Guest Darrell Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 No proof = no experts! Thats kind of my whole pemise, that if we cant prove they exist, what are you an expert of? I also think that there are legit expert trackers, woodsmen, hunters, field biologists, scientists, and maybe even DNA lab operators involved in finding bigfoot, but just because they are experts in their respective fields they arent "bigfoot" experts till bigfoot actually exists. And I hate to say it but some researchers are experts at looking downright foolish and some just plain crazy.
Guest Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 Bigfoot's existence is not dependent on "recognition" or "acceptance". If "proven" it will have been here the entire time. And it is entirely acceptable, indeed the only intellectually and academically honest position to give full faith and credit to the credentials of degree-holding scientists absent evidence they are incorrect.
Guest Darrell Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) Hmm, where else in science does that explanation actually hold water? So your saying if I claim to have made a 1600 meter shot on an Iraqi insurgent with a M107 sniper rifle, and there are other reports of snipers making the same shot with the same weapon, then just because it cant be proven I didnt make the shot means it should be taken as fact that I did? Does that sound like a reasonable explanation to you? Is that the level of research competence you would accept in cancer, diabites or other medical fields? Or even in developing your new pair of cutting edge hiking boots? If someone says bigfoot talks to them telepahically and teaches them things and tells them to preach his message I am to take it on faith its true because there is no evidence to prove that person wrong? Thats fine in religion were faith is doctrine but not in scientific research. Unless bigfoot has become your religion? Be carefull with using entirely and only. Edited May 24, 2012 by Darrell
Guest Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 Darrell: Is Dr Meldrum (to take one scientist as the example) a primate anthropologist or not? Is Dr Meldrum extensively involved in researching primate locomotion or not? (By the way, the answer to both is yes.) So, when Dr Meldrum looks at a cast track, or the "butt cast", or other such material, and says: "I see biometric indicators in these casts which tell me, based on my knowledge of primate anatomy and locomotion, that a) they were made by a living animal and not faked and said animal displays in this trace evidence traits that mark it as some sort of primate that c) does not match anything currently documented by science". the reasonable and logical conclusion in your mind is that he has no idea what he is talking about, and we are free to ignore the fact that he is an expert speaking within the realm of his expertise? And you make this conclusion despite having ZERO evidence at all to support that conclusion, let alone evidence of sufficient quality and quantity to support it? That don't fly, Darrell...that don't fly.
Guest Darrell Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 (edited) Well, we do know that Meldrum has been wrong on several occasions, and probaly so on other aspects in his field unrelated to bigfoot. So then is it reasonable to say he is wrong all the time? Of course not, but we cant say that just becasue he was'nt proven wrong on another issue that issue should be taken as fact. We can be scientific, or not, but can we be sort of scientific and take what we want to believe and discard what does not fit into what we want to believe? IMO thats what so many of the "experts" are doing. He is another question: Can you be a bigfoot expert without being a "true believer"? A true believer being someone who accepts everything with no skeptical reasoning and believes despite anything being proven? Edited May 24, 2012 by Darrell
Guest Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 Simple answer is that there are no experts in the BF field, although anyone who has witnessed them would definitely have a leg up on anybody else. I'd say anybody who can have repeatable results(appx three, or more) within a finite period of time, based on methods unique to the 'researcher', would be an expert in my book. Most researchers, however, are nothing more than hikers with cool gadgets, and are well-versed in self-promotion.
Guest Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 Well, we do know that Meldrum has been wrong on several occasions, and probaly so on other aspects in his field unrelated to bigfoot. No one is perfect. So then is it reasonable to say he is wrong all the time? Of course not, but we cant say that just becasue he was'nt proven wrong on another issue that issue should be taken as fact. When he has evidence to support that he is right we should be more willing to take his position unless we have counterveiling evidence equal to or superior to his to the contrary. We can be scientific, or not, but can we be sort of scientific and take what we want to believe and discard what does not fit into what we want to believe? IMO thats what so many of the "experts" are doing. And your evidence is? He is another question: Can you be a bigfoot expert without being a "true believer"? A true believer being someone who accepts everything with no skeptical reasoning and believes despite anything being proven? Absolutely. One can possess encyclopedic knowledge about a religion, for example, and be "expert" on that religion, but not be a practitioner.
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 I might add that in my lexicon of bigfootery a "believer" or "true believer" is someone that believes in the existence of BF without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. I certainly wouldn't categorize Meldrum as a "true believer". This is faith without evidence. A "proponent" is someone who has weighed the evidence to date, hasn't made a firm decision one way or another, but based on the evidence thinks that there is a likelihood that BF exists.
Guest Darrell Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 To put some of my discussion to bed but not end the thread I want to offer the following. I was'nt implying that Meldrum was a "true bliever" but that we should'nt accept everything (note I did'nt say anything) he said as 100% fact. He is not infallable just because he has a Phd and wrote a book on bigfoot. I agree with BFSleuth but also will add I think a true believer also takes everything put out as fact and doesnt turn on the crazy filter when dealing with the weirdness. That is in fact faith without evidence. I think some of the experts need to stop trying to make money (and I put Meldrum in this catagory) and start saying some of the stuff being put out there is bovine fertilizer and stop giving those kooks a platform for their craziness. No one is perfect. I didnt say he was, but he has been wrong more than once, so we need to allow him to coorborate his evidence and findings before jumping on his bandwagon. And your evidence is? Matt Moneymaker and the Finding Bigfoot show is a great example of showing a closed mind true believer. Absolutely. One can possess encyclopedic knowledge about a religion, for example, and be "expert" on that religion, but not be a practitioner. And that my friend is a great answer!
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 I'm not sure I'm following your thinking Darrell. Are you having a particular issue regarding certain things that Dr. Meldrum has said or done? Can you give an example? I have absolutely no problem with someone making money as I certainly don't think they should work for free. He has a family to support. What stuff that is being said are you saying is crazy? Examples?
Guest Darrell Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 If its ok with you Sleuth I'll throw this out. As for Meldrum, I'm talking his being taken in by the Snow Walker video, his views on the Skookum casing, and his being hoaxed by fake footprints. Im not saying everything he says is wrong, but he has been wrong in the past so we should just be carefull and make sure he backs up what he says with strong scientific evidense in the future. To make my point, I work for a federal law enforcement agency and if I made a wrong statement while testifying during a trial, everything I say thereafter, even in other trials, can be inpuned by the defense and my credability questioned. Doesnt matter if I'm right 95% of the time, I was wrong in the past and can be considered to be wrong now. Might not be right or fair but it is the way it is. Thats also the way it is in scientific research. Publish something not 100% right and your career is done, and why there is a peer review process in place. Which is why, IMO, the Ketchum report will never be published in an actual scientific trade journal. Its also, IMO again, why I think Meldrum wrote SLMS as a commercial book endever and didnt publish his findings in a scientific journal. Ok, enough beating that dead bigfoot? Im also a very leary of some of the finge elements that advocate the UFO, psychic, multi dementional, infra sound paranormal mumbo jumbo stuff. Thats the crazy stuff I'm talking about. I also group the whole bigfoot is so superior and inteligent to man thing. Really? if sas is so intelligent why is he eating garbage from dumpsters and smelling like poo? If he were so smart and could talk and communicate telepathically he would be some place warm, clean, watching cable, and eating pizza or chinese take out being served by us inferior humans. And you guys keep letting them put out this stupind craziness. Nuff there? Guys, Ive been following this phenomena since 1970 and there is still no actual proof that this animal exists is there? People have been trying to find this thing for over 50+ years and what is there to show for it? It did'nt take that long to find the mountain gorilla!
BobbyO Posted May 25, 2012 SSR Team Posted May 25, 2012 Guys, Ive been following this phenomena since 1970 and there is still no actual proof that this animal exists is there? People have been trying to find this thing for over 50+ years and what is there to show for it? It did'nt take that long to find the mountain gorilla! I think sometimes as Humans we may have to look at ourselves in the mirror and admit to ourselves that we're not all that we think we're cracked up to be, especially where this subject is concerened.. The Mountain Gorilla was only " discovered " in the early 1900's, in the grand scheme of things it took " us " 1900 years and we're only 100 years on from there now so.............
Rockape Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 Guys, Ive been following this phenomena since 1970 and there is still no actual proof that this animal exists is there? People have been trying to find this thing for over 50+ years and what is there to show for it? It did'nt take that long to find the mountain gorilla! But if I'm not mistaken the moutain gorilla pretty much stays in the same small range, which makes them easier to find and study. Plus, if most indications are true, BF's are much more intelligent that gorillas. What we know as fact about BF is virtually non-existant, so just about everything is guesswork with them. I'd say though that indications are that they are constant nomads, not staying in the same place very long. Combine that with intelligence and an apparent instict to avoid humans, and you have a hard target to nail down.
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 Well, I'm glad you were able to get that off your chest instead of beating around the bush Darrell!!
Recommended Posts