The fact that you are completely clueless about the issues I have raised, and that you blindly support the display of small-minded arrogance so long it accords with your opinion, is neither surprising nor notable. The fact is, Professor Plum is asking for something which is clearly impossible, yet he is too dense to either appreciate that fact conceptually or to bother informing himself on the issues, so that he would be able to speak out of an orifice which occurs above the waist line.

Excellent point and analogy - dogu4.




No - I'm not clueless about your points - I just understand that they are not good ones - IMHO, of course.
Still namecalling, I see.

>>>I want Dr. Moreau to formulate a mathematical algorithm which will conclusively identify a bear track, [i]each and every time, without failure by omission or exclusion, under any conditions whatsoever. When he can do that, MAYBE I will consider that such a thing is possible for alleged BF tracks.[/i]

Prehaps you should call him and ask him but for me, an algorithm isnt going to "identify" anything- you use big words out of context a lot

>>>Unfortunately, Dr. Strangelove, there are parts of the mind that process information on a level which is ineffable. What is either abstracted or articulated later is not the full set of all knowledge, nor can it ever be (thank GOD for Godel's proof). WE DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND HOW WE THINK. Until that problem is solved, the sheer temerity of anyone, no matter the putative education, to suggest the reduction of a living organism so that it is identifiable by a set of measurements, without the active participation of mental resources WHICH WE CANNOT QUANTIFY, is simply LUDICROUS IDIOCY. My God man, let Foucalt proclaim yet again that THIS IS NOT A FRIGGIN PIPE.

I have to admit, thats the most ineffective and useless counterpoint I have ever seen in my life. Making excuses for not being able to produce.

I guess the next argument will be- do we even know we exist or is this all a dream.

I don't follow. If a single instance showing a misidentification occurs, it ought to urge a re-think of the subject, not just throwing up one's hands and saying to hell with it. It could be that all the putative cases of dermals are false, but that is not necessarily so.

These types of comments are frequent and common when those who feign science are countermanded by those who actually do it.

It knocks their minds out of kilter and they start having syntax error- then they defend themselves with no arguments and ad hominem comments.

Once they are exposed- you see them for what they really are.

Hey, at least you enjoyed it.

Expertise of the kind that Dr. Meldrum possesses cannot be quantified mathematically, and there are fundamental philosophical issues which are the primary obstacle to this happening. When you are demanding that a rigid set of criteria be used to screen castings, you are literally asking for the impossible, as you are asking that the totality of his expertise be put in mathematical terms. This is not an engineering problem, and it does contain elements of judgment.

Or, maybe you the uber-engineer that you are can revolutionize the life sciences with your unique insight. Take your pick.


Actually, I just react that way when dealing with the nexus of arrogance and ignorance. That it comes from a supposedly educated source just makes it worse.

OK, by the numbers

>>>It absolutely applies - science is science. Regardless of the issue that is being researched, the scientific standard still applies. So, where did these nice folks go wrong? Would their work now be called "unscientific" because they spent so many years pushing a Hypothesis they thought they had tested and tested again - and come to find out, they were wrong? No, absolutely not. Why? Because there are no absolutes - man is not infallible, not even scientists. But, we must all have a starting point.

Thats non sequitor, its not "unscientific"- its just low grade science- it doesnt employ the best methods available

>>You are questioning Dr. Meldrums work - and basically calling him unscientific for thinking the work he is doing is legitimate

I dont recall saying he was unscientific- just bad science ( theres a difference)

>>Whats wrong with a scientist who thinks he/she may be right?? isn't that how most scientific discoveries are made? Someone thinks (theorizes) they may have a cure.. How else do these things happen? Do the answers just magically appear one day? No, someone has to have an idea - a theory, a Hypothesis... They gather data which they think supports their theory.

Thats basically right but then it becomes the quality of the data and the analysis applied to it- thats where the rubber meets the road

>>>So, then exactly what is your problem with Dr. Meldrum again? Would you not say to gather these various casts of tracks from across the country and do comparison studies looking for similarities and inconsistencies is a scientific approach?

His methods and his premise

>>>I am in this to get this animal documented - and ANYTHING that might aid in that goal - is something I am FIRMLY behind.

Thats an admirable goal but before you work to get it "documented" dont you think it would be more prudent to establish its existance first? ( thats what science would do) theres a certain order of movement in science

Minister, you've presented yourself in an intelligent manner in the past, no need to stoop to playground behavior now.

Namecalling happens, but whether employed by proponents or skeptics, it's always unnecessary. Whenever I see it I'm reminded of Elbert Hubbard's quote -- "If you can't answer a man's arguments all is not lost; you can still call him names."

RayG

Oh for gawds sake

>>>Expertise of the kind that Dr. Meldrum possesses cannot be quantified mathematically, and there are fundamental philosophical issues which are the primary obstacle to this happening. When you are demanding that a rigid set of criteria be used to screen castings, you are literally asking for the impossible, as you are asking that the totality of his expertise be put in mathematical terms. This is not an engineering problem, and it does contain elements of judgment.

There are thousands of CSI investigators who do this regularly- there is nothing "mathmatical" about using GOOD science and standard checks and balances accepted at large. I think this is an attempt to find some kind of convoluted non defense to justify the indefensible

>>>Or, maybe you the uber-engineer that you are can revolutionize the life sciences with your unique insight. Take your pick.

They already use the techniques, this is an isolated case

>>>Actually, I just react that way when dealing with the nexus of arrogance and ignorance. That it comes from a supposedly educated source just makes it worse.

I can relate to dealing with arrogance and ignorance- this has given me plenty of practice and if and when you become educated then prehaps your views will change.




>>>You act as if because this animal is not proven to exist, there is no way to gather data that could aid in its documentation. Every animal if it exists, leaves tracks - and all the other things you brought up in an earlier post. So, it is not out of the realm of possibility to consider this undocumented animal would, could or even does leave tracks too - would you argue that? So, if there are possible tracks left by this animal, part of the scientific process is trying to determine if these tracks are legitimate, or hoaxes - and how do we do that? Analyze what is similar or not, that is how you create "data", to help further your work toward proving or disproving a Hypothesis.

Theres nothing wrong with that- the problem is the data ( in totality) is inconclusive and inconclusive data ( regardless of method or volume) is scientifically useless when it comes to supporting a theory.

Thats just a fact

Ain't it a fricking shame how these discussions end up devolving into personal insults?

C'mon everyone, step away from the keyboard, take a deep breath, shake it out, and before hitting the 'Add Reply' button, check to see if you're addressing the argument or engaging in ad hom attacks.

We're all grown ups here, we should be acting like it. Shouldn't we?

RayG

Longtabber, using good techniques etc. is always preferrable, and this is an area on which you seem qualified to speak. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the idea that track castings can be screened using a rigid, objectively repeatable formula which will put everything in the category of either 1) identified, non-BF track / hoax / unusable due to poor quality (discarded) or 2) unidentified possible BF track (kept as sample). I continue to think that you do not fully appreciate the impossibility of this situation. You can cite your education all you want, but it is inapplicable in this case. You are not qualified to speak about the life sciences in general, and your ability to speak about scientific techniques generally is constrained by this ignorance. If you were able to be thoughtful about the issues that are outside of your expertise, instead of returning to the rote forms of your professional life, it would be a lot less aggravating to those who, though apparently less educated, appear to be more informed on the issue at hand.

Wow, how can I withstand this retort. I guess I'd better pack up my arguments and head home.

But, in a nutshell, isn't that what Dr. Meldrum and others are doing? When examining a single cast, how can anyone determine with any certainty that the cast is a possible bf track and not a hoax?

RayG

>>What I have a problem with is the idea that track castings can be screened using a rigid, objectively repeatable formula which will put everything in the category of either 1) identified, non-BF track / hoax / unusable due to poor quality (discarded) or 2) unidentified possible BF track (kept as sample).

I dont recall ever saying "rigid and inflexible"- there are always degrees of accuracy in everything but heres the simple bottom line

for ANY testing to have ANY validity whatsoever- the test MUST be standardized and the testing methods must be clearly defined in terms of process and result- thats not "me' thats everywhere. There must be testing criteria, methods and standards- thats just the way it is.

>>>I continue to think that you do not fully appreciate the impossibility of this situation. You can cite your education all you want, but it is inapplicable in this case.

Theres nothing "impossible" about it- its done in every discipline globally every day- testing alleged BF prints is not a quantum singularity with its own set of rules

>>>You can cite your education all you want, but it is inapplicable in this case.

wrong- its perfectly applicable and its CORRECT

>>>You are not qualified to speak about the life sciences in general, and your ability to speak about scientific techniques generally is constrained by this ignorance.

the only "ignorance' I see here is confusing anything i said about testing foot castings ( which is a physical science and well within my realm) with some "life" science. I'm not an "expert" in human anatomy but I have taken HUNDREDS of finger prints.

>>>If you were able to be thoughtful about the issues that are outside of your expertise, instead of returning to the rote forms of your professional life, it would be a lot less aggravating to those who, though apparently less educated, appear to be more informed on the issue at hand.

You are simply incorrect in your premise. i dont comment outside my realm- thats why you dont see me chiming in on other threads when other discuss anthropology, the science of DNA etc.

That'd be too bad, MOI. You'd miss it when they bring out the ice cream.
Seriously though, your arguements are part of the mix of propellant that help to bring about underestanding...uh, and that's not a crack about hot air.
Everyone is interested in seeing how the discussions on this board can make positive impact in research and here's an opportunity to maybe elevate the scientific inquiry in what is otherwise a completely murky corner woefully close to chupa-capra territory.

Indeed, how can they?

There is a difference between being able to recognize useful samples on the basis of long familiarity with the subject, which involves what I can only describe as professional intuition, and being able to list definitive criteria for what you will and will not accept. Yes it does introduce subjective elements of judgment into the equation, which brings up the possibility of selection bias and all the other issues we would rather avoid.

I agree that it is a problem, but it is a fundamental problem of knowledge, not the problem of Dr. Meldrum.

Again, you are applying an engineering paradigm to a 'soft' science. The engineering paradigm is no doubt useful in a lot of ways, but in this case it is misguided. It is simply not possible to list criteria which will be able to reliably separate 'bad' from 'good' samples. What you are proposing would inevitably cause the inclusion of 'bad' samples and the exclusion of 'good' samples. It might yield a repeatable process, but at the cost of limiting the useful information which can be extracted.

>>There is a difference between being able to recognize useful samples on the basis of long familiarity with the subject, which involves what I can only describe as professional intuition, and being able to list definitive criteria for what you will and will not accept.

The problem with this is that "familiarity with the subject" is meaningless because there has NEVER been a known BF print to serve as a baseline of what should be present in a print. Thats makes all evaluation nothing more than one mans belief based on a visual examination with no possible way to veryf the accuracy of the opinion. With no known "true" sample- Meldrum has no basis in scientific footing to say what is or is not acceptable. He is just guessing.

>>>Yes it does introduce subjective elements of judgment into the equation, which brings up the possibility of selection bias and all the other issues we would rather avoid.

Theres nothing "scientific" about subjective judgement when there are no defined parameters ( absolute or approximate) to gauge this "judgement" by.

>>I agree that it is a problem, but it is a fundamental problem of knowledge, not the problem of Dr. Meldrum.

In the whole, i agree but Meldrum makes this "his" problem the minute he stepped out of "theoretical"

Analyzing a casting isnt a "soft' science as it took mechanics, force and mass to make the initial impression- all of those qualities are measurable, definable and able to be duplicated in controlled experiments. Engineers analyze molds and castings every day, so do detectives and forensics people and they do it SCIENTIFICALLY and compare their findings with known data and conduct experiments all the time. Bigfoot castings are not special in any way because its an alleged bigfoot or Jeff Meldrum. The techniques and standards are well recognized and used globally for decades.

Testing criteria most certainly can be devised from that experimentation

>>>What you are proposing would inevitably cause the inclusion of 'bad' samples and the exclusion of 'good' samples. It might yield a repeatable process, but at the cost of limiting the useful information which can be extracted.

Heres reality- they are ALL "bad' samples at this point because its all educated guesswork and personal interpretation. There are legitimate alternative meanings to every point raised and no known data to determine where "bad" ends and "good" begins

Longtabber, you admit (somewhere up above) that what Dr. M has done is science, but that in your
opinion, it is "bad" science.

"Bad" is not an absolute term, it is relative. So what you may term "bad", someone else may
term "adequate" or even "good". Since these terms are nominal and subjective, we may throw
them out for the purposes of discussing science.

So what we are left with is the fact that Dr. M is doing science. We (and he) may wish that
he had better data to work with, that he was able to cast all of the tracks himself under
strict procedures, etc. But the fact remains that someone uniquely qualified in this field
is doing the science as he sees fit, and that at least some of his peers, also highly qualified
in this field, do not find significant flaws in his methodology or conclusions. This leads me
to conclude that what Dr. M has done up to this point is the best that can be done under the
unique circumstances of the subject matter at this point in time. As with any other science,
with time, his methods and conclusions will either be verified, improved upon, or rejected,
regardless of what we argue here.

Let me see if i can decipher this one

>>>According to you - isnt that right? And would everyone who calls themself a scientist agree with that? No, I dont think so. Is there a rule in "Science" which says all who call themselves scientists must think and act the same, less they be called low grade?? I think you are forgetting the wonders of science. Science is also about possibilities. I think its a shame you have forgotten that.

No, its not just according to me. Sure science has wonders and possibilities but we dont attain them by using poor quality methods.

>>>Your a master at doing what you just did. When you use Dr. Meldrums name and throw out words like "Bad Science" - that is exactly what your doing. Your calling him unscientific - and most likely unprofessional for not being completely detached and devoid of all thoughts and emotions on this subject.

I'm commenting on his methods and questionable results- they speak for themselves

>>>Thats true - and I agree.. But, I would also say for you to make these determinations you should at the very minimum (being a scientist and all) at least meet the man you are saying is pushing "bad science". I would also think as a scientist who is curious about the subject, you would have first contacted him, giving him the opportunity to discuss his opinions and thoughts - and his work. I dont know that you did that, and thats bad form in my opinion. I at least meet people, and give myself the opportunity to evaluate what they bring to the table one on one, before I start making judgment calls on their professional lives.

Are you even qualified in the educational sense to comment on Dr. Meldrums abilities in the lab?

I dont need to meet an individual to analyze testing methods and results. A scientists work should be able to speak for itself. I am very qualified in both education and field experience to comment on the specific area I am.

>>>And you are basing this opinion on what?

The fact that there are more advanced methods and technology currently in use and available and the fact he promotes a premise his data doesnt and cannot support

>>>Thank you, but I am really not after your approval - I am also less than impressed with your semantic games. Call it whatever you like - but my goal is clear.

I'm not playing a game ( semantic or otherwise) and I'm not concerned whether you are impressed or not

Do you have a link or a source that explains what exactly you are referring to?

I think in this case the standard has to be based on the review of other experts.

I would think that in your line of work there are complex situations which you are able to categorize with a high degree of reliablity within a short period of time. This is because your neural network has been exposed to analogous situations many times in the past, and has incorporated knowledge about these events until something that is ineffable coheres in your brain. The mistake is to assume that this coherence is verbal or, strictly speaking, rational. What happens is that an analogous situation occurs, you are inspired to recall the necessary forms, and it is all dressed in the cloak of a rational process before pen hits paper. But underneath it all is inspiration. And you are an engineer.

In the case of biologists, who are working with many more uncertainties and gray areas, this process is not as subliminal, and the role of 'art' is greater. Like it or not, the best information available is the collective judgment of those who have taken the trouble to become similarly inspired.

longtabber, do you feel that since there's no actual Bigfoot feet in possession of science currently and that, apparently, since hoaxing can't be categorically ruled out in any one particular case, that any speculation in regards to alleged Bigfoot tracks and subsequent casts shouldn't be viewed as incentive for further research?

By the way, apart from the thesaurus-spewing ad hominems in this thread, I've enjoyed both you and MOI's debate.

Baloney, biology and paleontology like the other sciences relies on measurements, observation, and repetition.

I conceed the use of the word "bad' is the wrong term but i was in a hurry ( posting on the fly). Let me officially retract that and substitute subjective observations and proclaiming them as factual and not using the best and full range of available methods and not exploring all alternatives fully and objectively.

>>>So what we are left with is the fact that Dr. M is doing science. We (and he) may wish that
he had better data to work with, that he was able to cast all of the tracks himself under
strict procedures, etc.

Science isnt generally known for making allowances for excuses. One of the tenets of a scientist ( in any discipline) is to seek out newer and better testing methods ( even devise their own at times) and to get different views from others outside their field.

>>>But the fact remains that someone uniquely qualified in this field
is doing the science as he sees fit, and that at least some of his peers, also highly qualified
in this field, do not find significant flaws in his methodology or conclusions.

Apparently ( from what Ive read) the majority of his peers find serious flaws in both his methods and conclusions. Its a small minority who support him. ( regarding BF research)

>>>This leads me
to conclude that what Dr. M has done up to this point is the best that can be done under the
unique circumstances of the subject matter at this point in time. As with any other science,
with time, his methods and conclusions will either be verified, improved upon, or rejected,
regardless of what we argue here.

Theres nothing "unique" about conducting research or these "circumstances" and the fact the subject matter is BF doesnt change the process. All those claims do is build in an "excuse clause' to defend less than steller methods.




No yetifan- it probably got lost in the mess but I have stated this many times.

>> that any speculation in regards to alleged Bigfoot tracks and subsequent casts [i]shouldn't be viewed as incentive for further research? [/i]

I have ALWAYS maintained and spoken clearly that current data (as inconclusive as it is) is not only incentive but justifies further research.

In case there is any question, I am a PROponent of further research




>>>I think in this case the standard has to be based on the review of other experts.

There are no "experts" in the field of BF and there are no standards either

>>>I would think that in your line of work there are complex situations which you are able to categorize with a high degree of reliablity within a short period of time. This is because your neural network has been exposed to analogous situations many times in the past, and has incorporated knowledge about these events until something that is ineffable coheres in your brain. The mistake is to assume that this coherence is verbal or, strictly speaking, rational. What happens is that an analogous situation occurs, you are inspired to recall the necessary forms, and it is all dressed in the cloak of a rational process before pen hits paper. But underneath it all is inspiration. And you are an engineer.

whatever you say boss

>>>In the case of biologists, who are working with many more uncertainties and gray areas, this process is not as subliminal, and the role of 'art' is greater. Like it or not, the best information available is the collective judgment of those who have taken the trouble to become similarly inspired.

Biology is an empiracle science and they dont have art classes in the syllabus for degree credits

I think what might be helpful in this debate are some actual quotes from Meldrum.
It might give a better insight into whether or not he's pushing weak or mediocre evidence as strong or, ultimately, just speculating.


Here's one from his "Ichnotaxonomy of Giant Hominoid Tracks in North America" paper:

The problem is a strong circumstantial argument could be made that he is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

I've seen several bullets where he does point out the obvious ( as the quote you provided) but the sum total of his appearances, lectures, books and his "discoveries" regarding castings viewed as a collective show me that even tho he pops out the appropriate bullet occasionally, he does use his work to promote their factual existance ( not a theory that they "could" exist)

If that is all there was to it, the biological sciences would be forms of engineering. I am nowhere near an expert on paleontology for instance, but it is clear that field is founded on the interpretation of experts. When they agree about something, it is considered settled; when they do not it is controversial. Lists of numbers seem to matter quite a bit less than the interpretation of the meaning of bones.

I hate to be the one to tell you but the biological sciences follow the same rules we do and to the same level. The "field" is founded on the principles of science, facts and data derived from measuring, testing, observations, experimentation etc.

Science isnt a parlimentary procedure where everyone "votes' on it- analysis of data leads to conclusions- not "agreements" ( one does not have to "agree' a fact is a fact- it simply is) Little is ever fully settled because theres always something else to learn.

There are experts in the field of primate locomotion.

I'm curious, do you have a take on the current state of cognitive science?

Your last remark is, well, laughable -- and probably incorrect, although this is irrelevant since I was using 'art' in a different sense. (Don't most liberal arts degrees require some small amount of arts electives to graduate?)


If your main objection to what I have said concerns the proper use of jargon, then it is rooted in style not substance.

These observations are not simply measurements, are they?

But who is an expert in bigfoot locomotion?

RayG

A fact is only a fact until it's proven to be otherwise. I think history has proven that "facts" change as new information or methods are used. The earth was flat until it was determined to be round. The sun revolved around the earth, at least until it didn't. The fact that people don't agree on the "facts" is what keeps new discoveries discovered.

>>>There are experts in the field of primate locomotion.

and?

>>>I'm curious, do you have a take on the current state of cognitive science?

It has its place

>>>Your last remark is, well, laughable -- and probably incorrect, although this is irrelevant since I was using 'art' in a different sense. (Don't most liberal arts degrees require some small amount of arts electives to graduate?)

No, its quite correct

and yes all degrees require electives- as far as whats required, depends on the individual school and the accrediting board but notice i specifically referenced the degree credits and not the electives

You know, I don't really know the answer. But if alleged BF tracks have characteristics that are most consistent with primates, and it appears that they do, then we can suppose that experts in primate feet are those best qualified to investigate.

Thats actually backwards and quite wrong

The Earth has never been "flat" and the sun never revolved around the earth- those were beliefs based on observations ( where have we heard that before in this thread) and it wasnt until they were MEASURED and tested did the truth finally come out

for something to be a "fact' it must be PROVEN and once proven, it cannot be disproven- if circumstance arises where a fact is disproven- that just shows that it wasnt ever a fact in the first place

Let me be the first to congratulate you on your distinction without a difference, and to apologize for my oversight in missing it.

My objections are far beyond mere jargon and firmly rooted in substance



They would be one of the first choices yes but that list wouldnt be exclusive of other fields as well.

I'm still waiting for the example of "poor quality methods".



Are you going to tell me that scientists working on a cure for any form of Cancer, Alzheimer's or even those working on things as boring as Physics (LOL) - do not get close to the subject they are studying? It is possible to care for the topic being researched and worked on - and remain scientific in the process.



Thats right, your area of expertise.



There is?? What technology is available and has shown success in finding and aiding in the discovery of animals that are more legend than real? Once again - that is your opinion. Have you seen his data? I am not sure how you can render an opinion either way, unless you have seen the data... Thats usually the first step, and we already know you havent done that, because you say you do not need to. Interesting take on things.



Good, at least we agree on something. Neither of us is impressed. Thats a good starting point.

I would temper your remarks with the observation that you are ignoring the very large voids of hard data which are inherent to the life sciences, which necessitates a somewhat different approach from that of the 'hard' sciences. We can never know exactly what occurred in the past, for instance, on the basis of randomly collected paleontological relics. What we can do is attempt to build a model or framework that can best account for what is observed, based on reasonable suppositions about how the universe operates (and I note that these suppositions, primarily causality and continuity, seem to break down at the quantum level -- which could become relevant wherever quantum processes directly impact what is seen in the macro-world). It seems to be inevitable that a certain amount of data is left outside the umbrella of any particular model no matter how carefully we proceed. So it is far from the cut and dried process you are claiming that it is. In fact most of what we think we 'know' is an interpretation which is neither exclusive or comprehensive, although this interpretation should be informed as much as possible by whatever measurements and objective facts are available.

Yeah, that's my point.

Lets see, here we go again

>>>I'm still waiting for the example of "poor quality methods".

I have listed numerous ones as well as highlighted the inherent drawbacks of many of the ones currently used- go back upthread and read

>>>Are you going to tell me that scientists working on a cure for any form of Cancer, Alzheimer's or even those working on things as boring as Physics (LOL) - do not get close to the subject they are studying? It is possible to care for the topic being researched and worked on - and remain scientific in the process.

Of course they do but thats not an excuse for overstepping the boundary of what the fruits of their research produce nor does it give them right or creedence to allow inconclusive data ( regardless of subject matter) to be "stretched" into more than it is

>>>Thats right, your area of expertise.

Thats right and its very applicable here.

>>>There is?? What technology is available and has shown success in finding and aiding in the discovery of animals that are more legend than real?

Lets see, a short list would be thermal imagery, firearms, traps, nets, aircraft, optics such as binoculars, boats etc- theres a long list of "technology" thats shown success in the finding and aiding in the discovery of unknown species

>>>Once again - that is your opinion.

No, its a fact- you just wish it was my opinion so you would have a better stance to argue from.

>>>Have you seen his data? I am not sure how you can render an opinion either way, unless you have seen the data...

Then let me give you a class on how its done- I have seen much of his results, his methods and his claims- when done properly, they reflect the data that builds them. Its a no brainer that if the conclusion is not sound, the data obviously cannot be

>>>Thats usually the first step, and we already know you havent done that, because you say you do not need to. Interesting take on things.

I just explained why

>>>I would temper your remarks with the observation that you are ignoring the very large voids of hard data which are inherent to the life sciences, which necessitates a somewhat different approach from that of the 'hard' sciences.

Thats malarkey- pure plain and simple nonsense- all sciences have "voids" of data- all that means it hasnt been discovered or the technology isnt there to analyze it- none of that changes the process of how to go about doing it

>>>We can never know exactly what occurred in the past, for instance, on the basis of randomly collected paleontological relics. What we can do is attempt to build a model or framework that can best account for what is observed, based on reasonable suppositions about how the universe operates

Yes and?

>>>It seems to be inevitable that a certain amount of data is left outside the umbrella of any particular model no matter how carefully we proceed.

it happens

>>>

I still have not seen anything typed by you which shows this "overstepping the boundaries" specifically, as you discuss.

I also have seen nothing from you quoting Dr. Meldrum where he "stretched" data, or anything that shows conclusive proof that Dr. Meldrum has done any thing of the sort. I would appreciate some exact references - being a scientist, I'm shocked I had to ask you for these things.



I know this is gonna come as a shock to you, but all the things you describe are being used in the field by Dr. Meldrum and others. You would know that if you read before making such a silly comment. Those things are not unknown to people in this research, although Im sure you think thats the case.

But you avoided the real question --- which of those pieces of technology have actually worked.. Answer, NONE. To date, none of those things have worked and they are all being used, and some of those things are being used in ongoing 24/7 research areas.

So much for technology so far.

>>>I still have not seen anything typed by you which shows this "overstepping the boundaries" [i]specifically, as you discuss. [/i]

Go back and read- they are on several threads

>>>I also have seen nothing from you quoting Dr. Meldrum where he "stretched" data, or anything that shows conclusive proof that Dr. Meldrum has done any thing of the sort. I would appreciate some exact references - being a scientist, I'm shocked I had to ask you for these things.

see above

>>>I know this is gonna come as a shock to you, but all the things you describe are being used in the field by Dr. Meldrum and others. You would know that if you read before making such a silly comment. Those things are not unknown to people in this research, although Im sure you think thats the case.

So you say- Ive never seen or heard of them being used then theres the question of were they used correctly. ( apparently I'm not alone in never hearing about them) Where are the fruits and reports of the findings of these methods?






I havent avoided anything.

Theres no "evidence" except your word all these methods have been employed thus there isnt anything to evaluate.

And in the rare times they have been employed ( after seeing the results)- they were used wrong

No, I don't think I will - as you have taken no time at all to read anything on this forum before making such broad generalizations about someone. Why should I take the time to do what you clearly think is beneath you.

You made the comments - now defend them.



Back atcha



Im assuming the Nightvision (Gen III), Thermal Imagers, Camera Traps etc, etc, etc were all pointing away from the ground. You say your not alone in not hearing of these things?? Well, thats certainly not my fault or anyone else's. I thought you said you have seen Dr. Meldrums data? I'm sure he discusses his use of these things. Also, you may wanna spend some time actually talking to researchers before you make such comments. I know of at least one researcher who goes into the field with practically a portable lab. Yes, we have some highly educated people in this field. But, until you get to know them, your only making assumptions about what we do or do not use. Insulting them wont endear you to them either.

Apparently, there are no findings - we are still in the process of discovery. But, you already knew that didn't you, so that was another silly question.

Like I said, so much for your wonderful technology.. Technology is a tool - its not the answer to everything. You still need bodies on the ground and feet in the woods. Unless you think Bigfoot can change Batteries??

"...the majority of his peers find serious flaws in both his methods and conclusions. Its a small minority who support him..."

Where is the empirical evidence to back this statement up? Have you taken a survey of anthropology professors?


"Theres nothing "unique" about conducting research or these "circumstances"..."

Of course there is, for reasons too numerous to list here, but which should be readily discoverable via book or web site.

>>>No, I don't think I will - as you have taken no time at all to read anything on this forum before making such broad generalizations about someone. Why should I take the time to do what you clearly think is beneath you.

No but i find your feeble attempt to strengthen your argument by arguing a false premise of what you believe I havent done to be foolishly amusing. The fact is I've many of his writings and listened to several of his talks on various sites over the years as well as having read a good portion of this forum. The simple bottom line is that the sum total cumulative worth of everything he has done is 100% inconclusive.

Do you always argue from a false premise?

>>You made the comments - now defend them.
Back atcha

I have defended them ( quite effectively- as evidenced by the fact that even you dont directly challenge them, you just talk in circles) and given the number and type of PM and comments given, a large percentage of people here agree

>>>Im assuming the Nightvision (Gen III), Thermal Imagers, Camera Traps etc, etc, etc were all pointing away from the ground. You say your not alone in not hearing of these things?? Well, thats certainly not my fault or anyone else's.

You know what happens when you assume- it just happened here too

>>>I thought you said you have seen Dr. Meldrums data?

you thought wrong- I've seen many of his results and conclusions, never his data, but as i said- the results reflect the data

>>>I'm sure he discusses his use of these things.

I like the way you said that- you just affirmed my premise as even you cant state you "know' it- you are just assuming it

>>>Also, you may wanna spend some time actually talking to researchers before you make such comments.

I dont need to- results speak for themselves

>>>I know of at least one researcher who goes into the field with practically a portable lab.

what exactly does this "lab" consist of?

>>>Yes, we have some highly educated people in this field. But, until you get to know them, your only making assumptions about what we do or do not use. Insulting them wont endear you to them either.

Highly educated and highly capable are 2 different things. Theres an old saying: " those who can,do- those who cant,teach"- I'm not making an assumption but an evaluation based on the information they themselves release. ( a little different thing)

>>>Apparently, there are no findings - we are still in the process of discovery. But, you already knew that didn't you, so that was another silly question.

always a bridesmaid, never a bride

>>>Like I said, so much for your wonderful technology.. Technology is a tool - its not the answer to everything. You still need bodies on the ground and feet in the woods. Unless you think Bigfoot can change Batteries??

Thats really a childish statement- ignorant really. Technology is both wonderful and a tool yes- just curious, what is it not the answer to? ( since everything you have or ever will have is a direct result of technology)

apparently we have a lot of bodies on the ground and feet in the woods and their level of success is what again? did you say nothing? Yes, a proper selection and application of available technology would greatly increase the odds




do a web search, there are numerous ones

theres nothing "unique' about it, thats just a tactic people often use to excuse failure