Guest wudewasa Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I'll ask you four simple questions. How many research dollars are being devoted to this subject by accredited institutions? Why does Jeff Meldrum come under fire by his own peers due to his interest in the subject? Do you personally feel that there is insufficient forensic evidence to suggest, in its totality, that there is an undocumented species out there? If not, then why is mainstream academia giving the subject a pass? In order to discuss some more, I will answer these questions four! 1) I don't know (AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!) 2) Dr. Meldrum used the field of ichnotaxonomy to describe sasquatch (Anthropoides ameriborealis) tracks. The sticky wicket is that ichnotaxonomy deals with the tracks of extinct animals, not living ones, as sasquatch purportedly is. 3) At this time, yes. We need a body, nothing less will convince me unless I actually see one of these animals up close and interact with it. 4) Credibility amongst peers, acceptance by academia (most of which is seen as irrelevant by nonacademics). Remember, Darwin held off publishing Origin of the Species due to the controversy that it would cause. Only after a few of his colleauges had proposed similar thoughts did he put forth his ideas in print.
JDL Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 (edited) In order to discuss some more, I will answer these questions four! 1) I don't know (AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!) 2) Dr. Meldrum used the field of ichnotaxonomy to describe sasquatch (Anthropoides ameriborealis) tracks. The sticky wicket is that ichnotaxonomy deals with the tracks of extinct animals, not living ones, as sasquatch purportedly is. 3) At this time, yes. We need a body, nothing less will convince me unless I actually see one of these animals up close and interact with it. 4) Credibility amongst peers, acceptance by academia (most of which is seen as irrelevant by nonacademics). Remember, Darwin held off publishing Origin of the Species due to the controversy that it would cause. Only after a few of his colleauges had proposed similar thoughts did he put forth his ideas in print. Ok, let's start with number three. 3. You/science are/is applying a higher standard here than would be applied to a less controversial species. The current body of witness reports, tracks, scat, etc. would be sufficient to pry people out from behind their desks and into the woods for a new species of bear, etc. 1. If you can't hazard a guess, then the answer is most likely "an insignificant amount" and I'll declare victory on this point. 2. For Pete's sake, if the techniques applied in ichnotaxonomy are sufficient to establish the past existence of a species, why cannot they be applied to establish the probability of an extant species. Sounds to me like the extrapolation of an established and accepted investigative tool into a new application, but then someone cries foul because of a definition of the technique? Does being nitpicky to avoid hearing, seeing, or speaking no evil (bigfoot) help prove my point? 4. I hope you realize that with your answer to this question you've made my point. You are basically saying that the possibility of bigfoot's existence is not credible or accepted by academia. I imagine that I am still frustrating. Is this projection, or an educated guess? Edited July 31, 2011 by JDL
Guest RayG Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Do you mind if I give it a go? In spite of the totality of forensic evidence, how many research dollars are being devoted to this subject by accredited institutions? Very few. How many dollars should be devoted to investigating something that defies investigation? Why does Jeff Meldrum come under fire by his own peers due to his interest in the subject? Because he's investigating a 'fringe' topic. He's not the only scientist with an interest in bigfoot though, and as with nearly every subject scientists pursue, there are going to be those who sit on opposite sides of the research table, so to speak. Am I imagining that a dismissive, or even condescending attitude exists regarding bigfoot in mainstream academia? You mean like the dismissive, or even condescending attitude that some proponents have towards skeptics? It's human nature from both sides. If however, someone were to produce a bigfoot, that dismissive/condescending attitude from the scientific community would end in a heartbeat. I'm not so sure we could say the same about the dismissive/condescending attitude towards skeptics. RayG
Guest wudewasa Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 1. If you can't hazard a guess, then the answer is most likely "an insignificant amount" and I'll declare victory on this point. Actually, if you've seen the "Guardian of the Bridge" scene in "Mony Python's Quest for the Holy Grail," You might get the double meaning of my answer to # 1: As far as you declaring victory, you win! I come here for discussion, not a debate, but have fun with your buddies at Beef O'Brady's while you revel in your glory days of trouncing folks on BFF!
JDL Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Actually, if you've seen the "Guardian of the Bridge" scene in "Mony Python's Quest for the Holy Grail," You might get the double meaning of my answer to # 1: As far as you declaring victory, you win! I come here for discussion, not a debate, but have fun with your buddies at Beef O'Brady's while you revel in your glory days of trouncing folks on BFF! You know, I violated one of my own rules here. Not to engage with skeptics over the merits of bigfoot research. You have my apologies for my boorish behavior.
Guest wudewasa Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 You know, I violated one of my own rules here. Not to engage with skeptics over the merits of bigfoot research. You have my apologies for my boorish behavior. OH NO! You called me a SKEPTIC! You LABELED me! INCONCEIVABLE!!!!! I'll bet that you are also the sort of fellow that gets involved in a land war in Asia and goes in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
Guest nona Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I don't see it as projection. Often people don't make that realization consciously. I'll ask you the same questions. In spite of the totality of forensic evidence, how many research dollars are being devoted to this subject by accredited institutions? Why does Jeff Meldrum come under fire by his own peers due to his interest in the subject? Am I imagining that a dismissive, or even condescending attitude exists regarding bigfoot in mainstream academia? Ah, here would be a good reason for you to listen to that Todd Disotell interview. I believe you can find an answer to your questions there.
Guest Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 (edited) I believe bigfoot exists because 1) alll those stories, so many 2) with so many common elements 3) which to me have the ring of truth 4) you could not make some of that stuff up 5) I saw a big black one by the road 6) a daughter saw part of one (chest area, legs, hard to mistake) 7) after awhile I could spot them in pictures so I guess they must be there. 9) footprints, plenty 10) and it makes me feel I am going crazy and no one normal would want to believe it. 11) We are not as smart and skillful as we always like to think. It's possible. 12) They are our brothers (cousins?) and if we are brainy and adept, why wouldn't they be? 13) "unknown primate" DNA Edited July 31, 2011 by Kings Canyon
Guest DWA Posted June 15, 2017 Posted June 15, 2017 (edited) On 2/8/2011 at 4:20 PM, Guest said: Okay, I not a big deal researcher. I'm a nurse, married, just a regular person. However, I sincerely believe that there is some sort of Bigfoot type creature hiding in forests around the world. Why do I believe? I believe due to the very credible witnesses who have had personal encounters with this remarkable creature. People from around the world have spotted this "monster", been terrified by an encounter, and had the courage to report their sighting. I saw a policeman holding a pistol in his shaking hand because he thought that a Bigfoot was near because he had an encounter in the same place earlier, and had returned to tell his story. I know of military officers who have admitted to seeing a Bigfoot, and last, but far from least, my daughter had a run-in while camping near Canada. I shake thinking about how vulnerable she was out in the woods alone camping, and a Bigfoot started throwing things on her tent. She heard him/her, and started playing her flute. The creature finally left, and she abandoned her tent, left everything that she could not grab and carry quickly with her.. This is all well and good. I just don't put confidence in one, two or a few stories. We have thousands, both sightings and footprint finds, each relating to the other in ways scientists have documented and predicted. And the consistency is not going to happen the way the skeptics think it is, with some hoaxing lying hallucinating pranking being flat mistaken being on drugs etc. The sasquatch evidence pattern is the kind produced by ONE CONSISTENT THING. Now. Picking that one thing. Would you pick: 1. A European company, working with Natives and others from earliest human settlement of the continent down to the present day to fabricate evidence with world-class expertise? 2. A Native company, doing the same thing? 3. The Government, or any other SINGLE AND IT MUST BE SINGLE entity, doing the same thing? 4. EVERY SINGLE PERSON who has reported being wrong, BY ACCIDENT, in a way that produces an entity that, among other things, follows biogeographical rules like Bergmann's Rule? 5. ALL OF THEM being wrong ON PURPOSE, i.e., sharing notes to ensure submitting consistent reports? While faking world-class trackway hoaxes? 6. Every SINGLE entity compiling reports WORKING WITH THE OTHERS, using world-class expertise and making sure everyone's stories line up? And....by thousands of light years THE LEAST LIKELY POSSIBILITY, THAT CANNOT HAPPEN: what the skeptics say is happening. How far down this list do you want to go before saying, they're all seeing a pretty garden-variety animal? Yeah, me too. Edited June 15, 2017 by DWA
Recommended Posts