indiefoot Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 WTB1, You can't have it both ways, either Krantz and Meldrum are competent or they are incompetent. If they are competent investigators, then they are competent at drawing conclusions based on those investigations. At this time the only viable conclusion for those who haven't seen the evidence firsthand in the field is "I don't know". If you have seen one of these creatures then you can assume they are real, yet be befuddled by their ability to go undiscovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 without the collection of so much as a single molar gives me zero confidence that real bigfoots explain those accounts. That's an absence of evidence that has convinced me that it's evidence of absence. This is a good point. You do realize though that there was no fossil record of Chimpanzee's until 2005. I thoroughly reject any notion that the reason we haven't collected a bigfoot is because no one is looking for it. Outside of them (Meldrum, Bindernagel, Krantz] name one internationally accredited scientific organization that has performed any sort of seriously funded research into the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Why discount 3 scientists? But OK, how about Melba Ketchum? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Two different things sure. But that in no way absolves the BF phenomenon from the exact same logic. It still applies. Since qualified investigators from Krants to Meldrum have not "discovered" BF proof, let alone hundreds plus 'unqualified' investigators, leads to the simple conclusion that BF does not exist. At least I presume or assume they don't, and that's perfectly reasonable...........until there is sufficient proof. I'm new to the forum. I don't go squatching. The most outdoorsiest things that I do are tailgating and golf. I don't know if there is a sasquatch or not. But I have question regarding the above line of thinking (not you personally) - if there isn't any proof, then what are all of these people who claim 1st hand accounts seeing? I guess what I want to know is, is there a reasonable explanation why so many people would "make up" such stories. And I'm not talking about the stories where people claim to have heard something from a distance or out of the corner of their eye - I'm talking straight up walked up to a creature by accident and ran away scared, because they could not identify it. Is it all a giant hoax? Is that the logical step, if there is no "proof?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Saskeptic, I think you demean the enormity of the task those gentlemen have undertaken. Did they draw your conclusion at their lack of finding the proof you require? You can't on the one hand call them fools and then say their efforts should be sufficient, you can't have it both ways. If you think every conclusion they haver drawn is silly, then it must follow that they are bumbling about the wilderness like Larry, Moe, and Curly Joe. People find Bigfoot everyday. Not very many of them are motivated or prepared to wrestle one to your doorstep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 3) There is no good evidence because ALL evidence is a hoax because hoaxing has been done before -> Translates to: All evidence is therefore fake. Perhaps a better argument might be... "Maybe the evidence is lacking because nobody has any idea what sort of evidence we should be looking for. Maybe we should start by determining what can be categorized as possible evidence." Now we get into where you will have cynics (not skeptics) that will immediately start discounting everything they can so that nothing will be permitted into the category of evidence (ie: see #3 for example). That's where the biggest problem is with skeptics and cynics alike, if there is a discrepancy in any part of the evidence, or the events leading up to collecting the evidence, or the details of an eye witness account, and there is any chance that it could be hoaxed, then it is used like a hammer to pound away as for the reason that it is a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Oh they are/were competent. I don't see the quandry here. They have not been able to prove BF exists. I don't know works too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Supposing the undiscovered exists in a way that defies our cataloging methodology, its discovery will require a paradigm shift. When confronted with discordant data, a choice between the data and the existing paradigm must be made by each individual. The argument on behalf of the paradigm is a strong one, yet we must observe that paradigms fail regardless of the strength of the arguments in their favor. To this point, science has largely continued the 19th century attitude that demystified the natural world as a place devoid of any creature that can stare back at man as his equal, and this attitude has served science well. We have rooms full of stuffed creatures staring back at us with fixed, terrified expressions as a result. Now we are confronted with the possibility of a creature that commands not only similar dignity, such as dolphins or elephants or even chimpanzees, but a creature that may command equal dignity vis-a-vis Homo sapiens sapiens. And the documentation of such a creature presents both logistical and ethical difficulties to the prevailing paradigm. Indeed it will shatter the bedrock of modern science, that man stands alone atop the zoological pyramid, that all before us is mere chattel. BF, should he exist, refutes this ancient claim to the entirety of the natural world. The implications of a discovery are bound to be profound scientifically, but more especially socially. If anyone thinks these implications don't make the redoubts of science grow a little higher and bristle with more artillery against an unwelcome incursion, you are sadly mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Most authorities consider every species within the genus Homo to be human. Right, so when we get results from prospective bigfoot evidence that says "human" the default assumption could be wrong, and fails to rule out a false positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 exnihilo I get what you're saying. Just wanted to see if I can get a clarification from the paradigm as to the reason why so many people are playing a joke on everyone else. As far as the subject being human - it would make total sense to me. The organization required to stay hidden would almost leave no doubt, in my ignorant opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I wonder if Dr. Robert Alley, author of "Raincoast Sasquatch", is a co-author on Ketchum's paper. He's a member of NABS and his bio there indicates he's a retired professor of Anatomy and Physiology. His bio also reveals the following: "He is currently working on the laboratory identification of hair samples, tracks and fingerprints and is part of a large–scale hominid DNA study." Large-scale hominid DNA study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 9, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 9, 2012 Yeah, I saw his bio. there with Bobbie Short's and thought, this guy is IN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Two different things sure. But that in no way absolves the BF phenomenon from the exact same logic. It still applies. Since qualified investigators from Krants to Meldrum have not "discovered" BF proof, let alone hundreds plus 'unqualified' investigators, leads to the simple conclusion that BF does not exist. At least I presume or assume they don't, and that's perfectly reasonable...........until there is sufficient proof. Emphasis Mine I generally stay out of the scientific squabbles in this topic. However, what would a "qualified" investigator be, exactly? Who determines this? If someone you consider to be unqualified were to plop a deceased BF body down on the front steps of the Smithsonian, wouldn't that qualify them? Would this hypothetical scenario, were it to actually occur, be discounted because the individual didn't meet a specific level of qualification, even though the body on the steps would be the evidence science demanded? I'm not trying to take either side in this exchange, yet I don't agree with the wording here. Last I noticed, there were very few actual scientists (I suppose that's what's meant by "qualified") actually investigating BF in the field. We would never be able to find a BF if degreed scientists were the only ones qualified to conduct investigations, as there simply aren't enough of them to cover the ground that hunters, hikers, laypersons and typical citizens do. Now, those same scientists, admittedly, do need to be properly qualified to investigate and examine any evidence that may be presented. However, one's level of qualification isn't as important when investigating something as it is when examining the evidence they've presented. Sorry, but as someone that attempts to gather evidence at every opportunity I just had to make these statements. I promise you that if I find any evidence, I'll certainly be looking for a qualified scientist to examine what I've found. Carry on. This is worth exactly what you paid for it... just an observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) A body is undeniable SeeTac, but a laymen may not follow proper protocol when gathering and preserving other types of evidence. Or they may make assumptions due to enthusiasm that aren't accurate. Example: I watched a Nova episode last night where they discovered Mastadon and other animal bones in the bed of an ancient lake. Thousands of them(bones I mean not thousands of animals), ranging in age and sex yet all killed at a similar time. They were inspecting these fossils hoping to locate the reason so many could've died together and been preserved. They posited many possible theories but not one made a statement of "knowing" what happened. They went back to the lab and tested a few of these and came up with a possible solution,(earthquake causing liquifaction of the substrate and stranding the animals in belly deep sand when it resolidified ) yet this solution ran into problems due to the fact that there was no predation marks. Animals stuck and sand and left to starve over a long time are most likely going to be eaten by predators. This would leave teeth marks. So the show ended with no real reason as yet. They used the scientific method and frankly, they just don't know. I would say an unqualified investgator is MORE likely not to follow the method properly and make assumptive leaps than a studied biologist ...etc would. edited to clarify Edited February 9, 2012 by Wookie73 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted February 9, 2012 Admin Share Posted February 9, 2012 Maybe we should start a Bigfoot Investigator trade school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts