Has Dr. Meldrum's Reputation Or Career Been Damaged By His Involvement With Bigfoot?

[Guest]

And you don't see the cognitive dissonance behind that, Sas? He's an excellent professor and scientist, except for when he speaks for the proponent side on BF, then he's not...classic CD.

I suppose those who live in worlds of black and white would be flummoxed by shades of gray. By your logic, it is cognitive dissonance to cheer a Tiger Woods' drive but not want him to date your daughter.

[Guest]

So you are arguing that in absence of a body, we should not properly investigate evidence to its conclusion?

No, where do you get that idea?

Transitive property: If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

If Meldrum is a scientist and he is investigating bigfoot, then "science" is investigating bigfoot. To Meldrum's name we can add many others of scientists who've done likewise: Krantz, Bindernagle, Fahrenbach, Ketchum, Disotell, Perkins, Schaller, Swindler, Sarmiento, Wu, Milinkovitch, Lozier, etc. To that list we can add all the amateur folks who consider themselves bigfoot researchers. Anyone can use the scientific method in their research, and anyone who does is engaging "science" in the search. Amateurs have made many very important contributions in such fields as wildlife biology, astronomy, and paleontology. I see no reason to discredit their contributions to bigfootery. Finally, there are some very public and well-respected people who have expressed support for additional scientific inquiry regarding bigfoot/yeti down through the years, among them Sir Edmund Hillary, Jimmy Stewart (whose daughter is an anthropologist), Jane Goodall, and Henry Gee. The latter is especially relevant because he is the Editor of Nature. Finally, we've had just in the past few weeks, news of Ketchum's potentially ground-breaking research, another expedition to find Orang Pendek in Sumatra, and a very highly publicized Russian expedition.

My point is not that scientists should not look for bigfoot. My point is that claims that scientists have not or do not look for bigfoot are completely unfounded. It's time for this old chestnut of bigfootery to be laid to rest because, quite obviously, "science" HAS "looked into it."

[Drew]

My point is not that scientists should not look for bigfoot. My point is that claims that scientists have not or do not look for bigfoot are completely unfounded. It's time for this old chestnut of bigfootery to be laid to rest because, quite obviously, "science" HAS "looked into it."

Well said.

However, it can also be said that SCIENCE has not looked into it. Science goes out the window evidently, when rocks are being thrown at your cabin, or if someone demonstrably discredits a cast that is a requirement of your particular theory.

[Guest]

No, where do you get that idea?

Transitive property: If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

If Meldrum is a scientist and he is investigating bigfoot, then "science" is investigating bigfoot. To Meldrum's name we can add many others of scientists who've done likewise: Krantz, Bindernagle, Fahrenbach, Ketchum, Disotell, Perkins, Schaller, Swindler, Sarmiento, Wu, Milinkovitch, Lozier, etc. To that list we can add all the amateur folks who consider themselves bigfoot researchers. Anyone can use the scientific method in their research, and anyone who does is engaging "science" in the search. Amateurs have made many very important contributions in such fields as wildlife biology, astronomy, and paleontology. I see no reason to discredit their contributions to bigfootery. Finally, there are some very public and well-respected people who have expressed support for additional scientific inquiry regarding bigfoot/yeti down through the years, among them Sir Edmund Hillary, Jimmy Stewart (whose daughter is an anthropologist), Jane Goodall, and Henry Gee. The latter is especially relevant because he is the Editor of Nature. Finally, we've had just in the past few weeks, news of Ketchum's potentially ground-breaking research, another expedition to find Orang Pendek in Sumatra, and a very highly publicized Russian expedition.

My point is not that scientists should not look for bigfoot. My point is that claims that scientists have not or do not look for bigfoot are completely unfounded. It's time for this old chestnut of bigfootery to be laid to rest because, quite obviously, "science" HAS "looked into it."

Has to give up for a point for you on this one....just couldn't get out of it....

(altho I'd like more physical anthropoligists on board)

[Guest UPs]

No, where do you get that idea?

Transitive property: If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

If Meldrum is a scientist and he is investigating bigfoot, then "science" is investigating bigfoot. To Meldrum's name we can add many others of scientists who've done likewise: Krantz, Bindernagle, Fahrenbach, Ketchum, Disotell, Perkins, Schaller, Swindler, Sarmiento, Wu, Milinkovitch, Lozier, etc. To that list we can add all the amateur folks who consider themselves bigfoot researchers. Anyone can use the scientific method in their research, and anyone who does is engaging "science" in the search. Amateurs have made many very important contributions in such fields as wildlife biology, astronomy, and paleontology. I see no reason to discredit their contributions to bigfootery. Finally, there are some very public and well-respected people who have expressed support for additional scientific inquiry regarding bigfoot/yeti down through the years, among them Sir Edmund Hillary, Jimmy Stewart (whose daughter is an anthropologist), Jane Goodall, and Henry Gee. The latter is especially relevant because he is the Editor of Nature. Finally, we've had just in the past few weeks, news of Ketchum's potentially ground-breaking research, another expedition to find Orang Pendek in Sumatra, and a very highly publicized Russian expedition.

My point is not that scientists should not look for bigfoot. My point is that claims that scientists have not or do not look for bigfoot are completely unfounded. It's time for this old chestnut of bigfootery to be laid to rest because, quite obviously, "science" HAS "looked into it."

You made my point by stating these well-respected people support additional scientific inquiry (why would they call for this if the level of inquiry was adequate?). I think as scientific inquiry into this animal becomes more acceptable, we will continue to see more scientists get involved and many more people stepping forward with their own sighting reports. I personally respect those individuals that you mentioned and I hope some day that they are rewarded by discovery of this unknown animal. UPs

[Guest]

My point is not that scientists should not look for bigfoot. My point is that claims that scientists have not or do not look for bigfoot are completely unfounded. It's time for this old chestnut of bigfootery to be laid to rest because, quite obviously, "science" HAS "looked into it."

Care to name specifically which universities, endowments, etc have funded full on, full scale scientific expeditions or ongoing major research projects into BF?

What would Dr Meldrum or Dr Fahrenbach's chances of getting that sort of funding be if they were to approach the Forrest Service, or a major scientific endowment?

[Guest 127]

Care to name specifically which universities, endowments, etc have funded full on, full scale scientific expeditions or ongoing major research projects into BF?

What would Dr Meldrum or Dr Fahrenbach's chances of getting that sort of funding be if they were to approach the Forrest Service, or a major scientific endowment?

Based on what specific evidence should they fund these expensive "full on" expeditions? I'm quite sure if there was any credible evidence presented there would be tons of funding available as bigfoot is purported to be "close to human" or primate like in appearance. There has been no reliable evidence presented on which to base on and legitimize that sort of monetary investment. Simply put, if there is any reliable evidence brought forth the funding will come. So far it just hasn't happened.

Edited October 20, 2011 by 127

[Guest LAL]

Once a body has been brought in there will be funding to.....ah..........bring in a body.

Edited October 21, 2011 by LAL

[Guest HairyGreek]

Based on what specific evidence should they fund these expensive "full on" expeditions? I'm quite sure if there was any credible evidence presented there would be tons of funding available as bigfoot is purported to be "close to human" or primate like in appearance. There has been no reliable evidence presented on which to base on and legitimize that sort of monetary investment. Simply put, if there is any reliable evidence brought forth the funding will come. So far it just hasn't happened.

Before the advent of photography, what was the standard relied on? I believe it was observation, was it not? Also, usually only by one scientist. I am sure there are more than a few out there who have had sightings.

[PBeaton]

No, where do you get that idea?

Transitive property: If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

If Meldrum is a scientist and he is investigating bigfoot, then "science" is investigating bigfoot. To Meldrum's name we can add many others of scientists who've done likewise: Krantz, Bindernagle, Fahrenbach, Ketchum, Disotell, Perkins, Schaller, Swindler, Sarmiento, Wu, Milinkovitch, Lozier, etc. To that list we can add all the amateur folks who consider themselves bigfoot researchers. Anyone can use the scientific method in their research, and anyone who does is engaging "science" in the search. Amateurs have made many very important contributions in such fields as wildlife biology, astronomy, and paleontology. I see no reason to discredit their contributions to bigfootery. Finally, there are some very public and well-respected people who have expressed support for additional scientific inquiry regarding bigfoot/yeti down through the years, among them Sir Edmund Hillary, Jimmy Stewart (whose daughter is an anthropologist), Jane Goodall, and Henry Gee. The latter is especially relevant because he is the Editor of Nature. Finally, we've had just in the past few weeks, news of Ketchum's potentially ground-breaking research, another expedition to find Orang Pendek in Sumatra, and a very highly publicized Russian expedition.

My point is not that scientists should not look for bigfoot. My point is that claims that scientists have not or do not look for bigfoot are completely unfounded. It's time for this old chestnut of bigfootery to be laid to rest because, quite obviously, "science" HAS "looked into it."

Saskeptic,

It is nice that over the years a few more scientists seem to be takin' interest in the subject, the numbers are growin', a good thin' in my opinion. I don't think a handfull of scientist constitutes science in general, but I get your point. So, since science hasn't found the cure for cancer, should they stop lookin'? I know we know cancer exists, I'm talkin' the cure. My point bein', science is the search for answers, knowledge etc. My opinion, the search for answers should continue, afterall the mystery still remains.

Pat...

[Guest]

Based on what specific evidence should they fund these expensive "full on" expeditions? I'm quite sure if there was any credible evidence presented there would be tons of funding available as bigfoot is purported to be "close to human" or primate like in appearance. There has been no reliable evidence presented on which to base on and legitimize that sort of monetary investment. Simply put, if there is any reliable evidence brought forth the funding will come. So far it just hasn't happened.

Sick 'im, Mulder...

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Before the advent of photography, what was the standard relied on? I believe it was observation, was it not? Also, usually only by one scientist. I am sure there are more than a few out there who have had sightings.

I ain't no expert or anything, but i think i can say with complete confidence that, the bar has been raised since the 1800,s

Tim

[Guest HairyGreek]

You missed my point, Tim. But I see yours. It may have changed, but if that is for the better is not really something you can prove. It seemed to work just fine before but it seems is no longer good enough.

[Guest]

Based on what specific evidence should they fund these expensive "full on" expeditions? I'm quite sure if there was any credible evidence presented there would be tons of funding available as bigfoot is purported to be "close to human" or primate like in appearance. There has been no reliable evidence presented on which to base on and legitimize that sort of monetary investment. Simply put, if there is any reliable evidence brought forth the funding will come. So far it just hasn't happened.

Among other things:

1) forensically typed hair evidence going at least as far back as the 70s, including the work of Tom Moore of Wyoming Fish and Wildlife

2) earlier blood typing evidence by numerous scientists

3) Dr Fahrenbach's track size distribution analysis and his creature height/altitude of sighting analysis

4) Dr Meldrum's track morphology paper

5) The scientific analyses by MANY scientists of the Skookum Impression

[Guest 127]

Among other things:

1) forensically typed hair evidence going at least as far back as the 70s, including the work of Tom Moore of Wyoming Fish and Wildlife

2) earlier blood typing evidence by numerous scientists

3) Dr Fahrenbach's track size distribution analysis and his creature height/altitude of sighting analysis

4) Dr Meldrum's track morphology paper

5) The scientific analyses by MANY scientists of the Skookum Impression

Mulder: Every item you posted there is based on speculation. The simple fact is: There is no conclusive proof of what left the tracks, or the hairs, or the "earlier blood typing" (which could now be DNA tested - if it is so valuable as claimed) All it would take is one good bit of hard evidence to get the proper funding. It just has not happened to date.

You could just as well say humans were the source as bigfoot. I don't think any of those things you mentioned has influenced funding very much for this subject - because it is all based on speculation. The skookum elk imprint should be corrected/revised as an elk impression but the scientists involved are likely too heavily invested in their theories to change them. I hope I am proved wrong on that if nothing else.

Edited October 21, 2011 by 127