Debunk The Debunking

[Guest]

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.

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.

Wallace is a admitted hoaxer. Simply declaring SOME of his tracks legit is comedic at best. Dr. Meldrum cannot prove any of the tracks he studies are real except possibly the PGF tracks. Even that is a stretch.

I don't plead. I am also not PO-ed at Dr. Meldrum for anything. Exactly what "side" do you think I am on? I am on the side of proper scientific procedure that will document this species for science. Still waiting to see some examples.

[Guest]

Wallace is a admitted hoaxer. Simply declaring SOME of his tracks legit is comedic at best.

Show me where I've said that. I freely admit he made fake casts for sale. Would I accept those casts as legit BF tracks? No.

That does not prove that he hoaxed ANY other tracks than those tracks, no matter how many other tracks people attempt to attribute to him. SOME of the Titmus tracks bear a superficial resemblance to "Wallace stompers". Meldrum freely states this. HOWEVER, and this is the critical point. The Wallace "stompers" are patterned off of "presentation quality" cast reproductions that Titmus made, which have been cleaned up for display purposes. The stompers do NOT resemble the actual Titmus tracks' they only generally resemble the reproduction casts.

That was the point Meldrum makes. That is the point I am making: Ray Wallace has NOT been shown to be responsible for ANY tracks outside of the models he cast for sale. The "stompers" proffered by the family that grossly resemble Titmus' tracks are copies of detail enhanced presentation casts Titmus made for sale, NOT legitimate Titmus tracks.

Dr. Meldrum cannot prove any of the tracks he studies are real except possibly the PGF tracks. Even that is a stretch.

He can show good evidence to support their reality. Where is YOUR evidence that they are false? And yes, you must disprove EVERY SINGLE TRACK presented.

I am on the side of proper scientific procedure that will document this species for science.

Not when you summarily dismiss Meldrum's credentials on the basis of his subject matter you most emphatically are NOT "on the side of proper scientific proceedure. When you single out the subject of bigfoot for special status requiring the refusal of entirely applicable credentials (anthropology and primate locomotion in this case) as qualifications to analyze and examine evidence, you are engaging in textbook special pleading.

Put more simply: if he were debating something relating to a chimp, you would accept his credentials. if he were debating something relating to gorillas, you would accept his credentials. Since his topic is bigfoot, you DENY his credentials.

THAT is Special Pleading, straight out of the dictionary definition.

[Guest]

Since his topic is bigfoot, you DENY his credentials.

So now he's "Dr Meldrum...Bigfoot Specialist"?

It takes more than one "specialist" to to make it fact (I would hope)

[Guest]

He can show good evidence to support their reality. Where is YOUR evidence that they are false? And yes, you must disprove EVERY SINGLE TRACK presented.

Not when you summarily dismiss Meldrum's credentials on the basis of his subject matter you most emphatically are NOT "on the side of proper scientific proceedure. When you single out the subject of bigfoot for special status requiring the refusal of entirely applicable credentials (anthropology and primate locomotion in this case) as qualifications to analyze and examine evidence, you are engaging in textbook special pleading.

Put more simply: if he were debating something relating to a chimp, you would accept his credentials. if he were debating something relating to gorillas, you would accept his credentials. Since his topic is bigfoot, you DENY his credentials.

THAT is Special Pleading, straight out of the dictionary definition.

He can show good evidence to support their reality.

His theories are as good as anyone's for sure. But I need more then that.

Where is YOUR evidence that they are false?

If you mean Wallace tracks, my baby blue eyes.

And yes, you must disprove EVERY SINGLE TRACK presented.

I only need Dr. Meldrum (or anyone for that matter) to prove just ONE is real.

Not when you summarily dismiss Meldrum's credentials on the basis of his subject matter you most emphatically are NOT "on the side of proper scientific proceedure.

I have never dismissed Dr. Meldrum's credentials. I do dismiss all claims about Bigfoot (except their existence)from ANYONE, until a type specimen is retrieved. I deal in facts. I leave the speculating to you speculators.

When you single out the subject of bigfoot for special status requiring the refusal of entirely applicable credentials (anthropology and primate locomotion in this case) as qualifications to analyze and examine evidence, you are engaging in textbook special pleading.

I lean more towards the theories of Dr Richard Eisner. But even they are only theories until a specimen is found. Dr. Meldrum's theories fit well, if Bigfoot is actually a great ape with flexible feet. Not so much if they are some type of human.

Put more simply: if he were debating something relating to a chimp, you would accept his credentials. if he were debating something relating to gorillas, you would accept his credentials. Since his topic is bigfoot, you DENY his credentials.

Right, we have chimp and gorilla specimens. Still no Bigfoot. Oopsie.

[Guest]

^So, essentially you've just admitted to special pleading with that last bit...got it.

[Guest]

Mulder,

Can you please answer the questions I asked above? If it is your opinion that LMS is a good guide for researchers, how have you used that information in your own personal field work? What significant effects has the information had on Bigfoot research in general?

[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.

Credulous... that is what describes you to a tee.

Please, nobody believe Mulder without doing your own research into this.

I am truly sad that this person is given a forum to spread such misinformation without challenge.

In addition to the name-calling pointed out by Splash7, I would add that the above portion is also contrary to the following rules...

2. Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

3. Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything.

Sans the overtly personal element of your post there is nothing at all wrong with challenging any content of a post if done respectfully and impersonally.

But you're quite savvy and have been around long enough to know that.

I suspect that is why you also said the following...

I'll take my lumps and most of this will probably be deleted

I'd prefer to leave it intact at this point as an example of *what not to do* with this advisory post and that made by Splash7 to point out the areas in which it ran afoul of the Rules & Guidelines.

Although, editing out the personal elements is another viable option.

Given the positive hits your post received, (which came from both proponents and skeptics) btw, it is obvious your stance is not unique. However, you could have made the same argument in an impersonal manner.

Take this from a guy who started out strongly on the proponent side of the fence and has been disillusioned by my experiences with some people in the "bigfoot community".

And, I've been around long enough to know that. I remember reading your posts, as well as those of some of the other skeptical members here from years ago. You guys certainly held, or were VERY open to the opposing view from where you are now.

[Guest]

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.

this is EXACTLY the same thing hunster is talking about not happening here..........

[Guest]

Mulder,

Can you please answer the questions I asked above? If it is your opinion that LMS is a good guide for researchers, how have you used that information in your own personal field work?

Whether or not I engage in field work is not germane to the issue (For the record, I cannot engage in field work due to health issues.) There is nothing to say that I cannot read and learn and formulate argumentation based off of the data and analysis available, however.

What significant effects has the information had on Bigfoot research in general?

It HAS cracked the door open just the tiniest bit with SOME formerly skeptical scientists (which is a start), and is a good general reference for debaters wishing to know more about the real, primary evidence and how it supports the proponent side and does not support the theories of the skeptic/debunkers.

[Guest]

Whether or not I engage in field work is not germane to the issue (For the record, I cannot engage in field work due to health issues.) There is nothing to say that I cannot read and learn and formulate argumentation based off of the data and analysis available, however.

It HAS cracked the door open just the tiniest bit with SOME formerly skeptical scientists (which is a start), and is a good general reference for debaters wishing to know more about the real, primary evidence and how it supports the proponent side and does not support the theories of the skeptic/debunkers.

So, you are not a active Bigfoot field investigator, but you like to argue about anecdotal evidence (of which you have no experience in collecting) on the Bigfoot forums. Just wanted to be clear. If I could ask you, as a Bigfoot enthusiast, how you find this constructive? You have no horse in this race. What is your motivation other then your enthusiasm for Bigfoot and Dr. Meldrum? Have you had a sighting or encounter?

I agree with you on your second statement, but is that it? You hang your hopes on the fact that when a few PHD's have the cajones to step up with a tolerant attitude towards the subject matter it will sway the overwhelming scientific opinion? I think we need to try new and better things like get real results.

[Guest]

So, you are not a active Bigfoot field investigator, but you like to argue about anecdotal evidence (of which you have no experience in collecting) on the Bigfoot forums. Just wanted to be clear. If I could ask you, as a Bigfoot enthusiast, how you find this constructive? You have no horse in this race.

Anyone with an interest in the truth of the matter has a horse in this race. One does not have to be an active indenpendent researcher to examine and evaluate the results of other peoples' work.

What is your motivation other then your enthusiasm for Bigfoot and Dr. Meldrum? Have you had a sighting or encounter?

Actually, I have.

I agree with you on your second statement, but is that it? You hang your hopes on the fact that when a few PHD's have the cajones to step up with a tolerant attitude towards the subject matter it will sway the overwhelming scientific opinion?

It's a start. From there the number will (hopefully) grow.

I think we need to try new and better things like get real results.

Short of a body, what more can you ask than tracks, hairs and DNA all of which, when properly analyzed by credentialed professionals in their appropriate fields yield the conclusion that they represent trace evidence of an undocumented bipedal higher primate?

You can fill a glass with water all at once or one drop at a time. In the absence of the former, the latter is what we are left with.

[Guest]

Short of a body,

Why do we need to recognize this species short of a body?

what more can you ask than tracks, hairs and DNA all of which, when properly analyzed by credentialed professionals in their appropriate fields yield the conclusion that they represent trace evidence of an undocumented bipedal higher primate?

Those things might be able to provide that trace evidence, but as yet have not been verified as reliably distinguishable from other sources.

Mind, if we had some DNA evidence that actually stood up to be as solid as you repeatedly claim, we would not even need a body. A properly vetted, analyzed, independently verified genetic signature representing a unique Hominin would do the trick for me. I'd be satisfied with a holotype that fit into a test tube. My thoughts, however, aren't necessarily in step with those of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature:

"Can DNA be a type specimen?"

"All animals originally contain DNA so except for preparations where the DNA has been destroyed or for fossils which don’t usually contain DNA, then DNA is often part of type specimens. Directly extracted DNA from an animal (i.e. not amplified) might theoretically be a type since as it is part of an animal (Article 72.5.1), however it is usually present in such small quantities that to study it further requires amplification, using a copying process such as the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) before sequencing. The copied DNA cannot be a type since it is not part of an animal nor does it fit any of the other categories of things that can be types. If the copied DNA is sequenced, a sequence can be regarded as a description of the DNA originally in the animal, so the type can be the specimen or part of the specimen, e.g. a tissue sample, or pre-amplification DNA sample, on which the sequence is based (Article 72.5.6). Consequently new species can be described on the basis of DNA sequences, and while not mandatory, it is strongly recommended that the type specimen(s) from which the DNA was sequenced is preserved and deposited in a museum with a type label and data linking it to the sequence (for example a GenBank number)."

[Guest]

1. Anyone with an interest in the truth of the matter has a horse in this race. One does not have to be an active indenpendent researcher to examine and evaluate the results of other peoples' work.

2. Actually, I have.

3. It's a start. From there the number will (hopefully) grow.

4. Short of a body, what more can you ask than tracks, hairs and DNA all of which, when properly analyzed by credentialed professionals in their appropriate fields yield the conclusion that they represent trace evidence of an undocumented bipedal higher primate?

You can fill a glass with water all at once or one drop at a time. In the absence of the former, the latter is what we are left with.

1. Fair enough, BTW, I did not mean to infer that your not getting into the field made a difference.

2. OK, then that makes more sense.

3. I hope so, but not waiting around for that to happen. I prefer to try to be proactive.

4. At this point I would settle for a clear picture or video for a start. But, I am open to other ideas, even from skeptics.

[norseman]

And "boom" there it is.

Science has stated repeatedly what it needs from field researchers.

[southernyahoo]

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.

I think there are reasons for this that may extend into what bigfoot would represent as a species "and" the political / legal battles that would ensue regarding protection legislation. I can see it being alot easier on those fronts to find a new monkey in another country than to prove the "Boogey Man" lives in Americas backyard.