BigTreeWalker Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 It is an exercise in possibilities. A physical hypothesis so to speak. Until disproven by more information, it is as good a hypothesis as any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted February 6, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted February 6, 2016 (edited) Like I said anything that generates interest in either lay people or the scientific community is regarded as a threat to skeptics on this forum. Mr Pteordactlyl apparently does not understand the hypothesis component of the scientific process. Meldrums model has had little exposure outside the bigfoot interest groups. The famous Gigantopithecus skull that we frequently see and is accepted by science, is nothing more that a similar extrapolation from a partial jawbone. A similar process to the skeleton but on a smaller scale than the skull. Whiles skeptics take comfort in main stream science's indifference to the bigfoot question, those what would like to see it investigated welcome media attention and drumming up interest. Like it or not scientists like investigating cool stuff that get them public as well as academic attention. They just do not want to destroy their careers venturing too far off the main stream path. Anything that pulls one or more out of the main stream comfort zone and into bigfoot research will benefit the process. Edited February 6, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 (edited) What do Scoftics like the most? Any reason, new or old, to tell Proponents they are wrong. I think scoftics have zero interest in Bigfoot or any topic they see as unrealistic or pointless. They live to to snipe, to invalidate ... IMO. Edited February 6, 2016 by Oonjerah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Meldrum put an ape looking skull on it, I suppose since he followed what some assumed a Gigantopithecus skull would look like or as Wes T suggested " Paranthropus Boise" I think they have vaulted craniums, not low flat heads over the eyebrows like Meldrum depicted. Also, he practically rested the head on the chest bones to mimic the "no neck" of sasquatches. But I believe the no neck appearance comes from the neck muscles branching out, not forming a column under the head like on Homo sapiens. The pronounced nuchel crests on the Lovelock skull (a possible sasquatch skull) which is for the attachment of large neck muscles, indicates it had large neck muscles that likely fanned out giving it a no neck appearance. Below the pronounced protrusions of the nuchel crest seen on the rear of the Lovelock skull are for the attachment of very large neck muscles. The side view also shows the Mastoic processes are also very large, this is for the attachment of the front neck muscles. This shows sasquatches had huge neck muscles that may have fanned out giving it a no neck appearance. Perhaps since sasquatches travel on all fours at times they need large neck muscles to support the head, not unlike four footed animals need larger neck muscles than bipedal walkers. Below shows the head of Meldrum's model resting on top of the chest bones, and also compared to a human skeleton. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Wrong skull, for sure. ... But then, Dr. M. is a foot-leg-locomotion expert. You think he woulda asked a Head Hunter, Ph.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) Yes, for sure, you would think he would know better than that skull. It looks like he did copy the 1.75 million year old Paranthropus Boise skull compared below. Edited February 8, 2016 by jayjeti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Don't think we have any skull experts checking in here. Meldrum over you guys; it's not "too big;" there are significant anatomical reasons for considering the Paranthropus genus a possibility for sasquatch ancestry; ...and once AGAIN, class!, fossils we haven't found are fossils we haven't found YET. We found four new fossils (five) while I was typing (six) this. We (seven) are finding them (eight) all the time. It is about as likely that Paranthropus (nine) never got out of Africa as it is that scientists are wrong about Neanderthals and sapiens doing the nasty. Which means: Possible. But not the likeliest. (Ten.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Like I said anything that generates interest in either lay people or the scientific community is regarded as a threat to skeptics on this forum. Mr Pteordactlyl apparently does not understand the hypothesis component of the scientific process. Meldrums model has had little exposure outside the bigfoot interest groups. The famous Gigantopithecus skull that we frequently see and is accepted by science, is nothing more that a similar extrapolation from a partial jawbone. A similar process to the skeleton but on a smaller scale than the skull. Whiles skeptics take comfort in main stream science's indifference to the bigfoot question, those what would like to see it investigated welcome media attention and drumming up interest. Like it or not scientists like investigating cool stuff that get them public as well as academic attention. They just do not want to destroy their careers venturing too far off the main stream path. Anything that pulls one or more out of the main stream comfort zone and into bigfoot research will benefit the process. It is rather presumptive of you to make such a declaration, isn't it? Particularly when the whole point of my post was that we've seen plenty of for-profit sensational "hypothesizing" from Dr. Meldrum over the last decade or so, but then no actual follow-through on the scientific process. This is the point. Anyone can suggest anything. That's not science. If he's going to be Dr. Bigfoot, cool. Actually do it though. Go beyond "hypothesizing" (it is being charitable to call it that) and test that hypothesis. Come to some finding, publish the results in a real journal and then maybe you can go on TV and be the expert. The other problem is: How do you test a made-up skeleton as a hypothesis? It's not like there are other, real BF skeletons to measure it against. So, it's not falsifiable. Not testable. It's not a real hypothesis. It did get him on TV again though. So that's something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 DWA, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens did do the nasty, as you phrased it. When their genome was sequenced it was discovered our species carry a small percentage of genes unique to Neanderthals. And as far as using a model of a 1.75 million year old skull for Dr. Meldrums skull model, his model has a flat head just above the eye brows, and witness reports/ the P/G film, describe a vaulted cranium of some sort. So, I don't take Meldrum over my or any others observation regarding this skull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) Like I said anything that generates interest in either lay people or the scientific community is regarded as a threat to skeptics on this forum. Mr Pteordactlyl apparently does not understand the hypothesis component of the scientific process. Meldrums model has had little exposure outside the bigfoot interest groups. The famous Gigantopithecus skull that we frequently see and is accepted by science, is nothing more that a similar extrapolation from a partial jawbone. A similar process to the skeleton but on a smaller scale than the skull. Whiles skeptics take comfort in main stream science's indifference to the bigfoot question, those what would like to see it investigated welcome media attention and drumming up interest. Like it or not scientists like investigating cool stuff that get them public as well as academic attention. They just do not want to destroy their careers venturing too far off the main stream path. Anything that pulls one or more out of the main stream comfort zone and into bigfoot research will benefit the process.It is rather presumptive of you to make such a declaration, isn't it? Particularly when the whole point of my post was that we've seen plenty of for-profit sensational "hypothesizing" from Dr. Meldrum over the last decade or so, but then no actual follow-through on the scientific process. This is the point. Anyone can suggest anything. That's not science. If he's going to be Dr. Bigfoot, cool. Actually do it though. Go beyond "hypothesizing" (it is being charitable to call it that) and test that hypothesis. Come to some finding, publish the results in a real journal and then maybe you can go on TV and be the expert. The other problem is: How do you test a made-up skeleton as a hypothesis? It's not like there are other, real BF skeletons to measure it against. So, it's not falsifiable. Not testable. It's not a real hypothesis. It did get him on TV again though. So that's something. Its simple. If you dont like his work? Dont follow it! Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"? Are Randiites going to save the world from our own selves? If people want to believe in Bigfoot and pay money to watch Meldrum speak???? Who cares?I personally dont trust anti kill people who are trying to sell me something, its job security. But constantly whining about how people choose to spend their money is aggravating to me. Also, how is this any different than Meldrums hypothetical skeleton!? Edited February 8, 2016 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Norse, do you not care if people are conned and fleeced by supposed psychics? Just an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) No I do not. It completely goes against my nature. Im a firm proponent in people taking responsibility for their own actions. If they require James Randi to guide them step by step through life? Well, they have bigger issues than pyschic hotlines then. Edited February 8, 2016 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) I am afraid I cannot agree. I don't think con men should be free to prey on the uninformed or gullible simply to preserve some sense of personal responsibility or laissez-faire. How do you feel about Nigerian princes? Providing information to expose hucksters may prevent someone from wasting their money and thereby rewarding the con men. I'm all for that. Edited February 8, 2016 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted February 8, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted February 8, 2016 Like I said anything that generates interest in either lay people or the scientific community is regarded as a threat to skeptics on this forum. Mr Pteordactlyl apparently does not understand the hypothesis component of the scientific process. Meldrums model has had little exposure outside the bigfoot interest groups. The famous Gigantopithecus skull that we frequently see and is accepted by science, is nothing more that a similar extrapolation from a partial jawbone. A similar process to the skeleton but on a smaller scale than the skull. Whiles skeptics take comfort in main stream science's indifference to the bigfoot question, those what would like to see it investigated welcome media attention and drumming up interest. Like it or not scientists like investigating cool stuff that get them public as well as academic attention. They just do not want to destroy their careers venturing too far off the main stream path. Anything that pulls one or more out of the main stream comfort zone and into bigfoot research will benefit the process. It is rather presumptive of you to make such a declaration, isn't it? Particularly when the whole point of my post was that we've seen plenty of for-profit sensational "hypothesizing" from Dr. Meldrum over the last decade or so, but then no actual follow-through on the scientific process. This is the point. Anyone can suggest anything. That's not science. If he's going to be Dr. Bigfoot, cool. Actually do it though. Go beyond "hypothesizing" (it is being charitable to call it that) and test that hypothesis. Come to some finding, publish the results in a real journal and then maybe you can go on TV and be the expert. The other problem is: How do you test a made-up skeleton as a hypothesis? It's not like there are other, real BF skeletons to measure it against. So, it's not falsifiable. Not testable. It's not a real hypothesis. It did get him on TV again though. So that's something. Meldrum does not criticize the way you make money to live, what business is it of yours if he makes some money with television specials? Some seem to think that scientists are some sort of monk that makes a vow of poverty to worship at the alter of science. Those with any sense get into field where there is a good supply of grant money to further their work. Since grant money is probably non existent for study of BF, TV amounts to the same thing. Sykes and Distotell have also likely been paid for their appearances on BF associated shows. Although since their role was as BF skeptic, I suppose them taking money for their appearances is fine with you? How do you test anything that has not been closely observed? The history of astrophysics is building models, in that case mathematical models, then searching the universe for examples predicted by the model. That is exactly the same process Meldrum did with his model, except that his model is made out of plastic not mathematical calculations. How do you test the made up skeleton? You compare it with the yet to be taken pictures and videos and the yet to be found body on the lab table. Certain many aspects of Meldrums skeleton will be wrong, but perhaps he got a lot of it right too. At least it was an effort to imagine the skeleton to match descriptions and existing pictures. This is exactly the same process used in astrophysics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) DMaker, Go for it.....Uri Geller is as popular as ever. Your bucking the human mind, most people have a deep seated drive to want to believe in something. Edited February 8, 2016 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts