Debunk The Debunking

[Sasfooty]

Would this be an appropriate place to post a picture of a track for discussion?

It is complete with dermal ridges & imprints of hair between the foot & the ground.

[Guest]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20101224/sc_livescience/elusivesaharancheetahcapturedinphotos

I just came across this article about another rare, elusive animal that has been capture by trail cams. The article states that less than 200 are thought to exist across the entire Sahara.

[Guest]

Never knew you supported Wallace tracks as legit. Wow...

Are you talking about the casts he made to sell, or the trackways in the field that some attribute to him? Obviously the former are suspect, as there is some evidence that he did manufacture casts for sale. The later, however is a whole different ball of wax. Meldrum takes the claims of the Wallace family that Ray engaged in field hoaxing apart at the seams in LMS. NEVER, not ONCE were they able to duplicate trackways with the characteristics that were observed in previous trackways, using the methods Ray claimed to use. Not even after a $100,000 prize was offered for anyone who could do so.

Second, I don't believe Mulder was suggesting Wallace tracks are legitimate, he was I believe refuting claims that Wallace tracks are widely responsible for the track evidence as claimed by the Wallace family - in other words he was saying that the idea that Wallace faked the whole thing is the big hoax, not the obviously identifiable fake tracks. I think Mulder and I are on the same page there.

Exactly, thank you...see above.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20101224/sc_livescience/elusivesaharancheetahcapturedinphotos

I just came across this article about another rare, elusive animal that has been capture by trail cams. The article states that less than 200 are thought to exist across the entire Sahara.

Great, now we can put that up alongside the various pics that seem to show a bf.

The trail cam arguement is another non-starter.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Mulder

[southernyahoo]

Would this be an appropriate place to post a picture of a track for discussion?

It is complete with dermal ridges & imprints of hair between the foot & the ground.

If it's a track found on or near your property, I'd like to see it, perhaps in the BF makes house calls thread.

[Guest]

So that's what it comes down to for you. Lies, misrepresentation, character assassination and a poor reference to a person who was trying to cover her ass for her own shoddy work and accusations of the breaking of federal law.

Returning to this for a follow up...if this isn't an attempt at "character assassination" (in this case, the woman who refuted Crowley), I don't know what is...

Just what "federal law" is she accused of breaking? How did she do so? IIRC from the old forum, she was accused of "stealing dirt" or some such nonsense.

Frankly, given your past history on the other forum, I expected better from you...

[Guest parnassus]

Really. Legitimate science accepts what the data tells it, rather than come up with ever more convoluted, unsupported theories as to why the data says something other than what it says.

It is an excellent, one-stop refutation of many of the most common "skeptic" claims, providing clear and convincing data and argumentation that supports at a bare minimum the potential existance of an unclassified (at present) large North American ape.

Every person with an interest in BF should read it.

Mulder, Seasons Greetings and all that.

I've read the LMS book from cover to cover and don't find it convincing at all. Even when Meldrum writes about his own area of expertise, he isn't convincing.

Your comments about science are not exactly on target. In the first place, the data is all important; a scientist is very careful about the collection of data and tries to ensure that it represents what he thinks it represents. In the case of "bigfoot data", it became clear pretty early on that this was not good data. It became apparent that in this arena, unlike most others, data was being hoaxed, faked, and was often erroneous as regards any zoological value. "Garbage in, garbage out," the saying goes. The "data" was not usable in a zoological sense. It would be valuable in a psychological/social anthropology context perhaps. This approach was taken in the publication of some of the proceedings of a scientific meeting back in the 70's I believe.

If you wanted to advance the cause of bigfootery in scientific circles, the first thing to do, imho, would be to stop badmouthing legitimate scientists and listen to what they say. They are for the most part happy to work in a constructive manner, and can give good advice; avoid the con-men who are looking to profit financially.

Edited December 26, 2010 by parnassus

[ShadowBorn]

Would this be an appropriate place to post a picture of a track for discussion?

It is complete with dermal ridges & imprints of hair between the foot & the ground.

This what I have said ,may not loud enough but I tend to beleieve that they have hair on their feet as well or between the toes and aound the edge of the feet.But we also have to consider that these creatures walk barefooted all the time in the forest so sure on the bottom of there feet there is going to be build up of harden skin in order to walk in the woods barefooted .Why don't we try walking out in the woods barefooted for miles on miles and years on years and see what happens to our feet,Well the same is it with them.

[GuyInIndiana]

I don't know "who's side" this points a finger at, but in watching a Nat. Geo Wild show today, they were talking about a new species of monkey/primate documented back in the late 70's or 80's. It all started with biologists who were hearing calls in the forests that were "unknown", and so that sparked the quest to find the answer for "what is it".

That inCLUDED interviewing local villagers about the sounds and pursueing these unknown sounds based on nothing more than the anecdotal testimony of these rural, uneducated villagers.

Amazing how THAT could interest scientists in exploring more of the ancient continent where we SURELY would know everything there is to know about it, right?, who took the initiative all on their own, but having been on this continent a mere 500<?> years, we think we know everything there is to know about it, so any evidence presented is of no value.

This is an example of why when you hear, "Well, if someone would just present some good evidence, science would HAVE to sit up and take notice." Really? So why did that work in Africa and not here? I don't recall the biologists asking the villagers to "put a body on a slab". They went out and did the reseach themselves.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Frankly, no, as many people have pointed out. His procedures were sloppy (which is scary, since he's a pharmacist...I wouldn't want him handling MY prescriptions that's for sure), and his choice of media too restrictive. The random vaguely dermatoglyphic-esque results are very different from the specifically identified anatomically correct details mentioned by Chillicut and Meldrum (such as in the "scarfoot" track).

Regardless of procedure, the argument itself is reasonable and is worthy of continued testing and study.

What would be unreasonable would be for one to give up on a these experiments/tests that may or may not have had proper procedures applied. These things are usually worked out through continued experiments. (Did Chilcutt ignore this artifact issue? Did he demonstrate with experiments to rule out casting artifacts?)

When faced with piles of demonstrated and replicated experiments that are fair, proper, reasonable and don't sit too well with your ideas, tests and procedures.

Well, then you should stick it at the back of the drawer and hope that you can revive it someday.

[Guest]

Hi Indiana- my thoughts are that they happened to be in the right place at the right time for other reasons and actually heard the sounds themselves. Plus, the natives didn't tell them it was a 7-8 foot bipedal ape man that was responsible for the noise. That probably had something to do with it......

If I ever have a reason to report a loud howl, bigfoot will not be mentioned, I'll pawn it off on a possible big cat, if I report it at all. I would hate to send someone in looking for something knowing they aren't prepared. I think that has a lot to do with the sightings or incidences that go unreported. The first response of most witnesses is fear. Looking for bigfoot would not be the same as looking for a small monkey or some other known version of a mammal. I personally don't want to be responsible for a possible bad outcome for some forest worker, game warden,or whoever would be tasked with the responsibility to hunt the critter if someone took my report seriously enough to go investigate. Doing my own investigation is completely out of the question.

[Guest Blackdog]

Returning to this for a follow up...if this isn't an attempt at "character assassination" (in this case, the woman who refuted Crowley), I don't know what is...

Just what "federal law" is she accused of breaking? How did she do so? IIRC from the old forum, she was accused of "stealing dirt" or some such nonsense.

Frankly, given your past history on the other forum, I expected better from you...

I suppose I could have worded that better but I didn't want to write a book.

She wasn't the one accused of breaking federal law, she was the one doing the accusing. She accused Matt Crowley of stealing volcanic ash from Mt. St. Helen's, which he didn't, and yep the accusation certainly was nonsense.

Frankly, given your history on both versions of the forum I didn't expect any more or any less from you, so at least I wasn't surprised.

Stick to the facts and stop making things up when you don't know what you are talking about.

[Guest]

Please follow rule No. 5 in the BFF Rules & Guidelines. No name calling.

Referring to someone as "credulous" would fall into that category.

Thanks for your support.

Splash

[Guest]

Are you talking about the casts he made to sell, or the trackways in the field that some attribute to him? Obviously the former are suspect, as there is some evidence that he did manufacture casts for sale. The later, however is a whole different ball of wax. Meldrum takes the claims of the Wallace family that Ray engaged in field hoaxing apart at the seams in LMS. NEVER, not ONCE were they able to duplicate trackways with the characteristics that were observed in previous trackways, using the methods Ray claimed to use. Not even after a $100,000 prize was offered for anyone who could do so.

I am talking about ANY evidence of any kind that comes from a admitted hoaxer. Hoaxers such as Tom Biscardi, Todd Standing, Ray Wallace and Paul Freeman. You CANNOT pick and choose evidence from a known hoaxer and use it to legitimately make a case for proof about anything. I don't get why this is hard to understand. Is your argument, "oh I know he was a hoaxer, but this evidence of his is legit?" Good grief.

Meldrum, Meldrum, Meldrum, you are like a broken record, do you have your own opinion? I have read LMS and it is full of pseudo-science,the study of bad and hoaxed evidence and flat out theories. If it's the Bigfoot Bible you claim it to be, please explain to me how it has helped you in your research? What results have you gathered from it's use? How has it moved the research forward?

Dr Meldrum may be very good at his primate profession, but when it comes to Bigfoot, he does not know anything. Has has not even had a sighting, so he cannot even be positive they exist.

[Guest]

I've read the LMS book from cover to cover and don't find it convincing at all. Even when Meldrum writes about his own area of expertise, he isn't convincing.

Because he doesn't agree with you.

In the case of "bigfoot data", it became clear pretty early on that this was not good data. It became apparent that in this arena, unlike most others, data was being hoaxed, faked, and was often erroneous as regards any zoological value. "Garbage in, garbage out," the saying goes. The "data" was not usable in a zoological sense.

Multiple scientists disagree with you.

If you wanted to advance the cause of bigfootery in scientific circles, the first thing to do, imho, would be to stop badmouthing legitimate scientists and listen to what they say. They are for the most part happy to work in a constructive manner, and can give good advice; avoid the con-men who are looking to profit financially.

"Legitimate" meaning "agrees with you". Oh, and an ad hominem thrown in for good measure...sad...very sad...

I don't know "who's side" this points a finger at, but in watching a Nat. Geo Wild show today, they were talking about a new species of monkey/primate documented back in the late 70's or 80's. It all started with biologists who were hearing calls in the forests that were "unknown", and so that sparked the quest to find the answer for "what is it".

That inCLUDED interviewing local villagers about the sounds and pursueing these unknown sounds based on nothing more than the anecdotal testimony of these rural, uneducated villagers.

Amazing how THAT could interest scientists in exploring more of the ancient continent where we SURELY would know everything there is to know about it, right?, who took the initiative all on their own, but having been on this continent a mere 500<?> years, we think we know everything there is to know about it, so any evidence presented is of no value.

This is an example of why when you hear, "Well, if someone would just present some good evidence, science would HAVE to sit up and take notice." Really? So why did that work in Africa and not here? I don't recall the biologists asking the villagers to "put a body on a slab". They went out and did the reseach themselves.

Wise words...destined, I fear, to fall on deaf ears.

Don't you know, Bigfoot, unlike any OTHER creature, must be conclusively proven to exist BEFORE evidence for it's existence can be considered...all the rules of reason, logic and science are suspended in the case of bigfoot.

I suppose I could have worded that better but I didn't want to write a book.

She wasn't the one accused of breaking federal law, she was the one doing the accusing. She accused Matt Crowley of stealing volcanic ash from Mt. St. Helen's, which he didn't, and yep the accusation certainly was nonsense.

Ok, got the incident right but the participants switched...my apologies.

And this affects the outcome of her experiments how?

I am talking about ANY evidence of any kind that comes from a admitted hoaxer. Hoaxers such as Tom Biscardi, Todd Standing, Ray Wallace and Paul Freeman. You CANNOT pick and choose evidence from a known hoaxer

It is on your head to prove that Wallace faked any of the tracks in question, not mine. Simply declaring a track a "Wallace track" does not make it so.

Dr Meldrum may be very good at his primate profession, but when it comes to Bigfoot, he does not know anything.

If this isn't "special pleading", then there is no such thing...you're just PO-d that he sees through the smokescreen and actually analyzes the primary evidence, something your side refuses to do.

[Guest Blackdog]

Ok, got the incident right but the participants switched...my apologies.

And this affects the outcome of her experiments how?

It doesn't, she was still wrong. Thanks for the support.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Blackdog