06-19-2008, 06:10 AM
Not a completely fair reply since you are a person already trained and educated in the your field. But Dr. Krantz, Dr. Meldrum and the BFRO have already addressed the very problems associated with what you presented. They have done a convincing job of showing their readers that all points have been met. Basically that is what every skeptical and critical scientists has consistently argued. Okay then, in this way, according to the scientific method:
[#000000][size 2]1. The observation of phenomena.[/size][/#000000]
[#000000][size 2]2. The formulation of an hypothesis concerning the phenomena.[/size][/#000000]
[#000000][size 2]3. Experimentation to demonstrate the truthness or falsness of the hypothesis.[/size][/#000000]
[#000000][size 2]4. A conclusion that validates the hypthesis. [/size][/#000000]
[size 2][/size]
[#000000]1. The observation of phenomena:[/#000000]
Unexplained sightings of reported man-like ape creatures who walk on two legs. Unexplained film footage, behavior, footprints, sounds, and whatnot about Bigfoot.
2. The formulation of an hypothesis concerning the phenomena:
North America is home to an unclassified species of an upright-walking ape.
3.[#000000] [/#000000][#000000]Experimentation to demonstrate the truthness or falsness of the hypothesis.[/#000000]
-Examination and proving of authentic footprints.
-Examination of hair, scat, skin samples which match no known mammal or ape species.
-Examination and proving of authentic dermal ridges on skin/hand casts.
-Examination and proving of authentic Skookum Cast body impression of unclassifed primate.
-Acoustic and Linguistic examination and proving of authentic sounds matching no known animal.
-Biomechanical examination and proving of authentic locomotion of Pattersin-Gimlin Film creature.
-Examination of reported unclassified ape sightings which match a perfectly natural Gaussian distribution.
-Problem with point 3:
Majority of scientists refuse to looka at all above evidence under point three. They say it is competely false and does not meet the scientific requirements for evidence. They then state almost exactly what you stated:
Fishhound worte:
"[#008000]Jeff Meldrum's work does not need to be "disproven" by anyone - it requires that he substantiate his claim to be valid and true by suppling the evidence that demonstrates it; Unambiguously ! [/#008000][#000000]"[/#000000]
[#000000][/#000000]
[#000000]So in effect, real Bigfoot evidence becomes part of a viscious cycle that does not permit any evidence which the majority of scientists treat as unacceptable simply because of the outrageous and unprobable existence of a "man-ape" as Bigfoot/Sasquatch is most oftenly called. [/#000000]
[#000000][/#000000]
[#000000]When scientists such as Dr. Gover Krantz, and Dr. Jeff Meldrum put forth their observations and examinations they are met by an unwilling majority of scientists who refuse to take a look. Those scientists who do take a look become part of the 12 I initially mentioned in the previous post. [/#000000]
[#000000][/#000000]
[#000000]If as you wrote:[/#000000]
"[#008000]Jeff Meldrum's work does not need to be "disproven" by anyone - it requires that he substantiate his claim to be valid and true by suppling the evidence that demonstrates it; Unambiguously ! [/#008000][#000000]"[/#000000]
why did you feel so compelled to include the quotations in your previous quote about those who are against Dr. Meldrum's findings?
Why not allow him and the rest of the Bigfoot supporters to go onto point 4 to which I now go.
4. [size 2][#000000][size 3]A conclusion that validates the hypthesis.[/size][/#000000] [/size]
[#000000]North America is home to an unclassified species of an upright-walking ape.
In this way, how is Bigfoot evidence and proof ever going to circulate through needed peer review so that more and more qualified experts can examine the evidence? How can the BFRO and Dr. Jeff Meldrum (Krantz is not dead) ever develp a reputation or credibility when they are shunned out of the peer review process in the first place?
This is one of the reasons that Dr. Jeff Meldrum decided to write his book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. His hope was to attract more scientists to at leat take a look at what he and the BFRO has. So far, the book has not been reviewed by many scientists. That is why I have to ask if you have read it? The BFRO is begging more scientists to take a look at the Skookum Cast body impression they obtained on one of their expeditions. Very few takers so far. So how is this evidence ever be worthy of as you wrote "[#008000]worth considering as anything [/#008000][#000000]."[/#000000]
All the evidence under point three I described has been examined by few scientists in various fields. All of them have something "[#008000]worth considering as anything [/#008000][#000000]."[/#000000]
It is no wonder then that the Bigfoot evidence and scientists make no headway in producing anything "[#008000]worth considering as anything [/#008000][#000000]." [/#000000][/#000000]
[#000000][/#000000]
[#000000]Just to give you an example of how neglectful the scientific community is to this subject consider this. Why is it that human fingerprints and dermal ridges are not treated as "hoaxes" when taken by police from a crime scene but when dermal ridges of identical quality are taken from Bigfoot prints they are automatically replied to as "questionable" and "probable hoaxes." Dr. Jimmy Chilcutt of Texas A&M and the Conroe Texas PD is one of the foremost experts on dermal ridges and fingerprints for humans and primates. When he examined those on the Skookum Cast and other prints he immidiately ruled out a hoax.* Why is it so hard for other scientist to take a look at them? [/#000000]
[#000000][/#000000]
[#000000]*This info can be found on pages 22,117,249-59, and 275 of Dr. Jeff Meldrum's Book. [/#000000]
[#000000][/#000000]
[#000000]I know and you probably that these Bigfoot posts are just healthy old debate. No hard feelings, no personal attacks, just some thoughts. I know most scientists such as yourself have little time for extra endeavors and would probably love them but such is life, too little precious time. Like I was saying all along there is just a whole lot more on this subject that just can't be passed of as coincidential, faked, or insignificant.
[/#000000]
[signature]
[#000000][size 2]1. The observation of phenomena.[/size][/#000000]
[#000000][size 2]2. The formulation of an hypothesis concerning the phenomena.[/size][/#000000]
[#000000][size 2]3. Experimentation to demonstrate the truthness or falsness of the hypothesis.[/size][/#000000]
[#000000][size 2]4. A conclusion that validates the hypthesis. [/size][/#000000]
[size 2][/size]
[#000000]1. The observation of phenomena:[/#000000]
Unexplained sightings of reported man-like ape creatures who walk on two legs. Unexplained film footage, behavior, footprints, sounds, and whatnot about Bigfoot.
2. The formulation of an hypothesis concerning the phenomena:
North America is home to an unclassified species of an upright-walking ape.
3.[#000000] [/#000000][#000000]Experimentation to demonstrate the truthness or falsness of the hypothesis.[/#000000]
-Examination and proving of authentic footprints.
-Examination of hair, scat, skin samples which match no known mammal or ape species.
-Examination and proving of authentic dermal ridges on skin/hand casts.
-Examination and proving of authentic Skookum Cast body impression of unclassifed primate.
-Acoustic and Linguistic examination and proving of authentic sounds matching no known animal.
-Biomechanical examination and proving of authentic locomotion of Pattersin-Gimlin Film creature.
-Examination of reported unclassified ape sightings which match a perfectly natural Gaussian distribution.
-Problem with point 3:
Majority of scientists refuse to looka at all above evidence under point three. They say it is competely false and does not meet the scientific requirements for evidence. They then state almost exactly what you stated:
Fishhound worte:
"[#008000]Jeff Meldrum's work does not need to be "disproven" by anyone - it requires that he substantiate his claim to be valid and true by suppling the evidence that demonstrates it; Unambiguously ! [/#008000][#000000]"[/#000000]
[#000000][/#000000]
[#000000]So in effect, real Bigfoot evidence becomes part of a viscious cycle that does not permit any evidence which the majority of scientists treat as unacceptable simply because of the outrageous and unprobable existence of a "man-ape" as Bigfoot/Sasquatch is most oftenly called. [/#000000]
[#000000][/#000000]
[#000000]When scientists such as Dr. Gover Krantz, and Dr. Jeff Meldrum put forth their observations and examinations they are met by an unwilling majority of scientists who refuse to take a look. Those scientists who do take a look become part of the 12 I initially mentioned in the previous post. [/#000000]
[#000000][/#000000]
[#000000]If as you wrote:[/#000000]
"[#008000]Jeff Meldrum's work does not need to be "disproven" by anyone - it requires that he substantiate his claim to be valid and true by suppling the evidence that demonstrates it; Unambiguously ! [/#008000][#000000]"[/#000000]
why did you feel so compelled to include the quotations in your previous quote about those who are against Dr. Meldrum's findings?
Why not allow him and the rest of the Bigfoot supporters to go onto point 4 to which I now go.
4. [size 2][#000000][size 3]A conclusion that validates the hypthesis.[/size][/#000000] [/size]
[#000000]North America is home to an unclassified species of an upright-walking ape.
In this way, how is Bigfoot evidence and proof ever going to circulate through needed peer review so that more and more qualified experts can examine the evidence? How can the BFRO and Dr. Jeff Meldrum (Krantz is not dead) ever develp a reputation or credibility when they are shunned out of the peer review process in the first place?
This is one of the reasons that Dr. Jeff Meldrum decided to write his book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. His hope was to attract more scientists to at leat take a look at what he and the BFRO has. So far, the book has not been reviewed by many scientists. That is why I have to ask if you have read it? The BFRO is begging more scientists to take a look at the Skookum Cast body impression they obtained on one of their expeditions. Very few takers so far. So how is this evidence ever be worthy of as you wrote "[#008000]worth considering as anything [/#008000][#000000]."[/#000000]
All the evidence under point three I described has been examined by few scientists in various fields. All of them have something "[#008000]worth considering as anything [/#008000][#000000]."[/#000000]
It is no wonder then that the Bigfoot evidence and scientists make no headway in producing anything "[#008000]worth considering as anything [/#008000][#000000]." [/#000000][/#000000]
[#000000][/#000000]
[#000000]Just to give you an example of how neglectful the scientific community is to this subject consider this. Why is it that human fingerprints and dermal ridges are not treated as "hoaxes" when taken by police from a crime scene but when dermal ridges of identical quality are taken from Bigfoot prints they are automatically replied to as "questionable" and "probable hoaxes." Dr. Jimmy Chilcutt of Texas A&M and the Conroe Texas PD is one of the foremost experts on dermal ridges and fingerprints for humans and primates. When he examined those on the Skookum Cast and other prints he immidiately ruled out a hoax.* Why is it so hard for other scientist to take a look at them? [/#000000]
[#000000][/#000000]
[#000000]*This info can be found on pages 22,117,249-59, and 275 of Dr. Jeff Meldrum's Book. [/#000000]
[#000000][/#000000]
[#000000]I know and you probably that these Bigfoot posts are just healthy old debate. No hard feelings, no personal attacks, just some thoughts. I know most scientists such as yourself have little time for extra endeavors and would probably love them but such is life, too little precious time. Like I was saying all along there is just a whole lot more on this subject that just can't be passed of as coincidential, faked, or insignificant.
[/#000000]
[signature]