indiefoot Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Mulder, those logical fallacies I pointed out were neither unsupported claims nor BS. A logical fallacy s simply an error in reasoning, and I pointed out the specific fallacies being used. I can provide links if you need them, but most people can easily find the explanations using Google. I realize your frustration at the reluctance to accept Dr. Meldrum or any other scientist as a bigfoot expert, but I have yet to hear of any of them examining an actual bigfoot to confirm their assertions. I would welcome any source you can provide that would show otherwise. Don't lose hope, there are any number of scientists whose work was initially questioned or considered unacceptable. Alfred Wegener is probably the poster child for a hypothesis (continental drift) that was ignored or ridiculed for years, but eventually became accepted by mainstream science. I suspect it was accepted because of the scientific data that was gathered and confirmed, not because of appeals to emotion. RayG I stand behind the principle i was pointing out and concede that "cherry picking" might have been a better way to point it out. If qualified experts have conducted the search then are they qualified to have come to the conclusions they did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Those people (I won't call them "experts") might be fully qualified to come to the conclusions they did, but that doesn't mean that those conclusions are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Continuing the "sidebar" for a moment: I think he's more right than you are on this point. The concept of the "evolutionary pyramid" or "ladder" is how I was taught basic evolutionary theory in high school. And (up until the last part of the 20th century at least) Western science did indeed (and some Western scientists still do) operate from a highly humano-centric moral perspective. You can see a hint of it even in this very forum in the continued calls for a "slab monkey" to serve as a "type speciemen", implying that it is not only morally correct, but morally required to kill a living thing in order to "document" it's existance. And before you get all huffy about "non lethal" documentation (blood analyses, etc) as we now do with other animals, I suggest you re-read this thread and see just how many times it's been implied that w/o the "type specimen" for the DNA profile to be compared with that the Ketchum study will not suffice as proof of BF. Well, it won't prove "Bigfoot" if the DNA comes back unknown primate. Just as "unknown canid" wouldn't prove the chupacabra. All it can do is give science evidence that there is something out there. It could also possibly give us the information to plot said unknown animal on the map of hominid development. But as far as "proving" Bigfoot. It will take a type specimen. Maybe not a body, but a bone that matches the DNA would suffice. Regardless of how you were taught evolution, my above model (albit very simplistically) describes evolution pretty well. Scientists don't think of evolution as some race to be won. But as a tree that expands exponentially as different animals come and go. The concept he expressed that scientists would reject good Bigfoot evidence due to ego is silly, insulting and untrue. Would there be a few individuals who feel that way? probably, there are jerks in all walks of life, but science as an entity would be very interested in a quality peer reviewed paper that had all it's work done properly. In fact, I think it would be lauded by the greater science community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 But Sas, you wanted to point out these men's efforts as being sufficient to satisfy whether BF are out there. Wasn't that how this started? Those men's conclusions are apparently enough to continue the search at an ever increasing level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 This may be a stupid question and if it is I'm sorry, but what is the difference of sapien vs sapien sapien? And was Cro Magnon sapien or ss? Where in the time line did sapien come in, as to where ss came in? This might help dudeman. But Sas, you wanted to point out these men's efforts as being sufficient to satisfy whether BF are out there. Wasn't that how this started? Those men's conclusions are apparently enough to continue the search at an ever increasing level. I'm not sure what you mean. I occasionally point to the work of Krantz, Meldrum, etc., to counter the unfounded notion that real scientists refuse to engage in bigfoot research. That old chestnut is demonstrably false, as Ray most recently pointed out in this thread. Real scientists really do engage the bigfoot phenomenon. The majority of us consider the evidence and conclude that it's unreliable and incongruent with a population of a real animal. Some of us, however, consider that same evidence and conclude that it does come from a population of a real animal. I'm one of the former; Meldrum and Krantz are the latter. In my opinion, their conclusions are not supported by the evidence. But that doesn't make them incompetent, it merely makes them wrong about this. So it's not an either/or dichotomy of competence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 So true Saskeptic. It's not like those guys who thought Einstein was wrong about relativity had to hang up their physics coats and go sell insurance ! Scientists are wrong quite a bit!!! You make an error, or your hypothesis proves incorrect, or your perception of what was taking place was skewed or based on incorrect data. You suck it up, admit your mistake and learn from it. I would be bold enough to say that most science is born from ideas that were initially incorrect at some point!! Being wrong and being competent are not even remotely related to each other. (nor is the reverse true either) One can be a poor scientists and be right every once in a while, just as one can be brilliant and be wrong often! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 This may be a stupid question and if it is I'm sorry, but what is the difference of sapien vs sapien sapien? And was Cro Magnon sapien or ss? Where in the time line did sapien come in, as to where ss came in? I think Cro Magnon was Sapien, we evolved from that to be sapien sapien. People with a european decent apparently picked up some Neanderthal genetics along the way, though they dropped the Neanderthal maternal lineage and retained about 4% of their nuclear genetic makeup. That's what science says at this point, but we only have a few Neanderthal genomes to compare to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 So I guess we have to make do with a Phd primate locomotion specialist that can't tell the difference from a wooden stomper footprint and a real footprint. I mean this is Bigfoot, what more should we expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 So I guess we have to make do with a Phd primate locomotion specialist that can't tell the difference from a wooden stomper footprint and a real footprint. I mean this is Bigfoot, what more should we expect. Would you care to back up your claims of that assertion ? Meldrum speaks very clearly about this in Legend Meets Science. So true Saskeptic. It's not like those guys who thought Einstein was wrong about relativity had to hang up their physics coats and go sell insurance ! Scientists are wrong quite a bit!!! This holds true in all technical disciplines. Most of the time people are wrong more than they are right. But all the wrongs eventually let you figure out the right. When we figured out how to land on the moon nobody wrote articles about the years and time they spent being wrong about how to go about doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudeman Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 So the way I take it. Cro Magnon was the first homo sapien sapien even though they were more robust and had a larger brain cavity. That would put the split at 35k yrs or so. If sapiens continued on the robust size after the split. 35k yrs of evolution could generate a large hairy biped. And the metarsal break would be needed to support the additional weight. At least how I understand it. The only thing is the skunk ape I saw wasn't human like, it was way more apeish.(although I didn't see the face, but anatomically it looked more like an oversized orangutan) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 rockiessquatching, I was being facetious, sorry for the misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudeman Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Researching more i came about homo sapiens idaltu. Dated at about 160k yrs. maybe the bf are decended from this sub species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Since this topic has skewed so far, I'd like to ask how things would change if Meldrum came forward as a witness to a Class A encounter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 Yeah, I saw his bio. there with Bobbie Short's and thought, this guy is IN. I've talked to him on the phone, Great guy, and I think you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudeman Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 also noted the idaltu skulls are larger than modern humans and coincide with the legend of giants. http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_sap.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts