Guest slimwitless Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Thanks, Bob. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the adult turns out to be male. I also agree that the 90% statement is likely some kind of broad generalization for easy consumption. It may be a rumor but I fear that's where we're headed. BTW, Meldrum says he's under NDA? Keep in mind Lindsay's 'interview' technique. He conducts his interview sans recording, then later transcribes it from memory. Justin's answers and comments are not direct quotes. This is the same methodology as the original Ken Walker interview that broke the Sierra shooting story. To his credit, Lindsay does disclose this in his preface, but it makes me wary. I agree. I'd rather have a transcript. That said, Justin has plenty of outlets to set the record straight if he was misrepresented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 26, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Sounds like Meldrum and Mioczynski's MNBRT interview jive. Whereas Lindsay's quotable quotes leave much to be desired. Love this element of Lindsay though: (and the accompanying response by Dr. Meldrum) "You have developed an unfriendly tone in this exchange, and that makes it hard to work with you now and certainly in the future. If you develop a positive relationship with me, you receive special consideration in our reporting about you. Just a heads up." "You be the judge." ... Edited January 26, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I guess that gambit didn't play out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Jeff Meldrum Addresses Sierra Kills Rumors Jeff Meldrum posted the following on his facebook page today. Yesterday, Robert Lindsay posted an item reporting on events associated with the alleged shooting in the Sierras by Justin Smeja. It was in turn picked up by other blogs and several individuals contacted me directly asking for confirmation. The piece is riddled with errors and false insinuations, to say the least. I am very disappointed in the caliber of the journalism. Attached is the text with the erroneous elements highlighted in red. Presently, I am not at liberty to discuss details of my participation during the examination of the scene or the tissue sample provided, due to an NDA with parties involved. I can say: There was no “steak†— i.e. no muscle tissue, just a patch of skin and hair. I was invited to the scene and had permission to bring a dog handler, but the scene was already rendered unsuitable by the activities of those already on site, and the dogs were never deployed. I never made the statement rendered in quotation marks. I never enumerated a list of characteristics indicating it was the “real deal†— quite the opposite. I returned to the lab with a tiny sliver of the salted specimen (1mm x 5mm) with a couple dozen hairs attached. I cannot discuss the details of the analysis of the hair further due to the NDA. I will say that humans are primates. No primates have underhairs. No human populations adapt to elevation by sprouting underhair. Also, there are a lot of misconceptions and misrepresentations about my ideas concerning what sasquatch are — more ape-like or more human-like. I don’t appreciate others putting words in my mouth, who don’t have a grasp of the principles involved. Finally, this just received from Mr. Lindsay at the close of a brief email exchange: “You have developed an unfriendly tone in this exchange, and that makes it hard to work with you now and certainly in the future. If you develop a positive relationship with me, you receive special consideration in our reporting about you. Just a heads up.†You be the judge… ~ Jeff Meldrum CRYTOMUNDO.COM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Unless the people visiting the scene were zombies, why would them walking around interfere with a cadaver dog? It seems like a dog trained to find corpses should have picked up on even a little bit of decomposition. Either that dog don't hunt or there were no body parts in the area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Females have no unique DNA. The X chromosome carries many unique features related to the evolution of intellectual capabilities that aren't found anywhere else. There are 2000 plus genes on the X chromosome and only 78 on the Y chromosome. I don't think you literally meant that females have no unique DNA, I think what you meant was that it wasn't conserved as it is with the Y chromosome, I just didn't want the forum members to think we females were all alike ( which some probably do, but that's a different conversation). Humm, he told me it was female. Edited January 26, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I meant that all people have the X chromosomes. Only men have Y chromosomes. It would just be odd to me to think of adding the sex of the individual to an NDA of a DNA study if it weren't about the Y chromosome. I am an optimist though and was hoping they had something more conclusive. That X chromosome gets recombined too much to help much in tracing lineages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Sounds like Meldrum and Mioczynski's MNBRT interview jive. Whereas Lindsay's quotable quotes leave much to be desired. Love this element of Lindsay though: (and the accompanying response by Dr. Meldrum) "You be the judge." ... Right there we see the true nature of Robert Lindsay wanting to be the top dog of the BF community by showing that he is willing to slander and mis-represent people who don't play his game (ie: become his source). This casts huge doubt on anything that he has to say in the future. Lindsay just ruined his own credibility for ages to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Long ago, when Lindsay was still posting here, he claimed the title "journalist." I questioned his right to that title, as he's not the holder of any degrees except for that of "blogger." I also suggested he obtain an inexpensive digital voice recorder. The advice fell upon deaf ears. Or perhaps it suits him to only have an approximate grasp of quotations. Personally, I choose not to frequent his site. I refuse to grant him the web traffic. YMMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Long ago, when Lindsay was still posting here, he claimed the title "journalist." I questioned his right to that title, as he's not the holder of any degrees except for that of "blogger." I also suggested he obtain an inexpensive digital voice recorder. The advice fell upon deaf ears. Or perhaps it suits him to only have an approximate grasp of quotations. Personally, I choose not to frequent his site. I refuse to grant him the web traffic. YMMV I agree - I went to his site in the past, and felt that I needed a shower. I believe that an approximate grasp of quotations is not the only thing that suits him to have an approximate grasp on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Long ago, when Lindsay was still posting here, he claimed the title "journalist." I hope Steve Kulls tears him apart again soon. RL is just seeking attention and will create whatever drama he can to get it. He's been far more wrong about most things he's posted than right. I love how he's taking on Meldrum concerning the topics of primate biology, anthropology, and evolution. What's next for him, arguing with NASA about the design of solid rocket fuel boosters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) All drama aside, is it safe to say Meldrum doesn't think the sample is from a Bigfoot? The comment, "He decided that it probably was not a Bigfoot due to the presence of guard hairs" is not highlighted in red. It seems to me that puts his opinion at odds with Ketchum's findings. They can't both be right. Am I wrong? Edited January 27, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 27, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 27, 2012 Yep, that is conundrum a1b ! Forgot what a1a is already, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Lindsay just ruined his own credibility for ages to come. I don't think that's a recent event. I don't think he ever had any to be honest. According to a google search there are primates that do have dorsal guard hairs, the colobines and languars, so I don't know if that means anything one way or the other. Edited January 27, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I just posted a long explanation on Dr Meldrums Facebook wall. It should clear a lot of things up. I'd post it here but I really don't know how. I'm not much of a computer guy. If any of you could help I'd appreciate it. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts