Jump to content

Scientific 'proof' ? (For Total Skeptics)


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Once again:  on anything like this, I take the opinions of the experts.

 

No one has contradicted Meldrum's or Krantz's take on what they represent.  The casting-artifiacts discussion is a light breeze in a teapot.

Sorry but Krantz had no idea about Crowley's casting process so this opinion is outdated.

 

No matter how many times you slice it, Krantz and Meldrum are not Reed Richards or "Brains" from Thunderbirds and casting artifacts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"And being a "footprint expert" does not make you an  expert on the mechanics of plaster and casting."

 

Is it your opinion that Dr. Meldrum has never previously cast a footprint of a primate to study?  Or did he set up microscopes in the field and look at them?

Or did he excavate the entire area surrounding them?

 

Or did he never cast a footprint before alleged BF prints?

I would think an anthropologist with expertise in primate locomotion would indeed have extensive knowledge of plaster and casts....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's rich coming from a guy who has no problem declaring himself smarter than scientists who disagree with him but when people challenge his favorite experts resorts to "well there're experts and you're not."

 

And being a "footprint expert" does not make you an  expert on the mechanics of plaster and casting.

 

Irrelevant.

 

Footprint experts - no quotes necessary - know about the features of primate feet.  They will see them when they show - on a foot; in a photograph; in a plaster cast.

 

See how simple this is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

See, you don't know how to think about this.  You keep showing that.

 

Why do the scientists who disagree with me disagree with me?

 

THERE IS NO REASON.  Go ahead, give me one.  You won't give me one I can't blow away in seconds.  Try it.

 

Why do the experts agree with me, and I with them?

 

Read something and one might find that out.

 

Classic dodge:  falling back on uninformed consensus, and refusing to consult anything that disagrees.

 

 

 

Two words, John Napier.  You had no problem "debunking" him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Once again:  on anything like this, I take the opinions of the experts.

 

No one has contradicted Meldrum's or Krantz's take on what they represent.  The casting-artifiacts discussion is a light breeze in a teapot.

Sorry but Krantz had no idea about Crowley's casting process so this opinion is outdated.

 

No matter how many times you slice it, Krantz and Meldrum are not Reed Richards or "Brains" from Thunderbirds and casting artifacts.  

 

Krantz's opinion has nothing to do with plaster mechanics, and so stands.

 

Don't even know what your last sentence means, and doesn't matter.  No one contests Krantz's and Meldrum's findings.  They stand until either (1) the animal is confirmed by following their lead, which would be the smart thing to do or (2) somebody shows that all the evidence is false positive.

 

Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's rich coming from a guy who has no problem declaring himself smarter than scientists who disagree with him but when people challenge his favorite experts resorts to "well there're experts and you're not."

 

And being a "footprint expert" does not make you an  expert on the mechanics of plaster and casting.

 

Irrelevant.

 

Footprint experts - no quotes necessary - know about the features of primate feet.  They will see them when they show - on a foot; in a photograph; in a plaster cast.

 

See how simple this is?

 

 

Nope, very relevant. If a casting process can mimic the features of primate ridges then that's bad for the "bigfoot print is genuine" case. It doesn't matter what the "footprint experts" say, if they didn't know about the process or address it then their opinion is doesn't hold water. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I debunked Napier on Patty!  This is just smarts, in operation.

 

By Napier's reasoning applied to Patty, the duckbilled platypus isn't a real animal.  There, he goofed.

 

His opinion on the overall plausibility of sasquatch, however, is that of an expert.  It stands.

 

Except for those who insist that babies must be tossed with bath water.

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Krantz's opinion has nothing to do with plaster mechanics, and so stands.

Nope, if he knew about Crowley's experiments he might have reconsidered. Even Meldrum stated that they are a good possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That's rich coming from a guy who has no problem declaring himself smarter than scientists who disagree with him but when people challenge his favorite experts resorts to "well there're experts and you're not."

 

And being a "footprint expert" does not make you an  expert on the mechanics of plaster and casting.

 

Irrelevant.

 

Footprint experts - no quotes necessary - know about the features of primate feet.  They will see them when they show - on a foot; in a photograph; in a plaster cast.

 

See how simple this is?

 

 

Nope, very relevant. If a casting process can mimic the features of primate ridges then that's bad for the "bigfoot print is genuine" case. It doesn't matter what the "footprint experts" say, if they didn't know about the process or address it then their opinion is doesn't hold water. Sorry.

 

 Indeed you are.  Casting processes don't mimic anything.  They do capture the features of primate feet, though.

 

 

Krantz's opinion has nothing to do with plaster mechanics, and so stands.

Nope, if he knew about Crowley's experiments he might have reconsidered. Even Meldrum stated that they are a good possibility.

 

And then he might not have.

 

I believe I said it.  This is a light breeze in a teapot.  Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I debunked Napier on Patty!  This is just smarts, in operation.

 

By Napier's reasoning applied to Patty, the duckbilled platypus isn't a real animal.  There, he goofed.

 

 

 

 

If the platypus actually did have a duck bill and a beaver tail you'd be right, but it doesn't. So you fail again.

 

The biomechanics of primate movement ≠ the superficial appearance of the platypus.

Edited by Jerrymanderer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

When things point to an unfavorable conclusion, resorting to simply taking the opinion of these so called Bigfoot experts seems more like a dodge. 

 

34qkcau.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Of course I debunked Napier on Patty!  This is just smarts, in operation.

 

By Napier's reasoning applied to Patty, the duckbilled platypus isn't a real animal.  There, he goofed.

 

 

 

 

If the platypus actually did have a duck bill and a beaver tail you'd be right, but it doesn't. So you fail again.

 

The biomechanics of primate movement ≠ the superficial appearance of the platypus.

 

One might actually read Napier's "analysis."  Nope, I'm right.

 

Nothing wrong with the biomechanics of the sasquatch.  The "platypus argument" is Napier's argument, and he's just wrong.

 

You forgot that he was a sasquatch proponent...didn't you...?

When things point to an unfavorable conclusion, resorting to simply taking the opinion of these so called Bigfoot experts seems more like a dodge. 

 

**Deleted re-posted image**

Some of us simply understand that experts make mistakes.

 

And some of us throw everything out based on the mistakes.

 

If everyone did that we wouldn't have science.

 

^^^^That quote disproves sasquatch?  Interesting.  Take me through your reasoning.

 

Or, and I think you might want to do this, ...read up.

And a little Napier bio, from Wiki:

 

John Napier [edit]

Prominent primate expert John Napier (one-time director of the Smithsonian's Primate Biology Program) was one of the few mainstream scientists not only to critique the Patterson–Gimlin film but also to study then-available Bigfoot evidence in a generally sympathetic manner in his 1973 book, Bigfoot: The Sasquatch and Yeti in Myth and Reality.

Napier conceded the likelihood of Bigfoot as a real creature, stating, "I am convinced that Sasquatch exists."[41] But he argued against the film being genuine: "There is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind. The creature shown in the film does not stand up well to functional analysis."[35]

He adds, "I could not see the zipper; and I still can't. There I think we must leave the matter. Perhaps it was a man dressed up in a monkey-skin; if so it was a brilliantly executed hoax and the unknown perpetrator will take his place with the great hoaxers of the world. Perhaps it was the first film of a new type of hominid, quite unknown to science, in which case Roger Patterson deserves to rank with Dubois, the discoverer of Pithecanthropus erectus, or Raymond Dart of Johannesburg, the man who introduced the world to its immediate human ancestor, Australopithecus africanus."[42]

 

Note that Napier not only was a proponent...but wasn't sure about P/G either.

Edited by DWA
Deleted re-posted image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll re-ask the question, then ask a new one.

 

Footprint experts, such as Dr. Meldrum, apparently do NOT work with plaster casts of known primates?  Only BF in Meldrum's case?

 

Secondly, the phrase 'proof of evidence' popped out at me.

 

Wouldn't proof of evidence boil down to just proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humoring the footprint skeptics for a moment:

 

So.

 

Going back to the beginnings of the Republic - before, in fact - people have been seeing, smelling, hearing and experiencing "Crowley 'dermal ridges'"?

 

Or maybe there are some Real McCoy sasquatch tracks out there that show artifacts of the casting process?



I'll re-ask the question, then ask a new one.

 

Footprint experts, such as Dr. Meldrum, apparently do NOT work with plaster casts of known primates?  Only BF in Meldrum's case?

 

Secondly, the phrase 'proof of evidence' popped out at me.

 

Wouldn't proof of evidence boil down to just proof?

The fundamental reasoning problem 'bigfoot skeptics' have is their utter inability to disentangle the terms 'evidence' and 'proof.'

 

But yeah, people who cast tracks are gonna know what plaster does when you use it to make footprint casts.

 

Meldrum's rejoinder to Crowley could be stated simply:

 

Yeah?

 

And your point...?

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

"Some of us simply understand that experts make mistakes."


 


Exactly and I don't think the quote disproves Sasquatch, but it shows that Bigfoot experts will make mistakes sometimes. So maybe it would be a good idea to examine the new evidence at hand before just taking their opinion  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...