Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 RayG, Your latest post in this topic: This is how Meldrum presented it: "Nearly a decade later, suspect hairs collected in central Idaho, in 1968, were sent to Ray Pinker, an instructor of police science at California State College in Los Angeles. He likewise determined that the specimens did not match any sample of known animal that he had in his collection, but showed some characteristics common to humans and nonhuman primates. The hairs were light, showing variation in color and thickness along their length unlike human hair, but exhibited a humanlike scale pattern and lacked a continuous medullary core. The sample contained both coarse guard hairs and fine underhairs, uncharacteristic of primates. As suggestive as these observations might appear, Pinker reiterated that he could not identify the hairs as sasqauatch until he had a sample of authentic sasquatch hair to match it to." Meldrum makes it sound like the 'nonhuman primates' determination was from Pinker, when it was not. Your initial post in this topic: Dr. Jeff Meldrum takes us back down the road to sensational, when he reports in his Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, (page 262), that the examination of the hairs by Pinker, "showed some characteristics common to humans and nonhuman primates." (my bolding again. I can only conclude that Dr. Meldrum has made the dramatic and sensational leap from sheep and goats to nonhuman primates after reading the Bryant and Trevor-Deutsch analysis, which he includes in his bibliography.) Your intial post says "the examination ... showed some characteristics ...." Your latest post says "specimens ... showed some characteristics ...." Neither version ascribes Meldrum's conclusion to Pinker; one must assume the conclusions are Meldrum's. If other nonhuman primates, besides purported bigfoots, have hair with no medulla, then Meldrum's conclusion is correct. Reading the more complete quote provided in your latest post, one cannot possibly conclude that Meldrum is sensationalizing. He admits that Pinker's findings note a discontinuous medulla, a characteristic of most human hairs, but not a characteristic of purported bigfoot hairs. Meldrum also admits that Pinker reports scales on the hairs that appear to be human (not a characteristic of purported bigfoot hairs), and that the sample contained both guard hairs and underhairs -- a characteristic of fur, not hair (purported bigfoot hairs are not fur). The only sensationalizing going on in this thread is being done by you, RayG. And, you could only do it by quoting Meldrum out of context. Proving once again that one must be highly skeptical of the so-called skeptics hereabouts. If Meldrum has any criticism coming to him for the quote in question (as provided in your latest post), it is he wasted space in his book by including a story that is presented in a way as to be entirely irrelevant to bigfoots. Sincerely, Pteronarcyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Both my initial post, and the latest, quote precisely the same phrase: "showed some characteristics common to humans and nonhuman primates." You seem to be mixing up what I said with what Meldrum said. If YOU think Meldrum is talking about his own conclusions and not Pinker's, fine. I do not. I have no evidence Pinker ever used the phrase "nonhuman primates". That was something Meldrum inserted into the mix to make the original conclusion sound more sensational. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Does anyone actually have Pinkers actual analysis in hand so we can clear this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted January 17, 2011 Admin Share Posted January 17, 2011 John Green should be able to answer that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 John Green should be able to answer that. That does sound like the reasonable answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vincent Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I can only go by what I personally saw, and it had black (dark brown) fur and skin. No red tint to it. The red tint thing everyone talks about could be hair colour reflecting in the light. My brown hair reflects slight auburn in the light and the hair on my arm reflects almost white. Just an idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) Southern Yahoo made a comment on color not being a gauge in identifying sasquatch.. I agree. For whatever reason, their color range is crazy. Just cross section the reports. Vincent, I think your comments are really applicable regarding accuracy.. color varies in light or lack of it. These things vary from almost white (several white reported actually) to black. Now whether that black has the reddish underlying base that woodenbong suggests (he may be right) who knows. I think some do, I suspect some have significant hair collection. Fahrenbach for example. Cool thread. He would be one to contact regarding the scope of hair color variation. Branco, fantastic posts there, thank you. Edited January 17, 2011 by treeknocker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 True i hadnt thought of that. But gibbons if im Not mistaken are "barely" apes. They arent high apes unless im mistaken (high apes meaning chimps gorillas orangatanges....bigfoot etc) And theres alot more gibbons then there are BFs hence bugger gene pool. Gibbons are regarded as lesser apes. Chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, and humans are regarded as great apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Both my initial post, and the latest, quote precisely the same phrase: "showed some characteristics common to humans and nonhuman primates." You seem to be mixing up what I said with what Meldrum said. If YOU think Meldrum is talking about his own conclusions and not Pinker's, fine. I do not. I have no evidence Pinker ever used the phrase "nonhuman primates". That was something Meldrum inserted into the mix to make the original conclusion sound more sensational. RayG I'm guessing you are from Quebec. The point is who or what "showed some characteristics ...."? A read of Meldrum's sentence in question -- "He likewise determined that the specimens did not match any sample of known animal that he had in his collection, but showed some characteristics common to humans and nonhuman primates." -- shows that the subject of 'showed' is 'specimens,' not 'He' [i.e., Pinker]. In fact, the lack of a medulla or, more specifically, a continuous medulla, is indeed a trait of primate hair, human and nonhuman, including purported bigfoots. Assuming, that Pinker's report noted the absence of a medulla or the presence of a discontinuous medulla, then the specimens did indeed show a characteristics common to human and nonhuman primates, whether Pinker specifically noted that or not. Because Meldrum ascribes the conclusion of interest to what the specimens showed rather than what Pinker said, Meldrum is not doing anything mischievous. You, on the other hand, are tossing out another RayG strawman argument by placing words into Meldrum's mouth that he never uttered or wrote. It will be interesting to see if you opt to defend this thread by continuing to claim to be a stranger to the English language. Verbs have subjects, RayG. In Meldrum's sentence in question, the subject of 'showed' is either 'specimens,' which makes sense, or 'He [Pinker],' which doesn't make sense. As to your claim that Meldrum is sensationalizing, after the sentence you insist on misinterpreting he immediately mentions (1) that the specimens were fur, not hair, (i.e., non-primate), and (2) that Pinker stated that the specimens could not be identified as bigfoot. So, let's assume, like you do -- with no evidence -- that the sentence in question can be regarded as sensational. If so, Meldrum immediately pops that sensational balloon. I suppose I should be grateful that you are at least not claiming the Meldrum wrote the paragraph that offends you on horseback. Sincerely, Pteronarcyd (English is my first language) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Regarding hair color: The reddish tinge said to be characteristic of purported bigfoot specimens applies only to how single strands appear under a light microscope. The observed color of the hair on the animal is said to vary widely. See the excerpt from the BFRO website I posted above. I get the impression that someone mis-extrapolated a microscopic observation to the macroscopic level, and that mis-extrapolation seems to have taken on a life of its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vincent Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I wouldnt take meldrum to seriosely at this point. He has been victimized by so many hoaxers. His whole expertise is based off a freeman hoax, plus he's been fooled by numerouse other plotters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Vincent, I cannot fully disagree with you. But did you read his account of the footprints he followed ? This is from his recent book. That suggests to me that not ALL of the Freeman related incidents were faked. If the ones he followed (his bro was there) were legit, and I believe they were, then where is the line drawn and who is on what side of various casts, etc. ? Taking that information and applying it to the rest of course leaves a winding trail. Just curious to know if you had read his latest. I know some ignore the entire Freeman series completely and some take it all in. I would prefer to know detail among ea piece and its particular flavor. Kind of like desert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) I'm guessing you are from Quebec. <snip> I suppose I should be grateful that you are at least not claiming the Meldrum wrote the paragraph that offends you on horseback. Pteronarcyd (English is my first language) Ouch, you've cut me to the quick. You forgot to mention sheep and goats morphing into bigfoot. You also neglected to say or present anything to convince me to change my original observation -- that a rather unimpressive 40-year-old analysis has been turned into something that some proponents hold up as solid evidence for 'unknown primate' bigfoot hair analysis. RayG Edited January 17, 2011 by RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I wouldnt take meldrum to seriosely at this point. He has been victimized by so many hoaxers. His whole expertise is based off a freeman hoax, plus he's been fooled by numerouse other plotters. If Idaho State University takes him seriously, why shouldn't we? How many hoaxers have "victimized" Meldrum? Given the Freeman case, are there any other specific cases you can mention? I think there's a whole lot wrong with you stating "His whole expertise is based off a freeman hoax" , You're talking about "Doctor" Jeff Meldrum, as in PHD. Those letters are not easy come by. Again, if Dr Meldrum has been fooled by numerous other plotters, who fooled him? With what? Tracks? Sighting reports, or? I'd really like some insight on these statements you've made. Chris B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 . Again, if Dr Meldrum has been fooled by numerous other plotters, who fooled him? With what? Yes, The Snow walker hoax video. Dr. Meldrum originally called it a real Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts