Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) Jodie asked for clarification about what I thought, when I had posted only the briefest of comments. She da boss. Why would having hair like a human's indicate anything about bigfoot's possible humanity? I've never read anything that connected hair type to brain structure. Does anyone know? Nope, not the boss anymore, I'm just like everybody else, but I was curious. I know enough genetics to counsel on birth defects but not enough to understand why this matters. If identification is the reason it matters then it would seem like you would want the hair to resemble a gorillas since they aren't in North America. Edited January 22, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 DDA, that wasn't my example, it was what some British author chose to write to demonstrate the loaded words fallacy, though you're showing exactly how loaded words can manipulate our opinions. (I'm pretty sure he'd consider it spelled correctly too.) I only quoted a small portion of the three pages he devotes to the fallacy. Here's more, with some additional examples: Near synonyms carry subtle nuances of meaning which can be used to influence attitudes to the statement which bears them. The fallacy derives from the fact that these attitudes are not part of the argument. They were conjured up illicitly to achieve more effect than could the argument alone. The extra nuances and the response to them are both strictly irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of what is being said. Language abounds with ways of putting our own attitudes into a description in order to elicit a response from others. People may be forgetful or negligent; they may be steadfast or unyielding; they may be confident or arrogant... A fair argument requires a conscious effort to put forward the case in terms which are reasonably neutral...Thus: 'I am firm; you are stubborn; he is a pig-headed fool.'...Which side has 'terrorists', for example, and which has 'freedom-fighters?' Which countries have a government and which a regime? (my bolding) If anything, I think I've raised my standards over the years, and I don't view that as a bad thing. Hopefully you've done the same. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 And that is why it is best to learn how to look at the hairs you find yourself, rather than relying on someone else's interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 What would be nice is an accessible and complete online database of North American mammal hairs. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) It would be even nicer with the inclusion of non-human primates. BTW Ray, I don't know of any primates other than man that doesn't have some sort of discernable medulla, and can't find much on gret ape hairs for comparison especially gorilla and chimp. The sample I have sent for analysis would be more comparable to these than humans IMO. Edited January 22, 2011 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Well if you want, I can ask the zoo down the street to get me some and mail them to you. It never hurts to ask. I don't see why it would be a problem since they sweep the areas every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I would appreciate that Jodie, I could probably do the same around here, but haven't been to the zoo here in ages. Hopefully I've sent them to capable people with access to this data but if not, I'll continue with it until I get a definitive answer on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rockinkt Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 It would be even nicer with the inclusion of non-human primates. BTW Ray, I don't know of any primates other than man that doesn't have some sort of discernable medulla, and can't find much on gret ape hairs for comparison especially gorilla and chimp. The sample I have sent for analysis would be more comparable to these than humans IMO. There are very few - if any - absolutes in gross hair morphology. That is why the terms "generally" or "most" are used. Hair is extremely variable among both individuals and racial populations (Crocker 1999) (Saferstein, 2004) (Greenshields & Scheurman, 2001). Great care must be used in the use of hair as evidence. http://www.crimeandc...e-evidence-hair Human hair can have no medulla, fragmented medulla, or continuous medulla. http://www.centralre.../files/hair.pdf The medulla can be classified as appearing either absent, fragmented, interrupted or continuous (Lane, 1992) (Saferstein, 2004). Most human head hair with the exception of that of the Mongoloid race has no medulla or a fragmented one. People of the Mongoloid race have a continuous medulla. http://www.crimeandc...e-evidence-hair Hair must never be used as the sole indicator of guilt. Visual comparison alone is subjective and open to interpretation of the individual scientists. In a study conducted by the F.B.I. 11% of hairs deemed to be matches upon visual inspection where subsequently found to be non matches after D.N.A. testing. (Saferstein, 2004) http://www.crimeandc...e-evidence-hair Like I have been saying since the old BFF - gross hair morphology is pretty much useless if one is trying to use it as factual evidence for anything specifically human. It is just too variable. Certified experts have an error rate of over 10%. There are just no absolutes to hang your hat on and if one tried to use gross hair morphology as the only evidence in a court of law in Canada today - you would be laughed out onto the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Morphology of hair is not to be used as solitary evidence proving a persons guilt in a court of law, only in support of other evidence, but is used to identify known animal species all the time. Biologists study their respective species of interest by first identifying them by appearance before sequencing DNA , and tracking reintruduced blood lines into the wilderness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 The real issue, IMO, is that there is an assumption being made without access to the full supporting details. It is being stated as fact that the follow-on statements, made in other works, were based solely on Pinker's analysis, as presented in Green's book. But we do not know if there was more info from Pinker's analysis than was presented in Green's book. We also do not know if Pinker conducted later evaluations. We also do not know if Meldrum or the other authors contacted Green for background info not contained in his books. These are literary works, not peer reviewed scientific papers, and as such, the trail is not as well documented but even then, without 100% transcripts or copies of the entire collection of correspondence, we do not know how much data Green or anyone else used in their books - we only have what they presented. So the assertion being made, to cast aspersions on the proponent community, is itself based on what appears to be quite an assumption. And we all know what happens when you make an assumption, to you and umption that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 The real issue, IMO, is that there is an assumption being made without access to the full supporting details. What assumption? If by 'full supporting details', you mean the original analysis that was reported in the newspaper, you'd get no argument from me. However, it's no assumption that Green wrote about the Pinker analysis in On the Track of the Sasquatch. It's also not an assumption that of all the authors (Green, Meldrum, Daegling, Bryant and Trevor-Deutsch), only Green references the original newspaper article. The farthest back any of the others go is a reference to Green's initial writeup in On The Track of the Sasquatch. It is being stated as fact that the follow-on statements, made in other works, were based solely on Pinker's analysis, as presented in Green's book.But we do not know if there was more info from Pinker's analysis than was presented in Green's book. We also do not know if Pinker conducted later evaluations. Well, I've pointed out how Pinker's analysis was written up by John Green, and then Green's writeup was used as a reference by subsequent authors. That's a fact. There is no indication that those subsequent authors spoke directly to Pinker, or utilized the original newspaper report. That's another fact. What information have you found that negates those facts? What we DO know is that other than Green, none of those authors use Pinker's original analysis as a source or reference. Wouldn't Pinker conducting later evaluations be an assumption on your part? None of those authors reference any later evaluations. We also do not know if Meldrum or the other authors contacted Green for background info not contained in his books. None of them indicated that, so I'll go with what they've already written, and not assume otherwise. These are literary works, not peer reviewed scientific papers, and as such, the trail is not as well documented but even then, without 100% transcripts or copies of the entire collection of correspondence, we do not know how much data Green or anyone else used in their books - we only have what they presented. Yes, we only have what they presented, and I pointed out exactly where and when they presented it. The issue for me was that the info presented in those subsequent publications did not accurately reflect the source they supposedly used. If you have some documentation to support the assumptions you've just presented, then I don't have a problem with altering my viewpoint. So the assertion being made, to cast aspersions on the proponent community, is itself based on what appears to be quite an assumption.And we all know what happens when you make an assumption, to you and umption that is. What I did was point out how some unimpressive bigfoot evidence now sounds more favorable after subsequent retelling, like some game of bigfoot telephone. I gave documented sources and actual quotes from those documented sources. You know, facts. Why shouldn't it reflect poorly on the proponent community? Are we trying to solve this mystery, or perpetuate it? And now you know exactly why I asked for proof when someone tossed out the unconfirmed tidbit that nonhuman primates have no medulla. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Not facts RayG, your assumptions, unless of course you are privy to every single scrap of information each author used, both those wich are credited in typical literary fashion, as well as any private discussions not directly cited, as well as any backgrounder info not directly quoted. Unless you know, with 100% specificity and 100% accuracy what each of the authors used to develop their positions, you can only speculate that that they are 'embellishing' upon Green's work. As someone who has actually done a considerable amount of research and writing in the technical field, I can assure you that it is not only uncommon but nearly impossible to provide 100% backup for every page written, let alone every word. That is why people write books like these, to synthesize vast amounts of information down to digestable chunks. Otherwise, the book would not contain the thoughts and theories of the authors, it would just be a collection of papers, analyses and interview transcripts. Do you know for a fact whether or not Green had even one word more data than he presented in his books with respect to Pinkerton's analysis? Do you know for a fact whether or not Meldrum or the others talked to Green in addition to referencing his works? Unless you can answer yes to the questions above, you are not playing with facts, you are playing with your assumptions. Unless you know for a fact that the authors knowingly took Pinkerton's original analysis, as presented ONLY in Green's works, AND then changed the wording, then your position is nothing more than an opinion, informed not by indisputable facts, but by your own biases, nothing more. As is repeatedly pointed out here, opinion and fact are not the same thing - and that sword cuts both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 So, in closing, if youve ever seen a real live bigfoot, then you can be 98 percent(my figure) certain that all bigfoots will look almost exactly like the one you saw. Well, I have seen a big black one, a little white one, a medium sized white one with gray splotches, a big white one, a medium sized cocoa colored one, a large brown one, a large dark brown one with a red tint, a bright orange one, & one that was the color of an Irish Setter. I think I may have seen a gray one, too, but it was nearly dark & it went by too fast to be sure of the color. They were all real & very much alive. So...which one should I be 98% certain that they all look like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Wow, Bright Orange? That one must be really easy for you to spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Well, I have seen a big black one, a little white one, a medium sized white one with gray splotches, a big white one, a medium sized cocoa colored one, a large brown one, a large dark brown one with a red tint, a bright orange one, & one that was the color of an Irish Setter. I think I may have seen a gray one, too, but it was nearly dark & it went by too fast to be sure of the color. They were all real & very much alive. So...which one should I be 98% certain that they all look like? I'd love to take a look at all the clear pictures you must have with so many sightings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts