You have summed it up beautifully ! A nice contrast to asecretcountry’s froth and blather !

I dont see why Dr Meldrum or her backer should not have an eye to the financial aspects of her teams research. She is in business and that would seem to be the responsible thing to do.

Dr meldrums lates communication seems to be quite encouraging , hope this link works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKCcs0wWh3c&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

I guess it’s more semantics than anything, the presence of an uncatalogued hominid might be proven by DNA… but not necessarily what we know as Sasquatch.

Thanks for the response. I realize there are fundamental differences, but had hoped that we were talking more along the lines of different types of citrus (oranges and lemons maybe?) and could perhaps graft a branch here for our purposes. What I am trying to do is find an ending to this story that doesn’t require Sasquatch to die for our scientific sins.

Some similarities:

1. Both use forensics (argumentation before a forum)
2. Both use the same scientific principles and techniques to assess and validate evidence
3. Both argue cases in front of a group of peers that decide on the evidence
4. Both have a standardized procedure to present arguments

One of the biggest differences and, in retrospect, the probable sticking point for the analogy is that a courtroom jury has no specific skillset and can asses evidence from a wide selection of scientific experts. A scientific peer group is limited to judging a very narrow range of evidence. Proving the presence of a body in absentia requires the acceptance of cumulative evidence from multiple disciplines, something a peer group is not able to do.

I guess the way the science will finally get done is if a fiber study is done, then a DNA study, then a study of eyewitness accounts and statistical correlations, etc… each within its own subset of science, each before its own peer group. Then someone else would need to take all of those and tie them all together in a publication for some sort of multidisciplinary journal. We are a long way from any of that, perhaps hundreds of years if past scientific progress is any indication.

One advantage that the legal establishment has in trying a case is type specimens. We know that members of our species were involved and we can trace DNA directly to them.

Personally, the bigfoot DNA flap doesn’t interest me much, as we cannot – as has been pointed out here – identify potential sasquatch DNA with a type specimen. We still need that specimen.

I believe, however, that far more than enough evidence exists to provisionally establish the existence of a species awaiting formal scientific classification.

That science doesn’t consider that evidence to be proof is – in the starkest terms – science’s problem. Everything else with this much evidence is proven. Time to get cracking, scientific mainstream. Proof is your job.

“Meldrum is a great scientist.” He’s bit’s-of-plaster dude. Make up your mind. As Alamo said: him over you, every time.

“Hint..thats argumentum ignoratum..
Classic error in logic..I cannot think of any other explanation therefore..”

No. YOU can’t. That’s the problem. I mean, you can’t think of one that makes sense, but you don’t think that’s something you need to do. Nope, three possibilities, and I listed the two other than what the evidence seems to actually point to. This is what being read up and thought up about this will do for you.

“And no proof no proof “bores” keyboard researchers because they know its true.”

It doesn’t bother those of us who understand that the evidence points to an unlisted animal. Proof will happen, sooner or later. It’s those who got into this pursuing blind belief, got stiffed, and are now over at the opposite extreme out of, sheer frustration, perhaps? that are bothered by the lack of proof…which is something that we delegate to a scientific establishment that has fallen down on the job. Um, you wouldn’t be one of those, by any chance…? Blind believer or fallen-down scientific establishment, take your pick.

OK. There’s way too much left to fire at there, but time to attend to the day.

(For someone who doesn’t seem interested in this you sure put up long posts.)

If you’ve had no success “finding unusual beasties” as you put it, I’m not surprised. Not looking for things the way a scientist looks at them will do that.

I need to start remembering to use “one” instead of “you” when I’m replying to someone, but saying something intended for the generic “somebody” rather than the person I’m specifically replying to. Sorry.

asecretcountry:

Oh, I have no problems speaking openly about people’s knowledge – or ignorance – of evidence. Keep talking about bits of plaster. All it will make me wonder is how such a minimal level of interest finds anything to do here. I mean, I don’t go trolling crop-circle sites….heeeyyyyy….”Please do some reading on science and cryptozoology….” Um, you haven’t done any, very clearly, on this topic, but I’m not surprised. I’m far better read up and thought up than any scientist whose opinion I have read who disagrees with me. It’s obvious in the things they say. When it comes to this subject the vast majority of scientists are, basically, ignorant laymen. That’s how they talk.

Bits of plaster. Whoooa.

1. The art or study of formal debate; argumentation.
2. The use of science and technology to investigate and establish facts in criminal or civil courts of law.

From the Latin, “forensis” – of or before the forum.

Question:

Forensics (aka forensic science, definition #2 above) can prove murder in a court of law absent a body, based only on secondary evidence (eyewitness testimony, fiber, dermal ridges, footprints, DNA etc…) Absent a body, can forensics (definition #1) and the use and analyses of the results of the same principles and scientific techniques used in courtrooms, prove without a reasonable doubt the existence of Sasquatch, in this and other more academically recognized forums?

I submit that they can.

What do Cryptomundians think, why or why not?