Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 So if another physical anthropologist analyzed Meldrum's dataset and concluded that it represented a collection of hoaxed prints, you'd be respectful of that conclusion? What if five anthropologists did the same thing and all concluded that the data was evidence of nothing more than hoaxed prints. Would you be prepared to consider that Meldrum might be wrong? If the conditions I named were met, I would consider at least an open argument on the matter. Why do you think you get to define words yourself? New words and new shadings of words come into existance all the time. Nothing wrong with that. From Dictionary.com: skeptic - "a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual."According to the actual definition of the word, me and all my evil buddies , are just plain old, lowercase skeptics. Untrue. You go beyond simply "questioning" to making outright statements to the effect of "no evidence", "evidence is hoaxed/mistaken/etc". You go beyond the intent and implication of simple skepticism and raise doubting to an idiology all its own. Huh? Are you next going to ask me next if I've stopped beating my wife? If people are out there and collecting what they presume to be bigfoot evidence then I'm happy for them, though I wasn't aware that such folks were looking for my applause. Why would I have any objection to people looking for bigfoot, especially if they're doing so using proven methods in field biology? Then you should accept the findings of people like Tom Moore, who had identified unknown primate hairs morphologically all the way back in the 70s. Sure, but hair morphology in an of itself is far less reliable than DNA. True, but valid in and of itself. The "bigfoot is modern human" trope has many advantages for proponents. Not only can one find proof of bigfoot on every cigarette butt and crushed paper cup, one can be sure that such evidence also exists in many if not all museums, literally right under the noses of those lazy good for nothing denialist scientists. All that is needed is an image makeover. . you thought you knew which one was the bigfoot....Not so fast... Meldrum may not be happy, but everyone else will be. AAANNND another hayfield vanishes to construct yet another straw man army...
Guest parnassus Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 regarding the dbdonlon post, I have also seen it said that the sleeping Matilda image was taken in 2005 by the previous owner/occupant of the land.
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Then you should accept the findings of people like Tom Moore, who had identified unknown primate hairs morphologically all the way back in the 70s. I'm unaware of this research. Could you please provide a reference to the paper Moore published on this research? I just tried and couldn't track anything down in Google Scholar.
Guest mitchw Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Here's some wild speculation, courtesy of moi. There is a 50% chance that tomorrow will be the release date for the Ketchum Paper. Here's how; We have heard the report would come out in February, Nature Journal may have the paper, and publishes on thursday, there are only two thursdays left in February. This is only speculation for entertainment purposes. Please, no wagering.
Guest Cervelo Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Mulder, Please direct me to the unknown primate/DNA study you are referencing.
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Here's some wild speculation, courtesy of moi. There is a 50% chance that tomorrow will be the release date for the Ketchum Paper. Here's how; We have heard the report would come out in February, Nature Journal may have the paper, and publishes on thursday, there are only two thursdays left in February. This is only speculation for entertainment purposes. Please, no wagering. sounds like a stated fact to me
Guest slimwitless Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Here's some wild speculation, courtesy of moi. There is a 50% chance that tomorrow will be the release date for the Ketchum Paper. Here's how; We have heard the report would come out in February, Nature Journal may have the paper, and publishes on thursday, there are only two thursdays left in February. This is only speculation for entertainment purposes. Please, no wagering. Someone well-known in the BF world (as far as these things go) told me the journal is a closely guarded secret but he was expecting the study to be released on a Thursday. There are probably other journals that qualify but Nature definitely fits the bill. It's also possible he was pulling my chain. Anyway, that would go against all the rumors floating around and as well as what Ketchum wrote in November. When she said the paper "is not at the Nature Group", I'm sure it was true...at the time. I agree with Mitch. This is purely for entertainment purposes.
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 regarding the dbdonlon post, I have also seen it said that the sleeping Matilda image was taken in 2005 by the previous owner/occupant of the land. The sleeping Matilda is a frame from the video.
bipedalist Posted February 15, 2012 BFF Patron Posted February 15, 2012 Not holding my breath for a Thursday release in Feb.
Guest slimwitless Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 March 1st is practically in February.
Guest Jodie Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Can we create a fluke computer glitch set to attack this thread on March 1st where it will just suddenly disappear into cyberspace when nothing happens?
indiefoot Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 I'm unaware of this research. Could you please provide a reference to the paper Moore published on this research? I just tried and couldn't track anything down in Google Scholar. Needing to see a published report before we comment on someones findings seems a tad ironic in this thread.
Guest slimwitless Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 It sure beats waiting around for evidence of superluminal neutrinos.
Guest RayG Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 Could you please provide a reference to the paper Moore published on this research? I just tried and couldn't track anything down in Google Scholar. Hey, no cutting in line!!! I'm still waiting for Mulder's source that supports his 'an animal could be Homo Sapiens and NOT be human' claim. RayG
Guest Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 this is getting scary in here with the predictions and rumors about Melba's paper, If something doesn't pop up soon, were going to start calling here Blossom Goodchild.
Recommended Posts