Is The Skookum Cast Still Considered To Be A Potential Bigfoot Lay?

[Guest]

That should be obvious. Possessing a degree or degrees in appropriately related areas of expertise.

Snark duly noted.

OK, so you admit that I am a credentialed scientist.

So you admit to not examining the primary evidence source, the cast itself...

I never implied that I had. But let's break down the logic here.

According to your statement, although I am a credentialed scientist, my opinion of the Skookum Cast is irrelevant because I've only examined photographs of it and read what other people have written about it. This implies that only direct examination of the cast itself is sufficient to provide an informed opinion of what created the impression. In other words, there are features of the cast that have not been rendered photographically? If so, I am not aware of those things and would like you to clarify. From the photographs I have examined, I can clearly make out what have been interpreted as imprints from a bigfoot's heel strikes, buttocks, arm, thigh, etc. (I've never been able to see those testicle prints, I admit.) I've seen images of the hair flow impressions. All of these things are clearly visible. What is there that cannot be seen in the photographs but clearly makes the case for a bigfooty impressionist?

Also, if only those who directly examine the physical evidence of things are permitted to render informed opinions about those things then . . .I'm not sure you've thought this through. Would you agree with my opinion that by examining a photograph of an Allosaurus skeleton that the beast, when alive, was carnivorous? I can see the hooked claws and meat-shearing teeth in the photos, but without examining the bones directly, I am at the mercy of those who have examined them and written about them to help form my opinion. How about your opinion of the Skookum Cast? Is it based on your direct examination, or do you rely on the what other people have written about it combined with your assessment of the images of it?

Peer review is not the legitimizer of a scientific opinion.

Actually, it kinda is, and we credentialed scientists fully understand this.

The lack of a PR paper does not change the evidence as discovered by Drs Meldrum, et al.

Nope, but without that paper we have no way to assess the quality of that evidence. Meldrum's so-called evidence of bigfoot from this artifact is opinion. He has not presented that evidence for legitimate scrutiny by his peers.

So where's YOUR "peer reviewed" paper, based on first hand examination of the primary evidence source and specifically countering the scientific observations of Drs Meldrum, et al?

There's nothing to counter because Meldrum et al. have not presented a case in the scientific literature. To write a paper that an impression that looks like an elk lay was made by an elk would be as pointless as writing a paper that raccoon prints in my backyard were made by a raccoon.

For the reasons stated above. You have not engaged the evidence at it's source, you have not specifically countered the observations of the proponent scientists.

Got it. So you will not be defending any positions of mine as a credentialed scientist because I haven't been in the same room as the literal Skookum Cast. Could you please clarify your use of that term on the BFF from now on, then? It's really misleading because you're stressing physical examination of the item in question, not the fact that the person is a scientist or has "credentials."

Also, thank you for clarifying that you have no compunction to defend my honor against those who might impugn it. You have illustrated well that the reason you are so quick to praise Jeff Meldrum in all things is not that he is a credentialed scientist as you are so fond of spouting, but that he says and writes things that support your predetermined view.

I gave you yet another chance to take the high road, and you burrowed well beneath it. Carry on.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

And now here is RRS with the Weather

it's a bit overcast in the Skookum thread today with rain

on many front's ~

But there is hope it will Clear up before the days end

Tim

[Guest]

If all of Bigfoot researchdom is populated by two wings of people those who will stop at nothing to "prove" and those who will stop at nothing to "disprove" how can we possibly believe anybodies evidence? This would never fly in any sciences I've been a part of. True people may choose their weapons in a debate, but the debates always hinge on facts, not belief systems.

So what "facts" do you offer to counter the facts as adduced by Drs Meldrum, et al? They have offered specific, scientific reasons WHY they hold this is not an elk lay.

All you (or any Skeptic) has offered is "It looks like an elk lay." That's an opinion, not a science-based rebuttal.

When one is dealing with an unknown animal, there shouldn't be a force of "hope" that claims every fart in the wind is Bigfoot, there should only be people who hope to prove their case being extra special careful so as to not over speculate, not to over emphasize, not to over draw the limited amount of data they have.

What evidence do you proffer to demonstrate that Drs Meldrum, et al have done so?

"It looks like an elk lay" is NOT evidence. It is an opinion. It is not based on biomechanical and/or biometric data.

The conclusions of Drs Meldrum, et al ARE based on evidence, to wit: the biomechanical and biometric data contained in the impression that is NOT consistent with elk, but is consistent with a large hairy humanoid.

This is smart science. If you know your subject matter might be a stretch for other's to believe you better have all of your P's and Q's together , you better have crossed every T and dotted every I cuz you know dadburn well that the rest of em are gunnin for ya!

Drs Meldrum, et al HAVE done just that. They gathered evidence, analyzed it, consulted with other experts and ruled out elk.

What problem do you have a problem with that? It's not the answer you want, that's the problem you have with it.

Well I'm sorry, but science isn't about getting the answer you want, it's about discovering what the TRUE answer is.

Honestly, I've seen none of these things.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Drs Meldrum, et al have explained their factual basis for their conclusions time after time after time.

They can lead Skeptics to knowledge, but they can't make them think.

I've seen conjecture , assumption sloppy science and hope.

Where?

[Guest]

Snark duly noted.

Noting of snark duly noted.

OK, so you admit that I am a credentialed scientist.

Never said you weren't. What I said was that you had not put in the proper time and effort examining the primary evidence source so credentials or not your opinion isn't valid.

I never implied that I had. But let's break down the logic here.

According to your statement, although I am a credentialed scientist, my opinion of the Skookum Cast is irrelevant because I've only examined photographs of it

Given that several people have pointed out that the pictures and reconstructions are flawed and not 100% accurate as to what can be observed first hand in the actual cast, yes. Examining the pictures is not sufficient imo.

This implies that only direct examination of the cast itself is sufficient to provide an informed opinion of what created the impression.

Scientifically, yes.

In other words, there are features of the cast that have not been rendered photographically? If so, I am not aware of those things and would like you to clarify.

DDA and others have already explained that.

What is there that cannot be seen in the photographs but clearly makes the case for a bigfooty impressionist?

See above.

Also, if only those who directly examine the physical evidence of things are permitted to render informed opinions about those things then . . .I'm not sure you've thought this through. Would you agree with my opinion that by examining a photograph of an Allosaurus skeleton that the beast, when alive, was carnivorous? I can see the hooked claws and meat-shearing teeth in the photos, but without examining the bones directly, I am at the mercy of those who have examined them and written about them to help form my opinion.

Apples and oranges comparison.

Anyone can look at any halfway decent photograph of an allosaurus skeleton and see hooked claws and carnivore's teeth. But if the information you are interested in is the ligament attatchment groves in the bones themselves, then very special, high resolution, high magnification photographs of specific bone sections would be needed.

[Guest]

How about your opinion of the Skookum Cast? Is it based on your direct examination, or do you rely on the what other people have written about it combined with your assessment of the images of it?

My assessment of images of it is irrelevant, given the imperfections of the images as stated by DDA, etc. And there's nothing wrong with me trusting the professional opinions of Drs Meldrum, et al. However, I don't trust them "because they're scientists"; I trust them because they're scientists AND they've explained exactly WHAT their expertise tells them and HOW it supports the opinions proffered.

You haven't done that. You haven't properly engaged the evidence. You haven't offered any counter to their specific expert observations.

Nope, but without that paper we have no way to assess the quality of that evidence. Meldrum's so-called evidence of bigfoot from this artifact is opinion. He has not presented that evidence for legitimate scrutiny by his peers.

Neither have you. So on the one hand, we have his scientific investigation of the primary evidence source, vs your opinion based on partial examination of reproductions and photos with known flaws and lack of detail. And you have yet to offer ANY rebuttal to the SPECIFIC observations of tendon structure, hair flow, etc that say "not elk".

There's nothing to counter because Meldrum et al. have not presented a case in the scientific literature. To write a paper that an impression that looks like an elk lay was made by an elk would be as pointless as writing a paper that raccoon prints in my backyard were made by a raccoon.

In other words, just like parn, it's "do as I say, not as I do". You don't have to follow your own rules and pony up what you would demand of a proponent because you're the Skeptic, and by default assumed to be right.

This is why I don't take most Skeptics seriously. Intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Also, thank you for clarifying that you have no compunction to defend my honor against those who might impugn it.

When you've demonstrated that you've done your homework in the proper manner we'll talk. To date you haven't.

You have illustrated well that the reason you are so quick to praise Jeff Meldrum in all things is not that he is a credentialed scientist as you are so fond of spouting, but that he says and writes things that support your predetermined view.

No, I've illustrated that I support scientists who do their homework in the proper manner and don't support those who don't.

I gave you yet another chance to take the high road, and you burrowed well beneath it.

Hardly. You tried to steer us down a detour rather than address the factual inadequacies of your opinion. I just didn't fall for it.

[Guest]

New drinking game...take a swig everytime mulder writes "et al."

[Guest]

Bingo. Nail on the head NiceGuyJohn.

I truly believe that some folks are on some kind of a vendetta or even a crusade to try and stamp out 'bigfoot belief'. Why, I don't know. It's hardly the most important or most damaging of the word's mystery phenomenons. Surely there are more important things to argue against?

It isn't just "bigfoot belief"...it's ANYTHING that could be called "belief" (that is, anything that the so-called Skeptics don't accept as having been "proven"). Their position is based on a philosophy of secular rationalism that places what they consider empirical science as the centerpiece of all truth.

Many people of that inclination consider it their duty not just to be "skeptical" in their own minds, but to systematically tear down anything and everything that does not meet with their standards of approval. It isn't enough they "don't believe in [x]"; they won't stop until NOone "believes in [x]".

From this they derive a sense of intellectual and often moral superiority over those they consider beneath them. They are the Enlightened, everyone else is either too stupid or too brainwashed to think for themselves, and must be "shown the way".

[Guest RedRatSnake]

New drinking game...take a swig everytime mulder writes "et al."

[Guest 127]

So what "facts" do you offer to counter the facts as adduced by Drs Meldrum, et al? They have offered specific, scientific reasons WHY they hold this is not an elk lay.

All you (or any Skeptic) has offered is "It looks like an elk lay." That's an opinion, not a science-based rebuttal.

What evidence do you proffer to demonstrate that Drs Meldrum, et al have done so?

"It looks like an elk lay" is NOT evidence. It is an opinion. It is not based on biomechanical and/or biometric data.

The conclusions of Drs Meldrum, et al ARE based on evidence, to wit: the biomechanical and biometric data contained in the impression that is NOT consistent with elk, but is consistent with a large hairy humanoid.

Drs Meldrum, et al HAVE done just that. They gathered evidence, analyzed it, consulted with other experts and ruled out elk.

What problem do you have a problem with that? It's not the answer you want, that's the problem you have with it.

Well I'm sorry, but science isn't about getting the answer you want, it's about discovering what the TRUE answer is.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Drs Meldrum, et al have explained their factual basis for their conclusions time after time after time.

They can lead Skeptics to knowledge, but they can't make them think.

Where?

Elk:

tracks leading up to and away from the impression

elk hairs present (in large numbers) in the impression

the impression is the exact shape of an elk

bigfoot:

not known to exist.

claimed that a hair pattern looks "primate" even though no bigfoot has ever been examined for its fur length, or size, or any other evidence other than "claimed opinion." Proponents have never demonstrated what type of figure made the impression or how it came to be in that location. IT IS NOT EVEN KNOWN IF BIGFOOT IS A PRIMATE. This matters not to proponents.

In the bigfoot camp you have wishful thinking, and comfirmation bias winning, and in the elk camp you have hard physical evidence. I think I'll pick real science over pseudoscience any day. Yep, the decisions made about this cast by Meldrum and the other bigfoot enthusiast scientists are based on nothing but hot air. Just like your rant filled posts.

Edited October 27, 2011 by 127

[Guest]

New drinking game...take a swig everytime mulder writes "et al."

Or "credentialed scientist" or just anytime he pretends he hasn't been pwned. Either way, this game could fuel a decent frat party.

[Guest krakatoa]

Skookum ranks up there w/ Jakobs and the Guinea Fowl 'foot photo in terms of the strength of purported Sasquatch evidence being "in the eye of the beholder".

It is striking to me that so much passion is involved with defending a position that at best is based on data open to interpretation.

In the end, it seems to me that it is precisely the ambiguity of the evidence that, coupled with the overwhelming imperative to confirm one's own biases, creates such vehement statements of absolute certainty where certainty is absolutely impossible.

[Guest]

Or "credentialed scientist" or just anytime he pretends he hasn't been pwned. Either way, this game could fuel a decent frat party.

Don't flatter yourself. You haven't "pwned" anyone. Pony up your factual, science-based evidence or drop the claim.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Be right back! gotta go to the packie to get

more beer

Tim

[Guest parnassus]

I'll re-read what he says about it in LMS and get back to you when I have the chance to formulate a better response (I'm at the library and don't have enough access time to do it right now).

Guess Mulder hasnt done that LMS thing and doesn't even know what he's defending. Oh, I forgot... It's WMS ...."whatever Meldrum says."

[Guest StankApe]

Meldrum didn't submit any peer reviewed paper so his opinion is presently just an opinion. I offered up a credentialed scientist who disagreed with the findings and said it was an elk lay. But you said he didn't believe in Bigfoot so his opinion didn't matter...

I honestly can't do anything else. As has happened time and time again, any scientist who says some evidence isn't Bigfoot he gets accused of being a witch.... Or has apparently some bias as to make his opinion worthless, yet this never comes up when other scientists with an apparent similar bias (the exception being they happen to agree with your position) give a completely different opinion. Whereas all opinions based on pre-conceived bias are equally worthless as science should not be about picking a sports team...