Is the quote taken out of context?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

He can show his resume. This is one of the world's best authorities in anthropology, primatology and genetics. He just so happens to also be into Bigfoot. Cool. If Meldrum and Munns showing coloured lines and dots on flabby older people does not count for him professionally as proof Patty is not a suit, the claim that it is such proof has failed. 

 

What have Meldrum and Munns shown and not said that proves Patty can not be a man in a suit?

 

 

I haven't claimed that Bill's Paper, or his Book, have proven that Patty was a real Sasquatch. In order for Bill's work to be an effective proof, as opposed to only a 'technical' proof....it needs to become widely accepted as being such.

 

Until something like that happens....the controversy around the Film will continue.

 

 

The point I was making in my previous post, is that playing 'he says....he says' games doesn't really amount to anything, of substance.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

If you're interested so much in effective proof, what are you doing preaching to the choir year after year? Why is the scientific community not getting Patty blinks and pant-hoot gifs and best of Patty collages? Does your confidence not extend beyond Internet forums?


Could you clarify that with him? In rereading the quote, it appears that he is only responding the film. Is the quote taken out of context?

 

I very much am against quote-mining. The original exchange...

 

KK: Bigfoot enthusiasts cite Meldrum's and Munns' Relict Hominid Inquiry paper as proof that the PGF film subject is not possibly a man in a suit. As an anthroplogist, what is your professional opinion on this paper and that claim?

 

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

 

TD:The film is not convincing to me at all and I think the case Prothero makes for fraud/hoax is quite credible, more so than the film.

 

Nevertheless, I've asked him for his commentary specifically on the paper.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

If you're interested so much in effective proof, what are you doing preaching to the choir year after year? Why is the scientific community not getting Patty blinks and pant-hoot gifs and best of Patty collages? Does your confidence not extend beyond Internet forums?

 

 

The analysis I've done can move beyond the scope of this Forum.....and I expect it to, someday. I'd like to elaborate on that, but I'm out of time on my lunch break.

 

One short note....even if my findings never do go beyond this Forum....the 'arm proportion' analysis could still become very significant....if a body is ever found, and it just happens to have this very oddly-proportioned arm.

 

That detail...relating to the subject's skeleton...rather than it's 'flesh'....(i.e....fatty deposits)....will prove beyond all doubt, that Patty was indeed a real, live Sasquatch. :)

 

It's like having an 'Ace' in your back pocket... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

First off, I do not take anything you say for face value Kit, I have no idea if your telling the truth, or have taken things out of context, and with your track record I am willing to bet it is one or the other. Disotell has every right to an opinion, perhaps you could provide me with a link to his professionally written rebuttal on the subject?

 

If you're interested so much in effective proof, what are you doing preaching to the choir year after year? Why is the scientific community not getting Patty blinks and pant-hoot gifs and best of Patty collages? Does your confidence not extend beyond Internet forums?


 

 

 

  How is that documentary coming Kit? How come you cannot get any interest outside of internet forums, despite tens of thousands of posts across multiple forums?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...