Carrying the Scientific Torch

[Big Stinky]

Is there anyone in the science field academia or otherwise that will be carry on the torch from Dr. Meldrum ? We all know he is probably one of the few spokespersons in this field that combines a strong relatable technical background with a determined interest.

Who or whom is next in line  ?

 

Stinky

 

 

[hiflier]

That's going to take some serious looking around. Nothing says that there aren't other PhD's who look at this subject seriously but that do not want to be in the public eye. Or even in mainstream academia's eye. And then there's this memorandum from March, 2009 (my underlining): https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/scientificintegrity/upload/Presidential-Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09.pdf

 

"(d) Except for information that is properly restricted from disclosure under procedures established in accordance with statute, regulation, Executive Order, or Presidential Memorandum, each agency should make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied on in policy decisions;

 

(e) Each agency should have in place procedures to identify and address instances in which the scientific process or the integrity of scientific and technological information may be compromised; and

 

(f) Each agency should adopt such additional procedures, including any appropriate whistleblower protections, as are necessary to ensure the integrity of scientific and technological information and processes on which the agency relies in its decisionmaking or otherwise uses or prepares."

 

Basically the memorandum is saying that there are policies and procedures governing "information that is properly restricted" and that there are safeguards in place for whistleblowers who report unauthorized investigations that could lead to the release of restricted information. Essentially it is say that scientists should police themselves and inform on other scientists involved in things outside of the accepted norms. I think it's why we don't get more of academia publicly discussing or delving (at least publicly) into the Sasquatch issue. Although there's no mention of the punishment for doing so? I also think it's why many of my emails go unanswered. I know it seems like I am making excuses for myself as well as academia but sometimes I cannot help but wonder.....

Edited October 18, 2019 by hiflier

[Arvedis]

Unlikely. There is young man on this forum, I forget his alias, a anthropology PhD candidate perhaps? He means well and has sincere interest but anyone attempting to bring BF research into mainstream academics will get slammed. It's a career killer. Even the people in labs have to be careful. The only reason Disotell participated was to shoot everything down. He never had any scientific interest in helping BF research. The fellow from U of Minnesota got a taking to after snelgrove for using lab resources (everything costs money of course). Sykes has some leeway because he is kind of a retiree at Oxford with a long history of making valid contributions. BF is a retirement focus for him.

 

There is only one reason Meldrum has lasted as long as he has. It's because of LDS support within his University. It's not uniform. He has plenty of detractors and has not been a smooth ride for him but he never would have been able to carry on a career in BF study at another University.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Arvedis

[MIB]

6 hours ago, hiflier said:

Basically the memorandum is saying

 

I read it exactly the opposite.    It would seem ... to me ... to say that unless scientific information is specifically, and properly, restricted, the public has a right to it (as a means of guaranteeing scientific integrity?) and anyone (whistleblower) disclosing information that is restricted IMPROPERLY is legally protected under that order.    In other words, I see a cup half full, not a cup half empty.

 

The question becomes what constitutes specific and proper restriction.   Such information would have to be acknowledged in some way so that it could then be declared restricted.   

 

That means unless bigfoot information has been specifically declared restricted by someone in some office with authority to do so, anyone with access to it is free to distribute that information.    Then to followup question is whether the very fact that something is restricted is itself restricted.  

 

IMHO ... as I read it ...

 

MIB

[hiflier]

I can certainly understand your interpretation and have no issues with it  

 

47 minutes ago, MIB said:

The question becomes what constitutes specific and proper restriction

 

Or to get even pickier, what does the word "proper" mean in that context? Legal? Or whatever Someone in the DOI says? As you say, what denotes a restriction as being proper. Who makes that determination? And would that apply to working officially on the Bigfoot problem?

 

I have to ask these questions because of news articles I have read recently regarding people that have crossed illegally into the US from Canada. Such as the 19 year old jogger visiting White Rock BC from France. And having mobile Border Patrol checkpoints set up as much as 100 miles from the US/Canada border. And that couple recently that entered US territory on a remote road allegedly avoiding an animal. It makes me wonder what if anything that such tight surveillance "sees", outside of Humans, that freely wanders back and forth across that shared border. And would that knowledge fall under the heading of "proper restriction"?

 

It's always these kinds of factors that I keep floating in my brain when I read or research something. There's just sooo much to consider in the bigger picture than simply a Bigfoot sighting. Hearing of one is only the tip of the iceberg of the many things to consider in the aftermath of a reported encounter. Especially if it occurred somewhere within 100 miles of that border. If one believes, or KNOWS, that Sasquatch exists then factors like this make for a very serious situation with regards to who know about it's existence.

 

(P.S. I am now writing the sequel to my recent novel, The Tale of Six Rivers, and these border patrol dynamics are included in that sequel.)

Edited October 19, 2019 by hiflier

[georgerm]

Here are three academics that can easily step into a university position with an emphasis in Sasquatch. In my opinion more and more evidence is mounting in bigfootery and universities may eventually welcome more PHDs in this area of zoology. Oh, Jane Goodall is coming around too.

 

Esteban Sarmiento is a primatologist and biologist. He is noted for his work in primate anthropology and for appearing on the Monster Quest television series.

Biography[edit]

Sarmiento earned a biological anthropology Ph.D. in 1985 and from then until at least 2008 he worked as a research associate at the American Museum of Natural History. His main field of study is the skeletons of hominoids,^[1] including both extinct ^[2][3] and living species.^[4][5] From 2002 to 2004 he was a Fulbright scholar teaching physiology at Eduardo Mondlane University in Mozambique.^{[citation needed]}

Presently,^[specify] he heads The Human Evolution Foundation whose main goal is to understand humanity's place in nature, and fight to end to racial discrimination at Public Universities.^{[citation needed]}

Sarmiento is one of the few mainstream experts to give serious attention to cryptozoology, particularly reports of Bigfoot. Sarmiento does not suggest that the existence of Bigfoot has been established, but that its existence is possible and that claims and evidence deserve careful scrutiny. He has stated, "If the animal in the P&G film [Bigfoot] is real, this animal is exceedingly human-like...t would be our closest relative on earth.”^[6] He has appeared on several episodes of the History Channel series Monster Quest discussing Bigfoot and other "cryptids."

 

Marc Edward Wolfgang Miller (born in Lancaster, Ohio) is an American doctor of neuropsychology, explorer, and author. Dr Miller was chief of neuropsychology at Good Samaritan Hospital^[which?] for 25 years and is currently in private practice. He has led over 30 expeditions around the world in search of rare or extinct animals with his friend Bill Cacciolfi. Jack Hanna once said that "Marc is an adventurer in the true sense of the word and among the great explorers of our times."^{[citation needed]}

 

 

 

Early life[edit]

Coleman was born in Norfolk, Virginia, grew up in Decatur, Illinois and graduated in 1965 from MacArthur High School.^[2] He studied anthropology and zoology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale,^[3] and psychiatric social work at the Simmons College School of Social Work in Boston. He did further studies in doctoral-level anthropology at Brandeis University and sociology at the University of New Hampshire. Coleman taught at New England universities^[which?] from 1980 to 2004, having also been a senior researcher at the Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Policy from 1983 to 1996,^{[citation needed]} before retiring from teaching to write, lecture, and consult.

[Arvedis]

I don't know about anyone else but if I was an academic, there's nothing more flattering than a crackpot volunteering me for Bigfoot research and posting my academic credentials without regard for professional decorum. 

 

A hint here since some people don't get it. People like to try to retain control of their privacy on the internet. That applies to randomly copy and pasted drivel from random sites. Just link to attempt to make your point. Don't abuse other people's written property.