How did I miss this gem??

And that says it all. I actually find myself in an awkward position - I am embarrassed for you now.

P.S. You call me ignorant - when you are not even willing to do something as simple as a search on this board to find the information you say you don't have?? Yeah, less than impressed and done having a conversation with someone who clearly does not practice what he preaches.

apparently a representation of the quality of your investigations?

it does say it all because theres nothing to evaluate ( regarding what i was speaking about specifically)

You dont have it either because if you did, you would throw it back in my face.

You just say it enough times hoping it will eventually become true. Maybe you should try turning around 3 times and clicking your heels while repeating it. ( it might help)

See above.

Your just not worth it, and if you (of all people) cant do a little research - why should I help you out.

This is why I put little faith in anything you propose- you cannot separate fact from your emotions and you jump to highly incorrect conclusions at the drop of a hat

>>You call me ignorant

I didnt call you ignorant, I said that remark from you was ( i was very specific about that)- do you stretch everything you do that far? If you ever wonder why credibility suffers, theres a shining example

>>>when you are not even willing to do something as simple as a search on this board to find the information you say you don't have??

I suppose your "investigation" also missed the parts where i said i have been reading for years on other places and have been reading this board extensively ( if you cant investigate this thread and find posts in the open- how do you expect to find a bigfoot?)

>>>Yeah, less than impressed and done having a conversation with someone who clearly does not practice what he preaches.

I do practice what I preach and i respectfully suggest you start doing the same ( with an emphasis on attention to detail)





I suppose any excuse will do when effectively called to the carpet and not wanting to answer the obvious thus proving the initial point.

The meanings of the bones are extrapolated from the measurements of landmarks on those bones. As species develop certain identifiable landmarks become prominent that are specific to that species, this is helpful to identify what you have found out of a handfull or less of fossils. As animals grow from infancy to adults, bones also knit and harden or erupt during specific times in their lives. How an animal died can be recorded on bones, as well as how the body was scavenged. Where it died and when can also be recorded and found in the substrate. All of these things rely on measurements, observation, and repetition.



Melissa, I'm still waiting to find out how paleontologists were reeling from being so wrong about the age of human evolution.

Quite obviously the biological sciences must always look back into the past at issues which can never be directly observed or even reconstructed except indirectly and imperfectly. That is, unless the engineers will get off their asses and hand us a time machine.

we're working on it

If you are trying to suggest that what you describe exists for any other reason except to inform what is ultimately an interpretation of an incomplete record, then I disagree completely.

Looking at this thread (for example), I don't EVEN want to hear any 'complaints' FROM ANYONE that the mods here are 'heavy handed'. And actually, 'the mods' facilitated its presence because it is a worthwhile debate. Just PLEASE keep the directly worded 'yer full of shat's to an extinct level. In fact, let's just say EVERYONE is FULL OF **IT and go from there.

Be GOOD!

Agreed.

Wait a minute longtabber, you seem to be saying two different things at the same time. You just stated above that "...the majority of his peers find serious flaws in both his methods and conclusions. Its a small minority who support him..."

Then why did you state this just yesterday?



You should really try to keep track of your statements because both can't be true.

And frankly, it's very insulting that you would state that there is no proof that the technology (third gen; camera traps; aircraft; boats; thermal, etc.) have been used in this search. I personally have used all (except aircraft) and there is plenty available (including at the recent Texas Conference) about the results of using such technology. However, you seem to be of the mind that the mere use of technology would result in a discovery and if no discovery has been made, no technology has been used. That's false logic at it's best and surely you're better than that.

Please explain.

But Harry........... given that some of us are considerably LARGER physically than others........... would it not be logical to assume that some of us are more full of **it than others???

I do generally keep track of my statements and they are both true- you are viewing them out of context relating to the subject matter.

a "peer group" that reviews a paper prior to publishing is far different that then"peer group" of an entire field ( or fields) as well as associates ar work- they were 2 different statements relating to 2 different groups both colloquially referred to as "peer groups"

>>>And frankly, it's very insulting that you would state that there is no proof that the technology (third gen; camera traps; aircraft; boats; thermal, etc.) have been used in this search. I personally have used all (except aircraft) and there is plenty available (including at the recent Texas Conference) about the results of using such technology. However, you seem to be of the mind that the mere [i]use of technology would result in a discovery and if no discovery has been made, no technology has been used. That's false logic at it's best and surely you're better than that.[/i][/quote]

It shouldnt be viewed as insulting but having said equipment is no indicator that those using it are qualified to do so or are using the equipment effectively.

Then there the ancillary fact that all the tackle on earth wont catch a fish in an empty hole.

you do make one valid point and I'll do it- change it from "use" to PROPER usage in both operation and deployment

So, if technology isnt the problem then it must be in the people using it since the results are always the same

longtabberPE wrote:






And/or the relative elusiveness and possibly way small numbers of the quarry involved.

For example, Krantz' reconstruction of the Giganto skull from a portion of a jaw incorporated elements of interpretation and conjecture, although from a position of expertise within the field. That is the kind of thing that goes on all the time in paleontology. The field is about more than what can be quantified numerically and put in a spreadsheet.


There are ways in which people can be the 'problem' apart from technique.

Yes that too but when viewed as a whole with all the alleged sightings and prints , many of which are with sparse cover and reasonable close to civilization- I would submit that the BF's alleged elusiveness is more a result from improper technique rather than deliberate actions of the BF.

Logically, if Bf had this inborn heightened capability of elusiveness- you wouldnt have as many encounters as you do now because he would always be 'elusive"




>>>There are ways in which people can be the 'problem' apart from technique.

I think thats a LARGE part of the problem

A peer group that reviews papers does indeed represent the entire field...hence the use of the word "peers"! They are the same group of people. It's fairly clear to me that you used the word "peers" to mean the same group of people...one time to lessen the significance of his publication ("sure his peers accept his work") and another time to attempt to use the weight of his peers against him ("the majority of his peers find serious flaws in both his methods and conclusions. Its a small minority who support him..."). Fact of the matter is that neither statement is true. His work was published because it met the criteria of the journal. Further, you can hardly assume the majority or minority of who does/doesn't support his work...and certainly not based on what is on the web.



Or bigfoot is quite rare or the equipment isn't in the right spots or they have been successful but the information isn't yet released or a whole host of other issues. Technology isn't the answer and stupid people aren't the problem.

Perhaps BF can distinguish between situations that are truly threatening and those that are more inocuous. The large number of 'casual' sightings relative to the minimal number of expedition type sightings should give us a clue here. In addition when the numbers of human interlopers are small, there are many examples of intimidation and bluff type tactics which seem to have the intent to scare people away. After all, if BF is in a productive area and the activity of a few non-threatening humans could interfere with his use of it, it makes sense that he would try to scare them off rather than leave. Territorial behavior similar to this is known in other primates.

And that is worth about as much as presumptive speculation from a qualified person can ever be. Until you've review the techniques being used, there is no way to make that statement with anything resembling certainty.

>>A peer group that reviews papers does indeed represent the entire field...hence the use of the word "peers"!

Yes it REPRESENTS them in the same manner that a survey represents the general population but it hardly includes all opinions and comments and it doesnt "speak" for the masses of the field

>>It's fairly clear to me that you used the word "peers" to mean the same group of people...one time to lessen the significance of his publication ("sure his peers accept his work") and another time to attempt to use the weight of his peers against him ("the majority of his peers find serious flaws in both his methods and conclusions.

Then you need to go back and relook- they were two entirely different things relating to two different groups

>>>Fact of the matter is that neither statement is true. His work was published because it met the criteria of the journal.

Actually, read upthread, i said exactly that

>>>Further, you can hardly assume the majority or minority of who does/doesn't support his work...and certainly not based on what is on the web.

I didnt make an assumption, I made an observation- and its a fact that his field as well as many of his peers ( both professional and co workers) dont hold his work in a very high regard.

>>>Or bigfoot is quite rare or the equipment isn't in the right spots or they have been successful but the information isn't yet released or a whole host of other issues. Technology isn't the answer and stupid people aren't the problem.

"rare" ( yes or no) isnt a reason, its an excuse for continuous failure- I dont buy the argument of sitting on said evidence ( the UFO and government conspiracy theorists have worn that out)

Nobody is 'sitting' on anything- they simply dont have it but building suspense for the next episode

If technology ( and proper application ) isnt the answer what it? blind luck? random chance? a line of a million people locked arm in arm canvassing an area? Continued use of methods that have produced nothing on the wild chance that they may one day work?

People are a large part of the problem ( and if some of the things expressed on several forums are viewed as an accurate representation of whats being done- people are in fact the LARGEST part of the problem.




Thats why I said i THINK rather than i KNOW




Now THERES an example of "presumptive speculation" that without review cannot be made with any degree of certainty

Krantz's reconstruction is based on measurements of the teeth and jaw and the ratio of the two compared to known apes and hominids. The megadont molars on the jaw indicate that Gigantopithecus had flaring zygomatics and a sagittal crest. His reconstruction is not accepted as representative of the species features, therefore is not an example of how the field works (in fact Krantz had a reputation within the field for being naiive), and you should provide examples of how this goes on all the time in the field before making this assumption.

I would call it conjecture, since it relies on some knowns rather than on a state of near-total ignorance.


I've seen many reconstructions where bones were suspended in some sort of medium like plaster to present a complete skull. I don't see the need to reiterate all of them here.

A peer group does not represent the entire field, this can be shown in the various disagreements in who is or isn't a human ancestor within the field that have happened throughout the past, even though a paper is published it can be highly controversial and deeply divided ( Afarensis, Platyops, Toumai, Orrorin, etc.)



If you could I could address them specifically, however I can take it from here. Most if not all of those you have seen are based on mirroring what is existing there on the skull itslef, or the bones, or if not that then on fossils of bones from other individuals from the same species that have been found, thoroughly measured, and catalogued.

THAT is why paleontology uses measurements, observations, and repetition just as any other science.

While I agree with most of what Kathy is saying I would counter that stupid people are definitely part of the problem... at least some of the time.

I have never stated otherwise, but continue to assert that the role of personal interpretation in reconstructing a skeleton, say, and designing an I-beam, are of a completely different order. Paleontologists may use measurements and scientific principles but they still have to make judgments.

It should also be clear that even when judgments have sound reasons to support them, they are still judgments.

An I-beam doesn't build itself, a person has to measure how much weight the thickness of metal can bear.

The skeletons that you see are rebuilt using information that is there, copying it and mirroring on the basis of symmetry, or measuring landmarks on a bone and using collected data from other individuals on the placement of the missing pieces. This isn't something that is made up, this is the use of information that has been collected and amassed for the last hundred and some years.

You're going to have to use more specific examples to use this to support you're argument.

Virtually everything you are describing seems to entail an element of judgment. Unless you are suggesting that blueprints are fossilized along with the bones.

Unfortunately, I think there is a desire among the masses for a 'dumbing down' of science. We'd like to know all kinds of things about dinosaurs for example, so we're presented with shows claiming to show how this or that dinosaur cared for it's young or enticed it's mate. Sure you can make rather educated assumptions (as MOI is asserting) but in the end assumptions usually make an a$$ of u & me. Again, I think (I didn't say I know) this is a desire to make science more palatable to the masses (most of whom are painfully ignorant about science in general) and unfortunately projects the image that science just guesses.

A great debate among the science folks among us, and since I'm not a scientist (though my degree is in Animal Husbandry which is a BS) I've largely stayed out of this one. I'd suggest to the rest of the non-scientist among us to be careful and limit one's posting in this one, lest one looks extremely naive and foolish. Before anyone jumps me about telling others what to do, I'm not telling just offering up a kind suggestion.

I think it's been an interesting debate from the science oriented folks from both sides.

I am reminded of a saying my college room mates (everyone I roomed with in college was an engineering student, don't know why?) used to throw around. "Anyone can make it strong enough, only an engineer can make it 'just' strong enough"

Peer groups are not supposed to represent all opinions or comments because just like in a bell curve (and bigfooting) there are outliers. A peer represents the common thought in that field on that subject. They are very different than a survey of the general public because the general public wouldn't be as informed on a given subject as much as a peer. I've read you comments several times and I still hold the opinion that you're trying to have it both ways.



Really? Then be so kind to provide the statistical analysis that interviewed those of us in his field and are his peers (cause you use the term many/most) that supports your observation. You keep mistaking your opinion for fact.



Rarity isn't an excuse for anything...it is what it is.

How would you know what is/isn't be sat on? You admittedly are fairly new to all this, how could you know the pulse of what is going on?



Yep.



I don't agree. The largest part of the problem, imho, is money.

Are you suggesting blueprints for an I-beam made themsleves? Or did it take a human, who would have to use their judgement based on loadbearing?



Something published in a peer reviewed journal does not reperesent even the majority view in the given field. Again, Toumai, Afarensis initial paper, Orrorin, Platyops.

>>>Peer groups are not supposed to represent [i]all opinions or comments because just like in a bell curve (and bigfooting) there are outliers. A peer represents the common thought in that field on that subject. They are very different than a survey of the general public because the general public wouldn't be as informed on a given subject as much as a peer. I've read you comments several times and I still hold the opinion that you're trying to have it both ways.[/i]

I dont know what or how I said something to give you that impression- all I can do is tell you your read on it is incorrect. A "peer" doesnt represent a "common" anything ( other than the field and subject matter0 as there are often ( and usually) varying opinions, outright disagreements and challenges. Its anything BUT a "happy family". "peers" arent always informed either- nobody reads everything.

>>>Really? Then be so kind to provide the statistical analysis that interviewed those of us in his field and are his peers (cause you use the term many/most) that supports your observation. You keep mistaking your opinion for fact.

I dont have the time or inclination for that much effort ( unless someone cuts me a PO) but the comments are well known and out there for the world to see. ( thats a fact- not my opinion) I have read and heard Meldrum ( among other things) has been passed over for promotions, had grumblings wanting to challenge his tenure and many rebukes of his work over the years. That hardly qualifies him as a 'superstar" and the general scientific community isnt exactly beating a path to his door.

>>>Rarity isn't an excuse for anything...it is what it is.

I agree but its been used for one many times

>>>How would you know what is/isn't be sat on? You admittedly are fairly new to all this, how could you know the pulse of what is going on?

simple, over 30 years working in the REAL world and i know how it works. Unless it is something technological or defense related- nobody sits on finds of any significance ( especially when money and fame are on the line) and nobody is sitting on any "hard evidence" of anything relating to the proof of bigfoot. Thats just another suspense teaser to keep interest and hope alive. And no, I'm not "fairly new' to the subject matter- just this board. Not the same thing

>>>I don't agree. The largest part of the problem, imho, is money.

I wont argue money is a universal problem in any research but in this case, the people are a large part of the problem too

>>>Yep.

so, you are saying that 4 wheeling into the woods using a human eyeball and sense of smell while walking around relying on blind luck, hope and wishful thinking to conduct what you term an expedition to find something is superior to the application of proven technology? Well, that fully explains to me why Mr. Bigfoot has never been found. ( and never will be) All I can say is good luck. May the force be with you.

Again, the unknowns on either case are of a completely different magnitude. I can't think of a single case where an I-beam and some engineering principles were used to reconstruct a building.

Adding to my previous comment, there is a blueprint in that mirroring the existing fossil is replication, as well as replicating the missing bones from other individuals within that species. Add to that a knowledge and comparison of extant apes and humans anatomy and morphology, and you have a blueprint that is not man-made, unlike your I-beam.

Its done all the time in reconstructions- be it a bone, crashed airplane, building or machine

The main difference being, in the case of buildings or man-made structures, the blueprints already exist.


Again, although the interpretation may be very well informed and thought-out, what you are describing is still an interpretation of incomplete information. That is not the same as saying that it is unreliable or of poor quality.

A lot of people involved in this phenomenon have been using totally non-valididated witness statements as data sets to to conclude where the "best" areas are to look, when to look, and what to look for.
This is a fine example of where "people are the problem" because of their unwillingness to accept that the vast majority of "investigations" that have been carried out in the past are - at best - only paying lip service to what constiutes a true investigation.
As I have posted before - I know what the excuses are - lack of $, time, distance involved, etc.
However many excuses one has though - does not excuse the fact that these people are still saying that their investigations are 'good enough" to decide the credibility of the witness or validate their statements as "fact".
By doing so - they are giving people the false impression that there has been an adequate investigation and that the "evidence" gleaned from these "investigations" is reasonably valid - when nothing could be further from the truth.
This also leads to a lot of people saying a lot of things have been established as fact when there is no valid reason to conclude anything.

I've made this point several times now...if a peer truly represents nothing (as well as a peer reviewed journal), then why o' why is Meldrum hounded about not having articles published in peer reviewed journals? If a peer reviewed journal isn't the standard for which to strive because of what they represent, then that criticism of Meldrum can no longer be used (as well as any criticism that the majority of his peers don't accept his methods). Peers either have weight or they don't.



I don't think he's been passed over for promotions (I think Krantz said that). The comments that you see are what the press wants you to see. I've been to his University when a Bigfoot Symposium was held there in June, 2006 and several professors where in attendance and well as several more at the museum display. Meldrum has also stated that while a few grumble, the vast majority (including the Department Chair and Dean) are fully supportive of him and his work.



I certainly don't agree with why some things are being held back, but it is happening. Yeah and I know it's a cop-out that I can't say more.



Technology is a tool...nothing more. You said it yourself, having every bit of tackle won't catch you a fish if the hole is empty. What organized expedition, besides the Patterson/Gimlin one, came back with hard evidence? None. Although I don't believe habitat is random (and GIS can help to narrow down that habitat), the rest is surely luck. How could it be anything else? I have all those tools (except a plane and a personal thermal) and I know how to use them, but it doesn't replace the fact that I have to be at the right spot at the right time.

P.S. I guess it should also be noted that technology failed to find Steve Fossett and his plane...

You're going to have to use a specific example. Skeletal blueprints do exist.

>>>I've made this point several times now...if a peer truly represents nothing (as well as a peer reviewed journal), then why o' why is Meldrum hounded about not having articles published in peer reviewed journals? If a peer reviewed journal isn't the standard for which to strive[i] because of what they represent, then that criticism of Meldrum can no longer be used (as well as any criticism that the majority of his peers don't accept his methods). Peers either have weight or they don't.[/i]

I never said it represented "nothing"- It just doesnt mean "everything"- the universal standard every scientist strives for is PRODUCTION- not publication. Yes peers have weight but in the end it boils down to what cards you throw on the table

>>>I don't think he's been passed over for promotions (I think Krantz said that). The comments that you see are what the press wants you to see. I've been to his University when a Bigfoot Symposium was held there in June, 2006 and several professors where in attendance and well as several more at the museum display. Meldrum has also stated that while a few grumble, the vast majority (including the Department Chair and Dean) are fully supportive of him and his work.

Its obvious he has some support ( otherwise he wouldnt have a job) but how much of that "support" is solely based on his BF research versus his other work in his field?

>>>I certainly don't agree with why some things are being held back, but it is happening. Yeah and I know it's a cop-out that I can't say more.

Yeah, I know all about 'secret evidence" everybody is sitting on waiting for the 'moment"- they never do say anything ( they also never seem to present this evidence either)- thats a PR stunt, nothing more

>>>Technology is a tool...nothing more. You said it yourself, having every bit of tackle won't catch you a fish if the hole is empty. What organized expedition, besides the Patterson/Gimlin one, came back with hard evidence? None.

The PG film is light years away from being "hard evidence" of anything- the correct answer is that NO expedition has produce ANY hard evidence of anything relating to proof of the existance of BF

>>>Although I don't believe habitat is random (and GIS can help to narrow down that habitat), the rest is surely luck.

I have never heard of any scientist or professional anywhere basing his success on "luck"

>>>How could it be anything else?

Skill, planning, forethought, strategy, technology

>>>I have all those tools (except a plane and a personal thermal) and I know how to use them, but it doesn't replace the fact that I have to be at the right spot at the right time.

Then the next step in the process is to apply technology to find out there the 'right place" is- thats not luck, thats planning and research, logic and reason

P.S. I guess it should also be noted that technology failed to find Steve Fossett and his plane...
[/quote]


Bad example because he didnt have a flight plan and the search area is a best guess ( plus theres no proof he actually crashed in the first place- depending on which urban legend you believe)

The technology obviously did work because they found some 8-9 other crashes

Really...I wasn't aware that bigfoot files flight plans either. Seems like the search area for both is a guess and some luck....

Yeah they may have found some other planes, but they didn't find what they were looking for did they....must be a failure of the people to use the technology correctly!

Technically, no- the mission was to find a plane- they in fact found 8 or so- they just didnt find a specific one.

That would be akin to instead of finding BF in general- you are searching for one specific one with a mowhark and nose piercings named "cool daddy"

No their mission was to find Steve Fossett...not his plane. And they didn't do it. He'll be found one day for sure...by pure dumb luck.

I certainly don't agree with why some things are being held back, but it is happening. Yeah and I know it's a cop-out that I can't say more.
[/quote]


This didnt hit me immediately so let me enquire directly.

Anything allegedly being "held back" would be one of 2 things

1) absolute irrefutable proof of BF's existence

2) more of the same inconclusive stuff we already have tons of ( which is all but meaningless)

Are you saying you have knowledge of someone sitting on "irrefutable proof" of the existence of a creature known as bigfoot?

Why would they sit on it? Who are they to make such a decision?

That would be a crime against science

Maybe not............ after all they're still looking for DB Cooper are't they?



Pretty sure I saw him at the Mall just a bit ago................



Breaking my own 'suggestion here'

I agree, I'm really tired of these 'held back' stories. They always turn out to be less than conclusive. IF someone had 'conclusive proof' there would be no reason not to come out with it.

Whether or not it's a crime against science, it's simply not human nature and certainly not something that a group of private individuals could keep a lid on.

Such claims appear to me to be all smoke and no fire........

My point exactly, its a PR move designed to be a teaser to keep the interest up ( and in some instances gaining attention for the ones claiming they are "in the know")

At the end of the day- the proof is in the pudding

There are still people claiming they really know who shot JR

WMRoy wrote:





One reason, if they had conclusive proof, would be that they were still in the process of researching all possible legal ramifications, along with the 'ol
"who do you trust?" considerations. This wouldn't necessarily be something that would be done quickly.




Who said it was necessarily a group? If it was only one or two people, I think he or she or them could keep it quiet for quite a long time.
Ok...I admit it...I have one in the freezer...details to follow...

Tease -

I can buy that to a point