Jump to content
Guest

Discovery Channel Bigfoot Gait Analysis

Recommended Posts

Guest

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/30761-best-evidence-bigfoot-gait-analysis-video.htm

 

Meldrum acts a little desperate after finding out a man can walk like Bigfoot. He tries to BS them that it couldn't be done while wearing a costume but they set him straight in the end.  The funny part is the Discovery Channel pulled most if not all of these videos from YouTube when they found out they make more money with shows for Bigfoot, rather than against it. There are a lot of fake things out there that one can believe in if one chooses.  Common sense tells us that when all the samples and evidence turn out fake or in question without any hard facts that it‘s most likely not real. The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. The easiest answer is usually the correct one: Bigfoot does not exist.  Enjoy the fantasy but don’t let it fool you.

Edited by Kerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

It’s a good exposure of Meldrum using dodgy logic. He’s no dummy, he makes a lot of money selling casts, books and appearances for the Patterson film so he needs to adopt a position even if he has to use bad reasoning. The eye opener for me was when I found his most infamous logical fallacy when he made a scientific evaluation of the Patterson film. In it he perpetuated the Patterson film by making the statement that the figure in the film made the tracks without any proof that it did, while a witness who passed a lie detector test and claims to have been the figure denies it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Care to just rename this thread, "Kerry does not like Jeff Meldrum and thinks he is not very smart"   Seems to be the point of the thread that hasn't even got started.

 

There are many things not mentioned in the Stanford study but clearly it makes no use to discuss them as you clearly would not be receptive.

 

The fallacy of Bob H. lie detector test, unrelated to the first post, also contains multiple issues you would not be receptive to as well. 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^^ Bob H is not the one with the extraordinary claim that requires the extraordinary evidence. At first I thought Bigfoot could be real but I've come to know Meldrum as a man that’s more interested in making the Patterson

 

film look real than finding out the truth behind it. The gait analysis exposes Meldrum, like everything else Bigfoot his agenda is making money from it. It seems he is close minded by playing down other

 

sightings that aren't profitable for him.  When I witnessed the video of the Bigfoot walking on the hill I expected him to get on the first flight out to make some casts but when he immediately called it a human, without

 

any evidence of it being human, I realized what his agenda really was. IMO

Edited by Kerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

You seem to assume to know a lot of Dr. Meldrum.  I have never met the man. I don't pretend to know all of his works.  I have never taken a class by the man.  I only know what little I have seen on TV edited to make a 1Hr show.

 

I don't pretend to know what clairvoyance you might possess to know Meldrum is trying to make his "Bigfoot Agenda Making Money"

 

I don't know if Dr. Meldrum is correct or incorrect in his views. Since he has expressed many views about many individual cases, we would have to take those issues point by point.

 

Thank you for showing me what the thread is really all about so I can go onto a different one.  I know I won't be missed and that is OK.

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^^You need to educate yourself on these matters to avoid the non sequitur logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TedSallis

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/30761-best-evidence-bigfoot-gait-analysis-video.htm

 

Meldrum acts a little desperate after finding out a man can walk like Bigfoot. He tries to BS them that it couldn't be done while wearing a costume but they set him straight in the end.  The funny part is the Discovery Channel pulled most if not all of these videos from YouTube when they found out they make more money with shows for Bigfoot, rather than against it. There are a lot of fake things out there that one can believe in if one chooses.  Common sense tells us that when all the samples and evidence turn out fake or in question without any hard facts that it‘s most likely not real. The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanation of complex facts. The easiest answer is usually the correct one: Bigfoot does not exist.  Enjoy the fantasy but don’t let it fool you.

 

 

May I ask you a simple question? If you have concluded that there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that this creature exists, where is the enjoyment in participating in forums such as this one?  Yes, I understand that 'skeptics' are welcome, but this to me is not skepticism.  Skepticism is doubt concerning claims; you are well beyond doubt, you are in full certainty mode. 

 

Again, you are completely welcome to your viewpoint.  Hell, you may even be right in the end, though I don't feel that you are.  I just am curious as to what the underlying motivation is here.  I mean you no disrespect but when I see a mind that has reached a  firm and unyielding conclusion, particularly about something that is much in debate, I tend to turn away from that mind because I know in advance what it is going to say, every single time, about every single topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^^Believe it or not it wasn't that long ago that I was a believer with an open mind. I was fooled, but meanwhile I started to investigate the subject and found it fascinating how all the hoax's sort of tie together. It will take a body in front of me with scalpel in hand before I fall for it again.  I still like Bigfoot, but like Kit to be a fan you don't need to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TedSallis

^^Believe it or not it wasn't that long ago that I was a believer with an open mind. I was fooled, but meanwhile I started to investigate the subject and found it fascinating how all the hoax's sort of tie together. It will take a body in front of me with scalpel in hand before I fall for it again.  I still like Bigfoot, but like Kit to be a fan you don't need to believe.

 

Thanks for the reply.  I'm sorry you seem to have been "burned" by hoaxes.  They're out there, of course, but to me, just because someone dresses up as a cat on Halloween doesn't mean that there aren't real cats.

 

Kind of confused, though...you "like" Bigfoot, though you are sure it doesn't exist.  What then, exactly are you "liking"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Ted Sallis wrote:

 

 

I mean you no disrespect but when I see a mind that has reached a  firm and unyielding conclusion, particularly about something that is much in debate, I tend to turn away from that mind because I know in advance what it is going to say, every single time, about every single topic. 

 

 

Good decision, Ted. :) 

 

I don't bother trying to get any concessions form the highly-skeptical skeptics here. I gave-up on that "goal in life" several years ago. I will ask Kerry the occasional question....but it's usually about why the Bigfoot crossed the road....or, some hypothetical situation in which a tree falls in the forest...and lands on a Sasquatch....and what impact that might have on it's possible existence.

 

 AFAIC, I think the best way to go, for the Bigfoot proponents...is to simply put all of the skeptics on ignore...and move onwards, and upwards. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks for the reply.  I'm sorry you seem to have been "burned" by hoaxes.  They're out there, of course, but to me, just because someone dresses up as a cat on Halloween doesn't mean that there aren't real cats.

 

Kind of confused, though...you "like" Bigfoot, though you are sure it doesn't exist.  What then, exactly are you "liking"?

 

Jane Goodall is a romantic so she fancies the idea of it being real, that's not for me. I just enjoy the humor in it. It's hysterical when you start to look at all the players and get involved in the comments here.  I like Santa Clause too, I even bought a plastic one for my yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/30761-best-evidence-bigfoot-gait-analysis-video.htm

 

Meldrum acts a little desperate after finding out a man can walk like Bigfoot. He tries to BS them that it couldn't be done while wearing a costume but they set him straight in the end. 

 

I think imparting any element of desperation on Meldrum's part is inaccurate and biased. He's clearly as interested as his Stanford colleagues in the proceedings. The gait analysts show no bias in the proceedings and readily allow with Meldrum that the results showing human replication do not disprove the validity of the film. Neither does Meldrum try to convince them that it can't be done in a suit. After Bronston Delone replicates the gait without a suit he simply states that it then begs the question of if it is possible in a suit. The Stanford scientists aren't setting him straight on anything or opposing his viewpoint in any way. They are all together working collectively to examine the question objectively and Meldrum is quite forthright in his concession at how easy it was for the gait to be replicated.

 

To say that he's acting desperate or trying to BS anyone is black hat behaviour like as if he's being conniving in some way when he simply is not. 

 

"Could a man in a costume approximate the type of movements that are seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film?"

"The degree of flexion in the knees is a critical issue. There seems a lot of effort to clear the feet during the swing phase of the step."

Meldrum specifies what he sees as compaction of the feet, muscle movement in the shoulder area, and movement of the shoulder blade beneath the skin, muscle definition in the shoulders and arms, and flexibility of the feet, and the impression of massiveness of the subject. Motion & Gait Analysis Laboratory at Stanford University

"The team also calculates detailed measurements of the famous creature."

"Captured on video, the first bit of data is analyzed to see how closely the actor's movements mimic Sasquatch."

"Bronston's performance is awesome. I think he's done a really tremendous job of matching the motion of the Bigfoot video." - Jessica Rose

 

 

"That begs the fundamental question we're here to address is: Could a person in a costume approximate those values?" - Jeff Meldrum

 

 

"To get precise data, 25 reflective markers are attached to the fur suit."

"The suit itself could cause some of the differences in the gait."

"To the naked eye, it looks like a match, but definitive proof will come from the final data within the motion capture system."

"Could a man in a fur suit present himself in a convincing way approximating the movements that we see in the Patterson-Gimlin film?"

"I think it's a slam dunk." - Jessica Rose 

 

"Now the data is in and the team comes to a conclusion on the mysterious Bigfoot gait"

"We know that his gait as best we could see approximated that of the sasquatch." - Dr. Jeffery Meldrum

"My conclusion would be yes. It would be possible and feasible for a human to replicate that gait." - Jessica Rose

"When somebody is coached on how to walk based on what we studied with the Bigfoot films, it's possible to replicate that way of walking." - Dr. James Gamble

 

"Frankly I was somewhat surprised that our subject was so, umm, easily capable of replicating some aspects of the walk of the sasquatch ah depicted on the Patterson film." - Dr. Jeffery Meldrum

 

"I think along with a lot of my colleagues, too much is being made of these images."  Dr. David Begun

 

http://videos.howstu...lysis-video.htm

 

This same type of experiment though far less precise and technical was done again for the 2010 NatGeo production of American Paranormal with Prof. Scott Lynn, the Associate Professor of Kinesiology at California State University, Joe Russo, visual effects artist and owner of 23D Films and 7 ft actor Ash Sinha. 

 

(Pt. 3 - 1:55)

 

http://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/science-mysteries/bigfoot-proved.html

 

The same conclusion was made that a human could replicate the gait. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

^^ Bob H is not the one with the extraordinary claim that requires the extraordinary evidence.

He's not? I disagree with your statement. Bob H has made extraordinary claims. Show us the suit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

I think imparting any element of desperation on Meldrum's part is inaccurate and biased. He's clearly as interested as his Stanford colleagues in the proceedings. The gait analysts show no bias in the proceedings and readily allow with Meldrum that the results showing human replication do not disprove the validity of the film. Neither does Meldrum try to convince them that it can't be done in a suit. After Bronston Delone replicates the gait without a suit he simply states that it then begs the question of if it is possible in a suit. The Stanford scientists aren't setting him straight on anything or opposing his viewpoint in any way. They are all together working collectively to examine the question objectively and Meldrum is quite forthright in his concession at how easy it was for the gait to be replicated.

 

 

 

It sounds to me like he said it to create some sort of doubt in their minds. That maybe a human would not be able to do this so it really was a Bigfoot. It sounded to my like the Stanford man cut in like he was correcting him about that's not what this was about.

He's not? I disagree with your statement. Bob H has made extraordinary claims. Show us the suit!

 

I don't think claiming to be in the costume and passing a lie detector test is an extraordinary claim.

 

For it to be some kind of monster that's never been proven to exist is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

For someone to claim to have been posing as BF in a costume to make a film, and yet not able to produce the suit, is not an extraordinary claim? Or passing unreliable testing that has never stood up in courts of law, is the gospel truth? Those seem just as unreliable as the proponent's stance. Currently both sides have no positive proof, although I would side with the real Patty at this point, as no one has come forth with any evidence to prove otherwise. It would seem a whole lot easier to a produce a suit, in order to prove the subject in the film was not real, when considering the time it took place 40 years ago.

Edited by thermalman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...