Sasquatch / Meldrums Skeleton Model

[jayjeti]

If sightings were only people's imaginations you would think there would be at least a few in Hawaii.  The fact they are not reported there lends credence to people really seeing them in mainland states.

 

DWA, I don't see that small crest on his model like you show on that replica of a 1.75 million year old skull.  And even it he did put that really small crest on his skeletal model it wouldn't come close to representing the appearance of saquatches.

 

 

I respect Dr. Meldrum and the sacrifice he's endured in his career to be the rare Anthropologist to publicly acknowledge sasquatches, but I have to ask him, as an anthropologist that says he used the Patterson/Gimlin film as one of his sources for his skeleton, "What happened?"  

Edited February 10, 2016 by jayjeti

[BigTreeWalker]

I have seen their tracks. I have seen their kills. I have seen their feeding behavior. The closest I have come to seeing one was a gray shadow crossing the road at almost dark. I don't need an expert or a picture to tell me they exist.

[jayjeti]

Agreed, no hypothesis is necessary if you've encountered it yourself; you have your own evidence/proof.  I haven't seen their kills or their feeding behavior, but I've seen their tracks and I've also seen it, both completely unobstructed and peering from behind bushes. I've seen stick structures, a large blind made of all broken branches, and next to it trees that had been twisted off about four feet above ground.  I've heard it scream at me while shaking bushes, I've heard bipedal walking around our camp in the night, and I believe I've heard it talk more than once, and I've had it throw rocks that landed near me a few times.  I also believe I've been hit with infrasound.   I just hope to get video or photos some time at my research area in Oregon. 

 

Here's a 17" long track I cast.  5" at the heel, and 6" just behind the toes.

 

Edited February 10, 2016 by jayjeti

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I thought this thread would have died out, but I guess the skeleton has left an impression. Kind of a matter of fact way of saying, oh yah here is what a sasquatch skeleton would look like. What I think is interesting also is the unrelenting view that Patty represents a typical Sasquatch. Descriptions are obviously varied by region, ranging from tall and thin specimens, human faced specimens, more ape type faces, hairy to almost bare skinned, the range is quite broad. The typical Sasquatch is really not something we can put any stock into. What is true of all these types is a muscular build, tall body, almost no neck, large chested and shouldered. I think an argument could be made that this skeleton only represents a certain number of the specie at best.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot

[jayjeti]

 What I think is interesting also is the unrelenting view that Patty represents a typical Sasquatch. Descriptions are obviously varied by region. . . .

 

Lake County, If you read the article that started this topic Dr. Meldrum said he used Patty as the one modern source for creating the skeleton along with bone clones from extinct species of man.  So, we're discussing the model of a skeleton whose single modern depiction incorporated into it was Patty.  I posted a photo of Patty along side his skeleton to show how far off the skull was.  Meldrum seemed to prefer the skull of an early man.  In all those different descriptions of sasquatches around the country you speak of have you ever heard of one having a low flat head the same height as the brow ridge?  

Edited February 10, 2016 by jayjeti

[BigTreeWalker]

I have seen their tracks. I have seen their kills. I have seen their feeding behavior. The closest I have come to seeing one was a gray shadow crossing the road at almost dark. I don't need an expert or a picture to tell me they exist.

OK, the point I was trying to make there is: this is the personal evidence that I have to prove to me a cougar exists. I have actually experienced more than that for sasquatch. In every instance be it your everyday animals, or gorillas, bonobos, or wolverines. It took an experienced person in the field to convince some expert to catalogue those animals.

I'm sorry but hard evidence is not acnecdotes. And just because an expert or a skeptic won't accept that evidence has no bearing on whether it exists in the field.

[Guest]

 

A predictable model is only testable when you find a physical example to test it against.  Other theoretical models are possible to explain a phenomena and when conflicting models exist, the search begins to prove who is right and who is wrong by trying to observe the phenomena in nature.       How is that different than testing Meldrum's model against some yet to be found BF?      Einstein's theories predicted black holes.   He personally did not believe black holes were possible because he did not think God would construct a Universe like that.      Others thought him wrong about that and started looking for black holes in space.   We have yet to observe one directly but theoretical models support their existence and not only are they common, but they are believed to be a necessary part of the formation of spiral galaxies.   Hawking and others have spent their professional lives explaining  how black holes work.    A supermassive black hole is thought to be at the center of every spiral galaxy.    We have all kinds of accepted indirect evidence of their existence.    Rapidly moving stars moving around some massive unseen object in the center or our and other spiral galaxies.  Hardly a week goes by without discovery of another black hole someplace. 

 

  Massive unseen objects pretty much describe BF too. And if Meldrum is partially right, he will point it out.   He will also point out how his footprint research predicted the physical nature of sasquatch feet when one is available to examine.    Just as every other scientist who has advocated a model, and been found to be correct, he will let us know and have the glee in pointing that out to his now skeptical colleagues.       That is how science works.    It is about advancing theories, trying to prove them valid,  and celebrating when they are accepted. 

 

 

Putting aside the comparisons of Einstein and Meldrum, you're talking around my point and not addressing it.

 

Meldrum's 3D-printed skeleton is an attempt to attract media attention. He has not presented it for scrutiny through any legitimate scientific venue that I know of as a theoretical physicist would. He went straight for TV as he always does. Calling his creation a "hypothesis" in the scientific sense is a mistake because (1) it is not falsifiable, (2) he has not articulated any hypothesis to accompany his model through any legitimate venue, and (3) if it were testable, it would immediately be proven inaccurate in comparison to an actual BF skeleton. Sure, there might be some similarities, but so what? It's a big skeleton, obviously a BF would have a big skeleton. About the only true hypothetical statement you could take away, since he's not really offering one, is that he predicts BF, if discovered, has a skeleton, which is not exactly a groundbreaking thought. If he has a hypothesis he should articulate that hypothesis and test it, and then present the methods that he used to do so and the following results in a formal manner. THAT'S HOW SCIENCE IS DONE. He did not do that. Again, straight to the TV.

 

When you say science is about "advancing theories" you're correct. What Meldrum has done here does absolutely nothing to that end, in my opinion.

Edited February 10, 2016 by See-Te-Cah NC
GG 2, 3, & 4

[Guest DWA]

 

DWA, I don't see that small crest on his model like you show on that replica of a 1.75 million year old skull.  And even it he did put that really small crest on his skeletal model it wouldn't come close to representing the appearance of saquatches.

 

 

 

I respect Dr. Meldrum and the sacrifice he's endured in his career to be the rare Anthropologist to publicly acknowledge sasquatches, but I have to ask him, as an anthropologist that says he used the Patterson/Gimlin film as one of his sources for his skeleton, "What happened?"  

I think that, were Meldrum asked that question directly, here's how he'd respond:

 

Male gorilla skull:

http://www.boneroom.com/uploads/4/8/1/1/48118243/s521972503441136676_p1274_i1_w744.jpeg

 

Male gorilla head:

http://thumb9.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1151342/153248792/stock-photo-a-gorilla-male-silverback-leader-of-monkey-family-is-eating-banana-menacing-look-of-the-great-153248792.jpg

 

Sizable difference...which isn't unreasonable to expect with Patty.

[BigTreeWalker]

Definition:

hy·poth·e·sis

hīˈpäTHəsəs/

noun

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

"professional astronomers attacked him for popularizing an unconfirmed hypothesis"

synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, assumption.

It has nothing to do with how it is presented. That little statement in the middle of the definition is exactly what is being done here. Meldrum may get flak for it but it is still a hypothesis. It will stand as such until proven otherwise. The idea that BF will never be proven is also a hypothesis. To be determined at a later date.

[SWWASAS]

Putting aside the comparisons of Einstein and Meldrum, you're talking around my point and not addressing it.

 

Meldrum's 3D-printed skeleton is an attempt to attract media attention. He has not presented it for scrutiny through any legitimate scientific venue that I know of as a theoretical physicist would. He went straight for TV as he always does. Calling his creation a "hypothesis" in the scientific sense is a mistake because (1) it is not falsifiable, (2) he has not articulated any hypothesis to accompany his model through any legitimate venue, and (3) if it were testable, it would immediately be proven inaccurate in comparison to an actual BF skeleton. Sure, there might be some similarities, but so what? It's a big skeleton, obviously a BF would have a big skeleton. About the only true hypothetical statement you could take away, since he's not really offering one, is that he predicts BF, if discovered, has a skeleton, which is not exactly a groundbreaking thought. If he has a hypothesis he should articulate that hypothesis and test it, and then present the methods that he used to do so and the following results in a formal manner. THAT'S HOW SCIENCE IS DONE. He did not do that. Again, straight to the TV.

 

When you say science is about "advancing theories" you're correct. What Meldrum has done here does absolutely nothing to that end, in my opinion.

"Meldrum went straight to the TV as he has aways done"? I have seen Meldrum give a number of presentations and none were on TV. He does a better job of keeping his conference presentations current and full of new science than anyone I know. New scientific findings about man and his ancestors are always part of it. Like it or not something like the Sasquatch Summit is a special interest science conference even though the audience is not full of PHD's. But during many of them, there are a number of PHD's in attendance, and probably more than many realize. That is not even addressing the number of scientific papers and books Meldrum has written on the topic. So books, talks, TV specials by Sagan and Hawking are somehow credible but Meldrum using the same media is to be discounted? Why because you personally do not believe in the topic? That would seem to be either ignorance about Meldrum or personal bias.

Edited February 10, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest DWA]

Nothing Sagan nor Hawking as done is purer straight science than Meldrum is doing, and anyone not knowing that simply isn't up on this topic.

[FarArcher]

I think Meldrum made the best guess he could, and has some pretty good data points to base his model on.

 

I note that the model of the Gigantopithecus has not had a problem getting scientific support - and all they have on those is partial jaws and teeth.  Or how Neanderthal looks with skin and hair on.  I do note that most supposed ancestors are usually portrayed to display more human characteristics - and I wonder why that is?

 

Will be interesting when one is taken, to find out how close he came.

Edited February 11, 2016 by FarArcher

[SWWASAS]

I think Meldrum made the best guess he could, and has some pretty good data points to base his model on.

 

I note that the model of the Gigantopithecus has not had a problem getting scientific support - and all they have on those is partial jaws and teeth.  Or how Neanderthal looks with skin and hair on.  I do note that most supposed ancestors are usually portrayed to display more human characteristics - and I wonder why that is?

 

Will be interesting when one is taken, to find out how close he came.

They display modern human characteristics because the forensic modelers that reconstruct faces out of clay over skulls for criminal investigations do that for modern humans with criminal investigations. With a non modern human skull they end up with something probably looking more modern than it should. From work they have done to identify humans from the skull they do a pretty good job getting the face right. I would imagine some are more talented than others since it is a combination of art and science.

Edited February 11, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

I think Meldrum made the best guess he could, and has some pretty good data points to base his model on.

 

I note that the model of the Gigantopithecus has not had a problem getting scientific support - and all they have on those is partial jaws and teeth.  Or how Neanderthal looks with skin and hair on.  I do note that most supposed ancestors are usually portrayed to display more human characteristics - and I wonder why that is?

 

Will be interesting when one is taken, to find out how close he came.

Dr. Meldrum's comparison

A Neanderthal that interbred with Sapiens but did not merge with the gene pool (absorbed) would have taken away some Sapien characteristics from the encounter such as lack of a hairy coat, etc.

This isn't relevant in the Patty example but that there are Homo relatives that may look somewhat more like us than the fossil record and may still be around and even more capable of interbreeding or merging with a modern Sapiens population.

Gigantopithicus looks to be too primitive if you look at the massive narrow V shape, I think it would have given Patty a much sharper narrower chin.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[SWWASAS]

 

 

I think Meldrum made the best guess he could, and has some pretty good data points to base his model on.

 

I note that the model of the Gigantopithecus has not had a problem getting scientific support - and all they have on those is partial jaws and teeth.  Or how Neanderthal looks with skin and hair on.  I do note that most supposed ancestors are usually portrayed to display more human characteristics - and I wonder why that is?

 

Will be interesting when one is taken, to find out how close he came.

Dr. Meldrum's comparison

 

A Neanderthal that interbred with Sapiens but did not merge with the gene pool (absorbed) would have taken away some Sapien characteristics from the encounter such as lack of a hairy coat, etc.

This isn't relevant in the Patty example but that there are Homo relatives that may look somewhat more like us than the fossil record and may still be around and even more capable of interbreeding or merging with a modern Sapiens population.

Gigantopithicus looks to be too primitive if you look at the massive narrow V shape, I think it would have given Patty a much sharper narrower chin.

 

Your statement would only apply to Sapien females to take away anything from an encounter with Neanderthal.    That would do nothing for the Neanderthal line.    Somehow I don't think the more robust Neanderthal female would allow conquest by a scrawny Homo Sapien male.   She would probably kill him if he tried.   Perhaps that factor alone is why the Neanderthal line died out.   They lost their genetic diversity at a time when Sapiens were gaining genetic diversity.   Who knows without a time machine.