Debunk The Debunking

[Guest]

Sure they can. That doesn't mean they are (and I don't think they are), but they definitely can, in fact, ALL be lying.

There also definitely can be a bigfoot living in my backyard, though the evidence suggests otherwise.

Lack of evidence you mean, which unfortunately can never prove he's not there.

[Guest]

Lack of evidence you mean, which unfortunately can never prove he's not there.

Indeed. I'll double check with some call blasting before I let the dog out tonight - just in case!

[norseman]

Indeed. I'll double check with some call blasting before I let the dog out tonight - just in case!

Don't do that! You'll have every stray dog in the neighborhood over there bawling at the moon!

[Guest]

Indeed. I'll double check with some call blasting before I let the dog out tonight - just in case!

That won't work, your neighbour will just call blast you back.

[norseman]

That won't work, your neighbour will just call blast you back.

Don't get me started on bugling during the elk rut!

Is that Bob......or an elk?

[Incorrigible1]

I would love to encounter a bigfoot and transition from skeptic to "knower" in one fell swoop! But I wouldn't expect any of my colleagues to take my word for it. It really is that simple. Anecdotal accounts do not a type specimen make.

I doubt you would also clam up and state to interested parties you simply don't wish to produce a whit of evidence, either. Here's wishing you the best and that you're fortunate enough to actually have an encounter. I've a feeling if you did, you'd actually try to produce evidence.

[southernyahoo]

Well, for one the BF community has to change it's mindset about producing a type specimen in the first place. Without addressing this mental hurdle, we are never going to get anywhere scientifically. Unless of course somebody else stumbles upon it and does the job for us. And for two we need to build the frame work that will support the logistics of such an endeavor. Right now I see lot's of smallish groups all reinventing the wheel, while jealously guarding their "secrets". This is not productive towards a type specimen goal. Forget the fan fare and prestige, and let's just get this proven to science as quickly as humanly possible.

Which is your primary research tool, a gun, or a camera?

[Guest]

Because of the quantity and quality of the data presented. Have you ever consulted directly with Meldrum, for example, and allowed him to walk you through the primary evidence directly, as others have done (who came away impressed and convinced at a minimum that further study WAS warranted)? Or are you basing your dismissal on "skeptic" reviews and general impressions from indirect sources?

As a proponent and a believer, I disagree. The anecdotal Bigfoot evidence presented to this point is weak. Dr. Meldrum's theories may be educated, but they are still just educated guesses. As I mentioned earlier, they are a good fit if it turns out that Bigfoot is a undiscovered North American upright walking Ape. But there is no proof of that. While I do agree with that theory because of what I personally witnessed, I have no problem with science asking for better evidence. I need better evidence too. I don't feel a need that people believe me. I feel a need to supply them with real proof. I think people take this too personal, and I understand why. I used to be that way myself.

[Guest]

Which is your primary research tool, a gun, or a camera?

Why does that matter? Either could possibly provide better evidence.

Edited December 29, 2010 by JohnCartwright

[southernyahoo]

One of them doesn't provide a type specimen.

[norseman]

Which is your primary research tool, a gun, or a camera?

In the question of a type specimen? To be specific a rifle.

Of course there are many tools that one could use in order to get them to that moment in time of taking a shot. Hunters use calling, camera traps, baiting, scent, etc. Basically everything most BF researchers are using, except the rifle. They instead feel that it is wrong to kill the creature and prefer better trace evidence....such as video footage.

I have no personal objection to this per say, except that video footage is never going to prove it's existence. So if a person is out there to produce video footage that proves it's existence they are not being realistic.

Other's want to prove it's existence by DNA sample, again, I have no personal objection to that per say. But I think it's thus far been a dicey proposition, with little head way. Of course if that's all a person has? That's all they have, might as well try to use it.

But if given a CHOICE of another hair sample, or saliva sample or feces sample or he is standing right there let's take him? I think most researchers are not going to aggressively attempt to take him. For me personally? That is a mistake.

Because science has told us what they need. And unfortunately it's not the answer most researchers are looking for.

[Guest]

Where? You cite LMS, yet the only thing Meldrum says is that Crowley's experiments raise questions about the Onion Mtn. Cast.

No, this is about you supporting your claims, show where Meldrum documented the conditions of the mud when a track was cast. Was the mud wet or dried at the time it was cast?

Then show where they have been answered.

In LMS Meldrum addresses many if not all of those issues. Get it. Read it.

Crowley's sloppy protocol? What do you have to support that Crowley's protocol was sloppy, and any affect it had on the process of casting artifacts developing?

Melissa's documentation of his stated protocol, which results in large amounts of air being incorporated into his casting media, which her experiments demonstrate is the cause of the "artifacts"

What illogical statements about saturated soil "wicking" from poured plaster?

Your continued insistance that saturated mud soil can "wick" moisture from poured plaster is illogical on it's face. It is akin to dropping a soaked spunge onto a wet towel and expecting there to be moisture transfer from one to the other.

So this "Scar" is really all you have? Nothing else?

Without access to LMS at the moment, I cannot confirm that is the photo of the track in question. I do know that Meldrum brings up the issue of Scarfoot and his evaluation and Chillicut's statements (if I'm remembering the passage correctly) BOTH indicate that the scar is natural and anatomically apporopriate. Statements are also made about specific dermatoglyphic features (loops and whirls) that are specific to anatomical origins as opposed to theroetical casting anomalies.

So what you are saying here is that the entirety of the differences between "Sasquatch dermals" and casting artifacts is based only on a random "Scar" pattern, not the ridges, not the ridge flow pattern, nothing really to do with dermal ridges.

What other explanations exist for this "Scar" to show up? A stick? Or how about ridges of substrate created by the suction of a big fake foot leaving the mud? Like this test cast, filled with such "Scars"?

Closeup:

See above.

[Guest]

One of them doesn't provide a type specimen.

Of course, but unfortunately that is what it is going to take. A good clear picture or video may also help in some way.

[Guest]

Most expeditions are funded by either the US Fish and game or a state fish and game division. So what your saying is that when our local state biologist is out flying around doing his yearly moose count by air. And he spots a sasquatch in a clearing below? He tells the pilot to keep flying his route because they are only interested in moose? Really?! I'm sorry but this begins to leave the realm of a unknown primate living in N. America and starts sounding like Roswell. Some sort of conspiracy theory of epic proportions.

There has been much discussion about the Forest Service and various fish and wildlife agencies and what they know and what they will and won't admit to knowing already. Game management people play all kinds of politics with their data...that is well known to be true. Do some hunting around the board.

Yes but with one glaring difference. I can take a biologist by the hand and lead him out into the woods where he can OBSERVE ducks. And then I can do it again and again and again. We cannot do that with Sasquatch, which makes science question the validity of the whole thing.

You probably wouldn't be able to do it with regularity for the coelecanth, the "ghost cheetah" or the Ivory Billed Woodpecker either, but we know THEY are all out there.

With Bindernagel, Meldrum and Krantz (past and present) and others.......is it fair to say that SOME scientific inquiry is afoot?

At the risk of splitting hairs, I would say that represents "inquiry by some scientists", and informal at that, as opposed to proper, fully supported and backed scientific inquiry.

I realize you want the whole enchilada, but you must also respect Saskeptic's position. He has never seen it and he has looked at the evidence and doesn't find it that compelling.

Given the quantity and quality of the evidence, I have to question the logic of that. Can you honestly say that the current body of evidence is insufficient to raise even the POTENTIALITY of a bf existing? Given that, it behooves Science to inquire further, if they are truly neutral, open minded and respecting their investigative mandate.

Well, for one the BF community has to change it's mindset about producing a type specimen in the first place. Without addressing this mental hurdle, we are never going to get anywhere scientifically. Unless of course somebody else stumbles upon it and does the job for us. And for two we need to build the frame work that will support the logistics of such an endeavor. Right now I see lot's of smallish groups all reinventing the wheel, while jealously guarding their "secrets". This is not productive towards a type specimen goal. Forget the fan fare and prestige, and let's just get this proven to science as quickly as humanly possible.

I partially agree, but feel, like Huntster does, that it is not OUR job to do Science's work for it.

[Guest]

So the only way for the rest of the world to really understand bigfoot is to have it personally explained to us by Dr. Jeff Meldrum one-on-one?

Of course not. But you cannot deny that there is good evidence when you haven't bothered to take the time to examine it for yourself with an open mind. Meldrum has consulted several times with scientists who were openly negative on BF, and the quantity and quality of the evidence he presented moved them to either a neutral or positive position. That speaks very highly of the evidence on hand, when examined honestly.