Jump to content
Bigfoot Gumbo

Where is the original PGF?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
18 hours ago, norseman said:


Then it’s not proof. It’s a well formulated opinion.

 

 

You should take that up with Bill, Norse....it's his claim of a 'Proof'.  ;) 

 

 

Quote

 But I cannot prove the existence of the species with it. This goes back to starchunk’s statement. Every time it’s brought up that the PGF is irrelevant to the discovery of a species You play the semantics game around the bush.

 

I don't know what you're talking about, there, Norse. Maybe you are just having trouble understanding the concept of 'Proof'....and/or the distinction between 'Proof' and 'Classification'.

 

I thought it was an easy distinction to understand...but, perhaps not. :)  Bang Bang. 

 

 

Quote

Well proof to me means yadda yadda yadda.....

 

I noticed.  :hunter:

 

 

Quote

No one cares what proof means to you Kit. Nor what it means to me. With science it’s pretty cut and dried in Biology.

 

I care. :) 

 

 

Quote

Its only a needless killing if we already know the species exists. Until then we need a break badly.

 

And if we don't know whether or not the species exists....then...

 

Bang2.jpg

 

 

 

Quote

Unfortunately the masses convinced or not do not matter one bit. 

 

You should speak for yourself. 

 

Online Discussion Forums exist for the masses.....for people who enjoy a particular subject....who enjoy discussing/analyzing a subject....who take an interest in learning more about a subject....and in sharing their interests with others.

 

What people think does matter....to themselves, and to others.  

 

I think it's a little screwy for anyone to become a member of a discussion forum...and then continually declare that what people think, and learn...."does not matter one bit". 

 

 

Here you go, Norse...something I am pretty sure you will thoroughly enjoy.....and understand...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SackScratch
20 minutes ago, Bill said:

Why has this become a thread about Ketchem? Her mess has nothing to do with the PGF, much less the OP.

 

I, for one, would appreciate it if we could try to keep threads at least somehow connected to the specific topic.

 

Thanks

 

Do you know if there's any new productions in the works on the PGF as far as Documentaries or TV Shows?  It's easier to find a Sasquatch than some of the previous shows done on cable, if you didn't catch it when it aired on cable then too bad! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

There are discussions and projects in various stages of development, but none that I know of actually funded and in the works. Hopefully that will change soon and something will get the necessary backing of a TV/cable/streaming venue to be produced.

 

Added:

 

To the Sweaty/Norseman discussion above, the base question is what are you trying to prove?

 

If you are trying to prove a new hominid species exists, and needs a scientific species recognition, yes, a body (or physical part thereof) is necessary.

 

But if you are trying to prove whether the PGF is a hoaxed or authentic film, the film image data is sufficient to prove it's authenticity as an honest and spontaneously filmed encounter with something occurring in nature. How the scientific world will take that proven authenticity and use it, that's for the scientific community to deal with.

Edited by Bill
addition
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
1 hour ago, Bill said:

There are discussions and projects in various stages of development, but none that I know of actually funded and in the works. Hopefully that will change soon and something will get the necessary backing of a TV/cable/streaming venue to be produced.

 

Added:

 

To the Sweaty/Norseman discussion above, the base question is what are you trying to prove?

 

If you are trying to prove a new hominid species exists, and needs a scientific species recognition, yes, a body (or physical part thereof) is necessary.

 

But if you are trying to prove whether the PGF is a hoaxed or authentic film, the film image data is sufficient to prove it's authenticity as an honest and spontaneously filmed encounter with something occurring in nature. How the scientific world will take that proven authenticity and use it, that's for the scientific community to deal with.

 

Agree completely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
3 hours ago, norseman said:

Bill Munns wrote:

Quote

But if you are trying to prove whether the PGF is a hoaxed or authentic film, the film image data is sufficient to prove it's authenticity...

 

Agree completely!

 

A few pages back, Norseman wrote:

 

Quote

In order for Bob Gimlin or any witness to be proven right? Is going to take more than a film, any film. 

 

 

Norseman....caught in "The Kit Zone"....a Funky Zone...where one contradicts themselves, silly...  :haha:  

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Bill said:

 

To the Sweaty/Norseman discussion above, the base question is what are you trying to prove?

 

If you are trying to prove a new hominid species exists, and needs a scientific species recognition, yes, a body (or physical part thereof) is necessary.

 

But if you are trying to prove whether the PGF is a hoaxed or authentic film, the film image data is sufficient to prove it's authenticity as an honest and spontaneously filmed encounter with something occurring in nature. How the scientific world will take that proven authenticity and use it, that's for the scientific community to deal with.

 

Agree completely!  :)  

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
35 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

A few pages back, Norseman wrote:

 

 

 

Norseman....caught in "The Kit Zone"....a Funky Zone...where one contradicts themselves, silly...  :haha:  

 

 

 

 

Agree completely!  :)  

 

I’m not contradicting anything..... your simply making a fool of yourself again. :o;)

 

But I will gladly admit that I was wrong when science classifies a Bigfoot species based on PGF film analysis...... better get to work there Kitmeister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis
13 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Everything we think we know about those results came to us via Ketchum with Ketchum's spin on them.   We do NOT know what the results were, only what they were purported to be .. spun for the purpose of supporting whatever story she wanted to tell.     **We do not have independent verification of what Ketchum said those labs' results were.**

 

PURPORTED results.   As claimed by Ketchum.   I do not believe there is any independent verification of those results thus no validation of her claims.   I don't believe she allowed anyone that level of access.

 

Ketchum was not "allowed" to take center stage.    She was the stage manager, owner, coordinator.   She seemingly had complete cooperation, and still does, of the person who paid the bills.    The only person in any position to "allow" Ketchum anything was Ketchum herself.  

 

In the end, it is all about Ketchum.   There is no separating her from the work, from the results, from the outcome. 
 

sasquatchgenomeproject.org is Melba Ketchum.    There is no verification of Ketchum's work which does not lead back to Ketchum as the original source for verification.   

 

 

If you follow the backtrail of each purported verification, they all eventually lead back to Ketchum reporting Ketchum's findings, there is no independent source.  None.  Those 12 labs' purported results do not come to us directly from them, all we know about them is what Ketchum has told us they say and she did so in the way of making excuses for not delivering what she promised.  

 

The 3 genomes is a red flag.    What she presented, claiming it is 3 full genomes, is nowhere near enough data.   From what I could find out, it requires several terabytes of data for a single full genome, so we should expect something 10 terabyte ballpark at least for 3 full genomes.     What she presented, if I recall correctly, was in the 100G range, so about 1/100th enough data.    When confronted with the discrepancy, she dismissed her critics, who were subject matter experts (which is why they saw problems with the amount of data), with "well, you're just not educated enough on the topic to question me / my level of expertise."  (See any narcissism?)  

 

What it boils down to is this: she used an inappropriate process for extracting the DNA ... too harsh, so it broke the DNA segments into pieces too short.   Then the "next generation" matching used overlaps too short when reconstructing the presumed original DNA.    Between the two, we come up with Norse's "manbearpig" DNA, the lemur DNA, chicken, snake, and several others.   When Melba saw that, she referred to "angel DNA" which matched everything.    It wasn't "angel", it was experimental flaw, first in the laboratory procedures that broke the DNA down too far .. essentially degraded it after it had been cleaned for contamination reintroducing a new kind of contamination, and then an over-optimistic matching process which reassembled the data incorrectly.       What she should have seen, as a professional, was not angel DNA, it was contamination, but she was too invested in proving biblical creation by proving bigfoot is nephilim .. her real agenda.   

 

Remember that one of her source samples was Justin Smeja's bear "steak".   She reported it as bigfoot, remember?   109 out of 109 positive for bigfoot?    And when he questioned her, she urged him most strongly to destroy the remaining sample with bleach to break down the DNA too far for further testing.    Does this not raise red flags for you?    So, with help from Bart Cutino and Tyler Huggins, he sent more sample off to Trent University for testing and it came back bear ... correctly.    In a criminal case, this would be fraud, then attempted witness tampering to cover the fraud.

 

I'm .. rather flabbergasted that you have to be reminded of this.   Sorry, man, but it has to be said:  you pose a someone conversant but you're falling flat.  

 

 

I know you are passionate about this topic but let's circle back to the real culprit here which started this zany chain of events that Ketchum should never have been involved with at all. It was Erickson who brought her in at the suggestion of Paulides. I don't know how much Erickson is worth but how much did he toss in the dumpster from start to finish on this project?  Well over a million range.  That's insane. I know Hersom chipped in too and he is another one irresponsibly tossing money around and hiring the wrong people to run a project. Even if he was worth billions, why would anyone do that?  Look at that cast of characters, sitting at that news conference, never mind Ketchum. Then there is Igor Burstev just going his own way with the blueberry bagel lady. :crazy:

 

I think Erickson started off the right way, keeping the team small, collecting evidence. Then, he slipped off the deep end by bringing in Ketchum and the wheels came off. So it's on him and Paulides. They should have pulled that plug long before it got to the point it did.

 

(I know we covered this already but it keeps coming up.)

 

 

Edited by Arvedis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

 ^^^ Your post is off topic, please refrain  from hijacking the thread, or else...

@Arvedis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Roger made 2 reels of film Reel #1 and #2.  We are sure we have all of Reel #1 other than the missing (?) original.

 

Did Roger ever make a couple of copies of Reel #2 in full?  Did anyone else?

Is there even a full Reel #2 out there to ever be found in the first place?  I understand the best of Reel #2 might be cherry-picked to get a segment or two (Stomp test?  Trackway).  Most of us have seen the 5 step trackway footage which I understand is thought to be part of a larger footage.   I can imagine there are segments copied from Reel #2 used in some other form with parts being tossed out in the editing process or not needed in the first place depending of the needs of the editor.  

 

I just find it hard to imagine they didn't take Reel #2 and make several Full copies of it even if the money shot (Patty) was not on Reel #2.  When Roger/ Al had Reel #1 developed copies were made.  They copied the whole film even though the good stuff (Patty) appears only in the last 25% of the film.   I would just expect they would do the same with Reel #2.

 

                               

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

That is one of the mysteries of the PGF event, why we cannot locate a single intact copy of reel two to simply see the entire content of it. And there is no explanation offered to shed light on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
8 hours ago, Bill said:

That is one of the mysteries of the PGF event, why we cannot locate a single intact copy of reel two to simply see the entire content of it. And there is no explanation offered to shed light on the matter.


I don’t know anything about film editing esp in 1967.  (Bill or Old Mort, thoughts?)

 

 

 

1) In 1967, in order to make a copy of part of a film did a person need to copy the entire film First and then physically cut that portion out from the copy or was there a way to just select what you wanted and copy just that portion directly from the film?.

 

2) would making a copy be an expensive thing to do in 1967?
 

 

 To my thinking Reel #2 only use in 1967 was for story telling purposes.   In 2019 we could squeeze information from Reel #2.  We couldn’t so much in 1967 but It wouldn’t be that important.  Limited to a story telling device.
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

With a 100' reel, the lab would not usually do a partial copy, because they wouldn't know where to start and stop. Plus it would require a special printer (such as an optical printer) where you can set up the source film at any frame to start). For a contact print, like what Roger did for the first reel, the lab just splices the head leader to whatever is set up on the printer, and runs the full reel you give them. The optical printing process costs a lot more than a contact print. 

 

A 100' reel contact printed copy might have cost $15 or so back then. 

 

So if you wanted a partial copy, you'd physically cut off the stuff you don't want, and splice some head and tail leader onto the stuff you wanted to print, and send that segment to the lab for a contact print

 

The reason Green and Dahinden paid the bigger bucks for an optical printed copy, is so they could do zoom ins, slow motions, and freeze frames (actually repeating the same frame so on projection, it seems frozen).. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

I share your concern regarding the lack of an intact reel 2 as well, Backdoc.

 

It is very curious that it is missing, but so is the original reel 1.

 

Provenance doesn't matter to some but it does to me.

 

If it is indeed such a monumental piece of film, it makes one question why neither original reel was secured over the years.

 

 

 

 

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, OldMort said:

I share your concern regarding the lack of an intact reel 2 as well, Backdoc.

 

It is very curious that it is missing, but so is the original reel 1.

 

Provenance doesn't matter to some but it does to me.

 

If it is indeed such a monumental piece of film, it makes one question why neither original reel was secured over the years.

 

 

I don't see anything suspicious with regards to the original 1st reel being "lost", over time.  It had been made available for scientists to study, early on....and was used as late as 1980, for making the Cibachrome prints. 

 

And, as for the 2nd reel...apparently it just wasn't considered as being valuable, by the early researchers and scientists.

 

Similarly, the film shot by Jim McClarin at the filmsite, only weeks after the PGF was shot….(in which Jim did walk right alongside the trackway)....was disregarded as having any scientific value, and lost.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
4 hours ago, Bill said:

A 100' reel contact printed copy might have cost $15 or so back then.

 

For a little perspective, I graduated HS in 1972, and that summer, before starting college, worked a construction job at  $2/hour.

Once school started, I took a part-time, evening job at minimum-wage, $1.65/hr.

 

Bought my second car, a one-owner '69 Plymouth Sport Satellite convertible in '72, with 18k miles for $1800.

 

$15 was no small amount in 1967.

 

$15 would buy an OUNCE of green, leafy, smokable substance in 1973. Concert tickets for major acts were $4.95 to $6.95.

Edited by Incorrigible1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...