Guest Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 That is my point. They can write and speak from here till Doomsday and their colleagues will continue to ignore what they have to say and show, and continue to insist there is no "scientific evidence for BF" despite the data that Meldrum et al have presented. Mulder, Do you believe/think that the "data that Meldrum et al have presented" is conclusive and so much so that anyone who does not believe Bigfoot exist is holding a ridiculous, unsupportable position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Do you guys know the expression "Dancing on the head of a pin?". Basically, lots and lots of vigorous activity in an extremely confined space, as an analogy for talking around in circles with virtually no information to be going on. We're feeding on crumbs that have fallen from the table....... Single throw-away comments from the lead characters are examined forensically, and rumour is dissected endlessly. What's it going to be like when/ if the paper is eventually published?! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 If it is ever released it will be pandelerium on the BFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 If it is ever released it will be pandelerium on the BFF. Are you kidding? We won't be able to sign in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) I find it more than a little ironic that Mulder gets to decide what is and what is not scientific evidence for bigfoot and who is and who is not a good scientist. Maybe Mulder is actually an "institutional scientist", it seems he matches his own description pretty well. I've explained my point repeatedly, yet the Skeptics around here continue to either not get it, or more accurately simply ignore it. I may not be able to stop Skeptics from "talking out both sides of their mouths" on this issue, but I refuse to let them get away with it. I will admit that institutional science has engaged the evidence when it actually DOES engage it, either by accepting it or by actually following through with it's OWN processes and presenting counter evidence to it. Not before. Edited January 12, 2012 by See-Te-Cah NC To remove double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) I will admit that institutional science has engaged the evidence when it actually DOES engage it, either by accepting it or by actually following through with it's OWN processes and presenting counter evidence to it. This was addressed by MikeG back in post #1216 (or 17): "You have been given 5 published works.....pieces of science...., so it is completey wrong to say that science insists that there is no evidence." If you were to read the papers I referenced (and to which MikeG alludes) Mulder, you would see a mix of works that both accept evidence and provide counter evidence. This is science engaging the evidence, again according to your own criteria. The three institutional scientists whose institutions I provided for you yesterday? They accept that evidence and are representatives of scientific institutions. It's just hilarious (and sad, because it's so unnecessary) to see you intellectually tripping over yourself on this point. You keep "gotcha-ing" yourself, and only because you've apparently latched onto an idea that you refuse to be muddied by such irrelevant things as facts. edit for dup. Edited January 12, 2012 by Saskeptic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Mulder, Do you believe/think that the "data that Meldrum et al have presented" is conclusive and so much so that anyone who does not believe Bigfoot exist is holding a ridiculous, unsupportable position? I have to answer that question from two perspectives, jerry: From the perspective of someone who has, with their own eyes, seen one at close range, my visceral reaction is "Absolutely!" From a more generalized perspective, I will say that the evidence as presented to date makes a very strong argument for the existence of BF. I will concede that the case at present does not rise to the level of "dispositive", as in absolute proof, (as in a body). Therefore I would respect the position that BF is an "open question". I do NOT, however, respect the position taken by many Skeptics that BF absolutely "does not and never has existed". If the Ketchum genetic results are as hinted at and the methodology checks out, then I would take that as being final, dispositive proof, and at that point any further disbelief would be (as you put it) "ridiculous and unsupportable". If that sounds like I'm being careful with words, so be it. It's as honest an answer as I know how to give you. It's just hilarious (and sad, because it's so unnecessary) to see you intellectually tripping over yourself on this point. You keep "gotcha-ing" yourself, and only because you've apparently latched onto an idea that you refuse to be muddied by such irrelevant things as facts. Mainstream, institutional science as a whole does not even admit that BF is an open question, despite the evidence presented. The only one tripping all over themselves are Skeptics who keep refusing to see that simple fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 My favorite science "truths" are the ones arrived at by consensus. I think they should be called "creeds". Same process. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 They are definitely NOT "institutional scientists", as they do not subscribe to the institutional science position on the existence of BF. Nor do their supposed colleagues consider them to be within the mainstream of science on this issue.That is my point. They can write and speak from here till Doomsday and their colleagues will continue to ignore what they have to say and show, and continue to insist there is no "scientific evidence for BF" despite the data that Meldrum et al have presented. Mulder, methinks your axe to grind with skeptics and science as a whole is leaving you oblivious to your own circular reasoning. Please correct me (seriously, I may be wrong) if my interpretation of your argument is incorrect: 1. The "institutional science" position on the existence of bigfoot is that it does not exist and does not warrant investigation. 2. An "institutional scientist" is a scientist who subscribes to the "institutional science" position on the existence of bigfoot. 3. Therefore, an "institutional scientist" believes that bigfoot does not exist and does not warrant investigation. If I can then summarize the "meat" of the discussion between (mainly) you and Saskeptic (again, either of you correct me if I am wrong): Mulder: "Institutional scientists" refuse to acknowledge bigfoot or bigfoot evidence. Saskeptic: I have found some institutional scientists that have written papers about bigfoot and bigfoot evidence. Therefore, this counterexample disproves your generalization about institutional scientists. Mulder: I respectfully disagree. They are not "institutional scientists" so this is not a counterexample. Culminating in this quote: Mainstream, institutional science as a whole does not even admit that BF is an open question, despite the evidence presented. Of course it doesn't! You explicitly defined "institutional science" as scientists who don't believe in bigfoot! Given the above argument, it's a logical impossibility for a so-called "institutional scientist" to acknowledge and engage in any bigfoot evidence. I don't mean to speak for him, but I doubt Saskeptic would argue against that. Clearly you guys have different definitions of "institutional scientist." I apologize if I've violated some sort of forum etiquette since this is my first post and all... I've really enjoyed the discussions on here, but I just had to throw my two cents in on this one. And again, this all hinges on how I'm interpreting Mulder's position, so if I've erred in that, I apologize and all the above is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I'm honestly not sure if that's the one or not, but I know it hasn't been even considered by institutional science as BF evidence in any serious way. Fahrenbach's work is very overlooked, even in the BF community it seems sometimes. No, Skeptics kept on yelling about it being an "elk wallow" despite the evidence to the contrary contained IN the impression itself. One of the scientists (Dr Schaller, IIRC), who examined a cast taken from the impression mold has expertise in both primatology AND ungulates (which includes elk). He determined the material he examined to be trace evidence of a large primate, NOT an elk. That's exactly the point. The Bell Curve Distribution is the hallmark of ANY body of legitimate living creature traits. The closer Fahrenbach's results map to that curve, the more likely they are to be legitimate evidence of a living critter. It would take a large number of well informed hoaxers operating in concert over many years and many miles to even attempt such a sophisticated endeavor. They would require a high degree of technical education (to get the traces that mark the sample tracks as Sas tracks, the artistic skill to duplicate those traces, a high degree of discipline (to ensure that each hoaxer performed to standard), and the network of communication to make sure all participants were working in synch and on task. VERY unlikely to the point of being a virtual non-starter as an alternate hypothesis. They are definitely NOT "institutional scientists", as they do not subscribe to the institutional science position on the existence of BF. Nor do their supposed colleagues consider them to be within the mainstream of science on this issue. That is my point. They can write and speak from here till Doomsday and their colleagues will continue to ignore what they have to say and show, and continue to insist there is no "scientific evidence for BF" despite the data that Meldrum et al have presented. I have to ask this: who decides this position? Science (if I understand correctly) is not heirarchical (did I spell that right?) There is no board or commitee making definitive statements about what we know. Noone is in charge and all scientists are allowed to think according to their experience and knowledge. Every scientist has different suppositions from other scientists. While many scientists agree with one hypothesis there are others with other points of view. Noone is ostracised by the rest for having a different opinion. One might be ridiculed by another for holding a contrary point of view but if his work is good then why would he be penalized and how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I'm going to have to come back to the last couple of posts later (at the library and nearly out of time) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 This has been discussed in many threads at BFF 1.0 and 2.0, so I want to be careful not to derail this one. Suffice it to say that I interpret those data (for which Fahrenbach provides very little information on provenance of the prints he included in the analysis) quite differently than others do. The distribution is actually quite peaked, with most observations in the range of 14–16" in length. That could be the range of footprint lengths for real bigfoots, but it's also exactly what we'd expect from independent hoaxers making impressions that could be affixed to their own shoes and worn while walking around in the woods. Much smaller than 14" overlaps human prints too closely; much bigger than 16" gets more difficult to walk around with. Of course, there are bigger prints in that dataset - some exceeding 20" - and some smaller ones that some assume must be from baby bigfoots. While it's unlikely that someone would hoax little bigfoot prints, the problem with the little ones is that they overlap the size of human and black bear prints. The big ones are fun to consider, but wearing a snowshoe-style form isn't the only way to fake a bigfoot print, and some of those big ones really are pretty cartoonish. So the big ones could be hoaxed, the typical ones could be hoaxed, the little ones could be explained by barefoot humans and black bears, and having all of these in a single dataset could result in a strongly peaked distribution, with zero coordination or advanced knowledge among some secret society of Ninja hoaxers. Amid all of that there could be some real bigfoot prints in the data, but we can't tell from the distribution itself. There is nothing statistically revealed in that distribution that establishes any one of those footprints as having come from a real bigfoot. I'll write no more on that issue in this thread. Whatever you say, Mulder . . . I understand what you are saying about the possibilities for hoaxing and even misidentification but I find it difficult to believe that these events would yield a more or less traditional bell curve. Granted there is a higher peak to this curve which may be an artifact of hoaxers tending to falsify large prints but how many barefoot humans are we expected to believe are wandering the forest? I just find it hard to believe that both types of prints would make this kind of curve when pulled together. I think I would expect a double peak really. Most people do not have feet approaching the middle of this graph. I have big feet that are wide to boot but my feet are unusual. The average human foot is much smaller. If humans are walking barefoot in the woods then we should expect to see a lot of these smaller prints and probably many more of them than the hoaxed prints. Instead we seem to be seeing a lot more of the larger prints (some of which are certainly hoaxes) as is seen in the high peak of the graph. I find it hard to believe that their are a sufficient number of humans with large feet (walking barfeoot in the woods) and/or hoaxers hoaxing mid-size prints to fill in this gap. Without these particular people at work we would have two peaks: one for smaller prints and one for larger prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Try the Search function antfoot. Fahrenbach's footprint size distribution analysis is like the Skookum Cast or the Jacobs photos in terms of its ability to generate strong opinions and lengthy threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Since we've now had this long discussion on institutional science and who qualifies, is there anyone here who finds these institutional scientists work to be psuedoscientific? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Since we've now had this long discussion on institutional science and who qualifies, is there anyone here who finds these institutional scientists work to be psuedoscientific? definitions: science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method pseudoscience: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific If you'd like to start a new thread investigating these ideas, I'll participate. This one we should probably encourage to address "The Ketchum Report." As for the latter, I do not know if it is pseudoscientific because I have not read it. I will add though that if a series of DNA signatures from tissues collected at disparate locations in North America all indicate Homo sapiens with an unusual polymorphism, then the proper conclusion of that work should be something like "there's this weird polymorphism we found in humans living in these locations." A pseudoscientific conclusion from such analysis would be "we've discovered bigfoot". If the provenance of the tissue could be demonstrated (like from a massive, hairy arm or leg), then that's different. So far all I've seen as an alleged source of the DNA for Ketchum's study was something that looked like a smear of barbecue sauce on a plate. It has certainly not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the material Ketchum is dealing with is anything but grade A, prime Homo sapiens. There's a lot more information I would need (e.g., chromosome number, blood typing, and especially provenance of samples) before I would see any justification for calling these samples anything but Homo sapiens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts