Is science fair?

Is science fair?

M.K.Davis
M.K.Davis

April 22nd, 2011, 10:47 pm #1

I recently spoke briefly with Linda Moulton Howe about the subject of Bigfoot. She seemed rather put out that Dr.Jeff Meldrum had not gotten a fair shake from his colleagues in the scientific arena. As I listened politely, I wondered if she really knew Jeff that well? I think that sometimes people in the paranormal world have come to expect a certain behavior from science and have so mentally prepared themselves for it that they may not realize it when legitimate challenges to ideas and notions have been presented. Not all scientists are out to get you if you believe something non traditional. There cannot be two sets of truth. Either something is...or is not...true! When someone draws the ire of their collegues, it may have nothing to do with some prejudgemental attitude of the folks there at the university in Idaho. It's just that science is a highly regimented process, and sometimes people in the field resent it when someone does not follow such. The mid-tarsal break for instance. As far as I know, there was only one print in the entire trackway at the Patterson film site that might have been an example of such. Is it scientific to ignore a hundred flat tracks, and attribute a previously unknown characteristic to an unrecognized species, based on that one and only track...ignoring the 99 other tracks that might say otherwise. The answer is no. It might be what is going on INSIDE a person, that is most resented, and compels them to preempt the scientific process that they have trained in for much of their life. It is not unusual for a person with expertise, to challenge a largely unsubstantiated claim. Such was the case when a professional podiatrist challenged Dr.Meldrum on the mid-tarsal break issue. This is what Dr.Eisner had to say:
Dr. Richard Eisner
Board Certified Podiatric Physician
Bipedal Primate Foot and Ankle Physician
docrse@verizon.net


Question: What is the anatomy of a Sasquatch foot and how does it function?

Before I begin, let me explain a few things about myself

First, I am literally, on the fence, as far as believing that this species exists. The evidence I have seen is rather sketchy, so far, my opinion. I know there are others who disagree. Over the past 17 months, I have been listening to, and participating in, several Blog Talk Radio shows on the subject. I have read Dr. Jeffery Meldrum's book, Sasquatch, Legend Meets Science and Chris Murphy's book, Meet the Sasquatch. Make no mistake about it, I am not a researcher in this field. I am probably categorized as an observer. I find the subject interesting, because of the importance of the human foot relative to the evolution of our species. I have come to know many prominent and respected individuals in the field and have learned how serious they are about this question. Having said that, I do believe that this species could exist. I have been asked by many, to keep an open mind on this subject, and I promise I will. Okay, end of confession.

A little bit about me, and my credentials, I am a Board Certified Podiatric Physician with 30 years of experience. Specifically, I am board certified in Podiatric Orthopedics. This is the study of lower extremity biomechanics. I have spent my career treating pathology related to foot structure and function. Okay, so here's my theory.

Assuming, that this animal exists. And, assuming, that the animal in the Patterson-Gimlin film is representative of that species. And, assuming, the MK Davis enhancements have not altered the data significantly. Finally, assuming this species walks in a manner, essentially identical to humans, based on what is seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film. I will give you my opinion on this animal's method of locomotion, probable foot anatomy and function. You will note that it deviates significantly from current theories, specifically that of Dr. Jeffery Meldrum. Below, I will give you a list of truths held by certain individuals and my explanation as to why I feel these truths are incorrect or misinterpreted.

1. The subject in the film has a compliant gate. I agree, but here is where my opinion differs from many of the researchers. This compliant gate is not unique to that species. Human beings can, and do, demonstrate a compliant gate. This is a normal variant of normal human gait. It is not well known by laypeople, that the human gait has many variations. You can prove this to yourself. Simply go to a local mall and watch people walk. You'd be surprised at the variations of gait you'll see. In fact, I actually have a compliant gate myself, slightly different than the subject on the film, but a compliant gate nonetheless. Following along these lines of logic, my conclusion is, this species walks essentially identical to humans. Thus, this species probably has essentially the same lower extremity anatomy and function as humans. Being an expert in human foot function, I am simply applying my expertise to apply to this other bipedal primate.
2. The subject on the film has a flat appearing foot. I agree. I am not speaking of its actual functioning, only its appearance. It is impossible to determine the functioning of the foot from this film, due to its low quality. Enhancements to the film do not provide enough information to analyze the foot function, in my opinion. Let's assume the subject in the film has a flat appearing foot. A foot does not actually have to function as a flatfoot to leave flat footprints or appear flat when observing it during a gait cycle while the foot is in the swing phase. The reasons for a flat appearing foot can be explained very simply. Being a large heavy animal, it would be very normal for this foot to have a rather thick fat pad. This would give the foot and appearance of being flat. For example, the larger a human is, the thicker their fat pad is. I have observed this firsthand. Also, since this species spends a great deal of its time outdoors in cold weather, an exceptionally thick fat pad would be of benefit for insulation against cold and protection from injury.
3. The Patterson -Gimlin film allows meaningful evaluation of foot motion. The detail is not evident based on the angle of the subject to the camera, as well as, quality of the film. Dr. Jeffery Meldrum seems to see a midtarsal break during ambulation in the film, as he stated in his book. I don't see how that is possible to observe this due to the poor quality of the film, the position of the subject relative to the camera and the amount of time the foot is visible.
4. The midtarsal ridge, found in some footprints, is a direct result of anatomy, a midtarsal break. In my opinion, the midtarsal ridge is not result of foot anatomy, as stated in Dr. Jeffery Meldrum's book, but merely a function of substrate. You can try this yourself by walking in the sand, or dirt, barefoot. Depending on the consistency and the amount of moisture in the substrate, you can create a midtarsal ridge identical to that found in the Sasquatch footprints which demonstrate the ridge. Also, in my opinion, the midtarsal break in the Sasquatch foot structure, as postulated by Dr. Jeffery Meldrum, would not impart to the species an evolutionary advantage, rather the contrary is true. Let's look at the only other bipedal primate in existence. Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens who have feet which collapse in the middle, (function with a midtarsal break) are actually cripples and have great difficulty simply walking. I spend a great deal of my time treating these individuals in my practice. I would not expect natural selection to allow for development of a bipedal primate with this foot structure. It would be a huge disadvantage to have this foot structure when you are a bipedal primate. You would have extreme difficulty walking and would probably end up being eaten by the local carnivore, since you are very easy to catch. And, you would not pass your genes on to future generations and your inefficient foot structure would die out with you. Chimpanzees do have a midtarsal break. Chimpanzees are not bipedal. They walk in a bipedal fashion on occasion, but they do not use this form of locomotion regularly or to escape predation. They walk using their arms as crutches, it's called knuckle walking. Observe one of your fellow humans walking with crutches. They walk like chimps, who use their arms, as we use crutches.
5. The toes of the species are longer than that of humans, based on the footprints. This is quite an assumption. You certainly cannot see the phalanges in these footprints. You can see imprints of the toe pad, but not the actual phalanges themselves. As far as I'm concerned, having seen my fair share of feet, the Sasquatch footprints demonstrate toes and general foot structure identical to that of humans. I see no difference. In my opinion, the information some researchers feel they can obtain from the footprints is not justifiable. As an example, some researchers feel they can tell where various joints are, based on the footprints. I feel that is not credible. For example, you can look directly at a human foot and you truly cannot tell where the various joints are. The fat pad is quite thick and does not reveal the location of any of the joints in the foot. The exact same is true when looking at an impression of a foot in the ground. Also, the foot is in motion and changing its contours during the contact phase of gait. The bones and the joints are moving in three dimensional space during that time. Hence, a footprint is essentially a form of a smudge in the ground. When the heel hits the ground, the forces are traveling first in a forward direction, then directly down into the ground and finally the forces are pushing backwards. The same is true when the good foot and finally the forefoot contact the surface. There is so much motion from changes in force and direction, that attempting to identify any anatomical structures in a footprint with any type of accuracy would be sketchy at best, except when analyzing the foot relative to its position just prior to leaving the substrate. You essentially need an x-ray, if you are to examine the bones and joints themselves, to gain any meaningful and truly accurate information.
6. This species foot demonstrates an elongated heel. I'm assuming this is based on the appearance of the heel in the film or extrapolation from footprints. As I stated earlier, the quality of the film does not allow a meaningful evaluation of the foot structure. The footprints do not provide this information either, as stated above. In my opinion, there simply is no credible evidence to support the elongated heel structure purported by some.

So my theory is that the Sasquatch foot structure, and function is essentially no different from the Homo sapien foot structure and function. What other logic would lead me to believe this?

Why would this species evolve a foot structure so similar to ours, and not a foot with a functioning midtarsal break? If you look at the footprints, you'll see that the (hallux) big toe is adjacent to the second toe, as in humans. This would indicate the same arch structure as in humans and thus, no midtarsal break. The big toe, is not coming out from the side of the foot, (divergent) as in chimpanzees. The Sasquatch has an arch no different than humans. This is confirmed by the vast majority of purported Sasquatch footprints. These footprints demonstrate a big toe located next to the second toe, in exactly the same position as a human foot. This anatomical position in structure can only be consistent with the formation of an arch. As my anatomy professor once told us, Form Follows Function. As it turns out, the front two thirds of the human arch is actually comprised of the first midtarsal. In the Sasquatch foot and the human foot, the first metatarsal aligns with the big toe (unless you have a bunion deformity). So, if the big toe, and hence the first metatarsal, are aligned with the second toe and second metatarsal, that foot has an arch, form follows function. If the foot has an arch, it will not have a midtarsal break, form follows function. The midtarsal break, only exists in feet of lower (non-bipedal) primates, which have a divergent first metatarsal, form follows function.

In conclusion, I simply feel that Dr. Jeffery Meldrum's theory is incorrect and also not supported by the data. He and I look at bipedal locomotion from totally different perspectives and have drawn different conclusions. We have both demonstrated theories we feel are valid. You be the judge.

There is one phrase I hear repeated by Bigfoot researchers, and I agree with it. Keep an open mind.

Respectfully,

Bipedal Primate Foot and Ankle Physician

Now I ask...is Dr.Eisner being unfair to Dr.Meldrum?
When a person has been in this business for a while, a few lessons are learned, and sometimes the hard way. Some people will use information... sometimes skew information... and sometimes lie out right... in order to ride a vehicle such as the Patterson film, to fame. When someone objects...the same ruthless nature that compelled them to do such in the first place makes them cry foul. Here's two men of science with all their professional weight behind their conclusions. Both claim validity. My question is...which one is at all the conferences? Which one stays home? What is fair? You might be surprised where the mid tarsal idea REALLY came from, but that is for another post. M.K.Davis


Attachments:
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 22nd, 2011, 11:57 pm #2

My question has always been why does a biped have or need a mid-tarsal break?...but what if this biped was quadrupedal as well and at times a knuckle walker when quadruped?...

Meldrum's bipedal BF only doesn't have a mid tarsal break...

I do have a picture the lady took that shows three different BF with one walking quadruped...the picture only proves they do go down on all fours and not clear or close enough to see any foot structure...
Quote
Like
Share

Lone Wolf
Lone Wolf

April 23rd, 2011, 12:33 am #3

I recently spoke briefly with Linda Moulton Howe about the subject of Bigfoot. She seemed rather put out that Dr.Jeff Meldrum had not gotten a fair shake from his colleagues in the scientific arena. As I listened politely, I wondered if she really knew Jeff that well? I think that sometimes people in the paranormal world have come to expect a certain behavior from science and have so mentally prepared themselves for it that they may not realize it when legitimate challenges to ideas and notions have been presented. Not all scientists are out to get you if you believe something non traditional. There cannot be two sets of truth. Either something is...or is not...true! When someone draws the ire of their collegues, it may have nothing to do with some prejudgemental attitude of the folks there at the university in Idaho. It's just that science is a highly regimented process, and sometimes people in the field resent it when someone does not follow such. The mid-tarsal break for instance. As far as I know, there was only one print in the entire trackway at the Patterson film site that might have been an example of such. Is it scientific to ignore a hundred flat tracks, and attribute a previously unknown characteristic to an unrecognized species, based on that one and only track...ignoring the 99 other tracks that might say otherwise. The answer is no. It might be what is going on INSIDE a person, that is most resented, and compels them to preempt the scientific process that they have trained in for much of their life. It is not unusual for a person with expertise, to challenge a largely unsubstantiated claim. Such was the case when a professional podiatrist challenged Dr.Meldrum on the mid-tarsal break issue. This is what Dr.Eisner had to say:
Dr. Richard Eisner
Board Certified Podiatric Physician
Bipedal Primate Foot and Ankle Physician
docrse@verizon.net


Question: What is the anatomy of a Sasquatch foot and how does it function?

Before I begin, let me explain a few things about myself

First, I am literally, on the fence, as far as believing that this species exists. The evidence I have seen is rather sketchy, so far, my opinion. I know there are others who disagree. Over the past 17 months, I have been listening to, and participating in, several Blog Talk Radio shows on the subject. I have read Dr. Jeffery Meldrum's book, Sasquatch, Legend Meets Science and Chris Murphy's book, Meet the Sasquatch. Make no mistake about it, I am not a researcher in this field. I am probably categorized as an observer. I find the subject interesting, because of the importance of the human foot relative to the evolution of our species. I have come to know many prominent and respected individuals in the field and have learned how serious they are about this question. Having said that, I do believe that this species could exist. I have been asked by many, to keep an open mind on this subject, and I promise I will. Okay, end of confession.

A little bit about me, and my credentials, I am a Board Certified Podiatric Physician with 30 years of experience. Specifically, I am board certified in Podiatric Orthopedics. This is the study of lower extremity biomechanics. I have spent my career treating pathology related to foot structure and function. Okay, so here's my theory.

Assuming, that this animal exists. And, assuming, that the animal in the Patterson-Gimlin film is representative of that species. And, assuming, the MK Davis enhancements have not altered the data significantly. Finally, assuming this species walks in a manner, essentially identical to humans, based on what is seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film. I will give you my opinion on this animal's method of locomotion, probable foot anatomy and function. You will note that it deviates significantly from current theories, specifically that of Dr. Jeffery Meldrum. Below, I will give you a list of truths held by certain individuals and my explanation as to why I feel these truths are incorrect or misinterpreted.

1. The subject in the film has a compliant gate. I agree, but here is where my opinion differs from many of the researchers. This compliant gate is not unique to that species. Human beings can, and do, demonstrate a compliant gate. This is a normal variant of normal human gait. It is not well known by laypeople, that the human gait has many variations. You can prove this to yourself. Simply go to a local mall and watch people walk. You'd be surprised at the variations of gait you'll see. In fact, I actually have a compliant gate myself, slightly different than the subject on the film, but a compliant gate nonetheless. Following along these lines of logic, my conclusion is, this species walks essentially identical to humans. Thus, this species probably has essentially the same lower extremity anatomy and function as humans. Being an expert in human foot function, I am simply applying my expertise to apply to this other bipedal primate.
2. The subject on the film has a flat appearing foot. I agree. I am not speaking of its actual functioning, only its appearance. It is impossible to determine the functioning of the foot from this film, due to its low quality. Enhancements to the film do not provide enough information to analyze the foot function, in my opinion. Let's assume the subject in the film has a flat appearing foot. A foot does not actually have to function as a flatfoot to leave flat footprints or appear flat when observing it during a gait cycle while the foot is in the swing phase. The reasons for a flat appearing foot can be explained very simply. Being a large heavy animal, it would be very normal for this foot to have a rather thick fat pad. This would give the foot and appearance of being flat. For example, the larger a human is, the thicker their fat pad is. I have observed this firsthand. Also, since this species spends a great deal of its time outdoors in cold weather, an exceptionally thick fat pad would be of benefit for insulation against cold and protection from injury.
3. The Patterson -Gimlin film allows meaningful evaluation of foot motion. The detail is not evident based on the angle of the subject to the camera, as well as, quality of the film. Dr. Jeffery Meldrum seems to see a midtarsal break during ambulation in the film, as he stated in his book. I don't see how that is possible to observe this due to the poor quality of the film, the position of the subject relative to the camera and the amount of time the foot is visible.
4. The midtarsal ridge, found in some footprints, is a direct result of anatomy, a midtarsal break. In my opinion, the midtarsal ridge is not result of foot anatomy, as stated in Dr. Jeffery Meldrum's book, but merely a function of substrate. You can try this yourself by walking in the sand, or dirt, barefoot. Depending on the consistency and the amount of moisture in the substrate, you can create a midtarsal ridge identical to that found in the Sasquatch footprints which demonstrate the ridge. Also, in my opinion, the midtarsal break in the Sasquatch foot structure, as postulated by Dr. Jeffery Meldrum, would not impart to the species an evolutionary advantage, rather the contrary is true. Let's look at the only other bipedal primate in existence. Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens who have feet which collapse in the middle, (function with a midtarsal break) are actually cripples and have great difficulty simply walking. I spend a great deal of my time treating these individuals in my practice. I would not expect natural selection to allow for development of a bipedal primate with this foot structure. It would be a huge disadvantage to have this foot structure when you are a bipedal primate. You would have extreme difficulty walking and would probably end up being eaten by the local carnivore, since you are very easy to catch. And, you would not pass your genes on to future generations and your inefficient foot structure would die out with you. Chimpanzees do have a midtarsal break. Chimpanzees are not bipedal. They walk in a bipedal fashion on occasion, but they do not use this form of locomotion regularly or to escape predation. They walk using their arms as crutches, it's called knuckle walking. Observe one of your fellow humans walking with crutches. They walk like chimps, who use their arms, as we use crutches.
5. The toes of the species are longer than that of humans, based on the footprints. This is quite an assumption. You certainly cannot see the phalanges in these footprints. You can see imprints of the toe pad, but not the actual phalanges themselves. As far as I'm concerned, having seen my fair share of feet, the Sasquatch footprints demonstrate toes and general foot structure identical to that of humans. I see no difference. In my opinion, the information some researchers feel they can obtain from the footprints is not justifiable. As an example, some researchers feel they can tell where various joints are, based on the footprints. I feel that is not credible. For example, you can look directly at a human foot and you truly cannot tell where the various joints are. The fat pad is quite thick and does not reveal the location of any of the joints in the foot. The exact same is true when looking at an impression of a foot in the ground. Also, the foot is in motion and changing its contours during the contact phase of gait. The bones and the joints are moving in three dimensional space during that time. Hence, a footprint is essentially a form of a smudge in the ground. When the heel hits the ground, the forces are traveling first in a forward direction, then directly down into the ground and finally the forces are pushing backwards. The same is true when the good foot and finally the forefoot contact the surface. There is so much motion from changes in force and direction, that attempting to identify any anatomical structures in a footprint with any type of accuracy would be sketchy at best, except when analyzing the foot relative to its position just prior to leaving the substrate. You essentially need an x-ray, if you are to examine the bones and joints themselves, to gain any meaningful and truly accurate information.
6. This species foot demonstrates an elongated heel. I'm assuming this is based on the appearance of the heel in the film or extrapolation from footprints. As I stated earlier, the quality of the film does not allow a meaningful evaluation of the foot structure. The footprints do not provide this information either, as stated above. In my opinion, there simply is no credible evidence to support the elongated heel structure purported by some.

So my theory is that the Sasquatch foot structure, and function is essentially no different from the Homo sapien foot structure and function. What other logic would lead me to believe this?

Why would this species evolve a foot structure so similar to ours, and not a foot with a functioning midtarsal break? If you look at the footprints, you'll see that the (hallux) big toe is adjacent to the second toe, as in humans. This would indicate the same arch structure as in humans and thus, no midtarsal break. The big toe, is not coming out from the side of the foot, (divergent) as in chimpanzees. The Sasquatch has an arch no different than humans. This is confirmed by the vast majority of purported Sasquatch footprints. These footprints demonstrate a big toe located next to the second toe, in exactly the same position as a human foot. This anatomical position in structure can only be consistent with the formation of an arch. As my anatomy professor once told us, Form Follows Function. As it turns out, the front two thirds of the human arch is actually comprised of the first midtarsal. In the Sasquatch foot and the human foot, the first metatarsal aligns with the big toe (unless you have a bunion deformity). So, if the big toe, and hence the first metatarsal, are aligned with the second toe and second metatarsal, that foot has an arch, form follows function. If the foot has an arch, it will not have a midtarsal break, form follows function. The midtarsal break, only exists in feet of lower (non-bipedal) primates, which have a divergent first metatarsal, form follows function.

In conclusion, I simply feel that Dr. Jeffery Meldrum's theory is incorrect and also not supported by the data. He and I look at bipedal locomotion from totally different perspectives and have drawn different conclusions. We have both demonstrated theories we feel are valid. You be the judge.

There is one phrase I hear repeated by Bigfoot researchers, and I agree with it. Keep an open mind.

Respectfully,

Bipedal Primate Foot and Ankle Physician

Now I ask...is Dr.Eisner being unfair to Dr.Meldrum?
When a person has been in this business for a while, a few lessons are learned, and sometimes the hard way. Some people will use information... sometimes skew information... and sometimes lie out right... in order to ride a vehicle such as the Patterson film, to fame. When someone objects...the same ruthless nature that compelled them to do such in the first place makes them cry foul. Here's two men of science with all their professional weight behind their conclusions. Both claim validity. My question is...which one is at all the conferences? Which one stays home? What is fair? You might be surprised where the mid tarsal idea REALLY came from, but that is for another post. M.K.Davis


Attachments:
Good info MK, it is obvious you have chosen to believe one experts opinion over an others.
That is all fine and good, however like I have said for a long time, without a corpse to study who among us can say whose OPINION is more valid?

The glaring problem I see with Meldrum is his rejection of the possibility of a three toed creature.
Jim and others have shown me plenty of examples.

Other than that I maintain my stance that having ANY legitimate scientists interested in BF is a good thing.
Quote
Share

J
J

April 23rd, 2011, 7:34 am #4

I recently spoke briefly with Linda Moulton Howe about the subject of Bigfoot. She seemed rather put out that Dr.Jeff Meldrum had not gotten a fair shake from his colleagues in the scientific arena. As I listened politely, I wondered if she really knew Jeff that well? I think that sometimes people in the paranormal world have come to expect a certain behavior from science and have so mentally prepared themselves for it that they may not realize it when legitimate challenges to ideas and notions have been presented. Not all scientists are out to get you if you believe something non traditional. There cannot be two sets of truth. Either something is...or is not...true! When someone draws the ire of their collegues, it may have nothing to do with some prejudgemental attitude of the folks there at the university in Idaho. It's just that science is a highly regimented process, and sometimes people in the field resent it when someone does not follow such. The mid-tarsal break for instance. As far as I know, there was only one print in the entire trackway at the Patterson film site that might have been an example of such. Is it scientific to ignore a hundred flat tracks, and attribute a previously unknown characteristic to an unrecognized species, based on that one and only track...ignoring the 99 other tracks that might say otherwise. The answer is no. It might be what is going on INSIDE a person, that is most resented, and compels them to preempt the scientific process that they have trained in for much of their life. It is not unusual for a person with expertise, to challenge a largely unsubstantiated claim. Such was the case when a professional podiatrist challenged Dr.Meldrum on the mid-tarsal break issue. This is what Dr.Eisner had to say:
Dr. Richard Eisner
Board Certified Podiatric Physician
Bipedal Primate Foot and Ankle Physician
docrse@verizon.net


Question: What is the anatomy of a Sasquatch foot and how does it function?

Before I begin, let me explain a few things about myself

First, I am literally, on the fence, as far as believing that this species exists. The evidence I have seen is rather sketchy, so far, my opinion. I know there are others who disagree. Over the past 17 months, I have been listening to, and participating in, several Blog Talk Radio shows on the subject. I have read Dr. Jeffery Meldrum's book, Sasquatch, Legend Meets Science and Chris Murphy's book, Meet the Sasquatch. Make no mistake about it, I am not a researcher in this field. I am probably categorized as an observer. I find the subject interesting, because of the importance of the human foot relative to the evolution of our species. I have come to know many prominent and respected individuals in the field and have learned how serious they are about this question. Having said that, I do believe that this species could exist. I have been asked by many, to keep an open mind on this subject, and I promise I will. Okay, end of confession.

A little bit about me, and my credentials, I am a Board Certified Podiatric Physician with 30 years of experience. Specifically, I am board certified in Podiatric Orthopedics. This is the study of lower extremity biomechanics. I have spent my career treating pathology related to foot structure and function. Okay, so here's my theory.

Assuming, that this animal exists. And, assuming, that the animal in the Patterson-Gimlin film is representative of that species. And, assuming, the MK Davis enhancements have not altered the data significantly. Finally, assuming this species walks in a manner, essentially identical to humans, based on what is seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film. I will give you my opinion on this animal's method of locomotion, probable foot anatomy and function. You will note that it deviates significantly from current theories, specifically that of Dr. Jeffery Meldrum. Below, I will give you a list of truths held by certain individuals and my explanation as to why I feel these truths are incorrect or misinterpreted.

1. The subject in the film has a compliant gate. I agree, but here is where my opinion differs from many of the researchers. This compliant gate is not unique to that species. Human beings can, and do, demonstrate a compliant gate. This is a normal variant of normal human gait. It is not well known by laypeople, that the human gait has many variations. You can prove this to yourself. Simply go to a local mall and watch people walk. You'd be surprised at the variations of gait you'll see. In fact, I actually have a compliant gate myself, slightly different than the subject on the film, but a compliant gate nonetheless. Following along these lines of logic, my conclusion is, this species walks essentially identical to humans. Thus, this species probably has essentially the same lower extremity anatomy and function as humans. Being an expert in human foot function, I am simply applying my expertise to apply to this other bipedal primate.
2. The subject on the film has a flat appearing foot. I agree. I am not speaking of its actual functioning, only its appearance. It is impossible to determine the functioning of the foot from this film, due to its low quality. Enhancements to the film do not provide enough information to analyze the foot function, in my opinion. Let's assume the subject in the film has a flat appearing foot. A foot does not actually have to function as a flatfoot to leave flat footprints or appear flat when observing it during a gait cycle while the foot is in the swing phase. The reasons for a flat appearing foot can be explained very simply. Being a large heavy animal, it would be very normal for this foot to have a rather thick fat pad. This would give the foot and appearance of being flat. For example, the larger a human is, the thicker their fat pad is. I have observed this firsthand. Also, since this species spends a great deal of its time outdoors in cold weather, an exceptionally thick fat pad would be of benefit for insulation against cold and protection from injury.
3. The Patterson -Gimlin film allows meaningful evaluation of foot motion. The detail is not evident based on the angle of the subject to the camera, as well as, quality of the film. Dr. Jeffery Meldrum seems to see a midtarsal break during ambulation in the film, as he stated in his book. I don't see how that is possible to observe this due to the poor quality of the film, the position of the subject relative to the camera and the amount of time the foot is visible.
4. The midtarsal ridge, found in some footprints, is a direct result of anatomy, a midtarsal break. In my opinion, the midtarsal ridge is not result of foot anatomy, as stated in Dr. Jeffery Meldrum's book, but merely a function of substrate. You can try this yourself by walking in the sand, or dirt, barefoot. Depending on the consistency and the amount of moisture in the substrate, you can create a midtarsal ridge identical to that found in the Sasquatch footprints which demonstrate the ridge. Also, in my opinion, the midtarsal break in the Sasquatch foot structure, as postulated by Dr. Jeffery Meldrum, would not impart to the species an evolutionary advantage, rather the contrary is true. Let's look at the only other bipedal primate in existence. Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens who have feet which collapse in the middle, (function with a midtarsal break) are actually cripples and have great difficulty simply walking. I spend a great deal of my time treating these individuals in my practice. I would not expect natural selection to allow for development of a bipedal primate with this foot structure. It would be a huge disadvantage to have this foot structure when you are a bipedal primate. You would have extreme difficulty walking and would probably end up being eaten by the local carnivore, since you are very easy to catch. And, you would not pass your genes on to future generations and your inefficient foot structure would die out with you. Chimpanzees do have a midtarsal break. Chimpanzees are not bipedal. They walk in a bipedal fashion on occasion, but they do not use this form of locomotion regularly or to escape predation. They walk using their arms as crutches, it's called knuckle walking. Observe one of your fellow humans walking with crutches. They walk like chimps, who use their arms, as we use crutches.
5. The toes of the species are longer than that of humans, based on the footprints. This is quite an assumption. You certainly cannot see the phalanges in these footprints. You can see imprints of the toe pad, but not the actual phalanges themselves. As far as I'm concerned, having seen my fair share of feet, the Sasquatch footprints demonstrate toes and general foot structure identical to that of humans. I see no difference. In my opinion, the information some researchers feel they can obtain from the footprints is not justifiable. As an example, some researchers feel they can tell where various joints are, based on the footprints. I feel that is not credible. For example, you can look directly at a human foot and you truly cannot tell where the various joints are. The fat pad is quite thick and does not reveal the location of any of the joints in the foot. The exact same is true when looking at an impression of a foot in the ground. Also, the foot is in motion and changing its contours during the contact phase of gait. The bones and the joints are moving in three dimensional space during that time. Hence, a footprint is essentially a form of a smudge in the ground. When the heel hits the ground, the forces are traveling first in a forward direction, then directly down into the ground and finally the forces are pushing backwards. The same is true when the good foot and finally the forefoot contact the surface. There is so much motion from changes in force and direction, that attempting to identify any anatomical structures in a footprint with any type of accuracy would be sketchy at best, except when analyzing the foot relative to its position just prior to leaving the substrate. You essentially need an x-ray, if you are to examine the bones and joints themselves, to gain any meaningful and truly accurate information.
6. This species foot demonstrates an elongated heel. I'm assuming this is based on the appearance of the heel in the film or extrapolation from footprints. As I stated earlier, the quality of the film does not allow a meaningful evaluation of the foot structure. The footprints do not provide this information either, as stated above. In my opinion, there simply is no credible evidence to support the elongated heel structure purported by some.

So my theory is that the Sasquatch foot structure, and function is essentially no different from the Homo sapien foot structure and function. What other logic would lead me to believe this?

Why would this species evolve a foot structure so similar to ours, and not a foot with a functioning midtarsal break? If you look at the footprints, you'll see that the (hallux) big toe is adjacent to the second toe, as in humans. This would indicate the same arch structure as in humans and thus, no midtarsal break. The big toe, is not coming out from the side of the foot, (divergent) as in chimpanzees. The Sasquatch has an arch no different than humans. This is confirmed by the vast majority of purported Sasquatch footprints. These footprints demonstrate a big toe located next to the second toe, in exactly the same position as a human foot. This anatomical position in structure can only be consistent with the formation of an arch. As my anatomy professor once told us, Form Follows Function. As it turns out, the front two thirds of the human arch is actually comprised of the first midtarsal. In the Sasquatch foot and the human foot, the first metatarsal aligns with the big toe (unless you have a bunion deformity). So, if the big toe, and hence the first metatarsal, are aligned with the second toe and second metatarsal, that foot has an arch, form follows function. If the foot has an arch, it will not have a midtarsal break, form follows function. The midtarsal break, only exists in feet of lower (non-bipedal) primates, which have a divergent first metatarsal, form follows function.

In conclusion, I simply feel that Dr. Jeffery Meldrum's theory is incorrect and also not supported by the data. He and I look at bipedal locomotion from totally different perspectives and have drawn different conclusions. We have both demonstrated theories we feel are valid. You be the judge.

There is one phrase I hear repeated by Bigfoot researchers, and I agree with it. Keep an open mind.

Respectfully,

Bipedal Primate Foot and Ankle Physician

Now I ask...is Dr.Eisner being unfair to Dr.Meldrum?
When a person has been in this business for a while, a few lessons are learned, and sometimes the hard way. Some people will use information... sometimes skew information... and sometimes lie out right... in order to ride a vehicle such as the Patterson film, to fame. When someone objects...the same ruthless nature that compelled them to do such in the first place makes them cry foul. Here's two men of science with all their professional weight behind their conclusions. Both claim validity. My question is...which one is at all the conferences? Which one stays home? What is fair? You might be surprised where the mid tarsal idea REALLY came from, but that is for another post. M.K.Davis


Attachments:
...that the only thing that makes the Sasquatch appear primate is that it's covered in hair. Other than that it walks like a human, stands like a human, has a human gait, human arms, legs and feet. And though no clear face has been presented, barring any injury or deformity, it's face is probably human or human like.

If any or all of the accepted films and photos can be trusted, then there is nothing visually that suggests this is a primate. (IMHO) It runs like a human (Memorial Film) It has a basic walk pattern (Freeman Footage) It's foot is very human looking (P/G Film) and all of it's movements are consistent with a human. (i.e Gait, sway, wrist to arm movement, waist rotation, stride, etc. )

The only thing that makes Sasquatch appear anything other than human is it's hair or fur. Humans as we know them are not hair covered, Apes are.

If we can accept any of the aforementioned films as trustworthy and representations of Sasquatch then it's visually obvious this is a human, or human type creature. I have wrestled with the "primate" theory from the beginning of my study of the phenomenon. Accepting at times and questioning it at times. My opinion now is if it is not human, than it is a human representing a Sasquatch. Perhaps in some sort of costume or appliances.

If it is real then this explains why skeptics are quick to say it's a man in a costume. When they look at it upon glance they see a human. And since there are no Sasquatches in their minds and belief, it must be a man in a costume.

The believers don't want it to be human, that's not exciting and mysterious. They want it to be exotic and special therefore it must be an ape or descendent of an ape. They follow the ape theory because it's comfortable. It keeps the creature in the realm of being special and unique. Plus they can shoot an animal but can't integrate that into their thought process if it's human. This sets up a paradox, if it's human it isn't special and cannot be brought in for discovery. If it's ape then it can be pondered, explored and accepted as unique. Even to the point of accepting the death of one.

No one really wants to get excited about a hairy tribe of people. But a unique uncatalogued species of ape in North America is very exciting. Thus the ape theory has gained popularity over the years to the point now where the human theory is all but laughed away. Even though the most basic evidence suggests it is not an ape at all.

This is a case where the evidence fits the belief system of the individual, not the facts. In a world where the few scientist who study the creature are far more likely to seek popularity rather than work together to study the basic facts, this creature will remain a mystery.

The PNW Sasquatch is probably a select tribe of people who have survived against all odds to exist in small numbers today. Their population is likely diminishing rather than growing and in time all of them will be gone forever. Perhaps one day the last surviving Sasquatch will emerge from the wilderness much like Ishee did.

When or if that day comes we will know what Sasquatch is, and will be powerless to ever learn more about them as they all will be extinct.

It's also my opinion that the Southern Swamp Ape / Skunk Ape / Booger is probably not in the aforementioned category. Though no public photos of a "Southern Bigfoot" exist, eye witness accounts describe a very different animal, which is probably primate in nature.

J.
Quote
Share

Terry
Terry

April 23rd, 2011, 12:53 pm #5

nailed it J in regards to my thoughts. The size factor is kinda off kilter with humans and there has to be a reason. Maybe the same reason why bears can get so big? What puzzles me about the human scenerio though is there are no artifacts...tools, hand made stuff...fire. That's kinda odd.
Quote
Share

M.K.Davis
M.K.Davis

April 23rd, 2011, 1:20 pm #6

Good info MK, it is obvious you have chosen to believe one experts opinion over an others.
That is all fine and good, however like I have said for a long time, without a corpse to study who among us can say whose OPINION is more valid?

The glaring problem I see with Meldrum is his rejection of the possibility of a three toed creature.
Jim and others have shown me plenty of examples.

Other than that I maintain my stance that having ANY legitimate scientists interested in BF is a good thing.
Not all science is good science, nor are all scientists good scientists. I don't think that anyone should be so hard strapped for credibility that any ole scientist is better than no scientist. People don that mantle for many reasons and some are not on the up and up. If a certain person was to declare, when he was 16 years old, that he was going to be the one to find or discover Bigfoot, and then he goes and gets a doctorate in order to bend the ears of the public, then you might find that his opinions are not deductive, but rather subjective. He finds his specialness in a piece of evidence that is his alone, and then seeks to integrate it into the lexicon of science. The only problem is...that it does not fit. He does not observe protocol and forces the fit, only to have his colleagues object. He does not understand why they are making an issue of it, when the subject is vague and most people do not care. The issue is forced because the tried and proven ways of science and the cause of deductive reasoning has been been transgressed. If one is allowed to do this without legitimate challenge, then the floodgates of subjective reasoning is opened and facts no longer matter as long as everyone is happy with the opinion. M.K.
Quote
Share

SAsquatcher
SAsquatcher

April 23rd, 2011, 2:14 pm #7

...that the only thing that makes the Sasquatch appear primate is that it's covered in hair. Other than that it walks like a human, stands like a human, has a human gait, human arms, legs and feet. And though no clear face has been presented, barring any injury or deformity, it's face is probably human or human like.

If any or all of the accepted films and photos can be trusted, then there is nothing visually that suggests this is a primate. (IMHO) It runs like a human (Memorial Film) It has a basic walk pattern (Freeman Footage) It's foot is very human looking (P/G Film) and all of it's movements are consistent with a human. (i.e Gait, sway, wrist to arm movement, waist rotation, stride, etc. )

The only thing that makes Sasquatch appear anything other than human is it's hair or fur. Humans as we know them are not hair covered, Apes are.

If we can accept any of the aforementioned films as trustworthy and representations of Sasquatch then it's visually obvious this is a human, or human type creature. I have wrestled with the "primate" theory from the beginning of my study of the phenomenon. Accepting at times and questioning it at times. My opinion now is if it is not human, than it is a human representing a Sasquatch. Perhaps in some sort of costume or appliances.

If it is real then this explains why skeptics are quick to say it's a man in a costume. When they look at it upon glance they see a human. And since there are no Sasquatches in their minds and belief, it must be a man in a costume.

The believers don't want it to be human, that's not exciting and mysterious. They want it to be exotic and special therefore it must be an ape or descendent of an ape. They follow the ape theory because it's comfortable. It keeps the creature in the realm of being special and unique. Plus they can shoot an animal but can't integrate that into their thought process if it's human. This sets up a paradox, if it's human it isn't special and cannot be brought in for discovery. If it's ape then it can be pondered, explored and accepted as unique. Even to the point of accepting the death of one.

No one really wants to get excited about a hairy tribe of people. But a unique uncatalogued species of ape in North America is very exciting. Thus the ape theory has gained popularity over the years to the point now where the human theory is all but laughed away. Even though the most basic evidence suggests it is not an ape at all.

This is a case where the evidence fits the belief system of the individual, not the facts. In a world where the few scientist who study the creature are far more likely to seek popularity rather than work together to study the basic facts, this creature will remain a mystery.

The PNW Sasquatch is probably a select tribe of people who have survived against all odds to exist in small numbers today. Their population is likely diminishing rather than growing and in time all of them will be gone forever. Perhaps one day the last surviving Sasquatch will emerge from the wilderness much like Ishee did.

When or if that day comes we will know what Sasquatch is, and will be powerless to ever learn more about them as they all will be extinct.

It's also my opinion that the Southern Swamp Ape / Skunk Ape / Booger is probably not in the aforementioned category. Though no public photos of a "Southern Bigfoot" exist, eye witness accounts describe a very different animal, which is probably primate in nature.

J.
The problems with that is.

Humans Build fire, Bigfoot doesn't.

Humans have written forms of communication, Bigfoot doesn't
.
Humans only get between 5 and 6 1/2 feet tall on average and usually the "Giants" in our species are because of some medical condition affecting the pituitary gland and most of them have low bone density or other medical disorders that usually result in an early demise.
Humans with giantism are also usually lean built although basketball players through working out really hard do develop a bit of muscle tone.

Bigfoot gets between 6 and 10 feet tall on average and they are very healthy for their size as reports have them being powerfully built with massive shoulder widths.
It would seem that if they were human that they would try and mimic out technology but the exact opposite is true, they hide in the shadows from us and evade us at all costs.

Eye shine, Humans do not have near the eye reflectivity as Bigfoot does which is a good indicator that they are predominantly nocturnal although they do move by day as well.

Humans do not have the ability to put out a stench when they feel threatened (Although I may have met some exceptions,,LOL) Bigfoot does.

The blood sample from the monster that was shot at MC was Primate group A which is Chimp and Orang family.
That to me set in concrete what I had suspected all along.

The animals at MC do the same things as the PNW animals and look the same, act the same.

My thought is that Bigfoot is a ground dwelling primate which means that they are too big to climb trees as a rule so their foot structure does need the thumb toe like other tree dwelling primates, which means that they build their nests on the ground or maybe even take advantage of caves and or caverns.
I have never seen pictures of an a frame house that the monsters built, never seen any stone walls they built, never seen a monster lobbying for Sasquatch rights nor even heard of monster diplomacy!

Anyways J, you know you are my bud but this is a discussion forum so I must say that I really must disagree with you on that point.
That said, peace bro!


Quote
Share

J
J

April 23rd, 2011, 6:17 pm #8

nailed it J in regards to my thoughts. The size factor is kinda off kilter with humans and there has to be a reason. Maybe the same reason why bears can get so big? What puzzles me about the human scenerio though is there are no artifacts...tools, hand made stuff...fire. That's kinda odd.
Keep in mind that humans (us) didn't have fire or make tools until well into our development. The most basic tool we used was a fish bone. It was used as a needle to sew cloths. Sasquatch, being hair covered would not need this and probably would not develop it. At least not yet. Fire came much later and civilizations thrived well before the wheel was used.

I agree there are conundrums in the study. Body bulk could be a result of living off the land. However it's a theory and like any theory it's open to debate. These are question probably best answered by the sasquatch themselves.
J.

PS> The southern version (IMHO) is more primate and has a long way to go before such developments might occur.
Quote
Share

Lone Wolf
Lone Wolf

April 23rd, 2011, 6:52 pm #9

Not all science is good science, nor are all scientists good scientists. I don't think that anyone should be so hard strapped for credibility that any ole scientist is better than no scientist. People don that mantle for many reasons and some are not on the up and up. If a certain person was to declare, when he was 16 years old, that he was going to be the one to find or discover Bigfoot, and then he goes and gets a doctorate in order to bend the ears of the public, then you might find that his opinions are not deductive, but rather subjective. He finds his specialness in a piece of evidence that is his alone, and then seeks to integrate it into the lexicon of science. The only problem is...that it does not fit. He does not observe protocol and forces the fit, only to have his colleagues object. He does not understand why they are making an issue of it, when the subject is vague and most people do not care. The issue is forced because the tried and proven ways of science and the cause of deductive reasoning has been been transgressed. If one is allowed to do this without legitimate challenge, then the floodgates of subjective reasoning is opened and facts no longer matter as long as everyone is happy with the opinion. M.K.
Quoted by MK : "Not all science is good science, nor are all scientists good scientists".

Agreed, just like all podiatrists are not good podiatrists.
In other words, we can argue the merits or disagreements of two or two hundred scientists, podiatrists, researchers, etc.

However doing so in my opinion is a waste of time and energy due to there NOT being a body living or dead to study.

Meldrum is the least favorite scientist/anthropologist brought up by the GCBRO and that is fine, however he is a globally recognized expert on foot morphology and locomotion in primates.

Here is a link to an article that explains why Meldrum has come to his mid-tarsal break conclusion.
This is a good article for anyone seeking to make their own conclusions based on Meldrum's research.

Enjoy the article :http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... eldrum.pdf


Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 23rd, 2011, 8:08 pm #10

The problems with that is.

Humans Build fire, Bigfoot doesn't.

Humans have written forms of communication, Bigfoot doesn't
.
Humans only get between 5 and 6 1/2 feet tall on average and usually the "Giants" in our species are because of some medical condition affecting the pituitary gland and most of them have low bone density or other medical disorders that usually result in an early demise.
Humans with giantism are also usually lean built although basketball players through working out really hard do develop a bit of muscle tone.

Bigfoot gets between 6 and 10 feet tall on average and they are very healthy for their size as reports have them being powerfully built with massive shoulder widths.
It would seem that if they were human that they would try and mimic out technology but the exact opposite is true, they hide in the shadows from us and evade us at all costs.

Eye shine, Humans do not have near the eye reflectivity as Bigfoot does which is a good indicator that they are predominantly nocturnal although they do move by day as well.

Humans do not have the ability to put out a stench when they feel threatened (Although I may have met some exceptions,,LOL) Bigfoot does.

The blood sample from the monster that was shot at MC was Primate group A which is Chimp and Orang family.
That to me set in concrete what I had suspected all along.

The animals at MC do the same things as the PNW animals and look the same, act the same.

My thought is that Bigfoot is a ground dwelling primate which means that they are too big to climb trees as a rule so their foot structure does need the thumb toe like other tree dwelling primates, which means that they build their nests on the ground or maybe even take advantage of caves and or caverns.
I have never seen pictures of an a frame house that the monsters built, never seen any stone walls they built, never seen a monster lobbying for Sasquatch rights nor even heard of monster diplomacy!

Anyways J, you know you are my bud but this is a discussion forum so I must say that I really must disagree with you on that point.
That said, peace bro!

Meldrum is right but right for the wrong reasons IMHO...the foot having a mid tarsal break would allow this creature (Monster)to go down quadruped eliminating any stress on ligaments, muscle tear or damage to the achilles tendon...if the foot flexed similar to a hand it would enable the creatures to climb, use the foot for grip...and damn I hate to say this as well...I have seen the foot impression on a ridge of dirt stepping from the road bed into the thicket the foot flexed like a hand would...I've mentioned this to very few not to sell Meldrum's theory short but becasue I have only seen this once in twenty years...

We can argue back and forth about who is wrong or right but from experiences of tracks found I do know the foot has a flexible joint...My problem with Meldrum's mid tarsal break is the bipedal gait only especially after me seeing along with others these Monsters down in a four wheel gait...and I know I mentioned having a picture that shows a Monster down quadruped...

Can science establish a mid tarsal break as fact...absolutely not simply because the tracks Meldrum has is a single cast where as it hasn't been replicated...Meldrum's assumption of foot structure could be wrong there fore the disagreement with the podiatrist...the joint, hinge, would have to lock someway for the creature to walk bipedal especially a heel to toe gait which I know they do...these Monsters do not stomp around...if they did we would easily find tracks in areas of activity...

When quadruped they do use their whole foot when navigating from one area to another under normal circumstances but when running quadruped they use the ball toe area and knuckles...

We have thought for years the female foot had an arch but form seeing tracks of a large and smaller creature walk down a sandy creek bank I could clearly see the entire foot...but when the larger went down quadruped inside the rather dry creek bed I could see the foot impression but it had this arch...what causes the arch IMO is that the Monster was walking on the side of its foot...

As of now all I can report is from what I have personally seen in the field...It's difficult for anyone to disagree with a theory when it does come from a scientist devoted to (I hope) discovery...he also mentioned the stealing and eating of small children...hard for me to believe but it's his opinion and only an opinion from folk lore...

Quote
Like
Share