Lake County Bigfooot

Sasquatch / Meldrums Skeleton Model

132 posts in this topic

 

 

Also, how is this any different than Meldrums hypothetical skeleton!?

 

 

image.jpgimage.jpg

 

 

Answer, Dr. Meldrum said he used  Paranthropus Boise as one source to model his skeleton after, and that skull more closely resembles the one Meldrum used to model his skull.  But I don't know why that's even a point.  The point is the skull he put on that skeleton seems miles off from witnesses/films of sasquatch heads, and I wonder why he copied a 1.75 million year old artifact to represent a sasquatch head? was it easier to submit that to a 3D printer?  Also, the head looks a proportionately large on that skeleton.  I've heard is said that even though sasquatch heads are much larger than ours, they are proportionately small for their body size.  

 

And these are just observations I'm making on what I see as a mistake on what Meldrum created.  Dr. Meldrum is in the pro-ape camp.  Maybe that has something to do with his depictions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point Im making is to the skeptics, and not debating which head Meldrum should have used on his hypothetical skeleton.

There remains a lot of guess work in real science when you can recreate a complete skull from a few teeth and parts of a jaw.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Norseman, what they created for a  Gigantopithecus  skull is based on some pieces of jaw bone and a some teeth.  Believing it must be an ape they created what the rest of the skull would look like based on an orangutan.  I wonder if Giganthopithecus was a large species of human.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

The first part of you statement is true. A hypothesis must be testable. It's in the last part that your logic breaks down. It's based on the assumption that just because we don't have a real skeleton now, that we will never have one. That is just your opinion and fits in with dmaker's hucksters with their crystal balls.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

His model doesn't have a "flat head;" it shows the sagittal crest, the attachment point for the muscles that provide most of that "conehead" appearance.

 

What I meant with the Neanderthal analogy is that it's no more likely that Paranthropus remained restricted to Africa than that we refrained from the nasty with Neanderthals.  That we only have fossils from there doesn't mean they were restricted to Africa.  Most of the other evidence we have for the explosive radiation of apes around the world supports that educated guess.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WRT Dr. Meldrum's appearance in the "documentary", he stated after the airing of the production that he had been mislead about the content. It was presented to him as being a legitimate documentary following real researchers in the field, not a scripted production with paid actors (and I use the term loosely).

 

The 3-D printing was spread out among many different printers throughout Idaho and Washington (not sure if all were at educational institutions or not). 3-D printers are not fast machines at this state of the art, often taking overnight to produce relatively small parts. "Crowd sourced" printing was the only way to complete the skeleton within the production schedule time frame.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The first part of you statement is true. A hypothesis must be testable. It's in the last part that your logic breaks down. It's based on the assumption that just because we don't have a real skeleton now, that we will never have one. That is just your opinion and fits in with dmaker's hucksters with their crystal balls.

 

Add to this, of course, that the proponents' thesis is testable in the finest traditions of science...and the skeptics' coughcoughisn'tcoughcough...

 

The only people allowed the floor in a scientific debate are the ones with testable hypotheses.  Proponents have been entertaining for too long people who have nothing to add, nor really to say.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.   

 

Several things.

Sykes has probably done irreparable damage to his reputation and legacy in chasing his 15 minutes and a little money. Ancient polar bear hybrid? No. How embarrassing it must have been for him to have to pen that retraction after all he's done in a career. Is this guy's blunder really what you want to put forth in Meldrum's defense? If anything this a clear illustration of why a scientist of any substance should not be meddling in TV specials at the expense of producing quality work. 

 

Disotel has, more or less, simply tested samples given to him (my personal favorite being Meldrum's groundbreaking Snelgrove lake discoveries that amounted to.... yet again, nothing), and given repeatedly negative results on any of the programs I've seen him participate in. No outlandish untestable claims. No rock attacks on cabins he's staying in. No ancient hybrids. Being the robot technician is his schtick and he's managed to stay above the fray for the most part, although I hope Bigfoot Bounty paid well for his sake. Because his foray into reality TV sure won't help him professionally. Then again I'm sure the hair doesn't either, so maybe he just doesn't care. 

 

There are a number of obvious flaws in your attempt to equate Meldrum's 3D printed bigfoot model with some unnamed astrophysicist's generic mathematical model. 

 

The first and most obvious is that a predictive model is testable. That's the point. It is used to predict some event or physical occurrence. If it does not accurately do that it is no good and has to be thrown out or revised. Other scientists get access to the model, attempt to use it and either affirm or reject its utility through the proper channels: Journals. In other words it is actually testable. Not someday might be testable. If someone puts forth a someday might be testable model then I suppose it will become news some day when it actually gets tested. Until then what good is it?   And a predictive model has some potential utility in that it can predict something. 

 

Where is the potential utility in Meldrum's "hypothetical" bigfoot skeleton in the event that an actual one were ever recovered? What would be the point in comparing it to Meldrum's "hypothetical" model?  So, he can say "look how close I was!" That's really helpful. Thanks Meldrum. 

 

What else is it useful for?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

His model doesn't have a "flat head;" it shows the sagittal crest, the attachment point for the muscles that provide most of that "conehead" appearance.

 

 

 

 

DWA, Please re-examine your statement.  I don't see a sagittal crest that would show the "conehead appearance" you speak of.  The top of the head looks roughly the same as the height of the brow ridge.  Many humans have a mild remnant of a sagittal crest on their heads, but it lends no more to the height of the head than Dr. Meldrum's low flat head on his model.  And I've raised the question of "What happened on his model?"  Did he really endorse/prescribe that skull for his model.

 

 

Sasquatch_skeleton_next_to_human_skeleton.png

 

 

Dr. Meldrum ascribes to the view of sasquatches being a non-human species of ape.  I don't know if that led him to a more ape looking skull.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.   

 

Several things.

Sykes has probably done irreparable damage to his reputation and legacy in chasing his 15 minutes and a little money. Ancient polar bear hybrid? No. How embarrassing it must have been for him to have to pen that retraction after all he's done in a career. Is this guy's blunder really what you want to put forth in Meldrum's defense? If anything this a clear illustration of why a scientist of any substance should not be meddling in TV specials at the expense of producing quality work. 

 

Disotel has, more or less, simply tested samples given to him (my personal favorite being Meldrum's groundbreaking Snelgrove lake discoveries that amounted to.... yet again, nothing), and given repeatedly negative results on any of the programs I've seen him participate in. No outlandish untestable claims. No rock attacks on cabins he's staying in. No ancient hybrids. Being the robot technician is his schtick and he's managed to stay above the fray for the most part, although I hope Bigfoot Bounty paid well for his sake. Because his foray into reality TV sure won't help him professionally. Then again I'm sure the hair doesn't either, so maybe he just doesn't care. 

 

There are a number of obvious flaws in your attempt to equate Meldrum's 3D printed bigfoot model with some unnamed astrophysicist's generic mathematical model. 

 

The first and most obvious is that a predictive model is testable. That's the point. It is used to predict some event or physical occurrence. If it does not accurately do that it is no good and has to be thrown out or revised. Other scientists get access to the model, attempt to use it and either affirm or reject its utility through the proper channels: Journals. In other words it is actually testable. Not someday might be testable. If someone puts forth a someday might be testable model then I suppose it will become news some day when it actually gets tested. Until then what good is it?   And a predictive model has some potential utility in that it can predict something. 

 

Where is the potential utility in Meldrum's "hypothetical" bigfoot skeleton in the event that an actual one were ever recovered? What would be the point in comparing it to Meldrum's "hypothetical" model?  So, he can say "look how close I was!" That's really helpful. Thanks Meldrum. 

 

What else is it useful

A predictable model is only testable when you find a physical example to test it against.  Other theoretical models are possible to explain a phenomena and when conflicting models exist, the search begins to prove who is right and who is wrong by trying to observe the phenomena in nature.       How is that different than testing Meldrum's model against some yet to be found BF?      Einstein's theories predicted black holes.   He personally did not believe black holes were possible because he did not think God would construct a Universe like that.      Others thought him wrong about that and started looking for black holes in space.   We have yet to observe one directly but theoretical models support their existence and not only are they common, but they are believed to be a necessary part of the formation of spiral galaxies.   Hawking and others have spent their professional lives explaining  how black holes work.    A supermassive black hole is thought to be at the center of every spiral galaxy.    We have all kinds of accepted indirect evidence of their existence.    Rapidly moving stars moving around some massive unseen object in the center or our and other spiral galaxies.  Hardly a week goes by without discovery of another black hole someplace. 

 

  Massive unseen objects pretty much describe BF too. And if Meldrum is partially right, he will point it out.   He will also point out how his footprint research predicted the physical nature of sasquatch feet when one is available to examine.    Just as every other scientist who has advocated a model, and been found to be correct, he will let us know and have the glee in pointing that out to his now skeptical colleagues.       That is how science works.    It is about advancing theories, trying to prove them valid,  and celebrating when they are accepted. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And one should note that numerous extremely consistent footprints have been found.  No one has seen, nor likely ever will see, a black hole.  Ever.


The sagittal crest is visible here.  Most of the actual structure visible on the animal is fatty tissue.  The crest, providing the connection for the muscles needed to power the jaw, isn't actually in itself large.

 

boisei.jpg

Edited by DWA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The first part of you statement is true. A hypothesis must be testable. It's in the last part that your logic breaks down. It's based on the assumption that just because we don't have a real skeleton now, that we will never have one. That is just your opinion and fits in with dmaker's hucksters with their crystal balls.

 

Add to this, of course, that the proponents' thesis is testable in the finest traditions of science...and the skeptics' coughcoughisn'tcoughcough...

 

The only people allowed the floor in a scientific debate are the ones with testable hypotheses.  Proponents have been entertaining for too long people who have nothing to add, nor really to say.

 

A skeptical hypothesis is testable, though. Take this one for example:

 

Bigfoot is a social construct. Ok, is there evidence to support that hypothesis? Yes, there is actually. If bigfoot was a social construct, one would expect the following:

 

Bigfoot has a wide supported range: check.  Bigfoot is reported in every state other than Hawaii. And you, DWA, are on record stating that you believe bigfoot to exist in every state other than Hawaii.

 

Bigfoot has reported traits that collectively do not describe a likely animal. Check. Bigfoot is reported to have abilities such as teleportation, telepathy, and mimicry beyond any known species. 

 

Bigfoot surpasses known biological limitations for any known biped: Yes. Bigfoots are reported upwards of 14 feet and have been reported doing standing leaps of 50 feet or more.

 

Bigfoot hoaxes are a known fact? Yes, they are. They are numerous. 

 

Examples of alleged bigfoot evidence have been borne out to be mistakes? Yes, see skookum, snow walker, or just about any alleged bigfoot DNA test result.

 

Human memory and recall is known to be faulty. Yes, this is a common fact. 

 

Has any scientific evidence been brought to bear that supports the bigfoot claim? No

 

Is there any proof that the animal actually exists? No.

 

 

Those are just off the top of my head, and they all support the hypothesis of bigfoot as a social construct. 

 

 

Now, let's examine the evidence that supports the bigfoot is an extant animal hypothesis:

 

Anecdotes.

 

 

Now, shall we talk about testable hypotheses? Which of the above is testable? When tested, bigfoot appears to be a social construct, supported by testable evidence. The evidence that supports the bigfoot is a real animal hypothesis is not even testable. At least the skeptical hypothesis is testable. And when tested, supports the hypothesis.  But please, tell us all again how the plural of anecdote somehow means proof.

Edited by dmaker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not Hawaii? Same country, same people, same culture, same TV shows?

Same myths? Evidently not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites