Comments on: Bad Bigfoot Data Is Still Bad Bigfoot Data

By: jewpunxxx

jewpunxxx — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 06:15:34 +0000

And btw i do not believe in god or gods evspecially not elevating any human to that status. But i do applaud anyone who uses the scientific method to research anything considered to be the so called fringe sciences. That approach goes along way. In recemt years i applaud meldrum, seth shostak, richard dolan, and pat spain(may he make a triumphant return to crypto hunting). They are IN MY OPINION, shining examples of how each of their respective approaches to their specialties should be handled.

By: jewpunxxx

jewpunxxx — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 05:53:36 +0000

My apologies loren i was half asleep as i was writing my comment i did not intend for it to be taken as matter of fact only as opinion and likliehoods. Because it seems to me and i would in fact keep known fakes in my collection to use as refrence when comparing alleged prints and if said prints have more in common with the known fakes than with ones that do not have anything common with the fakes, then i would know how to classify them. At this point since science does not recognize sasquatch as a known species the ONLY groups of alleged prints i could classify credibly is known fakes, known species(i.e. bear, human, ape etc) and unidentifiable (those that do not match the fakes or any known species) at this time. So until sasquatch is recognized by sciennce as real species it would be imperative that i keep the fraudulent prints in my collection for identification pirposes. Using that common sense logic, i assume an educated man such as meldrum would do the same. So we all know what happens when you assume and i apologize for not being clear on the point i was trying to make. But in the future it would be nice to see both sides of the story from halls point and meldrums rebuttle to the accusations before we the readers begin debating a subject.

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 02:18:54 +0000

Just because I haven’t read someone’s book does not exclude me from making comments nor does it make it “based on no context.” If you had read my comment you would have seen that I did indeed admit I was asking for more information about this issue. I do not appreciate the condescending remarks just because I haven’t read every text on BF.

Jeff Meldrum is not some armchair cryptozoologist who’s well read. If there is question about what data he includes in his book, then ask why he chose to include that data. Meldrum’s specialty, as DWA says, is in “primate locomotor adaptations.” I’d say he’s got some right to speak his mind on this front, and if Mark Hall and apparently you don’t agree with him, then put forth some factual data disputing it. That’s what Cryptomundo is for. You can’t take for granted that everyone reading these posts has read all of the informtation

And no, I haven’t read the book et. Maybe he does answer those questions in it. I guess I’ll be plunking down my $$ now to find out, because while Jeff Meldrum may not be a god, his opinion and perspective carry a lot of weight with me.

By: bigfoots

bigfoots — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 02:07:40 +0000

@ WinterIsComing
very true…
with exception of the p/g film I would say thats a “mostly” true statement..

By: DWA

DWA — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 02:03:20 +0000

WinterIsComing:

Um, no, by so much it isn’t worth talking about, and somebody needs to read him some Meldrum and Krantz.

By: WinterIsComing

WinterIsComing — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 01:53:18 +0000

“It’s posting a photo of a track, and of something that allegedly made the track, without evidence sufficient for proof that the thing that you are saying made that track made it.”

Isn’t that…you know…every bigfoot track…ever?

By: bigfoots

bigfoots — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 01:00:42 +0000

@ Loren

Just wanted to say I don’t view anyone in the Bigfoot field as a god.. nobody is an expert.. if they are they have yet to reveal themselves..
in fact I totally disagree with some of Jeff’s views.. particularly his “guesstimation” of 750 creatures in north america.
I think 10,000 is a good starting point.. they are far more widespread that what he would believe. At least in my opinion.

I do however think there is a method to Jeff’s analysis and commentary..
He walks a very fine tight-rope as a Tenured? College professor I’m sure.
Not to mention I think as a “scientist” he tends to naturally error on the conservative side.

However, I do think that when it comes to foot casts its far more likely that Jeff is “on point” so to speak… I don’t know.. I just find it really hard to believe, and its not because i think what he says is “gold”. Perhaps there are a lot of newbies who do.. so I can see where your coming from I guess.

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:45:52 +0000

And I need to say this about the “James Randi dodge.”

It’s not flipping a photo to line up with another photo.

It’s posting a photo of a track, and of something that allegedly made the track, without evidence sufficient for proof that the thing that you are saying made that track made it.

As I said earlier: I want analysis of the track, on the ground. Not two photos that we are asked to believe, without additional evidence, show causality.

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:26:24 +0000

One more point I need to make. It’s about that extraordinary-claims thing.

Jeff Meldrum being a renowned expert on just this aspect of the sasquatch issue, it’s an extraordinary claim that he’s letting shallow tracks made by wooden feet seriously pollute his database. It could be considered an even more extraordinary claim than the one that the sasquatch is real.

This extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence: science-based debunking sufficient to call Meldrum’s ichnotaxonomy paper into question as based significantly on fraud.

If that paper is legit, this discussion is moot.

By: TheForthcoming

TheForthcoming — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:23:09 +0000

On a side note, Loren, I do hope you write more about this issue and maybe someday write a book on logical fallacies in the field of Cryptozoology (or just logic in general) and maybe a book like Cryptozoology for Dummies or something like that.

Keep up the good work and research, btw.