Guest MikeG Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Don't rely on me, but go and read Saskeptics latest few postings on this issue (in the last 2 or 3 pages). There you will find a simple explanation, from a sceptic. Twenty sets of DNA of a previously unknown primate would confirm that you had a previously unknown primate. If they were identical, it would suggest that whatever animal you were dealing with gave birth to enormous litters!! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 How can this be with no type specimen to compare the DNA with? If you have 20 identical unidentified specimens it is still not proof. If the 20 unidentified specimens are identical to each other, you can go so far as to proclaim to have scientifically proven there is an unknown animal out there. Someone more knowledgeable than myself can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think DNA can even narrow it down to an unknown mammal, or even an unknown primate. So without a type specimen you can "prove" that there is an unknown primate in North America, then perhaps the rest of the circumstantial evidence can be given more credence. Of course there will still be people who say "that doesn't mean it's Bigfoot, it can be a new species of Tamarins", but I think many people who are currently NOT open to the possibility of Bigfoot might open up if DNA can prove that there is an unknown primate in North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Another Thursday passes.... Just saying. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I'll check back, same time next week. In the mean time, maybe there's some new videos to check out!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 If the 20 unidentified specimens are identical to each other, you can go so far as to proclaim to have scientifically proven there is an unknown animal out there. Someone more knowledgeable than myself can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think DNA can even narrow it down to an unknown mammal, or even an unknown primate. So without a type specimen you can "prove" that there is an unknown primate in North America, then perhaps the rest of the circumstantial evidence can be given more credence. Of course there will still be people who say "that doesn't mean it's Bigfoot, it can be a new species of Tamarins", but I think many people who are currently NOT open to the possibility of Bigfoot might open up if DNA can prove that there is an unknown primate in North America. Thought it is a step in the right direction, I do not find this very satisfying personally. I do not want or need justification for my belief. Unknown is unknown and proof is proof. I want to solve this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Yes. I've seen one and I'm not afraid to tell anyone. Don't tell me it's because of his academia. He openly studies the subject and professes knowledge of 'them' based on what he calls scientific study. He should proudly wear the badge of "Witness" if he were to have really indeed seen one. That's easy for you to say, being a Skeptic. No one is going to try to get you fired/stripped of your position for being a Skeptic. I could not agree more with this post. Well done. And I couldn't disagree more...it's easy to be a Skeptic. No one is going to come after your job or your reputation for being a skeptic. I personally know of at least one witness who will likely never speak of his experiences again in any form whereby he could be identified thanks to almost losing his job after a BF researcher contacted his boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) That's easy for you to say, being a Skeptic. No one is going to try to get you fired/stripped of your position for being a Skeptic. How in the WORLD am I a skeptic? I just posted that I've SEEN one before. I've been IN this crazy BF world a mere 9 years now, actively involved researching and investigating. I've had some incredible personal firsthand experiences. Yet I'm a skeptic? Meldrum does books about the subject... collects cast... does interviews and has reached a scientific conclusion they exist, but the minute he were to tell people that he's seen one (IF he even has), his whole world is going to come crashing down? BULL. Edited June 21, 2012 by BFSleuth Remove comment about moderation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Well, not the whole world. Just his reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Even if the DNA test are conclusive, beyond a scientific shadow of doubt, I strongly suspect the report will not be published this year or next. The government is not yet ready for that event. They are certainly trying to get their ducks in a row for the big event, but they have a long way to go yet. See, there is the conspiricy theroy again. More excuses for a report that may not even exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 How is the government trying to get their ducks in a row for the big event? By controling access to areas on federal lands inhabited by the animals, buying farmlands along rivers with high populations with the intent of returning the land back to its original hardwoods forests, expanding Wilderness Areas, limiting the size of firearms that can be used to hunt on federal refuges and sanctuaries, encouraging the states to establish WMAs in areas with known populations, elimating those animals posing a threat or danger to the public, working through the NBS to promote its mission to: "provide essential scientific support, technical assistance, and information required for sound management and policy decisions regarding the Nation's biological resources. NBS establishes partnerships with other Federal, State, and local agencies; with museums and universities; and with private organizations in order to bring coherence to largely uncoordinated efforts and to further fulfill its mission." When the Feds think the general pubic can accept the fact the animals exist without alarming them, the Feds will provide the necessary proof of their existence. That will be a have-to case. I seriously doubt the government will every disclose at the same the existence of ALL the types of wild primates that this country contains. (Even those who have spent millions to capture a "Bigfoot" didn't even know of the others until they "collected" three specimens of Skunk (Swamp) Apes. They were told, didn't believe it, -------until they got the DNA back recently.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 How in the WORLD am I a skeptic? I just posted that I've SEEN one before. I've been IN this crazy BF world a mere 9 years now, actively involved researching and investigating. I've had some incredible personal firsthand experiences. Yet I'm a skeptic? Meldrum does books about the subject... collects cast... does interviews and has reached a scientific conclusion they exist, but the minute he were to tell people that he's seen one (IF he even has), his whole world is going to come crashing down? BULL. You have often come down pretty hard on the Skeptic side in the past, Guy. Nontheless I will concede I made an error and offer apologies. I can't go back and edit the original post at this point, so I'm afraid it's there to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Meldrum does books about the subject... collects cast... And sells them, don't forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 So the government knows about bigfoots but is keeping it under wraps because we can't handle the truth. Cool. Sounds like a cool plot line! But once the cat is out of the bag, whoa, everything is going to change. So why would there all of a sudden be all these new rules and laws needed to protect sasquatches and all the various varieties within, when nobody can even find them anyway? Aren't protected species protected from us because we pose a threat to them? How would we threaten them when we rarely come in contact with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 No I would not. Even if Medrum is not a forensic print examiner (as Officer Chilcutt is), in his work with primate locomotion research he would be well acquainted with primate tracks and their characteristics, including dermatoglyphics. Now if it came to a dispute between Chilcutt and Meldrum over the topic, I'd give Chilcutt a (slightly) higher opinion rating, because that is his direct area of expertise. Based on what I've seen and heard about Dr Meldrum, I feel safe in saying he'd be the first to agree. I can’t say your response is in anyway shocking, because it was predictable and really proves who is applying logical fallacy here. I have little doubt that Meldrum himself would readily admit that he has no appreciable level of expertise when it comes to latent print examination or dermatoglyphics because to put it as bluntly as possible, he doesn’t. Latent print examination is a very specialized skill set that in reality, is only possessed by an extremely small portion of the population who train to acquire that expertise. Yet you’re assigning Meldrum a relevant level of expertise in a very specialized field in which he has no formal study or training, and no work experience. A level by your own words that is only slightly below Chillcutt. The “expert via association†rationale that several others (not you) are clearly attempting to apply here in this thread, is also fatally flawed and is clearly driven by the bias that Saskeptic points out: Meldrum makes public statements that are supportive of pet belief systems and thus he’s afforded levels of expertise that he clearly doesn’t possess so that his assigned, but completely fallacious expertise can be appealed to as a figure of unquestionable authority. It's rather sad IMO. This association is incredibly weak particularly when you consider the nature of their proverbial “work togetherâ€. The reality is that Meldrum and Chilcutt have never really “worked togetherâ€. The scope of their interaction together really involves Meldrum allowing Chilcutt access to his lab so he could examine casts while Meldrum left him unattended and soliciting Chilcutt’s opinion on what he thought was ridge structure on the Skookum impression. And parroting some of Chilcutt’s conclusions in the dermatoglyphics chapter in his book. They’ve not even co-authored a paper together. I’ve co-authored several internal reports and papers with a multitude of EE’s and ME’s whom I work with on a near daily basis. Should that make me an expert on pumps, VFD’s and other mechanical and electrical assets? Not even close. Do I think my interaction with those folks have given me a conversational knowledge in ME and EE that is above the norm? You bet. Is it actual expertise? Not even remotely close. The fact is that Meldrum originally stated that the apparent “ridge structure†on CA-19 were indeed the latent print evidence of an unknown bipedal primate. He later admitted he was wrong about that, and referred to Matt Crowley’s exercises in generating casting artifacts initially as a “slam dunk†or words to that effect, on what it is we’re really seeing on CA-19. Even though he’s clearly backed off of a position so adamant, reading what he has to say in LMS, he’s no longer touting what is visible in CA-19 as dermal ridges. You want proof that Meldrum can be wrong in his interpretation of impression evidence that involves ridge structure? There it is. By his own admission. And it’s pretty persuasive evidence that Meldrum does not have anywhere near the level of expertise in regards to dermatoglyphics that you clearly assign to him. I know your somehow going to attempt to manufacture a legit reason in your own mind to challenge this, but I’d suggest that you consider what Hairyman said in post 6243 of this thread. Let’s not pretend that Meldrum (or anyone else for that matter) is an “expert†in specialized fields of study that in reality, they have no expertise in. It does little to add to these discussions and only really contributes to discussions devolving into arguments. And let’s not pretend that Doc Meldrum can’t be wrong about any of his apparent conclusions. He’s been wrong in the past, and has admitted so on various occasions. His opinions in regards to anything “bigfoot†should certainly be considered regardless of whether that opinion has anything to do with his field of study. But on the strength of how well he supports those opinions and theories, not on mere hero worship. The fact is, if any individual (Meldrum or otherwise) has any relevant expertise pertaining to the subject being discussed, that expertise is always conveyed in the strength of their arguments via their own words. It does not need to be championed constantly and waved madly like a display flag as you seem to feel it does. This constant fallacious appeal to authority that happens time and again on this forum and is what I feel Saskeptic is referring to. Trust me on this one, everyone here, even those you’ve branded as the “agenda Skeptics†with the capital S, “get†the fact that Doc Meldrum has a level of expertise in his field of study that most do not possess. But don’t expect us to buy into the ridiculous notion that he has the same level of expertise in dermatoglyphics, visual tracking or any of the other various fields of expertise that he’s often credited as having, but simply does not possess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 You have often come down pretty hard on the Skeptic side in the past, Guy. Nontheless I will concede I made an error and offer apologies. I can't go back and edit the original post at this point, so I'm afraid it's there to stay. No problem. Just water under the bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts