A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[ThePhaige]

The problem I see with Meldrum is that he's too reckless. If he presents footprint casts as being real and any of them are shown to be fake, then that means his logic is not sound. You will never know if any casts are real under those conditions.

 

Like when he pushed dermal ridges in his book, and later it was shown that casting artifacts created the same result. That showed his logic was not sound.

 

He has enough blunders under his belt now for any scientist to not take him seriously anymore.

 

The problem with your logic is that can be said about any scientist or otherwise as tactic of dismissal. I am no Meldrum fan in fact I tend to agree with you on that and his steadfast position of the SSq being an ape species. In science as with anything assumtions are made based on what is observed, if other alternatives are noted at a later time then an honest researcher must include that data absolutely...however we also know that living things have dermal ridges dont we? So I dont think its a SSq only trait if you will. Its not as if he discovered dermal ridges, he simply observed them as have others.

Edited June 23, 2015 by ThePhaige

[MarkGlasgow]

You did not see the exchange at the Sasquatch Summit in Ocean Shores last November between Standing and Meldrum. I did, they are not exactly buddies.

Not so sure about that. I spoke to Meldrum at length about Todd Standing last September and he could not defend our favourite Ewok photographer more than he did. Jeff Meldrum is certainly a great ambassador for this subject but is certainly far from infallible.

[Bodhi]

You did not see the exchange at the Sasquatch Summit in Ocean Shores last November between Standing and Meldrum. I did, they are not exactly buddies. What does the failure of the Falcon project have to do with the credibility of Meldrum? Guilt by association? My point about the footprint was that it is impossible to tell the difference between an authentic cast, a copy of that, or a reproduction of that. I could cast your own foot, copy the cast, and make a reproduction and not even you could tell the difference. That is why I think casts are a dead end research path for BF. If Meldrum, who is the footprint guy in his field, cannot persuade his colleagues with his footprint casts, of the existence of BF, that form of evidence is just not definitive enough. It is entirely possible he has casts that are not authentic, but if even one is, that is all footprint evidence can provide, other than variations in size and shape.

Was that when Standing showed his movie? If so, yeah I saw it and the interaction didn't seem all that prickly. Nor has Meldrum withdrawn his support for the Standing photos to my knowledge. The Falcon Project was seen by many here as a non-starter from the start due to a lack of expertise among the leaders. Meldrum has some connection to a few things like this.  

 

In answer to your question about Disotell; he hasn't done anything to disprove sasquatch, he's a friend to the field. He just wants hard evidence. He processes samples, from known reliable sources and seems open to the possibility of sasquatch. Sorry if I caused you to think he was out to disprove, opposite is the case.

[roguefooter]

The problem with your logic is that can be said about any scientist or otherwise as tactic of dismissal. I am no Meldrum fan in fact I tend to agree with you on that and his steadfast position of the SSq being an ape species. In science as with anything assumtions are made based on what is observed, if other alternatives are noted at a later time then an honest researcher must include that data absolutely...however we also know that living things have dermal ridges dont we? So I dont think its a SSq only trait if you will. Its not as if he discovered dermal ridges, he simply observed them as have others.

 

It goes deeper than just simply having dermal ridges. The direction of striations were different, not like those found on other living things. Instead they match up with artifacts made by casting.

 

Amazing coincidence? Or misidentification?

 But he had back up from the qualified expert Jimmy Chilcutt.

 

Who we don't hear from anymore ever since the casting artifact issue was presented.

Edited June 24, 2015 by roguefooter

[ThePhaige]

Again you missed my point... A false assumtion proved out over time. I also mentioned some of the other premature or false assumptions (from where I am standing) that Dr Meldrum and all scientists and humans beings in general make. We cannot say which direction the ridges run on a SSq because we have only seen this particular direction, there are many examples in nature of unique qualities to certain kinds of animal, but that is no more an amazing coincidence then saying they all must me faked or hoaxed. I mean you tend to believe Patty is real I have heard you state and dont her prints kind of look like many of the thousands of others found? Aside from the dermal ridge arguments. Which I repeat may or may not be artifacs from the casting process, just because something can be emulated doesnt negate what is observed. Until we have a foot either could still be true and false.

[Guest]

 

Who we don't hear from anymore ever since the casting artifact issue was presented.

 

I have never heard Jimmy Chilcutt re-evaluate his findings and the last I heard was that he feels they were from a real animal.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I'm pretty sure Jimmy Chilcutt was mistaken. Those so-called "dermal ridges" were replicated in experiments. Besides that, it's just hard to imagine how a foot would leave dermal ridges in the first place. 

[roguefooter]

Also take into consideration which casts were claimed to have had these dermals- primarily Paul Freeman's casts, including the wrinkle foot ones.

 

People can argue that there is the possibility that these are real, but I just can't. These are the casts that Chilcutt found the dermal "scars" on-

 

[Guest DWA]

I'm pretty sure Jimmy Chilcutt was mistaken. Those so-called "dermal ridges" were replicated in experiments. Besides that, it's just hard to imagine how a foot would leave dermal ridges in the first place. 

"Hard to imagine" for the forensic scientists who vouch for it?  I think not.  I'm trusting their expertise over bigfoot skeptics' on this one.  Mistakes may be made.  But nobody is proving, or going to, that dermals don't show up in tracks.

[MIB]

"Imagination" should not be your measure for separating fact from fiction. 

 

You either accept expert opinion as evidence or you don't.   This biz of standing them up as authority when they say what you want to hear and questioning their competence when they do not is disingenuous at best. 

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

^^^And that.  In fact, the core of bigfoot skepticism is citing the very same authorities one discounts when they favor the other side.

One could also say that this is the pitfall one finds oneself in when one isn't focused on the evidence.  Their "scientists" blindly believe the same things they blindly believe.  Mine...show their work.

[WSA]

All efforts to prove that footprints CAN be faked, or HAVE been faked, only tend to prove what has never been seriously disputed by anyone paying attention.  People who invest energy in this aspect of the question are merely spinning their wheels and building up to a Little Jack Horner moment.  To them, I reply: "Great job. Only about 10,000 more to go."     

[Guest DWA]

Right.  It is this myopic focus on Debunk This One Thing And Done that is the reason bigfoot skeptics are so far behind the curve.  It's like walking a trail glued to one's iPhone screen.  you are constantly tripping over rocks and logs... falling into pits...running into bears...

Edited June 24, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

Right.  It is this myopic focus on Debunk This One Thing And Done that is the reason bigfoot skeptics are so far behind the curve.  It's like walking a trail glued to one's iPhone screen.  you are constantly tripping over rocks and logs... falling into pits...running into bears...

What curve are we behind?  I'm sure you understand that in Joe Blow America over the past dozen years there has been a flowering of a certain celebration of ignorance and dumbing down.  This was a very real concern of the late Carl Sagan BTW.  In other words as long as a person is adamantly clinging to their ignorance than that ignorance has a validity.  By most rational standards bigfootism is a kind of celebration of willful ignorance.  It's seen daily in things like dogman, flying bigfoot, ultrasound bigfoot, mind reading bigfoot, bigfoot of many types etc etc.  

 

So yes than I am proudly behind  the curve.  The sun rose at 5:32 AM in my part of the world today and it's going to set at 8:34 PM this evening.  I'm so far behind the curve I speak of that I'll go out on a very stout limb and say that bigfoot will still be an uncatalogued animal when the sun goes down.  

[Guest DWA]

LOOK OUT!  BEAR!

If I had responded to you 100 times on the question, define 'blue', you'd still be asking.  Such is this curve you are, um, on.  (You aren't behind it; you aren't even on the right curve.  Sorry, misspoke.)