Ray Pinker Hair Analysis

[Sasfooty]

Wow, Bright Orange? That one must be really easy for you to spot.

Yep. He showed up pretty good.

He was about the same color as "Clyde".

Edited January 24, 2011 by Sasfooty

[Guest RayG]

Not facts RayG, your assumptions... <snip>

I have shown everyone exactly where I found the specific facts and quotes that I presented concerning this issue. Those are not my assumptions, they are written, recorded facts.

How about you show everyone exactly where you found the specific facts and quotes that negate what I have presented. Not your assumptions, but written, recorded facts.

RayG

[Guest]

You have not presented any fact that the authors in question only considered the Pinker analysis, as presented by Green, Ray, that is only your opinion; although an admittedly reasonable assumption on the surface I have provided a couple examples as to why it is not defendable.

Unless there are complete transcripts and records of corresponence backing up your assertion though, along with the production notes and drafts as the books in questions were developed, you can not state it as fact, it is only your opinion.

As a result, you can in no way present as 'fact' that they deliberately misrepresented or embellished anything in a 'classic example of rewording for Bigfoot hype' which is itself a rather inflammatory opening statement. It could in fact be backed up by discussions with Green, or Pinkerton, or the lab - it could also have been editorial in nature and not come from the authors themselves.

Regardless, it remains only your opinion. A fact you actually admit to when you yourself state that you had to 'conclude' about Meldrum having started with what you believe to have been an embellishment by Bryant and Trevor-Deutsch because it was in his bibliography, that is HALF of the 'evidence' you present in support of your theory, shot right out the window, by yourself.

The same 'conclusion' was apparently made with respect to Bryant and Trevor-Deutsch and Green, absent any 'proof' it too is only your opinion. Consider this, you have made an assertion about Bryant and Trevor-Deutsch based on a comment in Daegling's book - did you provide a direct quote where Daegling says that Bryant and Trevor-Deutsch misrepresented Pinker's work as presented by Green in a 'classic example of rewording for Bigfoot hype', or was that an embellishment on your part?

Call it a classic example of rewording for skeptical hype perhaps?

As I pointed out, you have not shown these opinions to be fact because it is unknowable.

Unless of course you are clairvoyant or psychic.

Are you clairvoyant Ray, do you read minds?

If not, then you only have your assumptions, first about Bryant and Trevor-Deutsch, and then about Meldrum.

You assume that they only had the Pinker analysis as presented by Green, and you assume that they made a deliberate misrepresentation in a 'classic example of rewording for Bigfoot hype'.

That these are assumptions is the only fact in this discussion to-date.

[Guest parnassus]

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.

info, if you are a writer of some merit, as you claim, you should re-read what Ray G. wrote and recognize that Ray G. is stating what he has uncovered about the citations as fact. That is what he is referring to. Not to mention your taking the time to get the name straight, so others can look up anything related to your statements. I think if you went back and read what Ray G. wrote, you would see that he makes very clear the difference between what he found, and what his judgments are about those facts.

I will add that it is my opinion that if Meldrum is inserting something not in Pinker's report, then he has deceived his readers, by the wording in his book, into thinking that it was in Pinker's report. imho.

With all due repect.

Edited January 24, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest RayG]

...did you provide a direct quote where Daegling says that Bryant and Trevor-Deutsch misrepresented Pinker's work as presented by Green in a 'classic example of rewording for Bigfoot hype', or was that an embellishment on your part?

Re-read what I wrote in the OP, and you will see I did indeed provide direct quotes, and not just from Dageling. Methinks you are grasping at straws.

Unless of course you are clairvoyant or psychic.

Are you clairvoyant Ray, do you read minds?

No, are you a Riverdance performer? I ask that because you keep dancing around my request for something other than your assumptions.

Here's my first one, in post #101: 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?

Though you replied to post #101, you neglected to respond to the question I asked.

So, in post #107, I wrote: How about you show everyone exactly where you found the specific facts and quotes that negate what I have presented. Not your assumptions, but written, recorded facts.

Again, though you replied to post #107, you neglected to provide specific facts and quotes that negate what I've presented.

So, how about it, is the third time a charm? I've made it nice and big, and colorful so you don't miss it this time.

Can you show everyone exactly where you found the specific facts and quotes that negate what I have presented? Not your assumptions or opinions, but written, recorded facts.

Author, book title, year of publication, page number, and a wee bit of a quote would be especially helpful.

RayG

[southernyahoo]

RayG, You've taken issue with what Meldrum said in the quote below, and asked about whether non-human primates are known to have hairs that are absent of a medulla. I presume this is the primary human characteristic that you are concerned with regarding Pinkers' analysis but he also mentions the scale pattern. Could this also be a non-human primate characteristic?...Meaning, could non-human primates and humans have very similar scale patterns?

<LI>2006 - 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.)

[Guest RayG]

RayG, You've taken issue with what Meldrum said in the quote below, and asked about whether non-human primates are known to have hairs that are absent of a medulla.

These are the 'issues' I have:

• The wording of Pinker's conclusions are no longer being accurately reported
  
• Misrepresentation of Pinker's findings have begun to see more support than the truth
  
• Pinker's name, along with his re-worded findings are being touted as supportive evidence for bigfoot hair identification
  
• Pinker's reported human/animal characteristics have now become human/nonhuman primate characteristics (with no explanation of what those nonhuman primate characteristics are, how they compare to human characteristics, or whether or not they even truly exist)
  
• There's no evidence Pinker ever told John Green that the hairs were possible nonhuman primate hairs
  
• A database that magically grew from 'samples available to him [Pinker]' to 'any animal'
  
• It has been suggested but not demonstrated that nonhuman primate hair lacks a medulla
  

So you see, Dr. Meldrum's choice of wording isn't the only issue I have.

I presume this is the primary human characteristic that you are concerned with regarding Pinkers' analysis but he also mentions the scale pattern.

See above for my concerns.

Could this also be a non-human primate characteristic?...Meaning, could non-human primates and humans have very similar scale patterns?

Don't know, and I'd rather not assume.

RayG

[southernyahoo]

Here is an excellent science article on ancient hominid hair discoveries, and how the scale pattern was used for ID. Clearly they contend that human and nonhuman primates have similar scale patterns but are still distinguishable. If Pinker did not have non-human primate data and the hair was from a primate his best comparison would have been human, even if it wasn't.

http://unimelb.acade...ve_South_Africa

Edited January 25, 2011 by southernyahoo