norseman Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=83erw89cNKM Here is the show explaning Meldrums skeleton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Hello All, I've given this a lot of time and thought. This skeleton model. At first I questioned the funding for its development and let it go at that- no more comments. But now I have questions. The chief one being: Is this a joke? I'm still not getting this- at all. And I ask because of the real issue: What's the point? What is Dr. Meldrum really saying with this? There has to be a point to why this was done. If there is I'm just totally missing it. It simply makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I would guess that the point of this being to elicit a response and curiosity of both science and the laymen observer of the show it was displayed on. Visual impact can be a powerful message, sure people see Finding Bigfoot and their "recreations" or the scenes of BOBO Holding up his hand to judge height but perhaps seeing an actual skeleton next to a person does more to put it into perspective. IDK, just throwing an idea out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I agree hiflier, what's the point. In my research I do comparisons. I asked for a comparison simply because of the scale. My request has been refused or just ignored. If it can't be used for that what is the point. Simply an effort in futility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I see the skull is a bit too big for the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sixxgunner Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Very interesting. I saw them working on this in some TV documentary. Good information to process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Hello BigTreWalker and All, I was actually going to let the whole thing slide but since the skeleton is real But to science it is not? Well I had to ask. Twist probably is close to the answer but the whole idea is just that- an idea. IDK maybe this thread should have been merged with the "Conceptual Bigfoot" thread? Lets say the skeleton is a close representation of the creature described in the reports. If someone was out in the field looking for bones does this aid in giving a visual of what to look for? Is science laughing harder at Dr. Meldrum? I mean I can appreciate the 3D printer technology and all so that's not at issue. The reason for the skeleton in the first place is. Shock value? It can't be for study because there's no way to judge it as accurate. Anyway IMHO it should have been posed as Patty One thing I might want to see though is the skeleton digitized into a program where it could be animated and then do an overlay on the PGF. Even then it would prove nothing. So the structure isn't meant to prove Sasquatch and Dr. Meldrum I'm sure wasn't trying to do an end run on our thinking as much as fulfilling perhaps a dream he has had about the creature being a bone guy and all? Since there's no way to verify the skeleton's accuracy then other than publicity, good or bad, for him and the University then the whole thing is rather useless. I understand enrollment is up? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 In 5 years It'll either be tucked in the corner of Meldrums office, used as a coat rack or at best on display at Lauren Colemans Crpyto Museum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Hello TWIST, Yep, right next to this guy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 In 5 years It'll either be tucked in the corner of Meldrums office, used as a coat rack or at best on display at Lauren Colemans Crpyto Museum. How about the museum of modern art in the surrealists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 In 5 years It'll either be tucked in the corner of Meldrums office, used as a coat rack or at best on display at Lauren Colemans Crpyto Museum. How about the museum of modern art in the surrealists? only time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 It should be on display at the Museum of Wasted Academic Resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted February 6, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted February 6, 2016 (edited) I find it strange that people cannot understand why Meldrum was part of the production of the skeleton.. It is put forth as a theory using his best guess at this time as to what BF is and presenting it in a visual format. Like someone mentioned something that big gets attention. Most likely most or all of it is wrong should we get our hands on an authentic BF skeleton. But advocating theories using best guesses is what science is all about. Some are right and most are wrong. I suppose what bothers skeptics about this the most is that it does generate some interest and that, particularly in the scientific community is not what they like to see. . Edited February 6, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 I find it strange that people cannot understand why Meldrum was part of the production of the skeleton.. It is put forth as a theory using his best guess at this time as to what BF is and presenting it in a visual format. Like someone mentioned something that big gets attention. Most likely most or all of it is wrong should we get our hands on an authentic BF skeleton. But advocating theories using best guesses is what science is all about. Some are right and most are wrong. I suppose what bothers skeptics about this the most is that it does generate some interest and that, particularly in the scientific community is not what they like to see. . I'd say that what is bothersome to skeptics is that this is just another example of bigfoot sensationalism rather than any meaningful contribution to science . When you say "likely most or all of it is wrong" but that it "does generate some interest" you're keying in on the heart of the problem. Who needs any kind of scientific accuracy? In the world of bigfoot, drumming up interest is easy, and it gets your mug all over the TV (Melba, Dyer, Standing, etc.). When it comes to delivering the meat and potatoes... there's nothing there. No skeptic would probably ever complain about Meldrum if he just kept quiet did his job, and looked into the bigfoot thing seriously. But instead, he's on every documentary that comes out "drumming up interest" or whatever. Very scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 6, 2016 Share Posted February 6, 2016 No....no they wouldnt, they would still complain incessently. If we can make models to fill in the gaps with Lucy or Turkana boy why not Sasquatch??? We have very large hominids in the fossil record, albeit none from north America. But this is rather harmless. If Meldrum was building a one eyed, one horned flying purple people eater model in his basement because he believed the creature really existed? That would give me pause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts