Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) ^That looks like it could be someones grandpa. Or a human that was somehow aped up. Edited June 19, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 The hypothetical description of bigfoot (sorry Mulder, this has not actually happened as of 18 June 2012) http://www.floridabigfoot.com/wp-content/27-MeldrumNAHominoid.pdf will be a scenario like the saola, not like the cancer research example. There's no such thing as "getting closer" to proving bigfoot, there's only proving bigfoot and not proving bigfoot. Again, only in your blindered, binary, yes/no world, which is the living embodiment of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Each of the criminal convictions eventually reversed by DNA was a case 'proven' beyond a reasonable doubt And? Are you subscribing to Sas' binary yes/no worldview where any case short of 100%+ certitude is a losing case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GreatBIGFoot Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 In response to whether she's been bothered by the media: "There has been a lot of producers, etc., but I have turned them all down. There have also been a handful of media but I am not giving interviews. I am SO glad that they are mostly leaving me alone!!!! All eyes are on Oxford since they jumped out with a press release...SO glad they did, let them deal with the media!!!" https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/457633610915427?comment_id=5881245&offset=0&total_comments=1 In response to whether she's been to the Kentucky site (to see the Erickson bigfoots): "No, not there." https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/457384297607025?comment_id=5879061&offset=0&total_comments=4 How are getting to her FB page? The links don't work for me. Is her page back up now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 ^That looks like it could be someones grandpa. Or a human that was somehow aped up. Yep, and his teen aged grandson would look a lot more human than the old man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 How would you go about determining what species this is? It's hypothetical, but it's a start on the description. The same way you'd go about determining what species this is. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Care to contribute substantively to the conversation there, Ray? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 SY, if I had that thing on my slab, I'd take copious measurements and photos, and I'd publish those with my new proposed name. This would be purely descriptive work: no actual science necessary. Milder, your failure to understand biosystematics is not my problem, though it is funny to picture you angrily tapping your keyboard as you try to renounce something innocuous I've written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 How would you know it wasn't an extant living neanderthal, already named and cataloged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 How are getting to her FB page? The links don't work for me. Is her page back up now? She had a page for DNA Diagnostics, where Sally Ramey answered lots of questions, which is down, and a personal page, which is up and running as ever. https://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum?ref=ts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 How would you know it wasn't an extant living neanderthal, already named and cataloged? If it's a bigfoot then its dimensions will differ significantly from those of described hominins - unless all those alleged eyewitnesses out there have been wrong all these years. If its dimensions overlap those of some other species then making the case for it to be a new species will require additional analysis. Even that analysis, however, needn't be scientific. It could be purely descriptive as well. The point is not that one couldn't do science with a new species - people do all the time. The point is that the description of a new species does not need to invoke the process of science: it could be purely descriptive. The role of science in "getting us closer" to discovering new species is relevant for a discussion of cryptic species - not cryptids - cryptic species. This refers to species that cannot be distinguished morphologically, but differ enough in their genetic make-up that separate species status is warranted. We lacked the ability to identify many of these species before we had used science to develop the technology to compare DNA. In that respect, advances in molecular biology over the last 2-3 decades have moved us closer to identifying new species. Today, those techniques are fully operative, and there's nothing inherently more scientific about using those techniques today than there would have been in using calipers and an accurate scale in the 18th Century. Thus, I see no middle ground in work like Ketchum's. Her analysis will prove there are bigfoots or it won't. This is not a knock against Ketchum or her analysis. It is what it is. A Higgs Boson is something we can get closer to discovering using science. A bigfoot is something we can discover with no application of science at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think Dr Meldrum has been applying science just fine, despite the arm chair pseudo science critics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think Dr Meldrum has been applying science just fine, despite the arm chair pseudo science critics. Has he accepted that the dermal ridges on his hoaxed tracks are really just casting artifacts? Or does he still maintain those are actual markings left by the foot of an undocumented, giant, hairy bipedal creature? http://www.floridabi...mNAHominoid.pdf Saskeptic asks for a description of a biological creature known as Bigfoot, and you provide a link to a paper describing the footprint of a creature, which is based on assumptions that a widely known-to-be-hoaxed film is real. Are you for realing us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think he is more than qualified to look and decide what is dermal ridges, and what is casting artifacts. Are you more qualified than him Drew? What do you base your "qualified" opinion on? Are you for realing us Drew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) What do I base my opinion on? Reality. Reproducible experiment showing that plaster casting creates artifacts which resemble some lines in a plaster footprint, which are claimed to be from a beast no one can lay a finger on. You don't have to be a scientist in any field to see the obvious problem here. How is he qualified to know what a Giant Unclassified Hairy Bipedal Beast's footprints look like? Has he ever seen the foot of one? Edited June 19, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) D. Jeffrey Meldrum (born 1958) is an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State University. Meldrum is also Adjunct Professor of Occupational and Physical Therapy and Affiliate Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Idaho Museum of Natural History. Meldrum is an expert on foot morphology and locomotion in primates Now please state your credentials Drew, and explain to me how your qualified enough to even thoroughly understand your position, let alone intelligently debate Dr Meldrum on it. Edited June 19, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts