Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Killing Bigfoot with Bad Science

bigfoot brian dunning jeff meldrum pgf

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#16    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 7,321 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • I know someday
    you'll have a beautiful life
    I know you'll be a sun
    In somebody else's sky
    But why can't it be mine? -Pearl Jam

Posted 26 August 2013 - 09:12 AM

View PostQuiteContrary, on 25 August 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

Should you/would you then, take this phenomenon of bigfoot more seriously and accept his expertise as applied to his foot casts as a well? Why not?

I would give Dr. M more credibility in his assessment of Bigfoot casts than I would most other Bigfoot proponents who don't have his education and expertise. However I would also weigh that against the fact that I think he very well could be on a wild goose chase. If his expert assessment is couched in fact that is plainly evidenced and explained then I would have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Conversely if his assessment is more along the lines of 'don't question me, I'm an expert' without the requisite data to back his claim then that will always raise a red flag to me. As always, follow the evidence, the rest doesn't matter.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#17    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 26 August 2013 - 02:14 PM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 26 August 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

I would give Dr. M more credibility in his assessment of Bigfoot casts than I would most other Bigfoot proponents who don't have his education and expertise. However I would also weigh that against the fact that I think he very well could be on a wild goose chase. If his expert assessment is couched in fact that is plainly evidenced and explained then I would have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Conversely if his assessment is more along the lines of 'don't question me, I'm an expert' without the requisite data to back his claim then that will always raise a red flag to me. As always, follow the evidence, the rest doesn't matter.

I have to agree that there is a huge probability that there is nothing because so many sightings turn out to be misidentification or straight up hoaxes, and when you take into consideration the "social media" side that's come into play, you simply have to wonder.

Edited by keninsc, 26 August 2013 - 02:14 PM.


#18    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 26 August 2013 - 02:59 PM

View PostSkepticalB, on 26 August 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

I wouldn't call point/counterpoint bashing.

It's bashing on an academic level, which is not to be confused with internet flaming.


#19    Fstop

Fstop

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 270 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:13 AM

View Postkeninsc, on 25 August 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

One might ask, "How many scientist have come out bashing Meldrum?"

The lack of credible scientist who are bashing him and belittling his name and results speaks as loudly as the ones who would endorse his work.

Ken, I would put forth my theory that most scientists who don't agree with Meldrum generally don't waste their time discounting him, because as we all know, its pretty damn hard to prove a negative.  I think most scientists who don't agree with Meldrum and others just regard them as largely irrellevant and get back to whatever they were doing.

We don’t see things as they are. We see things as we are. – Anais Nin

#20    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:28 AM

View PostFstop, on 27 August 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

Ken, I would put forth my theory that most scientists who don't agree with Meldrum generally don't waste their time discounting him, because as we all know, its pretty damn hard to prove a negative.  I think most scientists who don't agree with Meldrum and others just regard them as largely irrellevant and get back to whatever they were doing.

Ah, but do they read/credit/use/etc M mainstream science findings in his field, or lump it all "irrellevant"? That is what I am trying to get at...

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#21    Fstop

Fstop

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 270 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:39 AM

View PostQuiteContrary, on 27 August 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

Ah, but do they read/credit/use/etc M mainstream science findings in his field, or lump it all "irrellevant"? That is what I am trying to get at...

I am just guessing - not being a scientist or researcher of any kind here, but most commonly research scientists tend to focus on reading things that are related to their own area of research.  Bigfoot research is generally not considered legitimate in most areas of science, and so is probably watched with curiosity, but disregarded in any meaningful way professionally.  Essentially Meldrum is trying to answer a question that mainstream science isn't even asking really.  Cryptozoology is in its own little backwater bubble.

We don’t see things as they are. We see things as we are. – Anais Nin

#22    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:42 AM

Honestly, I've seen little from anyone other than Meldrum. On occasion there's been the odd comment about there being no credible evidence. On that point I have to agree. However, of late....in the last ten years I have noticed a marked decrease in scietific bashing in the media. I don't know if this is due to a change within the community itself or simply a more tolerant mindset is now coming to the forefront and simply doesn't comment unless a study is put out for peer review. Melba Ketchum comes to mind right this red hot minute.


#23    Skep B

Skep B

    Savant of Depravity

  • Member
  • 5,563 posts
  • Joined:02 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duuuuuuuuuuuude

Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:42 AM

View Postkeninsc, on 26 August 2013 - 02:59 PM, said:

It's bashing on an academic level, which is not to be confused with internet flaming.

That just seems like semantics.  Discussion of points within the scientific community is how theories are developed.

When you know what a man loves, you know what can kill him


#24    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:52 AM

View PostFstop, on 27 August 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

I am just guessing - not being a scientist or researcher of any kind here, but most commonly research scientists tend to focus on reading things that are related to their own area of research.  Bigfoot research is generally not considered legitimate in most areas of science, and so is probably watched with curiosity, but disregarded in any meaningful way professionally.  Essentially Meldrum is trying to answer a question that mainstream science isn't even asking really.  Cryptozoology is in its own little backwater bubble.

I mean M is an anthropologist who studies things other than sasquatch. Is (or should or why not) his mainstream science work in anthropology irrelevant or less credible by default because of his purported bf evidence (foot casts) which directly pertains to his mainstream field of expertise?

Or, should we assign more credibility to his cast collection as evidence of sas because it pertains to his mainstream field of expertise?

Can we have our cake and eat it too. Or do we throw it all up?

Edited by QuiteContrary, 27 August 2013 - 04:55 AM.

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#25    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 27 August 2013 - 05:40 AM

View PostSkepticalB, on 27 August 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:



That just seems like semantics.  Discussion of points within the scientific community is how theories are developed.

Not semantics really, theories are postulated and discussed for both confirming the theory is sound or the theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Both are part of the scientific process. Einstein use to write letters to other physicists of his day and they would talk through them. The same is true today. Why? Same reason I posted a thread here once on what might be done to capture a live Bigfoot instead of shooting one, because I wanted to be sure I'd considered everything before going out and shooting one.

Granted, it's not as grandiose as deeper thinkers in academia will take it, but the reasoning is the same. To be sure my reasoning held up to the scrutiny of others.

The reason you rarely ever hear of the negative side is because once the theory is pretty much shot down, it's dropped.


#26    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,393 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:45 AM

View PostFstop, on 27 August 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

I am just guessing - not being a scientist or researcher of any kind here, but most commonly research scientists tend to focus on reading things that are related to their own area of research.  Bigfoot research is generally not considered legitimate in most areas of science, and so is probably watched with curiosity, but disregarded in any meaningful way professionally.  Essentially Meldrum is trying to answer a question that mainstream science isn't even asking really.  Cryptozoology is in its own little backwater bubble.

I'm in agreement with QuiteContrary, keninsc, et al.

It seems that Meldrum's work in the crypto area is rubbished because it is in the crypto area. Not because of poor methodology on Meldrum's part, etc. It appears to me he brings the same methodology to his sasquatch investigation as any 'mainstream' scientific endeavour - so why should we rubbish his sasquatch work without suggesting all his other scientific work is equally invalid?

This does not suggest I have to believe sasquatch exists, but it does allow me to approach the question with a more skeptical, unbiased and inquisitive mind.

Edited by Leonardo, 27 August 2013 - 09:47 AM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#27    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 27 August 2013 - 02:31 PM

View PostFstop, on 27 August 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

I am just guessing - not being a scientist or researcher of any kind here, but most commonly research scientists tend to focus on reading things that are related to their own area of research.  Bigfoot research is generally not considered legitimate in most areas of science, and so is probably watched with curiosity, but disregarded in any meaningful way professionally.  Essentially Meldrum is trying to answer a question that mainstream science isn't even asking really.  Cryptozoology is in its own little backwater bubble.

I would agree.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
                                                                                                                                           - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

#28    Earl.Of.Trumps

Earl.Of.Trumps

    BigFoot Whisperer

  • Member
  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2011
  • Location:Planet Elsewhere

  • One of the beginnings of human emancipation is knowing when authority needs to be corrected | Hitchens, adapted

Posted 27 August 2013 - 05:23 PM

Here's a good quote:

"There are intelligent and productive ways to explore a subject and present a case, but I don't see it being done very often on either side of the Bigfoot debate."

If you watch so-called 'debate' in here sometimes, you will see stories like, "So-and-so sees a BigFoot". and the people in here will say he's lying.
that's SCIENCE??? Uhhh, can we have a wiff of evidence, please?


"The half dozen or so Hollywood special effects artists who have since "come forward" to claim that they were responsible for the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot suit, and the dozens of guys who have "come forward" to claim that they were the guy wearing the suit.. .. .. "

Yet ppl in here will take to heart that their collective testimony *proves* PG was faked.
That's SCIENCE????


Good article.

There are no such things as Lenticular clouds, only UFO's in disguise


"I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you" ~ Jeremy ~


#29    PlanB

PlanB

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined:12 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • Find out what you love and let it kill you.

Posted 27 August 2013 - 05:30 PM

I've always taken exception when people say that the PG film is an obvious hoax. At the very least, I think it's a pretty good hoax. Whenever I want to dismiss it outright, I always wonder why they went through the trouble of putting mammary glands on it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I can't stop thinking about Bigfoot's boobs.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users