Jeff Meldrum just forwarded me his latest publication: "ICHNOTAXONOMY OF GIANT HOMINOID TRACKS IN NORTH AMERICA."

citation: Lucas, Spielmann and Lockley, eds., 2007, Cenozoic Vertebrate Tracks and Traces. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 42.

I'll link the PDF if/as soon as he gives me permission, but think the abstract is OK to start with. I'm guessing it will eventually be available on the NMMNH&S Website



Very, very, very clever approach- if you ask me.

Apeman

Indeed. I've been looking forward to the 3D scanned archives being made available. Anthropoidipes ameriborealis has a certain ring to it, don't you think?

Sort of getting your foot in the door - so to speak.

I've found this LINK on the vizualisation project, but couldn't find the foot in the Virtual Specimen Library.

Can anyone enlighten me on where this thing could be?

This is the link he provides in the paper http://ivl.imnh.isu.edu/

I posted a dumb question which I answered myself after following the links provided.

It would be neat if the 3d images are made accessible online, but I couldn't find them.

I've spent some time browsing through the 3D specimens they have there in the virtual libray but couldn't find the rendition of the cast.

Seen tools, bones, but no cast.

I'm just wondering, after doing a little reading on ichnotaxonomy, if names assigned to prints or other traces have any bearing on names assigned if/when a biological holotype is discovered. In fact, I found an abstract of a paper that seems to recommend the opposite: I'm just not sure if this means that ichnotaxa should be treated completely separately from biological taxa as a classification system, or if the names can't later be assigned to the animal that created them when discovered, or maybe both.

At any rate, maybe this will prevent any sort of near-disaster like Scrotum humanum.

Dr.Meldrum hasn't yet completed the project to the best of my knowledge. I would imagine that the information you seek will be available possibly by years end.

I'm not totally clear on the answer to your second question either, but this is from the paper:

So, it seems this proposed name of the tracks could not be used for the animal if one were to turn up today, but I still think this paper is a big deal and am surprised there has been so little discussion here.

I was in the process of addressing Gigantor's question last night before he seemingly edited it, but I still want to discuss this...

This wasn't a stupid question.

Personally, I think this is a big deal. I probably should have put his name in the title to get everyone's attention...but maybe people are waiting for the full paper, which I just don't feel is appropriate for me to post until he clears it.

Anyway, to me it initially seemed like he'd staked a claim in scientifically naming bigfoot, by first using existing mechanisms to name the tracks, but it seems clear after a few rereads that that breaks the rules. And I shouldn't have given him full credit for profound cleverness in my first post because, as he discusses in the intro, this tact has been tried for years (starting with Krantz) and other people have seemingly steered him this way. But this still strikes me as an incredibly clever move to, at the very least, up the ante and have a few more people take notice of this whole subject. It's not a far cry from him basically putting a proposed scientific name for bigfoot into the scientific literature- even if this is only a museum bulletin that I don't think is peer-reviewed or widely read.

But I really want know what others think about this. I realize it's a bit difficult without the full paper but you can gather the crux from the abstract- that's what they're for! We can get into the finer points of the paper when it goes up, but in the meantime what does everyone think of this approach?

Apeman

Gigantor, thanks for asking that "stupid" question for me, and Apeman, thanks for the great answer.

I suppose I can see the act as a bit of officialdom that can both challenge and encourage officialdom. I wonder how long before we see more meaningful acceptance and inquiry?

I don't know about anyone else, but to me it's a wee bit ludicrous to scientifically name the tracks of an animal that officially doesn't or has not in the past technically existed.

I agree, but I suppose if "they" won't let the critter in the front door, it may be possible to kick the back door down with a "big_foot".

Is that the idea?

Beats me. Not a scientist. But if most of the tracks found that are called "Sasquatch" or "Bigfoot" Tracks, can't convince ordinary Joe Schmoe , let alone DR. Joe Schmoe , how is giving it a fancy name going to change any of that when it's still dealing with the same thing ? Easily 75% of the ones I've seen posted here, in books , or other formats could be easliy faked or a misidentification. Others may just take more work to do so.
Throw in some of what's been accomplished by Tube and Wolftrax's work, as well as the credibility issues of some of the people who have found the tracks that were studied in the first place and well....

Changing the nomenclature of it makes little difference IMO.

jimf wrote:





Plus, adding the fact that the possibility of the PGF tracks being hoaxed hasn't been ruled out makes the "naming" even more presumptuous, imho.

That leaves 25%, that need work, and if only 1% are valid, it's time to open the front door to the critter.

Maybe Dr. Meldrum is describing that footprint that is among the 1%.........

It seems to me that kicking in the back door gets the invader in the house, and if the residents want him out, they have to throw him out (if they can............).

Sorta' like seeking forgiveness before permission...........



Then we're back to corpse or no cigar, right?

Huntster wrote:





Indeed, maybe. But do go from a "maybe" to a certainty of classification is, again, in my opinion, presumptuous.


Hunster also wrote:





Maybe not. It's possible that some DNA obtained, independent of a corpse, could garner a primate sequence not yet classified and would, at least in my mind, constitute
proof...or, at least, very strong evidence. I think many scientists would also find such evidence very compelling. But, footprints, without even an actual Bigfoot foot to corroborate a direct connection to them is, I think,
wishful thinking. Hoaxing still hasn't been ruled out, in regards to the PGF prints and others, as a possibility. To paraphrase Chilcutt from the '05 Texas Conference..."any track can be faked".

Well something is leaving tracks, this much we know for sure.

I don't see why it would be silly to name the phenomenon.

FredSneakers/David wrote:




But Meldrum is not naming a phenomenon. He's clearly stating that the PGF tracks were definately made
by an unclassified upright primate.

Actually Meldrum is not stating it's bigfoot. He's stating it's "commonly attributed to Bigfoot or sasquatch." He also doesn't state it's not a hoax/fake. Therefore, I think he is defining the phenomenon, because we don't know what bipedal thing is creating them. Yeah, pretty clever



I was under the impression this was a peer-reviewed paper. I'm not knowledgable on how this all works, but I assumed any new classification must be peer-reviewed.

just my 2 cents

Thanks Apeman for your answer.

I live in the business world of free markets, which is extremely different from the research and academic world, thus my ignorance of the procedures/politics you guys have to follow. My take on this approach or any other unless it's illegal or immoral is that if it works, I'm for it.

I hope it works!

I guess Dr. Meldrum has made a claim that is ready for review. We'll see where it leads, huh?



If any track can be faked, and the current hair/scat/DNA evidence isn't enough evidence to justify funding, I really fail to see what any further evidence which will be "compelling" will do towards solving this dilemna. It is obvious that what is demanded is proof, and when that is delivered, there will no longer be a need for funding to prove anything.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=411839

See, I knew what I was talking about. I even spelled it right. And you guys doubted me

Also, it doesn't seem absurd to classify tracks of an animal that isn't classified. They classified the tracks, saying that they are a phenomenon. Not necessarily that they are made by an animal. The next step is to say "So... if there's tracks.... shouldn't we say it's at least probably that somethin' made them?"

As Yetifan said, he's actually doing both. He's naming the phenomenon/tracks, and also arguing that it is indeed not a hoax and is from a real animal. It would be a bit absurd if one was able to name things that were possibly from a hoax, right?


I'm pretty sure it is not based on it being called a "bulletin;" having editors (like a book) that likely invited the authors to submit papers; and because I can't find it on any lists of peer-reviewed publications. This will obviously be more of an issue for some people than it will for others.

Kucta-qa, sorry I missed that thread.

Yetifan, I actually think this paper will help counter your long-standing objection about the possibility that the tracks aren't linked to the film subject. Sure, Meldrum (or anyone else) claiming it, doesn't make it true, but this at least elevates it from Murphy's book. I should go back and read any of the numberous threads, but I can't remember why you cling to this so much. Is it because the combination of the film and the tracks is so hard to dismiss together? Feel free to direct me to another thread for a refresher if you don't have the energy to go through it all again.

-Apeman

Apeman wrote:




The reason I cling to it is simply you don't see the film subject make the tracks. Period. The angle at which the film is shot prohibits it. If it was a hoax, isn't it possible the tracks were made after the shooting? I think any peer reviewed journal participants would ask the same. I think intense experimentation (by those on both sides of the argument) attempting to recreate the tracks (by someone walking in a suit and just simply making them) will go much further in clarifying possibilities, if not fully eliminating them. But to just take Patterson and Gimlin's word that the film subject made the tracks isn't very scientific, to me at least. What would have been compelling is if, in fact, it was a Bigfoot and, immediately after filming the subject, Patterson would have panned down (without the camera stopping) to show the prints. But since that didn't happen, who really knows (apart from Gimlin...assuming he wasn't duped) how long of a time there was between "the walk" and the print footage? As far as science is concerned, taking someone's word for when it happened is not a solid base on which to build a theory favoring classification of an unknown biped...imho.

I guess I didn't get that out of the abstract.

Like Yetifan wrote:



That would've been the only way to connect the two, assuming the Patty is truly a bigfoot.

I disagree and think logic and common sense are all you need to connect the two. Sure, it would have been great to have a rolling, continuous film, but why on earth would anyone in this situation bother to do that?

I guess I still don't see the big deal here, and even if I were reviewing this or a similar article, faking tracks to go along with the film would be about the last concern I'd have. For me it just follows logically that, hoaxed or not, the figure made the tracks. The third possibility of faking separate tracks from whatever marks the figure left on the ground just seems like such a reach, and one with very little purpose. I suppose it's possible, but it's just not logical. Murphy has shown (less than definitively) that there are tracks behind the figure visible in the film. The tracks found match the feet we can see in the film including shape, some degree of mobility or flexibiltiy, and approx size. A number of eyewitnesses to the tracks, including at least one highly regarded tracker, found no evidence of foul play that anyone is aware of. I guess most of them were biased but some of them were also envious or jealous of Patterson, from my recollection, and would have happily outed him...I think?

Anyway, to me it's almost like saying that we shouldn't believe the moon landing because we don't have a continuous rolling film of the astronauts getting from the earth to the moon (do we?). Ok, maybe that's a bad analogy but my point is that it's almost unreasonable to assume anything other than the figure made the tracks, without drawing in some huge conspiracy theory. That's not to say they're legit or not, but why would they have bothered to fake them separate from the figure? To make them deeper and farther apart? Those sorts of theories start to introduce nearly as many problems as they explain, so it just doesn't make sense to me. And I don't really see how it adds much weight to the hoax argument?

-Apeman

Like Apeman, my initial reaction was one of surprise, delight and intrigue. It seemed quite clever to me (not being familiar with the study of ichnotaxonomy) for Dr. Meldrum to use the process for essentially categorizing the trackway as you would a fossil specimen. It does seem rather the backdoor and perhaps some would argue the wrong door since a fossil specimen is not living, but it seems to me to be a door nonetheless.

As one who has personally discovered and witnessed multiple trackways over a several month period, in an area and under conditions where a hoax is virtually ruled out, I can attest to the veracity of the existence of dynamic footprints of a large bipedal animal (presumably an ape) that shares a similar suite of characteristics with other tracks described and associated with a similar animal. I am accepting Dr. Meldrum's work and collection at face value, having never inspected it personally, but given the unique and unambiguous nature as well as size of such evidence, it is obvious to me that the sheer volume of of that evidence with its shared characteristics deserves scientific validation, in spite of the lack of what many would deem more compelling evidence.

Because the search is an uphill battle given the bias in the scientific community against the existence of a North American ape species, it seems to me that the mystery can and will be solved "bit by bit", much as the way the Velveteen Rabbit became "real" (for those familiar with the children's story), rather than "all at once".

So my hat is off to the good Dr. for his courage and persistence. I will wager that there are a number, as opposed to a few, other forms of evidence that will lend well to scientific scrutiny, aside from the more obvious and frustrating ones - hair, scat. Jeff's work is just one aspect of a multi-faceted search for not only the mere classification of the animal but the knowledge and understanding of the natural history of the animal.

And BTW, I agree with your comment above with a slightly different "spin" Apeman (I had not seen it prior to posting this - reason for edit). I think there is no good reason not to connect the two.

I need some clarification here, Apeman. I'm not familiar with how this has been applied in various applications before now.
I've always been under the impression ichnotaxonomy was for fossilized trace evidence. Has this been used before, for a species that is presumed to be living? Has it been used on trace evidence that was obviously from an extant species, but for which the exact species that created it could not be identified, which is effectively what Meldrum is doing? An extinct species for which no remains may ever be discovered is one thing, but I wonder how well it will be received to assign an ichnotaxon to a species that may still be extant and for which physical remains may still possibly be acquired.

It's a clever idea, no doubt. I just wonder if Meldrum is sticking his neck out a little too far with this, especially with the flack he is/has been already taking.

WYite

I personally think its more of a disasterous idea and is very likely to backfire.

Its no secret Meldrum has taken heat ( and a lot of it) as well as his "professional reputation" among his peers is similar to what the "ghostbusters" suffered for essentially the same reason.

( what he is doing is no more different than if I went to my peers claiming I finally solved cold fusion or created perpetual motion)

This "back-door" attempt , I feel will give his detractors a stronger case to claim he is unethical and at some point may even affect his tenure.

Having reviewed a lot of his work- his findings and theories regarding the tracks and their construction, abnormalities is excellent and very professional.

However- that work ( in and of itself) isnt enough to establish the actual existance of a species. ( it would certainly support a case but not win it)

The problem with his conclusions is- he is making a SUBJECTIVE observation ( rather than an objective one) He is basically drawing a speculative conclusion ( his foot designs) and trying to promote it as a fact. ( thats where the claims of him being a pseudo scientist come from)- he COULD be right but in the end, its just his OPINION.

This is different that making the exact same case with say dinosaurs because with them we actually do have remains that show bones. ( thus a basis in FACT rather than conjecture to base a theory on)

Being an engineer who does design work- I can easily see what he is doing, I see the logic he is using and understand where and how he comes to his conclusions. ( I do the same thing, just in a different discipline)

The problem is- theres a difference between a "virtual" machine and one sitting on the floor. ( thats were often CAD and solidworks designs look good in the conceptual phase- but fail in the build phase)

This is why "subjective" evidence ( regardless of how good it is) will never rise to the level of "proof"

I think the point is that there is a phenomenon that has tracks associated with it and those tracks and casts of them should have a proper scientific identification. It aides their study. It produces a standard to gauge other purported tracks and casts of the same phenomena by. It helps in communications.

Science has looked at stuff before and identified what it could for study; vampires, werewolves, UFOs, ESP, etc. Science shouldn't turn its back on such stuff but explore it. My understanding is that this is a logical step in doing so. Maybe it doesn't fit exactly with what Martin Lockley did or does but he is supportive of the effort. Detail certainly isn't lacking in modern day Sasquatch tracks when compared to some dinosaur tracks he has named. Science evolves too you know.

I understand your concern and as a biologist, I would say your analysis while starting off on a good foot (no pun intended) ends up with what I consider inconsistencies. To put it into context: while there is an art to the interpretation of animal tracks, it is certainly also a science. Physical animals leave physical tracks; tracks which can be subjected to forensic analysis. While there are some "subjective" aspects to this kind of analysis, it is based on objective physical data.

See my post above. The "bit by bit" analogy of which Dr. Meldrum's work fits into, isn't intended to "prove" or classify the animal, although it certainly makes it more "real" as the "bits" grow. It is rather to systematically and scientifically document, physical evidence presumed to be left by an, as of yet, unclassified, highly elusive, reclusive, and intelligent animal. This is what science is, formulating an hypothesis and subjecting it to objective testing.

As you know, these tracks and trackways (apart from obvious fakes) can and have been put to numerous tests and show distinct characteristics that are unlike any known animal and are consistent among tracks from various parts of the country. For those familiar with the interpretation of animal signs including tracks, this evidence speaks unambiguously to the existence of a physical animal.

To ignore this evidence, in my opinion would be morally wrong. To document it would be taking the high ground. While one can certainly question the method of documentation, calling it "subjective" is at best grossly misleading.

I doubt that strenously. We'd still hear the "where's the foot?", and "it's just Bob" mantras.




Because they had no idea of the degree of denialism that this compelling evidence would confront.

Apeman wrote:




Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Patterson for not doing that (if, in fact, it was an actual Bigfoot). It's just that it would have conclusively linked the prints photograghed with the film subject. Since the possibility of a hoax does exist in this case I don't think taking the word of the people involved is very good science. Wouldn't you agree that eyewitness testimony is one of, if not the weakest type of evidence? Again, more intense experimentation, imho, is required to see that if the prints were faked, how was that done? That along with attempting to replicate the film. In my readings, neither have really been seriously attempted.

I know you're not blaming Patterson, and I'm not suggesting we need to take anyone's word or that that would be good science. Obviously it's not. All I'm saying is that two more or less independent hoaxes (the film separate from the tracks) seems very unlikely compared to the two obvious possibilities: 1) the figure is real and made the tracks, or 2) it's a costumed person and made the tracks. It just seems awfully concocted to suggest the extra effort to make a fake trackway under the cicumstances. Maybe if no one else had investigated the scene afterward and we were only talking about a couple tracks, but that's not the case. This seems like a skeptical trick, stretching the imagination because it's basically an excuse along the lines "we can explain the film as hoax, and we can explain the tracks as a hoax, but we can't explain how the costumed actor made the tracks, so we are therefore going to suggest two independent efforts." Of course that's possible but it just stretches logic, common sense and credulity in my book. It's an Occam's razor type of thing for me and I really think most scientists would approach it that way. Basically if one can't replicate both things together (the film and the tracks) that would lend a lot of credibility to it being real before one would have to invoke the complexity of two more or less independent hoaxes.

I'm not saying that such a scenario isn't possible, and that it shouldn't be investigated. I'm just saying that it so unlikely and counterintuitive that it shouldn't be assumed to be part of the "scientific" assessment of Meldrum's paper. I think a good scientific mind would think, "if this is hoax we should be able to conclusively discredit the film and the tracks without having to consider them two independent efforts." It's hard for me to imagine a reviewer getting to point of arguing "but the tracks could have been made independently" as he was trying to decide if this is worthy of publication.

Does that make more sense?

-Apeman



I can't answer, this is all new to me too.

-A

Apeman wrote:




Not if you were trying to perpetuate a great hoax. If indeed it was a hoax, and given Patterson's penchant for detail in other aspects of his life (e.g. the making of minature stagecoaches), if he wanted the total scenario to seem authentic it makes perfect sense to construct tracks independent of the "walker" since, in all probability, a guy in a suit wouldn't have left such deep impressions (This, of course, based on what others said how hard the ground was). The question for me, anyways, is how they were made, again, if it was a hoax. And this aspect of the case has been, in my estimation, so under investigated and experimented with that to make any claims of probability of authenticity is premature, at best.


Apeman also wrote:



Well, calling it two "independent hoaxes", I think, is a little off the mark. Two elements to a hoax I think is more accurate if, again, it was fabricated.



Apeman also wrote:




Yes, I just disagree with it . I think it's an element that would be considered since it's, imho, more than just an abstract possibility. But, also, there's the whole aspect dealing with the fact that the figure in the film has never really been quantitatively ruled out as a guy in a suit.

Longtabber-
Your input is appreciated here because I think you come at this from a different perspective than most of us. But a couple comments on what you said above. I hate dissecting posts like I've done here, but I think this case could be quite constructive and maybe even instructive.

It's hard for me to see how this could possibly cause any further harm to Meldrum or the "BF community" so I'd be interested to hear some elaboration on this.

That's a terrible analogy and I think these two things are VERY different.

You don't honestly think that based on this paper do you? I'm not sure where ethics comes into play in this case. He clearly believes this work is valid and he seems to be using perfectly valid methods, and ISU has backed him all along?

I think this is exact question this paper poses. Sure, it isn't going to rock the scientific world as the covetted "proof" of bigfoot, but if we were talking about any other animal, this paper wouldn't even rasie an eyebrow. Everyone would say "Good job" and refer to this paper (which would have been published in a proper journal) in future related publications. I think that's part of the beauty of this paper, it is really asking "isn't this enough to establish that something real made these tracks?" If nothing else, it elevates the conversation in my book.

I'm not sure exactly which observation your referring to, but isn't every paper like this that identifies some ichnotaxon?

I disagree. I think his proposed foot designs are him offering an explanation/interpretation or hypothesis based on the "data" of the tracks and his expertise. This is the sort of thing is debated in science all the time, in fact I think it is still happening with the Laetoli prints and no one is suggesting that's pseudoscience.

That might be true, but I venture to guess there are plenty of similar examples to this case where there is trace evidence but no bones, fossils or anything else. I'm hoping Desertyeti can comment on that and am waiting to hear from him.

No one is questioning that, but I think you're misreading his real objective if you think that's what he's trying to do with this paper.

-Apeman

OK cool- dont misread what I was saying ( or what I was trying to say) and our disciplines are a bit different. So, I'm thinking like an engineer here.

>>>To put it into context: while there is an art to the interpretation of animal tracks, it is certainly also a science. Physical animals leave physical tracks; tracks which can be subjected to forensic analysis. While there are some "subjective" aspects to this kind of analysis, it is based on objective physical data.

That wasnt where I was going- I consider his "back engineering" of the same level and kind as mine when i have to "back engineer' a system or machine- thats high level skill, no doubt about it.

The "subjective" I was referring to was the operational presumption he is operating under and the fact that his work simply must be in the subjective category.

Look at these 2 statements

This is a model of the foot that made this print based on the data etc..........

This is a CONCEPTUAL model based on known standard data of the foot that was LIKELY to have made this print.

Without a known benchmark sample or data- sentence one simply cannot be justified in any community review. if i were on the Board reviewing it, I would have to disregard it because even tho the applicable science was applied- its still subjective because there are other options. At best a probability model and data set could be made.

In the rest of the science ( such as with animals/humans known to exist)- you have actual data thats solid to base a hypothesis on- with bigfoot, its a hypothesis based on a concept derived from a test sample that may or may not even be real in the first place.

>>>For those familiar with the interpretation of animal signs including tracks, this evidence speaks unambiguously to the existence of a physical animal.

To ignore this evidence, in my opinion would be morally wrong. To document it would be taking the high ground. While one can certainly question the [i]method of documentation, calling it "subjective" is at best grossly misleading.[/i]

I fully agree it would be morally wrong to just discount the work in the name of science but I have to stop way short of agreeing that it unambiguously speaks to the existence of said animal.

I'll use my field as a comparative example- we "know" ( from the math, models etc) that weapons such as directed energy weapons are not just theoretically possible but would work when the technology exists to create them. ( both the telephone and transistor fall into this category- the telephone was even named before it was invented) Thats a far cry from saying I just invented it when you dont have one to show.

Same thing here- Theres no science i'm aware of that says a bigfoot "cannot" exist- that doesnt mean it does but it does mean it CAN. So, that alone justifies his continued research ( in my mind) but theres a long line between "can" and 'does".

I'm all for presenting a legitimate theory as just that ( which i would place his work under) but that still falls under the subjective category.

Science only has 3 basic categories- theoretical ( ideas that work on a whiteboard),subjective ( we have 'stuff" and are reviewing it) and validated ( passed the applicable acid test)

This is way beyond theory and since theres no known "foot" to compare it to- i cant see any other category to put it in.

I agree its a legitimate piece of the pie, but its not the piece with the alamode on it.

>>I hate dissecting posts like I've done here, but I think this case could be quite constructive and maybe even instructive.

Thank you- I dissect posts like you are doing all the time. To me, it makes for more effective commentary on specific points. ( even tho its a little wordier)

>>>It's hard for me to see how this could possibly cause any further harm to Meldrum or the "BF community" so I'd be interested to hear some elaboration on this.

I do and I'm speaking from personal experience with some engineers i know who operate on "fringe" physics ( mostly in the UFO community where I am a known debunker) and from the cases I have been involved in in various courts.

Be it good, bad, right,wrong, deserved or undeserved, Meldrum is what we refer to as a "radioactive" witness ( he has a lot of less than good baggage)- in those cases, its best for the individual and the cause itself to lay low and bring in other "experts" ( preferably from sub fields who can shore up parts of the work) to build credibility and to support his conclusions. ( maybe offer additional insight of their own)

>>>lumping these together>>>That's a terrible analogy and I think these two things are VERY different.

You don't honestly think that based on this paper do you? I'm not sure where ethics comes into play in this case. He clearly believes this work is valid and he seems to be using perfectly valid methods, and ISU has backed him all along?

I see your point but I feel he MAY ( emphasis on MAY) be going beyond what his research can legitimately stand on. Without seeing the paper, I would have to refrain from commenting further. But i will say this ( as a 3rd party observer who has no connection to it at all) It did appear that way to me at first glance- thats fine if its just me because i dont know the man ( and i wont ever make a personal comment without knowing the person) but it could appear that way to others too.

Also, I have zero familiarity with his field, the accepted standard and practices so the simple answer is that i also may be simply wrong. ( wont be the first time)

>>> I think this is exact question this paper poses. Sure, it isn't going to rock the scientific world as the covetted "proof" of bigfoot, but if we were talking about any other animal, this paper wouldn't even rasie an eyebrow. Everyone would say "Good job" and refer to this paper (which would have been published in a proper journal) in future related publications. I think that's part of the beauty of this paper, it is really asking "isn't this enough to establish that something real made these tracks?" If nothing else, it elevates the conversation in my book.

I'm not sure exactly which observation your referring to, but isn't every paper like this that identifies some ichnotaxon?

I hit those in my previous post before i read yours. So to save bandwidth, look at that one. ( bearing in mind, as you are a professional in your field- I'm coloring my comments thru mine as well- which is a lot less forgiving when it comes to hard science and math)

>>>I disagree. I think his proposed foot designs are him offering an explanation/interpretation or hypothesis based on the "data" of the tracks and his expertise. This is the sort of thing is debated in science all the time, in fact I think it is still happening with the Laetoli prints and no one is suggesting that's pseudoscience.

My words might have been a bit misleading on this one- I'm all for his research, resultant debate etc ( you are correct- its done everywhere, everywhere) but its still theoretical as to any result. My reference to "pseudo science" is in direct relation to repeating comments of others railed at him that I have read. I'm not the one making that accusation- others have and i wouldnt comment personally unless I physically reviewed his work ( which I havent)


>>>That might be true, but I venture to guess there are plenty of similar examples to this case where there is trace evidence but no bones, fossils or anything else. I'm hoping Desertyeti can comment on that and am waiting to hear from him.

The only issue i have there is with the "trace evidence"- its quantity, quality etc. Face it, what other 'trace" evidence out there regarding bigfoot ( thats known anyway) is of less value that what Meldrum has done ( giving the man a compliment- theres more actual "science" in his study and work than all the rest combined)

>>>No one is questioning that, but I think you're misreading his real objective if you think that's what he's trying to do with this paper.

After rereading my post- it did kinda sound like that as it was an impression I got but I didnt mean it to be that was my "take" on it.

Mixed reaction here. Thanks Apeman for passing it along.

Kudos to Meldrum for trying to get something into print that may on some level actually have undergone peer review (some "bulletins" are legitimately refereed). This may be the start that sasquatchery needs, given Meldrum's high profile and the fact that he's presenting one piece of evidence to stand on its own merit, rather than trying to pull all the alleged evidence together in one paper, which I think is counterproductive.

The problem is that he elected to present an analysis of prints connected to what many believe to be a well-crafted hoax, rather than the foundation for discovery of a new species. I'm with Yetifan on this one. Meldrum apparently bases the authenticity of these Bluff Creek prints on the authenticity of the PGF, and to me, that sends up red flags, balloons, fireworks, hot chili peppers, etc. Sorry Apeman, but this would be my FIRST question as a referee on this paper: How do you know the prints weren't faked? In my mind, it absolutely follows that if the film was faked so were the prints.

So I like Meldrum's pluck, and I respect him for trying to take this to something like the next level (although still not quite there). But why specifically focus on those tracks, rather than some others that are not so intricately interwoven with what a lot of (most?) folks think was an elaborate hoax?

I appreciate your candor and putting in the time to explain. The word subjective is subjective. You make a good argument and part of the difficulty lies within the "art" portion of the science. There is much that can be said but let it suffice to say if the track and trackway evidence stood in total isolation from any other corroborative evidence, it would be easier to make that argument (that it is subjective) stick. Although in some sense of the word I will concede your point.

There are numerous nuances with reading of the sign of these types of tracks that provide forensic evidence to diminish the probability of a human hoaxer and increase the probability of an actual animal. These include the dynamic nature of many of these tracks (e.g. showing flexibility), skin or dermal details, etc., etc. It is in these areas that the subjective becomes more objective, as skin is something we know, toes are something we know, etc. So, it is not on the level of entirely "virtual" on the one hand, nor is it on the level of entirely "real" on the other.

Bottom line is that the evidence is worth continued scientific study and the more exposure the greater likelihood of further research and discovery.

I guess we're all misunderstanding each other at least a little, and this is getting more to difficult to discuss without the full paper. If I don't hear back from Jeff today I'll go ahead an post it.

My reading is not that he is basing the authenticity of the tracks on the film. The film is more like corroborating evidence (for the argument he's making) and I think he struggles with that a little in this paper, though I don't know how else one could have treated it. This might be part of the reason that I'm not overly bothered by the attachment (or lack thereof) of the tracks to the film; because it really isn't critical to this paper.

I fully agree that the first question is "were these faked," I just don't think it's logical (based on all we know in this case) to assume they were faked by anything beyond the figure in the film. Touched up maybe, but I just can't see how it would be any easier or better to fake the a whole trackway independent of the figure, and in my mind such an effort would introduce more problems than it would solve. But I can respect anyone thinking otherwise. I also don't think it really matters that much for this case. Meldrum basically has to approach this as them being real without devoting too much attention to defending them, I think he handles this about as well as he could. Either they're both fake (by whatever means), or they'e both real. I haven't heard anyone propose any other combination!

And sure, the whole Patterson episode is controversial, but there is little question in my mind that this trackway is the only option for trying to write this paper. (I think I would have gone to bed and cried if he'd done this with the Onion Mtn trackway!) I also have a whole new respect for this part of the evidence after reading the paper and seeing how relatively well documented it is. I had no idea that some casts and molds are housed in the Smithsonian.

Anyway, I'll hold off on saying more until we all have the full paper to chew on.

-A

Let me offer you my view here

>>>There are numerous nuances with reading of the sign of these types of tracks that provide forensic evidence to diminish the probability of a human hoaxer and increase the probability of an actual animal. These include the dynamic nature of many of these tracks (e.g. showing flexibility), skin or dermal details, etc., etc. It is in these areas that the subjective becomes more objective, as skin is something we know, toes are something we know, etc. So, it is not on the level of entirely "virtual" on the one hand, nor is it on the level of entirely "real" on the other.

Something i have learned from numerous court appearances.

When you are making a "case'- you have a line of 5 gallon buckets of "proof" ( each bucket representing a different 'thing")

If there are 10 buckets and you have 50 lbs of "footprint' proof- thats 1 out of 10 and you lose ( even tho you won that round- you lost the other 9 thus the fight)

There are casts 'aplenty" and honestly, I dont see 1 or 1000 more making any more significant difference.

If it were me- I would apply a different approach

I would start digging up a few of these ( carefully to preserve them as much as possible)- sift a few, subject others to microscopy and even chemical analysis to see if the print contained any hair, blood, usable skin cells or basically "anything" to further build my case.

I would also follow them ( as best as possible) doing the "Sherlock" with my magnifying glass,gloves, tweezers and bags scanning the area,branches, foliage etc for additional signs ( one has to think that at some point, Mr. Bigfoot has to cut himself on a branch,briar etc, shed some hair, make a head call or even take a bite out of some greenery)

I would try that route in hopes i could fill up some more of my buckets before I went before the adverse attorney and was facing cross examination.

You make it sound so easy. It only takes opportunity, time, connections and money. And not an insignificant amount of any. The buckets have been filled to some degree and are continuing to expand. But what is being suggested by me at least is that the publishing of the evidence of the tracks is a first start to more formal and prolonged, well funded scientific studies.

And yes, 1000 versus 1 (if they are variable yet have the same suite of characteristics) makes a significant difference in the arena of human hoax versus animal.

It is that simple ( conceptually and in the field at least) a biological sampling kit from most supply houses is about $20 ( watch a few episodes of CSI to get an idea of how to use it)

The rest is where the costs are incurred. As i said in another post- its not that scientists wont touch this- its the question of who is going to PAY for it thats the real hindrance. ( let no one kid you- scientists are like us engineers- we are in it to make money[ making our name means we get to charge more- its still back to the dollar])

I dont see the question as "hoax" V "animal" ( there have always been hoaxers in every discipline- they aint nothing new)

I see it more as "subjective" V "Impiracle" since the ultimate goal is to establish this creature factually exists.


See, no amount of "hoaxing" affects the question of does bigfoot or doesnt bigfoot- the MOST hoaxing can do is affect the collected evidence. Every scientist understands this and is equipped to deal with it. ( no different than lawyers dealing with lies in a court)

Where i see the flaw here is that a scientist should also understand the bar is VERY high ( proving a species exists) and a scientist should know and be prepared to fill those buckets.

If it were me, i wouldnt even waste my energy addressing or defending whether my evidence was the product of a hoax because if my methods were sound, all but the most elaborate attempts would be discovered and discarded.

I would be looking to FILL those buckets.

I would be writing papers to distribute to the various BF groups and blogs such as these on such subjects as evidence gathering, "fake finding", investigative methods etc and let THEM ( the people) KNOW what I need, the way I need it, how to find and collect it.

Given the level of education and seriousness of most of the posters i have read here- they seem to stand ready to devote their time,energy and even a few dollars to such- what they are lacking is "command guidance' in WHAT is needed and HOW to get it.


Think about it- I've seen some Alabama posters here, some who hunt on their own and have found 'stuff"( that level of dedication impresses me)- my question is- what did they MISS that might have been the 'smoking gun' that was sitting right there in front of them but they didnt think or realize what it might have been?

I would approach the moderators to start a thread on evidence, collecting etc- list kits, how to articles- who to send what to and start a central collection database here and funnel them to Meldrum ( or whomever) and turn the people loose in the fields armed with better knowledge and awareness of HOW to gather meaningful evidence.

Thats what i would do.

Go to it!

I would be glad to but in my area ( ME/EE and SF Operator)- I would only be able to help with field techniques and technology and hard sciences. The most elaborate "specimine gathering" I'm qualified to talk on is industrial lubrication analysis and i dont think thats of much value in this arena.

Somebody in the biological sciences needs to give the information I was referring to.

Here it is with OK from Jeff. And it is indeed peer-reviewed so I was wrong on my guess.

Click to view attachment

-A

Oh sweet, thanks ApeMan. Do you know if this is in anyway related to the online journal he keeps bringing up?

I don't think it's at all related, and as far as I know the journal is still in the works.