Why I'm Not A Fan Of Stick/tree Structures......

[Guest]

Wasn't that one of the chicken farmer's stories?

Don't remember but you can bet your buster brownies that I'm off to the Premium Membership area to see. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Longtabber PE posted such.

My own 2 cents worth. I have seen a lot of these type of formations some call stick structures. I have also seen a lot of what some cal Sasquatch nests. Also twisted and broken off trees. What I have not seen is any evidence that the Sasquatch has anything to do with any of these. nor Have I ever talked to a alleged witness whom saw a Sasquatch create any of this type of structure or markings. So in my opinion so far the evidence points to a more mundane explanation for such material.

Thomas Steenburg

Cool post from a well respected researcher. Giving it a plus as well as it fairly accurately reflects my feelings.

Also, I'm assuming the *Mudler* references are mere typos as opposed to intentional.

The *theory* of stick structures being associated with BF is a cool one. But it is just a theory as there is zero substantiated proof of any association.

Having said that, a member I trust and know fairly well sent me to a site to view his research material that includes stick structures.

Some look beyond natural explanation as they would almost assuredly need some form of higher intelligence. But sans substantiating proof then it is hard for me to make the jump that they are BF related as opposed to human.

Dunno, I'd attribute them to human manipulation if I did not know and trust the researcher so much.

Still, in the grand scheme of things, there is no viable/substantiated evidence to suggest that *stick structures* have one whit to do with BF.

Anecdotal maybe if comparing it to other primate behavior. But anectdotal isn't going to cut it so far as proving the existence of BF.

[Guest]

I thought I was clear in my post that my "credentials" should be considered no more relevant than anyone else's. The first person to drive into town with a bigfoot in the truck bed gets to be the authority on bigfoots. The rest of us? Not so much.

What you are ignoring is the fact that the credentials of Drs Meldrum, et al should be far more relevant than yours or most anyone else's. They're the primatologists and anthropologists. Studying such things is what they do. Does that make them infallable? Of course not. But it absolutely does make any determination or finding of theirs far more credible and likely to be correct.

And, no, Sas, that's not "appeal to authority fallacy". As has been noted many times, it's only fallacious when the appeal is not justifiable in terms of the type and manner of that authority.

Spelling it out clearly for all to understand:

An appeal to the status of "scientist" would be an inappropriate/fallacious appeal to authority. (Dr Somebody must be correct because they are a scientist. Inversely, to claim that Joe Sixpack must be incorrect because they are not a scientist would be an inverted AtA fallacy.)

An appeal to a person unqualified to address a particular topic would be an inproper AtA. (Dr Somebody says that the Earth is flat, and he has a PhD in Literature.)

An appeal to a person with appropriate credentials, speaking to a topic within same, and with evidence to support their statements is not an inappropriate or fallacious AtA. This is the case with Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Schaller, et al. Or Officer Chilcutt on dermals, or the various hair experts (Pinker, Moore, et al).

[Guest]

What you are ignoring is the fact that the credentials of Drs Meldrum, et al should be far more relevant than yours or most anyone else's. They're the primatologists and anthropologists. Studying such things is what they do. Does that make them infallable? Of course not. But it absolutely does make any determination or finding of theirs far more credible and likely to be correct.

Please help me out here, Mulder. Could you please point me to the article/evidence where Dr. Meldrum has actually studied a bigfoot creature?

[Guest toejam]

While there's no evidence of structures being BF related, it's also entirely plausible that they are. I've photographed many throughout my areas of research. I can't say they were made by BF but knowing that they do frequent the area, I have to keep an open mind.

Nobody has seen a BF making a structure because nobody can get close enough to observe them. It's always on their terms.

[Guest]

It always amazes me that folks want to base undocumented bigfoot behavior, to base their argument on the behavior of documented primates. As if those documented primates and the learned, educated, and doctorated folks that research them, can be attributed to authority, concerning bigfoot type creatures.

When you have an unknown, you can only examine it by comparing it to the known. There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever. It's called inductive reasoning.

You have those that claim they are more ape-like than human, so let's use the chimpanzee or gorilla for our comparisons.

You have those that claim they are more human than ape, so let's use what we really don't know about Neanderthals for our comparisons.

That is the argument from disagreement fallacy at work.

And I take Saskeptics observations over Meldrum's because Saskeptic spends more time in the woods than Meldrum does.

Please explain how "spending more time in the woods" in any way make's Sas' opinions about ANYTHING relating to sasquatch trace evidence superior to Meldrum's.

Please help me out here, Mulder. Could you please point me to the article/evidence where Dr. Meldrum has actually studied a bigfoot creature?

He's studied the evidence left by them (tracks and other body part impressions). He has liaised with those who have studied other forms of evidence. That's more than good enough.

It is not nor ever has been a requirement of "good science" that the researcher must personally obtain data directly from it's origin source. It is uncommon for laboratory-based researchers to be primary collectors of evidence of any kind.

By your logic, no genetic study would be useful except where each and every specimen was personally collected and curated by the examining geneticist directly from the biological source.

This is self-evidently absurd.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Mulder

[Guest]

When you have an unknown, you can only examine it by comparing it to the known. There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever. It's called inductive reasoning.

Actually, I would call it probabilistic reasoning.

That is the argument from disagreement fallacy at work.

I don't believe Mackie's Moral theory has anything to do with this discussion.

You present the argument from ignorance in your statements concerning Dr. Meldrum's conclusions.

Please explain how "spending more time in the woods" in any way make's Sas' opinions about ANYTHING relating to sasquatch trace evidence superior to Meldrum's.

Well, for instance, just like Meldrum, he can look at the trace evidence and draw his own conclusions using the same knowledge that Meldrum uses in his conclusions. Since Meldrum likes to hawk bigfoot plaster casts at all of the Bigfoot Conventions he likes to attend, obtaining the same "trace evidence" that Meldrum uses is available to Saskeptic.

The fact that he spends more time in the woods makes him more knowledgeable concerning the habitat that Meldrum concludes these creatures inhabits.

He's studied the evidence left by them (tracks and other body part impressions). He has liaised with those who have studied other forms of evidence.

Well, he has studied plaster casts of tracks that he can't conclusively prove were made by a sasquatch, nor can he prove that they weren't hoaxed.

By other "body part impressions" you don't mean the Skookum Cast, do you? I certainly hope you are not going there.

And you are saying that Dr. Meldrum has "liased with those who have studied other forms of evidence",,,,,in other words the same evidence that Dr. Meldrum is already using for his conclusions. That same trace evidence you were talking about.

That's more than good enough.

Nope, sorry.

It is not nor ever has been a requirement of "good science" that the researcher must personally obtain data directly from it's origin source. It is uncommon for laboratory-based researchers to be primary collectors of evidence of any kind.

Mulder, all you had to do is say "No, Dr. Meldrum has never examined a bigfoot creature". Sidetracking an answer is your trait, however you really can keep it simple if you want to.

By your logic, no genetic study would be useful except where each and every specimen was personally collected and curated by the examining geneticist directly from the biological source.

This is self-evidently absurd.

The absurdity is comparing a real specimen collected by one scientist and examined by another, when no specimen has been collected at all. As far as I know, we have yet collected a bigfoot specimen, or even parts of a bigfoot specimen, for any scientist to examine, including Dr. Meldrum.

I guess we can call that the argument from absurdity. Huh?

So, since Dr. Meldrum hasn't examined a bigfoot creature, could you please direct me to where he claims he has seen a bigfoot creature?

Edited May 29, 2012 by Splash7

[Guest]

"Well, for instance, just like Meldrum, he can look at the trace evidence and draw his own conclusions using the same knowledge that Meldrum uses in his conclusions. Since Meldrum likes to hawk bigfoot plaster casts at all of the Bigfoot Conventions he likes to attend, obtaining the same "trace evidence" that Meldrum uses is available to Saskeptic."

He can use the same knowledge Meldrum uses? Its funny how many people like to conveniently forget, or disregard Dr Meldrums credentials, and elevate their own. I had no idea there where so many experts on primate locomotion on this board. Yet you think the scientific community should answer to you?

[Guest]

I don't think the scientific community should have to answer for me, personally. I am not the one usually elevating the "scientific community" to a status above the ordinary folks that have spent more time and effort researching these creatures. Not to mention those ordinary folks that have actually seen one of these creatures.

However, to answer your question, I believe Saskeptic has as much credentials to comment on these creatures as Meldrum has.

I even believe you, JohnC, have as much credentials to comment on these creatures.

Tell us everything you know about bigfoot.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Splash7

[Guest BFSleuth]

Oh boy, I thought this was a thread about stick structures. Why have we digressed to arguing about argument? Enough already.

One of my favorite reports and one of the farthest north sighting reports (above the Arctic Circle):

http://www.bfro.net/...ort.asp?id=6486

Wasn't that one of the chicken farmer's stories? Anyway there is absolutely no follow up investigation of this report and no evidence that the person who made the report was anywhere near the Arctic Circle nor is there any attempt for corroboration from any other team members or anything else. Useful for lining birdcages but not for anything related to actual real research. That is my opinion.

Transformer, you took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you.

Don't remember but you can bet your buster brownies that I'm off to the Premium Membership area to see. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Longtabber PE posted such.

The follow up report was done by Dr. Wolf H. Fahrenbach if you cared to read it. It isn't the most detailed follow up report, but then I wouldn't necessarily expect him to jump into a helicopter or bush plane to go visit the site.

Very interesting that three forum members suddenly jump all over some kind of guilt by association with a prior discredited forum member. I did the search in the PMP area and there aren't any references to associate said member to this BFRO report.

If you have actual knowledge that this report is inaccurate or a hoax then come out with the evidence. Hit and run guilt by association doesn't cut it.

[Guest]

After reading hundreds and hundreds of BF reports, I think a person can get a sense of the "tale".

If you go to the Premium Access section and read the "BF convention covered by Vanity Fair Magazine" thread in the Media section of the BFF 1.0, you might understand why the author of the follow up report only adds to the "tale".

Edited May 29, 2012 by Splash7

[Guest BFSleuth]

Gosh, that's good enough for me!

It's gotta be a hoax perpetrated by the worst scumbag on the planet!

Thank you for clearing that up.

[Guest]

Well, you wanted to know what I thought. Special Forces involved in a BF report always sends up flags for some folks.

The follow up investigators of some reports sends up flags too, sometimes.

[Guest BFSleuth]

And for some folks military or special forces training sightings are well received.

Do you have a particular problem with Dr. Fahrenbach and his examination of this report? Please share.

[Guest]

I have a question that has also baffled me for some time, and I always forget to ask it....When it comes to stick structures, or markers, what unique qualities do they possess that would make them discernible to other Sasquatches as markers, or structures, and not just natural phenomena? Do Sasquatches sit in front of them scratching their heads, while trying to figure out if they were engineered by a fellow BF, or if it is just windfall? Would they only be unique to the one that put it up, and used as a marker for certain things for that particular individual?

I'd imagine if they do, in fact, create these, that there would have to be a practical application for them, and not just a random act. Markers, or shelters would make sense, but some of them could be used for hunting purposes, to create some sort of camoflauge, or blind, of sorts. It would break up their silhouette, and give the appearance of windfall just leaning against a tree, or burned out stump. That would probably mean that they use the wind to their advantage too, if that were the case. I'm still not all-in on assigning them that level of intelligence yet, but it could be possible, IMO.

The reporting of these seems problematic to me, though. Most of them just show a picture, and not a whole lot of information, aside from, "This structure was found way out in the timber, where people hardly ever go, and is more than likely from a BF." There is a ton of information that should be included with all of these structures that people deem out of the ordinary, including elevation, elevation relative to the surrounding area, yards from any pertinent marker, such as nearby water source(lake, river, stream, etc), peaks/valleys, game trails, roads, etc. It's tough to postulate why they make them, if we can't find common threads, and links between them. If it's a random act, or there is random data, it will stay a random argument.

[Guest]

I gave you a thread to read in the Premium Access section concerning Fahrenbach's talk at a TBRC convention. Go read it and tell me what you think.

By the way, I attended that particular TBRC convention. I sat there and heard what Fahrenbach said. Just so you won't think that I am nit-picking what I read from just a thread from the BFF 1.0.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Splash7