Crittergetter Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 My credentials are: 1. I can read the instructions on the bag of plaster 2. I know how to measure fluids using a measuring cup 3. I have a backyard to do such work in 4. I can see the lines which Meldrum thinks are dermal ridges of a Giant Hairy Beast, form in the casting. What more credentials do I need? You don't need to be a 'Locomotion Expert' to see this, and you don't have to be a 'Cement Specialist' either. Well, for one you might want to be able to examine the same casts. That makes the difference between assuming something to be true and having a reasonable argument for something being true. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that in order to be sure of something you'd have to examine the same casts, and since you aren't an expert, perhaps even a bit of communication with Meldrum about why he considers the casting artifacts to be dermal ridges. Who knows, he may have a valid reason for it that you, not being an expert in primate locomotion, have overlooked. As far as PGF being a fake is concerned, I'm not sure where you are getting your information. I know at least one fellow, perhaps a number, have come out saying that they were the person in the suit, but I'm unaware if Patterson or Gimlin themselves ever said so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Drew, have you taken casts with photographs prior to casting that clearly show no dermal ridges, then take the cast and have artifact dermal ridges? Anything to document this phenomenon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 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? Do you mean has he accepted that the "dermal ridges" on the BMC are casting artifacts? Yes, a long time ago. It also should matter that Dr. Meldrum tends to stand away from the crowd in his circle of colleagues. He doesn't have a lot of other professors agreeing with his findings. How would you know if Meldrum "tends to stand away from the crowd in his circle of colleagues"? Who is in his circle? Do you mean "anthropology" as a whole? He is giving two presentations on bigfoot at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Pacific Division, the last week in June in Boise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Dr. Meldrum himself said that there were very few of his colleagues that agreed with him about bigfoot. He also said that his beliefs and line of research had cost him advancements, as in raises and promotions. Sorry I can't point you to written authentication of this; he said it at the Bigfoot roundup I attended. In other words, he's fairly rogue in his bigfoot research among his colleagues, of yes, anthropologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) I know this isnt a Meldrum thread, but who else, besides me, can see that Meldrum has a big financial and credability stake in bigfoot being real. Same for Ketchum. I am not saying he is fraudulent in any way, but he picked the side to fight on and he has put his credability (and financial gain) on the line. If bigfoot can stay in the relm of legend, good. If bigfoot is proven to exist, great. But if bigfoot is found to not exist then the whole house of cards implodes and the casting artifacts fall where they may. Drew, have you taken casts with photographs prior to casting that clearly show no dermal ridges, then take the cast and have artifact dermal ridges? Anything to document this phenomenon? Thats a good question to ask anyone who has casts that show suspected dermal ridges. I have cast tire tracks and have had ridges show up on the casts so I know its possible. Myself, I have a problem with tracks in dirt or sand showing enough detail to have the "dermal ridges" show up in the casting medium. I know its hard to pull finger prints off material thats rough or course. I have always thought using photos is better than casting tracks. Edited June 19, 2012 by Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Dr. Meldrum himself said that there were very few of his colleagues that agreed with him about bigfoot. He also said that his beliefs and line of research had cost him advancements, as in raises and promotions. Sorry I can't point you to written authentication of this; he said it at the Bigfoot roundup I attended. In other words, he's fairly rogue in his bigfoot research among his colleagues, of yes, anthropologists. Aw...got it. When you used the phase "circle of colleagues" I viewed it as more narrow. My circle of colleagues is much smaller than my disipline colleagues. You were at the Bigfoot Roundup?? Who let you in?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Hasn't anyone ever wondered why there are no two consecutive footprints with matching dermal ridges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 You were at the Bigfoot Roundup?? Who let you in?? Har! I know, I don't seem like the sort that they'd let in. But they vetted me reasonably well, and I am a really nice guy. I was extremely polite to the guy sitting next to me that swore he has constant sightings at his own house, and that he has actually sat next to them and reached out and touched them! I spent a lot of money on books and souvenirs, have some cool footprint casts, some great photos, some great memories, and got along extremely well with everyone. I haven't stabbed anyone in the back after going, so it wasn't a bum deal for them. In fact, it was a really great time, I'd do it again in a heartbeat, and would recommend that everyone try to attend one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 So how do you feel about all those other credentialed zoologists and anthropologists who think the evidence says BF does NOT exist? Are their credentials meaningless? Yes they are seen as meaningless by several individuals here everyday. If credentials really meant something to these people, then I should receive the same deference from them that Meldrum does: Meldrum and I are both tenured faculty at US research universities. Why do my words not carry the same weight as Jeff's? Well, they'll tell you first that I'm a "birdwatcher", so I'm not actually credentialed when it comes to bigfoot. Then they'll tell you that I haven't published any papers on bigfoot, etc. What they won't tell you is that, unlike Meldrum, I haven't been fooled into thinking casts of known hoaxed footprints came from real bigfoot foots. In other words, because Meldrum makes public statements supporting their pet beliefs, it's perfectly okay to commit the argument from authority fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Hasn't anyone ever wondered why there are no two consecutive footprints with matching dermal ridges? Yes! And I also wonder how dermal ridges could be imprinted in, and then casts taken from, such rugged soils. I would be interested to see if there are any ape casts taken in the wild that also have dermal ridges. Watching Jimmy Chilicutt on LMS, he shows prints taken form various apes in the traditional manner, ink on paper, and compares them to casts of bigfoot prints. I'd like to know if casts of ape feet in soil, and casts of human prints in soil would show dermal ridges. Makes me doubtful, and makes me consider those casting artifacts (dessication?) as more likely causes for dermal ridges. In other words, because Meldrum makes public statements supporting their pet beliefs, it's perfectly okay to commit the argument from authority fallacy. Authority fallacy, I knew there was a term for it. Well said. BTW, I'm a bird watcher too, although not credentialed by any means. Our place is rich with a wide variety of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 It seems to me in this detente that neither side wants to give much credence to professionals who don't agree with their standpoint, so I don't know that it is of much use for either 'camp' to throw about that argument from authority fallacy. Both sides are guilty of it in spades, at least from my limited viewpoint. I find the idea of dermal ridge analysis fascinating, but I haven't done nearly enough reading to make any judgement about it. I do think the questions about casts from soil or sand and the notion of consecutive casts with identical ridges are very good ones, and wonder if they've been addressed in any extant literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think that part of Meldrum's weight on the subject is due largely in part on his hours spent studying the subject. An anthropologist that hasn't put in the time and say, has only briefly scratched the surface of the phenomenon would not carry as much stock as someone who has. Have the anthropologists that are claiming that BF is not real put in the time? I'm guessing no. 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. Cannot be said enough! 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? You leave out the fact that dermals have been observed in the tracks themselves pre-pour. And there is no evidence adduced to show that, while on occasion an artifact CAN occur, that artifact explains all the dermals discovered. Are you seriously saying that a professional forensic fingerprint examiner such as Officer Chilcutt cannot tell the difference between a hodge-podge mass of somewhat wavy lines (which is what wicking produces) from an actual dermatoglyphic impression? Keep in mind that the gentleman is a court-accepted expert in the matter of dermal impressions. 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? "Widely known"? Seems like there's an awful lot of debate for something that is "widely known"...to date, no one has been able to substantiate the claim that the PGF is a hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Seems like there's an awful lot of debate for something that is "widely known"...to date, no one has been able to substantiate the claim that the PGF is a hoax. No one's been able to substantiate that bigfoots exist, but just yesterday you proclaimed that it was time to dispense with this "prove they exist" nonsense. What a difference a day makes. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Here is a case of a scientist offering "tease" data prior to publication, but won't reveal all the details before publication. In this case a scientist is hiding the exact location of a major volcanic event in the year 1258: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341497/title/13th_century_volcano_mystery_may_be_solved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts