Dec 202017
 

 

A new article caught my eye the other day.  It was published on the website, Ancient Origins, an online news source for those interested in popular archaeology with a dash of unusual thrown in.  They claim to be the “only Pop Archaeology site combining scientific research with out-of-the-box perspectives.”  This might be true.  

Thinking this was just another article about the 50th anniversary of the PG Film, I started reading and was very pleasantly surprised by the quality of writing and the perspective taken by the author.  The author briefly acknowledged some of the erroneous scientific views from humanity’s past, went sufficiently deep into the work that has been done on the PG Film, and also explored the inevitable shift in paradigm that would occur if the film was authentic. 

It was at this point I looked at the author’s name:  William Munns. 

Of course.

Bill Munns is the number one expert on the Patterson/Gimlin Film.  He wrote an excellent book about his research on the film entitled When Roger Met Patty.  He is a methodical and scientific researcher who is meticulous with details and has an academic way with words.  

This article is a great primer in the work done on the film.  It’s something you can email to your friends for them to consider.  And with that in mind, friend, check it out!

Why the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film Should Concern Scholars of Human Origins

The anthropological sciences occasionally have to deal with something which has a profound but unexpected impact on our understanding of human origins. Two events are noteworthy, in part because both impacted powerfully upon our concept of human evolution, but also because they were diametric opposites. One was a truth first rejected, and the other was a false contrivance embraced as fact. As presented in Roger Levin’s fine text, “Bones of Contention”, the stories of the Piltdown Man and the Taung Child were meaningful because they demonstrated that ultimately the evidence will lead to the truth, but first, one must examine that evidence with an impartial and open mind.

Sadly, they also illustrated that confirmation bias is a serious and formidable obstacle in the search for truth. Piltdown was a fraud, an orangutan jaw mated to a human skull, and it confirmed the bias of expecting that our human ancestor would be an ape-like body affixed to a human cranium, thus affirming that regardless of how primitive the body, the illustrious human mind remained robustly beyond any mere ape. Taung was a truthful hominid fossil, but its rightful place in human origins was rejected for many years because of its small brain. So, when we consider that some evidence with potential impact upon human origins is misunderstood, or suffers in the face of a confirmation bias, the idea has a solid foundation of prior examples demonstrating that exact issue.

Perceptions of “The Bigfoot Film”

Today we have a new subject with the potential to make a profound and unexpected impact upon human origins and the human family tree. And like Piltdown and Taung, there is a legitimate concern that the evidence is not being given a proper and impartial evaluation, with confirmation bias ruling the roost and dissuading the scientific community from a proper consideration of that evidence. That new subject is actually 50 years old, but it is the age of the controversy that actually justifies a new way of thinking about it today. The subject in question is a 16mm motion picture film, taken in the woodlands of Northern California in 1967, famously referred to as the Patterson-Gimlin Film or PGF (in recognition of the two men who were present, one man filming and the other man witnessing the event), but it is informally known as “The Bigfoot Film” (in recognition of the subject figure seen in that film footage).

For 50 years, people have been denouncing this film footage as a fake, yet there is virtually no rigorous and logically structured proof for that conclusion. All that can be found are insinuations, suggestions, unsubstantiated claims, and intellectual bullying to try and cajole people into accepting the claim of hoax as a fact.

But in fact, the more rigorous the analysis, the more we see inconclusive determinations. David Daegling, in his text, “Bigfoot Exposed” analyzed the film and concluded, that at his time of writing, 36 years after the event, no proof of a hoax could be found. More recently, Authors Donald Prothero and Daniel Loxton, in “Abominable Science” could do no better, and their analysis of this film resulted in a meager comparison to an anecdotal bigfoot sighting by a man named William Roe. Their conclusion was that if Roe’s anecdotal account could somehow be proven false, then the PGF might reasonably also be deemed a fake. Given that Roe’s encounter cannot be proven false, this was a subtle but tacit admission that the PGF cannot be proven false either.

 

There is much more to this article!  Click here to read the rest.  

 

Dec 202017
 

I had a nice visit from John Rosman from OPB (Oregon Public Broadcasting) a few weeks ago.  He wanted to talk to me about the legacy and impact of the Patterson/Gimlin Film 50 years after it was obtained down in Bluff Creek, CA.  We spent a couple hours in my garage looking at the film, talking about the creature and its movements, and looking at casts.  He was very interested in the subject, and had read a bit before coming over to do the interview.  (Informed reporters do interviews that are much more enjoyable.)

The article he was working on just came out today.  There is a video component as well, so be sure to click on the article to check out the interviews of me in my garage, and of Dr. Jeff Meldrum in his lab via Skype.  

Film Introducing Bigfoot To World Still Mysterious 50 Years Later

Although it’s been decades since the Patterson-Gimlin film turned a Northwest legend, Bigfoot, into a household name, the footage and stories behind it still remain fascinating 50 years later.

The filmmakers, and namesakes of the film, are two former rodeo men from Yakima County in Washington. One, Bob Gimlin, still lives there. Roger Patterson died in 1972. They shot the footage off the banks of Bluff Creek in Northern California.

Bigfoot is seen on film for less than one minute, but one frame — 352 — has pretty much become the universal symbol for Sasquatch. And that famous giant walking ape is actually a she; her name is Patty.

But what might be most surprising — after a half century of advancement in film and costume technology — is that this footage has yet to be officially debunked.

Click here to continue reading.

The Bigfoot/Earhart Connection

 Footage, History, Patterson/Gimlin Film  Comments Off on The Bigfoot/Earhart Connection
Nov 062016
 
Original art by Melissa Babyak

Original art by Melissa Babyak

Having grown up in the 1970’s, my young mind was blessed with television shows such as In Search Of… that featured segments on topics such as bigfoot, UFOs and historical mysteries.  One of the regularly-featured enigmas in these shows was the disappearance of Amelia Earhart in 1937 while she attempted to circumnavigate the globe in a small plane.  Her body nor the plane wreckage was ever recovered and their location remains a mystery to this day.  However, some progress has been made in this missing-persons case.  Tantalizing information has arisen in recent years, and more surfaces all the time.  Just last week I read a recent news item about some possible progress on the Earhart mystery, and when I scanned the article I was surprised to find a familiar name from bigfoot research: Jeff Glickman.

For those new to bigfooting, Jeff Glickman was the executive director of a $75k examination of the Patterson/Gimlin Film.  The study was commissioned by a group that went by the name of the North American Science Institute (NASI), though it is unclear if this group did anything else but this one study.  The study lasted for several years culminating in a 1998 publication entitled, “Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon.”  An abridged version of the paper can be read by clicking this link.  

Glickman’s bigfoot work came to some conclusions that even today seem unlikely (such as the mass of the film subject being 1957 pounds), but did so using well-established methods.  At the time, Glickman’s analysis was one of the best ever done on the film, and we in the bigfoot community applauded his scientific approach to the film.  Since the publication of Glickman’s report, only one analysis of the film is of the same or better caliber: When Roger Met Patty by Bill Munns (which is a must-read for anyone interested in the Patterson/Gimlin Film).  

Glickman has now been enlisted by a group called The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery, also known by the acronym TIGHAR.  Glickman and TIGHAR are working on a hypothesis that some bones found back in 1940 might belong to Earhart.  He has recently published his findings in a short paper.  

While I am less interested in the Earhart mystery than the bigfoot mystery, I find it interesting that Glickman is working on this project, and his involvement certainly brings to mind a couple questions.  If future DNA analysis concludes that the bones are indeed Earhart’s, will Glickman’s involvement in the bigfoot subject help or hurt the acceptance of his analysis?  Will the acceptance of Glickman’s work on Earhart help or hurt future acceptance of his previous bigfoot work?  

It is my hope that more forensics experts like Jeff Glickman will step forward to offer their opinions on sasquatch data.  Their opinions might serve to open the minds and eyes of their colleagues, thus causing a domino effect.