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.  

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.