Debunk The Debunking

[ShadowBorn]

to prove the "Boogey Man" lives in Americas backyard

Why do people make this harder then it is? I just do not get it I guese.We have a living being that is living in our back yards al one can do is argue on how to prove these creatures real. Debunk the debunking and get wit it cuase if these so called sciencetist would just listen to the folks who have had encounters and get out there and prove it for themselves.That is all it takes is to get out in an area that these creatures are active and let them come to you.

Moulder

Dr Meldrum had a chance to find fresh tracks and it was on the night of the rock throwing in canada.Why did they not go looking the next day into the and started searching for what was throwing those rocks.He would have had his own proof then.

Sure we want to debunk all evidence and prove it wrong but what happens when that evidence can no longer be debunk? What are we left with then? emtieness or the truth that we have a And (yes I will say it)prehuman ape that somehow was stopped in the middle of evelution and become what is now our very own giant human\ape.

[Guest]

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

Fair enough...I may have read too much into what you said.

2. OK, then that makes more sense.

I was convinced by the evidence quite some time before I had my experience. Then again, it's fairly obvious I don't cling to the "slab monkey standard"...

And "boom" there it is.

Science has stated repeatedly what it needs from field researchers.

The question is, is Science being reasonable in what it demands? The demand for physical evidence keeps evolving on their end. First it was "hard evidence", then it was "testable evidence", then it was bf or a part thereof, then it was only certain types of parts or a whole bf.

Classic moving goalposts.

It only adds to the aura of intellectual arrogance that science has acquired, one I don't think serves it well.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Mulder

[Guest]

1.Fair enough...I may have read too much into what you said.

2.I was convinced by the evidence quite some time before I had my experience. Then again, it's fairly obvious I don't cling to the "slab monkey standard"...

3.The question is, is Science being reasonable in what it demands? The demand for physical evidence keeps evolving on their end. First it was "hard evidence", then it was "testable evidence", then it was bf or a part thereof, then it was only certain types of parts or a whole bf.

Classic moving goalposts.

4.It only adds to the aura of intellectual arrogance that science has acquired, one I don't think serves it well.

1. No, you just made the same conclusion most people do. You thought because I want proof to document the animal that I am not a believer. I also would not ridicule someone for not getting into the field. I did not go into the woods for 26 years.

2. I was convinced in 1982 when I watched one. A slab monkey is what it will take, unfortunately.

3. I think any of the types of evidence you mentioned may get the right people involved. Problem is, there is none.

4. There's no crying in Bigfooting.

[norseman]

The question is, is Science being reasonable in what it demands? The demand for physical evidence keeps evolving on their end. First it was "hard evidence", then it was "testable evidence", then it was bf or a part thereof, then it was only certain types of parts or a whole bf.

Classic moving goalposts.

It only adds to the aura of intellectual arrogance that science has acquired, one I don't think serves it well.

NO! NO! NO! NOOOOOO!

There is no "classic moving of the goalposts"!

So what your saying is that if I was trying to prove the existence of the rare New Guinea flying snake, that I could easily get it officially recognized as a species by presenting science with a short 7 second video of it? Or how about a cast of it's belly trail? What about a fuzzy photo? What about all of the eye witness accounts? Tribal folklore?

NO.....of course not. As Saskeptic graciously posted, science needs a TYPE SPECIMEN.

So why do you feel that the scientific community is pulling a fast one on the Bigfoot community? Why are they just picking on us? When the scientific method for categorizing species is the SAME across the board.

Now the scientific community may offer funding to certain projects that they may feel are more credible than other projects. If that's your beef with them, then that's fine. Hopefully Meldrum and others are helping convince science to take a harder look.

But would you have it any other way Mulder? Seriously think about it. How many Werewolf species would we have categorized by now if the standards were lowered? Dragons? Vampires? Elves? Pixies?

The difference between Sasquatch and the Gorilla "myth" is that western science drug a Gorilla out of the jungle feet first and on to a biology dissection table. Now I realize that this is a hard thing for people to hear that have all sorts of ideas about how human a Sasquatch is, what it feels, it's intelligence, so on and so forth. But there it is. And mind you without a species being officially recognized there will be no preserves, no official protection status, no game wardens looking out for the protection of the species, no funding, so forth and so on.

Ultimately who really cares what the skeptics think? If you are convinced by the body of evidence present? Then the next step is a type specimen. If health prohibits you from taking the field (and I sincerely hope all is well with you) then support someone who can. Loan gear, buy some gas money, do some online footwork, pour over maps, man a base station and radio, help coordinate logistics, etc, etc, etc.

I strongly urge everyone to take this next logical step in their mind, and let's get this thing proven once and for all with a type specimen. If you are supporting a group that is anti "pro kill", then you stand with a group that is not in line with science. And personally I don't think you are supporting a group that is in line with what's best for the overall health of the species. Sacrifice one for the benefit of the rest, and let's stop spinning our wheels.

As far as you skeptics? Stay on the attack, if you don't motivate us to produce a type specimen? Nothing will. You are the hammer and anvil that will hopefully one day make a better steel.

[Guest RayG]

As Saskeptic graciously posted, science needs a TYPE SPECIMEN.

And he isn't/wasn't the only scientist saying that either.

"I should reiterate my acknowledgment that the conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen to establish the existence of a new species." -- Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, page 273

"Science requires solid evidence for the existence of a new species -- footprints and sightings by local people are never enough. A "type specimen" must be obtained, which is then described in a scientific journal and continues to be available for other experts to examine." -- Dr. Grover Krantz, Big Footprints, page 3

RayG

[Guest]

To be fair to the scientist quoted, he DID say that "primary" DNA (that is, a sufficient sample of direct DNA bearing material such as from a blood draw) would probably suffice, so long as no amplification process were used. So technically, "dart and drain" would get the job done without actually killing a bf. But that's a research effort of an entirely different level than what amateur can do.

[Guest]

So technically, "dart and drain" would get the job done without actually killing a bf.

No,the only thing killed in that scenario would be the person that darted the Bigfoot.

[wolftrax]

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).

Show where the "Sasquatch dermals" are different from the artifacts.

Furthermore, in several cases, the dermatoglyphics were noted in the raw footprint BEFORE the casting was made...obviously THAT cannot be the result of "wicking" or other such nonsense. Neither can "wicking" be the explanation when the track is in already wet mud/soil, as the rebutter above points out.

Show the moisture content of the substrate of said tracks when they were cast, as well as these tracks that had dermals noted in them before they were cast.

Once again, LMS is your friend.

Oh, you mean pg 257, where Meldrum says "This challenge has been taken on by an amateur investigator, Matt Crowley, whose preliminary results raise questions specifically about the interpretation of the Onion Mtn. cast features as dermatoglyphics."

For those who would like to see the real truth about casting artifacts and dermal ridges, with a comprehensive study and comparison complete with photos, these two sources are great:

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/ridges-and-furrows-2/

http://www.theponderingpossum.com/2009_02_01_archive.html

[Guest]

Oh good grief, not this again. Please start a new thread about casting artifacts/dermal ridges, before I poke my eyes out with a rusty fork.

[wolftrax]

You had no problem joining in when it was brought up. This is about "Debunk the debunking". If you have a problem, you don't have to read the thread.

Edited December 28, 2010 by wolftrax

[norseman]

To be fair to the scientist quoted, he DID say that "primary" DNA (that is, a sufficient sample of direct DNA bearing material such as from a blood draw) would probably suffice, so long as no amplification process were used. So technically, "dart and drain" would get the job done without actually killing a bf. But that's a research effort of an entirely different level than what amateur can do.

That comes after the species is established when scientific community get's involved as you've stated, to study the species further. As gruesome and gory as it might sound, let's get one on the ground NOW. And then we can support less broadsword and more scalpel like techniques in the field.

[Guest Spazmo]

Show the moisture content of the substrate of said tracks when they were cast, as well as these tracks that had dermals noted in them before they were cast.

Seriously?

Ok, how about you show the moisture content of a substrate - any substrate - and post it here for all of us with a description of how you arrived at the value. Maybe then you can make this suggestion to others.

[wolftrax]

One could use one of these:

http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1vZ1xg6/R-100325514/h_d2/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053

But that's not really necessary. A photo would work, was this in wet mud or was it made in mud that had been dried before casting?

As far as requiring your permission to tell somebody to support their claims, you have this rule in place:

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the BFF we accept very little at face value. We may have a tendency to over-analyze claims and be more skeptical than some other forums dedicated to this topic, but we think that is preferable to the alternative.

[Guest]

NO! NO! NO! NOOOOOO!

There is no "classic moving of the goalposts"!

So what your saying is that if I was trying to prove the existence of the rare New Guinea flying snake, that I could easily get it officially recognized as a species by presenting science with a short 7 second video of it? Or how about a cast of it's belly trail? What about a fuzzy photo? What about all of the eye witness accounts? Tribal folklore?

At a bare minimum, I would expect science to accept that there is an unknown, unusual species of snake behind the data and be willing to put in the professional time and effort to learn more. I would NOT expect science to simply stick it's fingers in it's ears and chant "no such snake, no such snake" over and over to block out the information being presented to them that shows there IS such a snake.

So why do you feel that the scientific community is pulling a fast one on the Bigfoot community? Why are they just picking on us? When the scientific method for categorizing species is the SAME across the board.

Because they are not even giving bf the intellectual "time of day" that it deserves. They refuse to even accept that there is evidence of such a creature despite the plentiful offering of same. Their position is not properly objective towards the data.

Now the scientific community may offer funding to certain projects that they may feel are more credible than other projects. If that's your beef with them, then that's fine. Hopefully Meldrum and others are helping convince science to take a harder look.

He shouldn't have to convince anyone. Any real scientist would look at the available data and say "there's something to investigate here". But most don't, content to support the orthodoxy that denies even the potential for such a creature to exist.

But would you have it any other way Mulder? Seriously think about it. How many Werewolf species would we have categorized by now if the standards were lowered? Dragons? Vampires? Elves? Pixies?

I am very saddened that you would stoop to reducto ad absurdum in this manner, norseman.

[norseman]

At a bare minimum, I would expect science to accept that there is an unknown, unusual species of snake behind the data and be willing to put in the professional time and effort to learn more. I would NOT expect science to simply stick it's fingers in it's ears and chant "no such snake, no such snake" over and over to block out the information being presented to them that shows there IS such a snake.

So what your saying then, is that the Scientific community has done no expeditions, no studies in the Americas that could cross over into Sasquatch studies? Let me put it another way......science is not studying Sasquatch, but are they studying bears? Wolves? Cougars? Elk? Moose? Deer? Wolverine? Lynx?

There is a reason they are not putting any effort into finding Sasquatch. Simply because they are not finding anything while in the field.

Because they are not even giving bf the intellectual "time of day" that it deserves. They refuse to even accept that there is evidence of such a creature despite the plentiful offering of same. Their position is not properly objective towards the data.

He shouldn't have to convince anyone. Any real scientist would look at the available data and say "there's something to investigate here". But most don't, content to support the orthodoxy that denies even the potential for such a creature to exist.

Again, see above. Most do not give it the time of day because they have observed nothing that would indicate the existence of one.

I've never seen it.......have you? I have ONE experience in my LIFE that I cannot explain. Which makes me believe that something may be out there despite science's official stance. Luckily for me I do not have to pull a "Dahinden" and give up my life for the search. I live practically at ground zero of part of the mystery and most of my active pursuits in life take me into the back country.

But I don't expect my story or trace evidence to convince any skeptic. Proving it's existence is going to have to fall on guys like us Mulder. Guys that will act on a hunch, despite all logic pointing us in a other direction.

I am very saddened that you would stoop to reducto ad absurdum in this manner, norseman.

I'm sorry that you feel this way, because there are lots of people that believe in werewolves. There are ancient Indian accounts, eye witness testimony, trace evidence, etc.....sound familiar?

http://www.michigan-dogman.com/

http://www.griswoldmountain.com/dogman.htm

http://www.beastofbrayroad.com/

One beast does not need the other to exist, and one or both beasts could be real or a figment of our imagination. But I think it's still a good comparison that makes you think a little bit.

But you never truly answered my question........do you feel science needs to lower it's standards in recognizing a species?