Coming in late here and still need to catch up, but a quick skim brough this up. Here is a link to the broader analysis of the casting artifacts:

http://orgoneresearch.com/photo.htm

This is kind of a digest version, there is a thread that details Tube's progress and continual tests here, with measurements:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...asting+arifacts

Same patterns, same measurements, between the casting arifact tests and the alleged dermal ridges. However, the pattern and measurements of alleged dermal ridges do not match human or ape.

Good question, although you know that you and I don't agree on this part: "folks within the scientific community who feel strongly against sasquatchery". I just don't see that. Or, to be more specific, I do see a bias against "sasquatchery" but not against the notion of there being a "sasquatch." Dismissals by scientists are primarily complaints about the methods of inquiry or the evidence trotted out, but the notion of the creature itself is generally not a problem for scientists.

We're not talking about a phenomenon like ghosts or ESP that requires revision of physical laws to understand its mechanisms. This is just another living, breathing biological entity, and one with at least two plausible fossil precedents (in Giganto and Homo). I really feel that the general consensus among mainstream biologists is that there is a possibility that such creatures could exist and they'd actually love to learn if that was indeed the case because it would be such an amazing biological discovery - but, they just aren't convinced by the evidence to which they've been exposed.

With this paper, Meldrum is exposing them to evidence in a way they haven't seen before - through the scientific literature. Meldrum has even thrown down the gauntlet (one might say), by attaching nomenclature to the phenomenon. I don't necessarily agree with him, but I don't feel strongly enough about it - nor do I have the relevant expertise - to refute the work in the scientific literature. But some who do have that expertise might, and the result would be that hard, critical scientific analysis of the PGF and alleged footprints that folks have been clamouring for over the last 4 decades.

If that refutation never comes, then Jeff Meldrum has some support he needs to publish more widely, i.e., in scientific literature that scientists actually read. And if he publishes in Science or Nature and his work remains unchallenged . . . then guys like me just might start to think that there's something to this bigfoot stuff after all.

Man of the Sea- Note, Meldrum has NOT named sasquatch, just the tracks.
****

I'll venture to guess that what will first happen here is that this paper will be discredited because of the methodology. That is, critics will (perhaps rightfully- I don't know enough about this) point out that one can't propose a scientific name for the non-fossilized footprints of an extant species. And the skeptics will breath a big sigh of relief for not having to get into the trenches to really evaluate the tracks and most will pile on Meldrum for trying to twist the rules in a supposedly pseudo-scientitic way. Hopefully the discussion will go beyond that, but part of me really doubts it, especially with some of the reaction I'm seeing on skeptics lists.

I need to go back and update the thread on the kipunji (the Tanzanian monkey that was initially described only by photos) because I just realized there was a lot of debate about whether or not that was valid methodology. That case was resolved by some bodies being found within a year.....maybe we'll be so lucky here!

-Apeman

This is why I've been baffled at the lack of interest by those who one would expect to be interested. I would think that appropriately credentialed scientists could obtain funding and support easier than people like Byrne, Green, et al.

Yet it appears to me that Krantz was nearly persecuted, and Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Bindernagel, etc have either faced plenty of opposition in their opinions/work thus far, or have been simply ignored.

I've suggested funding on this forum and even you have criticized it. How do people expect honest research if it isn't funded?

Nevermind, I really don't like when these get into phillisophical tangents that distract from the thread.

1) We're still talking around each other. It's not lack of interest, it's ignorance of the phenomenon. That's what this paper will help to dispel. (If it gets widely publicized, of course. Most biologists have neither read nor even heard of this journal.)


2) 'Cause I have near zero confidence in the addition of money to be able to provide us with a body or other significant breakthrough.

I'm afraid you're right, Apeman, which is why I asked you the questions earlier in the thread. Meldrum's paper clarified a lot of those questions. In fact, all of them. He is setting a precedence here, but one that he supports as reasonable based on prior work. But politics being politics, I'm thinking critics could very well take this and twist it to suggest that Meldrum is trying to name Sasquatch, rather than the tracks attributed to the creature. One of longtabber's first comments was along the lines of this being a "back door" attempt. I'm no expert on the subject by any means, but I saw the same problems. Times like this I wish I'd have stayed poor and went back for my M.S. degree and beyond, LOL, rather than getting into the oil industry.

IMHO, though this was a clever idea, the opportunities for critics who want to manipulate the lack of knowledge on the subject of ichnotaxonomy to discredit Meldrum are overwhelming. Maybe he has an ace in the hole. As it stands, I can see the claim that this is a back door attempt being thrown around.



I like the optimism. I'll have to check out the post on the kipunji with the updates. BTW, thanks for providing that info way back when we weren't exactly seeing eye to eye on the value of DNA alone for classifying BF.

WYite

(Emphasis mine.)

Agreed. 'Twould be a shame for the discussion of this paper to center on some kind of pedantic "Calvinball" objection, when there are much richer and more exciting things in this paper that can be addressed. Sniping about the nomenclatural procedure rather than the meat of the argument laid out would seem to paint these "skeptics" in a poorer light than Dr. Meldrum, in my opinion.

Sask.

The basic point is that the paper is based on the idea that the tracks are real.
There is nothing in the paper that says 'tracks are considered real if they meet the following criteria'
It is instead, 'if I feel they are real, then they are real'

No mention of dermal ridges being a casting artifact, no mention of the possibility that the Bluff Creek casts are the result of a hoax, hell there isn't even anything saying how he knows the casts from bluff creek were put down by the creature in the video.

Right. This is the stuff that should legitimately be challenged in this paper, not the attempt in an of itself to place a name to the prints.

As summarized in the author’s recent book (Meldrum, 2006) all
serious sasquatch researchers are well aware of the general skepticism
amongst scientists and lay persons alike. For this reason it is worth
pointing out that those inclined to take the probability of sasquatch’s
existence seriously are either those with direct experience of seeing or
hearing the animal, or seeing its tracks; whereas armchair skeptics have
little or no direct field experience or knowledge of how widespread the
trackway evidence is. On the other hand, a significant number of those
who take the phenomenon seriously have extensive training and field
experience in forensic science, wildlife biology and tracking in the montane
forest of the western U.S. and Canada. Much of the more serious
literature on the subject has been written by bona fide scientists with
anthropological or biological credentials from recognized institutions
(Sanderson, 1961; Napier, 1973; Shackley, 1983; Bourne, 1975; Krantz,
1999; Bindernagel, 1998; Sprague and Krantz, 1979; Markotic and Krantz,
1980; Haplin and Ames, 1980). These have acknowledged those cases of
obvious hoaxing – which, incidentally, is indicated far less often than is
commonly supposed.
excerpt from: ICHNOTAXONOMY OF GIANT HOMINOID TRACKS IN NORTH AMERICA, Dr. JEFFREY MELDRUM
Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, 921 S. 8th Ave., Stop 8007, Pocatello, ID 83209-8007
(bolding is mine)

Doesn't anybody else find it offensive that Meldrum tries to put the majority of sceptics into the "armchair" category? What a crock!!!

Meldrum claims - "a significant number of those who take the phenomenon seriously have extensive training and field experience in forensic science, wildlife biology and tracking in the montane forest of the western U.S. and Canada."
To that - one can only logically reply - a far great number of people with those same credentials don't take this phenomenon seriously. That is pretty self-evident in that researching this pheneomenon is considered "fringe" at best.

Trying to make your detractors look like a bunch of uneducated armchair nerds who don't get out into the wilds is a pretty pathetic way to go about defending your ideas.

In regards to hoaxing - Meldrum states this: "which, incidentally, is indicated far less often than is commonly supposed."



Come on!!! Even Meldrum can't honestly believe that unless the track has been proven to be a hoax - it must be real!
Does he actually believe that there has been enough real investigations on all the purported tracks that have been reported over the last 50 years to back up his claim?
Perhaps Meldrum would care to bring the data forward that proves his assertion on this fact.
Of course - he can also bring along his detailed study of all the "sceptics" that prove his "armshair" insult as well.
Boy - he must have spent a lot of $ on all the private investigators he hired to find out personal information on all the sceptics in the world!!!

I didnt read as far as you did but i agree with you 100% and i would offer the commentary


>>As summarized in the author’s recent book (Meldrum, 2006) all
serious sasquatch researchers are well aware of the general skepticism
amongst scientists and lay persons alike. For this reason it is worth
pointing out that those inclined to take the probability of sasquatch’s
existence seriously are either those with direct experience of seeing or
hearing the animal, or seeing its tracks;

True "science" doesnt operate from a view of "probability"- we operate from a level field of facts and data and then go from there


[i]>>>] whereas armchair skeptics have
little or no direct field experience or knowledge of how widespread the
trackway evidence is.

I'm not an "armchair" skeptic and I'll put my credentials up against his anyday ( and based on what i have seen- I would eat his lunch in front of him in a real review of his conclusions)

1) where is his "blind" ( or double blind) additional testing of his alleged "hypothesis"? ( who checked behind him to validate his findings- when, where and what methods used?)

>>>.[/b] On the other hand, a significant number of those
who take the phenomenon seriously have extensive training and field
experience in forensic science, wildlife biology and tracking in the montane
forest of the western U.S. and Canada.

I'll challenge that right now- "who" are these people and what are their credentials? What 'forensic" expertise do they have? Give me names, and CV's- being a "game warden" doesnt promote one to the level of scientist. Who are these people and what is their training and expertise in? ( this statement is akin to the old "I heard about someone who did.....) Thats NOT science

>>>Much of the more serious
literature on the subject has been written by bona fide scientists with
anthropological or biological credentials from recognized institutions
(Sanderson, 1961; Napier, 1973; Shackley, 1983; Bourne, 1975; Krantz,
1999; Bindernagel, 1998; Sprague and Krantz, 1979; Markotic and Krantz,
1980; Haplin and Ames, 1980). These have acknowledged those cases of
obvious hoaxing – which, incidentally, is indicated far less often than is
commonly supposed. [/i]

Sure they have 'bona fide" experience in their field- but who tested their results? ( this is often referred to as name dropping)

Out of curiousity, what exactly are your credentials in the biological sciences, longtabber? And what credentials do you consider necessary to warrant the label "scientist"?

Really? Well, that's okay, you have to start somewhere. Is there any references where I can see the scientific names for other hominid and pongid tracks? That'd be pretty interesting, for comparison.

IMHO, Meldrum should at least submit his paper to Livescience.com. (They have a resident crypto-septic, I bleev he writes for Septical Inquirer also, or something)

Legitimate question
As far as biological sciences- my credentials are ZERO ( that should clear that up)

As far as science in general- thats a different story

I consider the credentials necessary to deserve the title of "scientist" as follows

1) a person with at least a MS ( preferably a PhD) in a specific field

2) a person who adheres to the tenets and canon of science in general

Thats pretty much it

Anyone who is involved in a "science' is a scientist ( a no brainer)

Then it becomes a question of who plays by the rules

Actually, 1000 (or more) might have a HIGHLY significant difference.

I remember a point being made about 6 months ago about a statistician who worked with biological data, looking for trends. He did an analysis of purported BF track reported dimensions, and found that when all the tracks were entered into a standard algorithym for determining trait distributions that they formed EXACTLY the same distribution pattern that would be expected from a real animal, as opposed to a bunch of hoaxers.

Damned if I can find the reference now though...anyone else remember that statement?

I think you may be referring to Farenbacks " bell curve" analysis.

It can be found in it's entirety on Bigfoot Encounters I beleive.

But "betting" does, and betting is what funding is all about. It's time to fund some investigation.

I do belive that is it, but I will check it out to be certain.

Thank you kindly, jimf. It isn't often we cross paths without fur flying...

No problem.

Its time to call Matthew Lesko and get some of that "free" govt money

And your response to the "Bell curve"analysis?

Dont know- havent looked at it

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/henner.htm

for your convenience

Socially interesting, scientifically meaningless.

And the 'data' distribution/histogram was far from "exactly" anything. Henner is a really terrific guy and this was an interesting and worthwhile excercise but that's all it was and I think even he would admit that. Let's not forget that this same analysis included anecdotal "data" of 13 foot tall bigfeet and supposed 27 inch long tracks, though presumably the tracks, real or not, were actually measured.

Link to full version of the paper

-Apeman

I looked at it and the copy Apeman provided and i agree with his opinion.

The paper as a whole is as good as any I've ever done with 6 Sigma but its the operational premise ( stated) that Bigfoot is an actual specimen and there was no attempt to validate or qualify the data used in generating his metrics is what makes it almost meaningless as far as science goes. ( which isnt uncommon in statistics because often data cannot be validated)

I have argued against the validity of this paper in the past. I continuously argue against using unvalidated data as a means of coming up with any sort of reliable conclusion - no matter how many fancy and/or convoluted steps one takes in an attempt to obscure the fact that it is unvalidated data.

My question is now more to the point...

If the originator of a study knows that their work is scientifically meaningless - yet still puts it out there for people to erroneously use as some sort of "scientific proof" - is that not the same as hoaxing?
After all - they are purposely creating false "evidence" for someone (if not themselves) to use to forward their own agenda and/or beliefs.

A lot of people have used this bell curve as "proof" that the majority of sasquatch prints are not faked. Furthermore, others - including Bindernagel - have used it as "proof" that sasquatch must exist using as their argument that the vast majority of found prints were scientifically validated by Fahrenbach's analysis.
So - is Dr. Fahrenbach asserting that this paper is scientifically valid; Or, is he letting it stand as valid even though he knows it is not?

(This is not an accusation against Fahrenbach - but a valid question as to where he stands given that other scientists - including my old stats prof - assert that his paper is not scientifically valid).

>>>I have argued against the validity of this paper in the past. I continuously argue against using unvalidated data as a means of coming up with any sort of reliable conclusion - no matter how many fancy and/or convoluted steps one takes in an attempt to obscure the fact that it is unvalidated data.

and your argument would be bulletproof

>>>If the originator of a study knows that their work is scientifically meaningless - yet still puts it out there for people to erroneously use as some sort of "scientific proof" - is that not the same as hoaxing?
After all - they are purposely creating false "evidence" for someone (if not themselves) to use to forward their own agenda and/or beliefs.

Well, statistics isnt "evidence" ( scientifically or otherwise)- its a tool with varied usages such as establishing probability models, grouping, troubleshooting and evaluating data ( for a wide range of purposes)

You again have a valid point. Even tho he put just enough "caveats" in there to show he didnt "dupe" people on purpose- the paper itself would be easily misleading to the casual observer. Since he put the information in the paper leads me to accept the fact that he himself knew from the beginning that his data was less than valid.

In my profession ( colloquially) we call that a "memorex" report because it takes invalid data ( known invalid data) and puts it into known and established metrics using accepted standards and then run thru programs such as minitab, NWA or even excel to generate a "scientific looking report"

>>>A lot of people have used this bell curve as "proof" that the majority of sasquatch prints are not faked. Furthermore, others - including Bindernagel - have used it as "proof" that sasquatch must exist using as their argument that the vast majority of found prints were scientifically validated by Fahrenbach's analysis.
So - is Dr. Fahrenbach asserting that this paper is scientifically valid; Or, is he letting it stand as valid even though he knows it is not?

Well, LOL, you have already figured this out. He simply HAD to know that "the people" would take this and run with it. This paper didnt "scientifically validate' anything.

This is a textbook example of a part in a old Don Henley song "Garden of Allah"

>>>"Today I made and appearance downtown
I am an expert witness, because I say I am
And I said, 'Gentleman....and I use that word loosely...I will testify for you
I'm a gun for hire, I'm a saint, I'm a liar
Because there are no facts, no truth, just data to be manipulated
I can get you any result you like....what's it worth to ya?
Because there is no wrong, there is no rightAnd I sleep very well at night
No shame, no solution
No remorse, no retribution
Just people selling t-shirts
just opportunity to participate in this pathetic little circus
And winning, winning, winning' "


That pretty much sums up this "statistical" analysis

In my opinion, no, it's not the same thing and I don't think it applies to this case. I suspect Henner was more of less doing some meagre stats to try to test/disprove the hypothesis of: these "data" have an abnormal distribution (and are therefore false.) And I don't think science (or anything close) is obiligated to be be concerned with how all their results might be spun. This is why we hear on the "news" every week about some meaninglessly small statistical association between some vegetable or some activity and cancer or heart disease or autism or whatever the media wants to scare us about. Like any group driven by some agenda, "bigfooters" are always going to try to spin anything favorable for all it's worth, we shouldn't blame that on Henner, even if he probably coudl have couched this a little better for what it really is. But scientists do that all the time trying to oversell the importance of whatever they are studying.

Picking up my blanket....
-Apeman

Can you explain why it's more meaningless than, say, this?



Actually, it read to me like yet another condemnation of the judicial system by Don Henley.

And now I have to wonder if "science" is going the way of "justice"......

Sure (and remember that I said "scientifically meaningless.")
1. That's based on mostly real data (with some question on self-reporting by hunters presumably) and in the first sentence, on the cover, couches all of it's estimates.
2. It's also just a management report, not a scientific study, and not pretending to be. And it is very useful and meaningful in that regard (I'd imagine, but I'm not a grizzly bear manager).

I know that you know and understand these things Hunster so I'm not sure what you are trying to get at?

Apeman

PS- Belated happy birthday.

I appreciate and understand your points - Apeman. (edited to add that I am responding to your original post directed at me - not Huntster)
I really hesitated to get into this specific debate in the past because I do not doubt that Dr. Fahrenbach is a fine fellow. So, I do not want to come across as someone whose intention is to bash him or question his integrity. I really should have started a separate thread and spoke to the situation as a whole so as not to seem to pick on only Dr. Fahrenbach or summarily cast his work into disrepute.

However, since we are here now, I do think it is encumbent on people in positions of authority (such as scientists or lawyers or doctors or judges) to clarify or correct disingenous propaganda that may come from the misinterpretation of their statements or work. (This is based on the assumption that those people in authority are in a position to hear about and effectivley respond to such misinterpretations of their work.)

Since Dr. Fahrenbach's work is not in a position (at this point) to be submitted for publication - it misses out on peer review.
Would it not be a worthwhile exercise to have his paper reviewed, in an informal way, by a couple of the scientists on this board? I am thinking one of the excellent podcasts done by Melissa and Bitter Monk, or Bipto would be an ideal and entertaining forum. Possilby yourself, Longtabber PE and others may be interested?
In my mind - it would be entertaining and very informative. Plus Dr. fahrenbach could have a forum where he could respond to the people in the peanut gallery (such as me) who think that no matter what his intentions are - his paper muddies the waters.

It might or might not be entertaining, but the paper (I think) was originally published in one of the cryptozoology journals so a review now is really not going to accomplish anything. I personally also have plenty of more constructive things to do at the moment. Besides, overall I like the paper for what it is. I always reference it for an explanation on the correction of the equation Glickman incorrectly (and very unfortunately) used for his mass estimate of the Patterson figure.

-A

(This is a general response to points made in prior posts as well as the one quoted.)

I don't think those are fair assertions at all. Either you are not understanding or are underplaying the significance of the statistical findings. The purpose of using the widest possible dataset is to MINIMIZE the effect of any erroneous/malicious data on the result set. This includes data that seems to flout the "curve" of the data set, as anomalous data is common in real life.

In the case of humans, for example, there are people who have grown to the height of 7-9' tall in the naturally occuring population. Assuming that the average human height is ~6', that yields a range of "excessive heights" between ~1.2 (rounded from 1.17) and 1.5 times the average height. Apply that to the putative sasquatch (using a ~8' average height) yields "excess heights between 9' 4" and 12' (not quite there, but very close).

Agruing against an entire data set because of ONE anomalous data point speaks to a lack of understanding of the purpose of statistical analysis.

But the most compelling outcome of the analysis is in itself the single-peak bell curve distribution pattern. That is a POWERFUL counterarguement to the skeptical "hoax/misidentification" theory, because, as the paper's author points out, an "UNnatural distribution pattern" would have MULTIPLE peaks.

That is the essence of WHY "bell curve" analysis is so useful for evaluating data, because in nature, ALL trait distributions across entire populations follow this pattern. A natural bell curve indicates a natual origin, a NON-natural curve indicates a non-natural origin...it's as simple as that.

No, I really don't. I don't understand the difference between a management report and a scientific study, unless the study is devoted to and focused on an unknown, such as the mere existence of sasquatches, or why Kodiak brown bears have bigger heads than Kamchatka brown bears.

What would you say is the difference between a scientific study and a management report?



Thanks! It was a great birthday. In fact, it's still going on!

And that is exactly what he did...if we were talking about any other dataset than the reported characteristics of bigfoot, this would be an overwhelmingly powerful evidentiary point.




I'd like to see this as well, since it would be actually debating the SCIENCE as opposed to trying to cherry pick the data.

If you have a thousand 'BF' prints, and the bell curve for the sizes comes out like this. There is probably a pretty good chance, that if you had 1000 hoax BF prints, they would come out like this as well. The idea that a bell curve being symetrical has no bearing on whether they are from a real animal.

No, that's the fatal flaw in the analysis. Why on earth would one assume a non-normal distribution to a large sample of hoaxed tracks? My main problem with Fahrenbach's analysis is that his original premise is baseless and illogical.

Think about it. If you're going to hoax some bigfoot prints, how big should you make them? Too small, and no one who finds them would believe them to be bigfoot. Make them too big and they'll look obviously hoaxed - not to mention they get unwieldy if they are strapped on to the hoaxer's boots. So it makes perfect sense to me that if hundreds of unrelated hoaxers were to create prints or trackways, the ones that would make it into a "database" such as Fahrenbach used would be the ones that seemed plausible in the field as bigfoot prints, i.e., we'd only learn about the ones that looked like bigfoot prints.

So I would absolutely expect a normal distribution to a hoaxed sample of prints with a mean length probably about 14-16" (based on my size 11s).

I still can't tell if you're pulling my leg. But yes, you've got the essense of it. A scientific study normally sets out to answer some research question, whereas something like a management report, like the one you offered, is mostly aimed at collating data and answering the question "are we doing this right?" There can be some elements of crossover. But the management report doesn't "prove" anything, though it's attempting to show that bears are being harvested sustainably (or something like that- I didn't fully read this one).

Does that help?

****

Mulder- First, take a deep breath my friend. I think we're getting close to going off topic on the Fahrenbach paper so if you really want to debate that we should probably revive a related thread. What you've said about statistics is true, and even though Henner himself points out that the footprint measurements are not a true normal distribution, none of that really matters because we have no means of validating the data. Intuitively, I agree with what Saskeptic said above and am very suspicious of Henner's reference for expected peaked distributions of hoaxed data (another non-peer reviewed- I think- article in Cryptozoology that I can't easily find). I can see why hoaxed data might lead to a multiple peaked distribution but I can also reason why it wouldn't, but either way there should be a legitimate reference for this.

Can we get back to Meldrum's paper?


-Apeman

(This post is also addressed to Saskeptic's reply, which is immediately below the reply I'm quoting)

Unfortunately, you are 100% wrong. The symmetrical, single peak bell curve is the basis of ALL "natural" trait distribution trends. That is why it is a consistent and reliable tool for analyzing datasets of traits or occurrances.

What you would see with hoaxers is this: Everyone "knows" that bigfoot feet are BIG. Therefore if you were wanting to hoax bigfoot tracks, you aren't going to make them human size AT ALL. Therefore the lower end of the curve will have a dropoff, at around 12" in length. You would then have a series of "spike peaks", clustered around what sound like "big" numbers, until you reach lengths that make the hoaxing media (carving or whatever) too unwieldy to use, and then you'd have ANOTHER dropoff.

The hoax hypothesis requires ANOTHER element to explain away the natural curve outcome: that the hoaxers KNOW about bell-curve distribution, and plan their hoaxes accordingly to account for it. That the dataset covers inputs spanning literally decades and decades and decades, and events reported by people living thousands of miles apart who have NEVER met or known each other, let alone have the demonstrated technical knowledge to concoct such a technically sophisticated hoax renders that hypothesis (in a statisitical sense) DOA.

*EDIT* Links to basic information about "bell curve distribution" and it's use in this case.

Normal distribution

"Normality test" explanation

Apeman, I would respectfully suggest you read a bit more about the universality of the "bell curve disdtribution" (Start with the links I provided above, esp "Normality test".). I know it sounds like I'm debating bell curve instead of the bulk of the paper, but I contend that the bell-curve analysis is the HEART of the paper, and it's strongest scientific arguement. The consistent universality of the curve is WHY it is so widely used to evaluate datasets.

With all due respect back Mulder, I've had enough graduate school stats work to understand all the issues, stats, and tests involved- at least at the fundamental level. That's not where my problem is, and we can argue all day about the logic of hoaxing human-sized tracks vs. assuming human-sized tracks aren't human. I agree that this an interesting finding, and in my heart of hearts I suspect it might be real, but the specious data that went into it will never hold up scientifically. That's why I've said all along that we should value this paper as what is, nothing more, nothing less. Perhaps my "scientifically meaningless" comment was too harsh and I should have just said scientifically flimsy?

-Apeman

Apeman, I'll freely admit I am neither a grad student nor a professional statistician. My reading on the topic, however, suggests that one of the uses OF the nomality test is to check otherwise unverified data to see if it's distribution matches the natural curve, with the degree of UNnaturality directly proportional to the degree of variance from the curve.

Are the results dispositive? I'm not contending that. But I AM contending that the results are powerful SUPPORTIVE evidence to the hypothesis that the dataset represents a REAL animal, rather than a collection of hoaxes and misidentifications.

My ongoing point is is that we need to stop thinking "inside the box" in our search for evidence. Forget the linearly orthodox procession of "fact finding". Come at the problem through the "back door", through the windows on the walls. H*ll, cut a hole in the d*mn roof and RAPELL in. It is that sort of unconventional approach that I belive this finding represents.

Strong coffee? Perhaps not. BUT, like weak coffee, it still is evidence FOR coffee. If a criminal can be convicted of a crime by a mountain of circumstantial evidence, I don't see why we shouldn't be working on a mountain of OUR circumstantial evidence, as opposed to putting on horse blinders of "show me the monkey, or go away".

But that IS getting too far off topic for THIS thread, so I'm letting it go where it stands. I've made my best case, and nothing more I can say will make it better.

This is where you are either misunderstanding the stats, or possibly falling under the "spell" of stats. Even though Henner himself shows that it isn't exactly a normal distribution (which hardly ever exactly occurs in nature or with a small sample) all that a normality test would "prove" is that the data is normally distributed. Remember, the stats are not testing for real data, they are just testing for normally distributed data - of some sort. It is then a subjective interpretation that because the data is normally distributed it is somehow evidence of a real creature rather a normally distributed range of fake tracks. But we're just going around in circles here so let's agree to disagree about the importance of this and get back to Meldrum's paper- cool?

I used to agree with you on looking at the totality of the evidence, but then when I started to better dissect all the bits and watch virtually all of them fall apart I realized that it could all be a house of cards.

I was going to make this comment in the Radford thread but never got around to it: I think efforts like this one by Henner could prove to have real value if and when these animals are ever proven to exist. I realize that contradicts what I've said about it's merits and what not, but I'm sad to observe that it's the way the world often works. I liken it to things like original stories of gorillas being laughed at, but when they were documented those anecdotes became part of an historical record and are now given at least an ounce of credence. This why I've always thought that a proper bigfoot research organization should be preparing things like this in case they are ever documented. What a step ahead a group could have by having a well presented outline of what we think we know about these animals biologically. So on that sort of front I think you and I fully agree and that's really the context in which Meldrum's paper might have some importance.

Apeman

Apeman, just as a final point of clarification, are you agreeing with Saskeptic that some hoaxers would be/are faking sub 12" tracks that otherwise share traits attributed to BF (flat arch, "curled" toes, etc)? Because sub 12" tracks ARE part of the sample dataset.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/figure1.jpg

Sorry Mulder, my 16 credits of stats lead me to understand that a large sample of almost any measurement would assume a normal distribution. So demonstrating that alleged sasquatch prints are normally distributed means nothing other than, as Apeman deftly pointed out, that the prints are normally distributed.

Demonstrating a normal distribution is often the first step in a diagnostic test to see if a dataset may be analyzed by a parametric test, like ANOVA or regression, without violating key assumptions of those tests. So, if you like, we can say that the value of Farhenbach's analysis is that those alleged sasquatch prints may be analyzed for a statistically significant difference between them and the size of, say, human footprints. If we did that test and the sassy prints were larger, would that make them authentic?

I disagree. It's my understanding that the dataset represents the ratio of foot length to width. Not the same as correlating foot length alone. In which case I highly doubt a bell curve would result from random hoaxing. You need some stats to reach that conclusion. This is the whole point. Not that the bell curve is proof of a living population, (even if the implication is there), but rather to demonstrate that hoaxing is not obvious or even evident. This is more akin to a null hypothesis. Glickman set out to do the same thing in his paper.

We can never "validate" that sightings are genuine, but we can draw from the statistical likelihood of hoaxing. It's logical to assume that a non-bell curve would imply some level of hoaxing. But even then one must assume the premise of the study: that unrelated random events such as hoaxing tracks are unlikely to form bell curves unless there is a coordinated effort to make it so, which is also unlikely. You have to qualify what would cause random hoaxers to construct fake feet where the foot length/width ratio vs foot size is normally distributed. A large sampling of known hoaxed tracks could accomplish this. This would represent the control data. Such a study could validate or refute Fahrenbach's study. But it's not valid to contend one would expect a bell curve from hoaxed tracks, without supporting "evidence" to this effect.

Fahrenbach's paper is not meaningless. It just doesn't prove anything. But then 99% of research papers don't prove anything either. They merely present observations that hopefully support a scientific consensus. And many peer-reviewed papers base their conclusions on statistical analyses.

I'm not. I truly am this simple and confused sometimes.



Yup.

So, essentially, biologists can "guess" and extrapolate on densities, movements, population increases and declines, recruitment, habitat, etc on brown bears, but cannot do so on sasquatches, and that is considered valid science.

The part you aren't saying is in a normal population. The weight I am assigning to the statistical evaluation is towards the question of "normal (or 'real') population" vs "misidentification/hoax". A bigfoot hoaxer isn't going to waste his/her time hoaxing tracks human size or smaller. He/she is going to hoax BIG tracks. The results are going to be skewed towards larger numbers and NOT conforming to the "normal curve".

THAT is the significance of the normal curve, and the presence of 12"and <12" tracks in the dataset.

They sure can, because the bear biologists are starting with a pile of bodies at a hunting check station, a stack of licenses, etc.. The have concrete measurements of some sample of that population, and they also have repeated measures of it every year. That's a lot different than anything we have for sasquatches. Also remember that they're really not terribly interested in knowing the exact population of bears, they want to know whether or not hunting is affecting that population, i.e. is it stable, increasing, decreasing, etc. It's about management, not counting, but they have to tie numbers back to extraploate on the population in order for it to make sense. (Note again that I'm making assumptions about this report but mostly trying to unveil the bigger picture)

Look Hunster, I know you like to believe that science and scientists are perpetually screwing over the bigfoot (research) community (), and that might be somewhat valid, but you're not going to make that case with this example, sorry.

***
Meldrum anyone? Beuller? Hello?

Apeman