Killing Bigfoot with Bad Science

[Leonardo]

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 August 27, 2013 by Leonardo

[Rafterman]

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.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

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.

[PlanB]

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.