I think you may be using a philosophical and even metaphysical argument way out of context

So noted.

'Course, I also think you are a reductionist by temperment.

Yes, and it wasnt a dig at you in any way shape form or fashion.

I understand quite well the descriptions you are proffering ( thats part of the P in PhD) and from the view they are applied in- your arguments arent just sound but pretty much bulletproof- but its an apples to oranges application to the logical extrapolation of data to build an estimated value as wolf is using.

Actually I would be a mixture of both reductionist and emergence because in my world, ( unlike fields such as anthropology, archeology etc)- my "deductive" work relates to known laws and what I deduce has to work.

Sure, I'm allowed a bit of intuitive thought and "educated guesswork" but at the end of the day- I cant produce a "hypothetical" machine

They are using plaster to actually replicate existing pieces from different individuals and putting them into the missing pieces. That's replication. They are actually following the blueprints of a given species, which is what you have requested.

Hmmm....interpretation of fossils aside, the thread seems quiet following yesterday's discussion on the validity of Meldrum's scientific findings. One can speculate if the instinctive hard-wired hyperphagia of pre-onset hibernation of bears is still shared shared by us primates.
I presume that almost everyone who knows of Dr M's work (and how can you be even slightly inerested and not at least know of his contributions and something of his stature) respects his position, experience and his perspective, but I have to agree that there does seem to be a breach in the reasoning when it comes to identifying the source as something that is unidentifiable, except by presuming the evidence is by this self-same unidentified agent that we all sort of agree that we know about...which leads me to realize that by changing the thesis so that it no longer does that wouldn't actually change the message of the research but it would distance it from allegations of wool spinning.
Upgrading techniques to reflect current state of the art could be discussed and demonstrated a bit too.
Some people in this forum speak of him as a personal friend, and I've read input from him here on the forum I think, so perhaps someone with those connections can summon his attention to the unresolved issues that have been engaging us. Everyone describes their encounters with Dr M in a very postive light and I can only imagine that he'd want to either defend it or clarify it or maybe even acknowledge Longtabber's criticism. Dr M does seem to be the kind of personality who naturally looks at criticism as a constructive process and Longtabbers criticisms, while sharp, aren't aimed at causing harm but are aimed at improving the objectivity. I can support that.
I think it would be interesting if we could observe the design process of a legitimate piece of research that would in the end be a piece of foundational work in this area...all in the contemporary spirit of "open source" everything.

I'm glad you said this because you hit the full essence of everything I have been saying- especially these 2 points.

>>>but I have to agree that there does seem to be a breach in the reasoning when it comes to identifying the source as something that is unidentifiable, except by presuming the evidence is by this self-same unidentified agent that we all sort of agree that we know about...which leads me to realize that by changing the thesis so that it no longer does that wouldn't actually change the message of the research but it would distance it from allegations of wool spinning.

Thats the gospel right there. Science ( legitimate science anyway) demands that for credibility, one does not speak outside of what the data supporting a conclusion supports. Data can only support a premise, refute a premise or be inconclusive regarding a premise. ( theres no 4th category)- there is no data that "refutes" the existance of BF, there is no data that supports the existance of BF ( theories and models extrapolating from inconclusive evidence arent "data' as the word is used)- there is only currently evidence that is inconclusive and thus cannot "support" any scientific theory.


>>>Everyone describes their encounters with Dr M in a very postive light and I can only imagine that he'd want to either defend it or clarify it or maybe even acknowledge Longtabber's criticism. Dr M does seem to be the kind of personality who naturally looks at criticism as a constructive process and Longtabbers criticisms, while sharp, aren't aimed at causing harm but are aimed at improving the objectivity. I can support that.

I stated upthread that I felt Meldrum's name should be completely removed from the title of this thread for that exact reason. The methods themselves produce subjective results ( regardless of whether its meldrum, you, me or anyone else who uses them) and there are better and more precise methods available and in current use today.

If this was the cancer research blog, the space exploration blog or anything else, people would demand the use of cutting edge technology and not accept excuses as an answer- that applies to any science.

I'm a little surprised I missed this from a couple of months ago on Tetrapod Zoology, which I usually check, but here's Darren Naish with a scientific perspective on "hypothetical cryptids". Might add some breadth to the discussion.
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/20...oology.php#more

The foramen magnum of Sahelanthropus is forward and pointing down and this has been reasonably speculated as showing bipedality. Only the skull is known.
Is this an example you're asking for?

Sure, but it is also stated in textbooks and journals that we cannot be positive it is bipedal, and that more fossils are needed (such as a knee or pelvis), especially since the foramen magnum is not forward but actually towards the back of the skull. It has an angle of the foramen magnum to the orbital plane is around 90 degrees, and so this leads to a compromise that Toumai may have been bipedal but different than we are today.

Cool stuff involved with the 3d scanning and computer reconstruction on that one.

Measurement, observation, but needs confirmation.

longtabber said ". . . there is no data that supports the existence of BF. . . there is only currently evidence that is inconclusive and thus cannot "support" any scientific theory."

This is a pretty strong statement for a couple of reasons. Are you sure you want to say that?

The BF field is chock full of supporting and internally consistent data. And I do mean 'data' in the strictest sense of that term.

Several hypotheses are competing to explain the data, granted, and that's where the real discussion is.

Also, in science a bit of evidence, inconclusive or not, is used all of the time to throw out published hypotheses to explain it.

Just look at physics and cosmology. They fall all over themselves to rush out far out interpretations of newly gotten data. Messy, but fun to watch in the popular science press.

Informed speculation (often proved wrong in the end, true) is the heart of science.

hey wolftrax

Just throwing that out there as an example of interpretation.

Sahel' is an example, if, as you say, confirmed as bipedal, would really rock my quite comfortable view of hominoid evolution. I think I'm at that age where my synapses are setting in concrete and Sahel' is a little disturbing to me.

Damn progress of Science.

The difference we are talking about here is using speculation or interpretation to establish or present as fact. At this point, any statement on Toumai's locomotion is just speculation and is presented as such, it might have support either way, but it is not presented as conclusive until more information is discovered.

What is presented as fact are the facts as we know them now, measurements, angles, specific features, this is truly the basis for paleontology because this is what will last and stand the test of time. Careful measuring and recording those measurements and features is exactly what is conducted, and skeletal reconstructions rely on that. It's not a freehand artform, paleontologists don't just take fossils, throw clay on them, and say "That looks good."

Top of the day all

>>>This is a pretty strong statement for a couple of reasons. Are you sure you want to say that?

yes it is and its 100% accurate and valid ( from a scientific definition) and theres no getting away from it

>>>The BF field is chock full of supporting and internally consistent data. And I do mean 'data' in the strictest sense of that term.

The only answer I can give you is you are not using "data" in the strictest' sense. ( as understood in scientific use)

Data ( by definition) is information supported by a factual base, accepted theory or shored up by results of testing. It is established in the affirmative, not the negative.

In this case, there is plenty of CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence ( which in and of itself is questionable) such as films, hair, sounds, a few pictures and foot prints. NONE of them have been proven to be from a BF thus none of them can be called 'data" ( by the legitimate use of the word)

Using the PGF- just because it hasnt been effectively debunked does not autodefault to true.

Using unvalidated "data" to form conclusions ( which cannot be validated by accepted testing ) is termed "junk science"- not legitimate science. ( examples of this have been highlighted in this and other threads)

>>>Several hypotheses are competing to explain the data, granted, and that's where the real discussion is.

You just explained it right there ( hypotheses trying to explain this "data")

>>>Also, in science a bit of evidence, inconclusive or not, is used all of the time to throw out published hypotheses to explain it.

No, "inconclusive" evidence isnt "evidence" of anything ( thats why "inconclusive mean no conclusion regarding it has been made so it cannot represent anything) Nobody uses "inconclusive" data ( evidence) to support anything. They may proffer a "theory" with it but a theory supported by inconclusive information would be weak as water

>>>Just look at physics and cosmology. They fall all over themselves to rush out far out interpretations of newly gotten data. Messy, but fun to watch in the popular science press.

I dont do cosmology but I do physics. Yes, they form conclusions on the data, but that data is of a much higher quality than exists to support BF. That data is shored up by hard science and the theories are based on established principles.

>>>Informed speculation (often proved wrong in the end, true) is the heart of science.

I dont disagree with what I believe you meant but i would change the wording. I would say educated speculation governed by accepted principles is the heart of science ( or the driving force of science)

Longtabber, you're using a lot of semantics to try and define for us what is and what is not 'reality' and/or 'cosmic truth'. The 'reality' is, despite your best efforts to define it differently, there is SOMETHING going on out there. And it's not JUST a 'scientific question' at this point. I doubt most people who claim an encounter/sighting sincerely care, at least initially, what 'science' thinks of their experience. They saw SOMETHING they themselves can't clearly 'define', but they know they saw that 'something'. And yes, of course, we haven't 'proven' Bigfoot's existence and IMO there is ABSOLUTELY the possibility 'there is no Bigfoot', but all these bastards out there keep seeing, hearing and smelling SOMETHING. Tangible empirical scientific 'data' of a hairy man-ape be damned. You can't define 'the real world' with simply a series of scientific laws and proclamations. Sorry. You're arguing just a portion of the BIGGER PICTURE anyway. If there is a Bigfoot, 'it' doesn't give even one diddly damn if our 'human scientists' acknowledge its existence. And if that is the case, such a REALITY remains independent of the lense trying to glimpse it. Even if we ALL AGREE with you that there's ABSOLUTELY NO 'scientific evidence' WHATSOEVER, that doesn't give us ANY genuine insight into any of the 'truths' that there's something being seen doing something we can't tell causing somebody somewhere to report something to someone...somewhere. We GET IT, there is no true 'Bigfoot Science'. That doesn't mean there is no Bigfoot. I REALLY think we need to build a bridge and get over this part.

Harry,

You gave the thread it's title it says 'science'............. so that's what is being discussed.

Until we have the capacity (via science) to wire into the human brain (wouldn't all the sci-fi writers love that) and literally view what is stored in their memories of a sighting, science can do little with an eye witness testimony. Science needs as longtabber has been trying to get across something to measure.

Not exactly Harry ( even tho reality can be a relative term depending on how its applied)

>>>Longtabber, you're using a lot of semantics to try and define for us what is and what is not 'reality' and/or 'cosmic truth'. The 'reality' is, despite your best efforts to define it [i]differently, there is SOMETHING going on out there.[/i]

Not semantics and I'm not really defining 'anything"- yes its reality that "something" is going on out there- with that understood- now, its a matter of defining "what" that something is and then proving ( or disproving) what that 'something" is- thats the next level of reality

>>>And it's not JUST a 'scientific question' at this point.

I'm not sure i follow you here- since question #1 is "does or does not a BF exist"- what other view ( or thought) is there except proving it does? Is existance defined by philosophy, opinion or what? I wasnt addressing anything but the #1 question facing the subject.

>>>I doubt most people who claim an encounter/sighting sincerely care, at least initially, what 'science' [i]thinks of their experience. They saw SOMETHING they themselves can't clearly 'define', but they know they saw that 'something'.[/i]

Thats true and even I myself fall into that category ( i too fall into the witness category as i have had 2 encounterspersonally which "may" have been BF) but at the end of the day, a witness account is just that, its another brick in the wall

>>>And yes, of course, we haven't 'proven' Bigfoot's existence and IMO there is ABSOLUTELY the possibility 'there is no Bigfoot', but all these bastards out there keep seeing, hearing and smelling SOMETHING.

True, now the question is "what"

>>>Tangible empirical scientific 'data' of a hairy man-ape be damned. You can't define 'the real world' with simply a series of scientific laws and proclamations.

I would ask you- what other way is "real" ( defined as something that exists in the 3 D universe) defined? BF is not a non physical entity such as emotions or whatever- its a living, breathing "thing"-so how else would it be defined? ( not addressing the "spectre' or phenonomen of BF- but the physical existence)

>>> You're arguing [i]just a portion of the BIGGER PICTURE anyway.[/i]

I wasnt "arguing" anything

>>> If there is a Bigfoot, 'it' doesn't give even one diddly damn if our 'human scientists' acknowledge its existence. And if that is the case, such a REALITY remains [i]independent of the lense trying to glimpse it. [/i]

Its hard to speculate on what BF thinks ( or doesnt think) but if it exists, its continued existance may very well hinge on science and what it does ( or fails to do)

>>> Even if we ALL AGREE with you that there's ABSOLUTELY NO 'scientific evidence' WHATSOEVER, that doesn't give us ANY genuine insight into any of the 'truths' that there's something being seen doing something we can't tell causing somebody somewhere to report something to someone...somewhere.

Do you have a better place to start when the goal is gaining "genuine insight into any of the truths....."?


>>>We GET IT, there is no true 'Bigfoot Science'. That doesn't mean there is no Bigfoot. I REALLY think we need to build a bridge and get over this part.

You are right but i would ask you- what other bridge could be built and on what ideology would it be built from?

I certainly wish I'd been able to log into the forum on 11/21.

One more comment such as calling Dr. Meldrum "Professor Plum" WILL earn you a vacation from posting. If you can't get your point across without resorting to name calling and smart-ass comments such as that one, then maybe your point is not worth sharing.

Enough already!


Edit - After reading the thread yet again, I see that the comment I noted above was not directed at Dr. Meldrum. However, that and other comments made in this thread, are not acceptable and do not following the posting guidelines.

I believe those comments were directed toward me, not Meldrum

That's not the way I read it, but if you say so. Actually, I don't care who the remarks were made to, or about, they are going to stop or warnings will be handed out.

The fact that you haven't even read the thing yet are ruling on it does establish something:

You're behaving like all the other "scientists" who are condemning what they don't even know about.

I'm enjoying this discussion but in order to keep it from becoming an exegesis, could the title be altered to comply with Longtabber's expressed desire to keep references to Dr M as something other than the focus.
The misunderstanding over the referrence to one of the characters from an old parlor game "Clue" is indicative of the kinds of thin and brittle ice upon which we tread if we confuse personality with perspective.
Also, anyone know if Dr M himself has opined on this? As is often the case with good people, I think his supporters and friends are kind and sensitive folk themselves and naturally are more likely to come to his defence over any real or imagined slights than he might himself. But ultimately we must address the logic and objectivity of the findings.

No, actually, I havent referenced the book at all but i have inquired about it.

I didnt comdemn anything, just pointed out things.

I've changed the title of this thread to MORE REFLECT the REALITY of what's being discussed. I'm not sure everyone is reading everything in the same way. i.e not all on the same page. Firstly, I'm REALLY not sure Longtabber is reading his own writings. Secondly, I'm in charge and I win. If the POINT initially was to 'discuss' exactly what 'science' Meldrum is using, I think it's been established that it's a TENUOUS 'science', with little genuine basis EXCEPT, possibly, for the anomolous nature of it all. I believe, possibly like Longtabber, that Meldrum has his 'work' cut out for him, but that's not a mystery or debate ANYMORE. He's a big boy, he surely must know the razor's edge he's walking. He has seemingly applied what he does know about things he does know about to these instances of things he doesn't know so much about and he's APPARENTLY concluded that there's something more there than a simple hoax/misidentification. Regardless, I or we don't have to agree OR disagree with him for him to pursue this avenue, that's a decision HE makes.

DESPITE our mostly layman makeup here on the board, we really do have the ability to grasp concepts like 'science says there's no Bigfoot' or 'we need harder evidence'. We're not stupid and we're not naive. And contrary to a present prevailing voice, ENGINEERS don't necesarily have more answers than anyone else. I, and probably many others, aren't really that concerned about the who/what/where of the 'science' concerning Bigfoot. Bigfoot is NOT just about SCIENCE. Besides, there is no 'Bigfoot Science'. Right?

Savvy?

"Speculation and is presented as such": Such as the numerous books devoted to Black Holes, Anti-matter and the like which are obviously laughed at by the legitimate scientific community and are placed in the "New Age" section at book stores along with books on Witchcraft and Astral Traveling. Its a good thing that the same logic and approach that is applied by the scientific community on BF is applied to these fantastical studies which also lack any actual proof and have never been actually discovered by anyone in the human race to date. It is good that we take this factual approach to these types of things. We can never say that BF or Black Holes exist until we have something more than pure speculation and have actual proof that can be presented to others.

I believe there are math proofs for both black holes and anti-matter.

And as far as black holes are concerned, I believe there has been observations of matter behaving in such a matter to infer that it is orbiting a black hole.

Though it's been years since I've spent any time thinking about either, so I could be hopelessly out of the loop.

I somewhat deduced it was you who altered the thread's title ( since it reflects elements of your prior post) and I agree it was a good idea

>>Savvy?

Yes, in both what you have expressed as well as what I believe you are implying- I read you Lima Charlie.

>>> Firstly, I'm REALLY not sure Longtabber is reading [i]his own writings. [/i]

Let me put that question to rest- I am- my question is, are you reading all of the threads and taking them in context?

>>>Secondly, I'm in charge and I win.

Yes and yes, science has often been censored, rebuked and blamed for offering unpopular perspectives in direct contradiction to the opinions of the masses. "Pulling rank" is a poor way to make a point because it implies thats all there is left. ( so much for intelligent debate from a variety of perspectives) if there is ever a question as to why mainstream science is at best 'apprehensive" about this subject, this post is a good reason why. I have stated my opinion, responded when challenged ( notice i never initiated one to anyone specifically), given factually accurate answers, logic, reason and reasons why methods are less than effective and offered some better ones and explained what they could offer. I was under the impression this was a forum of ideas and expression of such- I didnt realize that was more "one sided" than neutral. You dont need to highlight me or my posts, just PM and ask me to leave and i will. I never came here intending to create discord against the beliefs of the many. After all, you are in fact "in charge" and in fact "you win" and that is pretty much the end of that. You rule.

>>>If the POINT initially was to 'discuss' exactly what 'science' Meldrum is using, I think it's been established that it's a TENUOUS 'science', with little genuine basis EXCEPT, possibly, for the anomolous nature of it all. I believe, [i]possibly like Longtabber, that Meldrum has his 'work' cut out for him, but that's not a mystery or debate ANYMORE. He's a big boy, he surely must know the razor's edge he's walking. He has seemingly applied what he does know about things he does know about to these instances of things he doesn't know so much about and he's APPARENTLY concluded that there's something more there than a simple hoax/misidentification. Regardless, I or we don't have to agree OR disagree with him for him to pursue this avenue, that's a decision HE makes. [/i]

Yes, and as i stated a few times, my comments were not ( or ever intended to be) "Meldrum specific"- and I'm the one who initially feared it might be viewed as that and suggested his name be removed days ago to avoid even the implication of such.

>>>DESPITE our mostly layman makeup here on the board, we really do have the ability to grasp concepts like 'science says there's no Bigfoot' or 'we need harder evidence'.

Given some responses, thats a subject for debate also

>>>We're not stupid and we're not naive.

Since you are obviously referencing me- I dont believe i EVER used the term ( expressed or implied) "stupid" but given some responses regarding law and science ( here and in other threads), "naive' may be applicable as many ( based on responses) really do not understand.

>>>And contrary to a present prevailing voice, ENGINEERS don't necesarily have more answers than anyone else.

I guess the highlight is "me" specific- no, we dont have "more' answers but we do have GOOD ones and obviously not all of them have been adequately utilized or even explored. maybe a wake up call and a good swift kick in the complaciency is what is needed? ( just an observation)

>>>I, and probably many others, aren't really [i]that concerned about the who/what/where of the 'science' concerning Bigfoot. Bigfoot is NOT just about SCIENCE. [/i]

Thats all I really commented on and based on the reading of this forum- one of the biggest complaints is that "science" doesnt support, devote resources etc etc. I thought i would offer a different perspective. ( there seems to be a lot of people here WANTING science and others claiming to USE science- I guess i misread those) I again offer this post and my response as a legitimate REASON why "science ( whoever that is) looks at this subject as it does.

>>> Besides, there is no 'Bigfoot Science'. Right?

Yes, but it needs a whole lot of work

There is a difference between informed, thoughtful criticism and high-handed, arrogant pontification -- which you have engaged in despite your acknowledged ignorance on the subject. If, say, you were more informed on what is actually going on in the field, your criticism of what everyone should be doing and how they should be doing it would be a lot easier to take. I am not a moderator, and Harry definitely does not need my support, but I think his comments are (as usual) spot on.

What's that ole saying about the pot and the kettle................

Hey, as far as I know I've never tried to tell someone how to do a better job without bothering to find out what they are doing. If I've done that, I apologize... sincerely.

Does your definition of "informed, thoughtful and high handed arrogant pontification" include such ( directed to me) remarks as "professor plum", "dr strangelove" or "professor klump"? or are you referring to your continued counters of abstract science, philosophy and metaphysics?

I have demonstrated no "acknowledged ignorance" of anything and honestly, nothing you have posted has any real merit whatsoever ( except your demonstrated ability to use a thesarus to 'sound" smart") You have stated ( your words, not mine) that you never graduated college but you are "well read" so my question to you would be- where are the qualifications for what you speak? How does that put you on equal footing?

You have been called to the carpet many times since I have been here and found sadly wanting- what does that say for you?

Have you been reduced to hanging onto a coat tail now because your own positions have been "less than adequate"?

Thats the difference between you and me- i'm both confident and capable and have both education and REAL WORLD experience from which to speak and you are nothing more than simply jealous. You cannot hold your own and you cant stand it. Thats just the way it is and I dont need to 'suck up" for my views to stand on their own.

Thats the difference between those who have 'been there and done it' and those who sit on the sidelines wanting to play quarterback.

Heres the test ( for you specifically)- is it "high handed and arrogant" or just the fact you cannot shoot holes in it that upsets you the most?

Longtabber, please take this all in the context in which it resides (this board). We're just a discussion forum. I won't debate that your input is as valued, worthy and viable as anyone's here. You not only have an obvious 'wealth of knowledge', you're also willing to share it with the masses here. Honestly, a noble pursuit. It's just that we've been through this same debate oh so many times before. I'm sure the reason it keeps coming up is there's not been too much else 'Bigfoot' to discuss (such a 'lack of' being a subject unto itself), so it's understandable why it keeps coming back. There's been 420,000 posts made on this board over the course of its 5 year existence. 420,000 posts translates into A LOT of words, and they weren't all about 'Does Bigfoot Have Pets?'. We've discussed just about EVERYTHING to death including this one. And this one has become mostly just BORING now. We constantly stomp and holler about the lack of genuine scientific inquiry into Bigfoot, but the REALITY is we have no more clout/affect on what 'the powers that be' do than we have over the weather. We can piss and moan 'til the cows come home and 'mainstream science' still isn't going to 'get it' any more than they did the first day it all started. Not yet at least. I would proffer that ONCE Bigfoot does become a REAL topic for REAL 'science' to investigate REALLY, many of the things you mention WILL come into play, but until the actual starting gun is fired, we're mostly left with just sittin' around waiting, hoping and praying they will sooner than later get it right. Make a little more sense where I am coming from?

Honest, you and whomever else can continue this debate, it's not an 'unworthy' topic and I don't mean to downplay it's ultimate importance, it's just not that interesting anymore to some of us.

So since you brought it up there Harry..........

"What kind of pet's do you suppose Bigfoot has?"

>>>Longtabber, please take this all in the context in which it resides (this board). We're [i]just a discussion forum. [/i]

Maybe i was wrong- but I thought thats all i was doing was discussing

>>I won't debate that your input is as valued, worthy and viable as anyone's here. You not only have an obvious 'wealth of knowledge', you're also willing to share it with the masses here. Honestly, a noble pursuit.

I didnt come here as a "know it all', a "green beret" or anything else implying my words were more "valued' than anyone elses. I am the one who decried that implication on other threads ( prehaps I should have chosen a different SN such as "just a guy")

>>It's just that we've been through this same debate [i]oh so many times before. I'm sure the reason it keeps coming up is there's not been too much else 'Bigfoot' to discuss (such a 'lack of' being a subject unto itself), so it's understandable why it keeps coming back. There's been 420,000 posts made on this board over the course of its 5 year existence. 420,000 posts translates into A LOT of words, and they weren't all about 'Does Bigfoot Have Pets?'. We've discussed just about EVERYTHING to death including this one. And this one has become mostly just BORING now. [/i]

I'm sorry i wasnt here for that but in my post #1- I made it clear I found this board by accident and if I had known earlier, I would have been here earlier. Theres no doubt most ground has been chewed many times. I just commented on threads as they were posted ( so maybe, regardless of the times they were posted- they seem to have never been resolved- since the posts were there, i just thought i would offer my input) Apparently a BIG mistake on my part. I didnt realize ( or even think) my posts would start such fires.

>>>We constantly stomp and holler about the lack of genuine scientific inquiry into Bigfoot, but the REALITY is we have no more clout/affect on what 'the powers that be' do than we have over the weather. We can piss and moan 'til the cows come home and 'mainstream science' still isn't going to 'get it' any more than they did the first day it all started.

heres a DIFFERENT reality ( maybe one even YOU never thought to look at)- maybe the people ( a large part of them anyway) legitimately thought they were doing the "right thing"- maybe they needed some objective scrutiny, maybe even they just needed GOOD ADVICE ( as evidenced by the PM's i get, that may be the case) I DISAGREE and VIGOROUSLY object that posters here "dont have no more clout/effect on what the powers that be do"- let me give you a class on what bloggers can actually do

I am the same "longtabber" ( minus the PE) who is on a different blog called LIESTOPPERS ( regarding the Duke rape case) and those bloggers stood on facts, data, made their voices known- helped a REAL WORLD defense team ( LS is required reading for defense and now prosecuting attorneys)- they made not only "a" difference but "THE" difference in sending innocent men to prison and bringing justice to Durham NC. yes, bloggers and what they have to say is worth something. You want to see what "bloggers" can accomplish and how they can make a difference?- go there and see

>>> I would proffer that ONCE Bigfoot does become a REAL topic for REAL 'science' to investigate REALLY, many of the things you mention WILL come into play, but until the actual starting gun is fired, we're mostly left with just sittin' around waiting, hoping and praying they will sooner than later [i]get it right. Make a little more sense where I am coming from?[/i]

BF will become a "real" topic for "real" science until as you present it as such. What i have mentioned needs to come into play NOW. Stop waiting for someone else to fire the gun or ring the bell- you need to BE the one who starts it.

Dont tell these people here to "sit and wait"- tell them to improve their methods, state their case.

>>>Make a little more sense where I am coming from?

I see where you are coming from- do you see where I am coming from?

Pets? Why rocks of course, which he tosses with high precision at all who approach too closely.

RayG

Throwing your pets.......... oh my goodness wait until PETA hears about this.

Honest, giving intelligent advice and such isn't a problem, and I agree there's surely been any number of people out there going about 'doing it wrong'. As for 'waking up science' by everyone righteously pushing harder by acting/serving as something 'more legitimate', well, I believe that's not going to be the reason they all finally wake-up. Until a body shows up, and I think there's already been a few debates as to how good or bad that day might be, we're on our own. Maybe a Meldrum or three will peruse some of the fringe 'good evidence' for a clue or two, maybe whip a little science on it, but ultimately the rest of them are just not going to come without something more. We constantly debate the morality of 'killing' one, but the REALITY is it will have to happen to get to the 'next step'. Analyzing prints can only take you so far. Analyzing blobsquatches (that look like bears even) can only take you so far. Even believing every single anectdotal account that's ever been said can only take you so far. It'll take a body! Until THEN, we're just a bunch of protoplasms walking around The Bigfoot Forums yellin "Hey, how are ya Phil, have a piece of lettuce!" while hoping our personal desires of whatever Bigfoot is supposed to be eventually come true one way or another. And that really is the essence of what this forum is all about, 'What is Bigfoot to you?'.

longtabber, I'm not sure I should reply because I think this is dangerously close to become a pissing contest. So I'll confine myself to a few general remarks. First, I agree that you are qualified to speak about science itself. What I take issue with is you speaking on Dr. Meldrum's science without taking the trouble to acquaint yourself with either his evidence or his techniques. That is hard to take, and as Dr. Meldrum is not present, I have tried to the degree that I am capable to defend him. Perhaps that was a mistake.

Second, I neither hate you nor am jealous of you, but I do think that you treat people poorly. That does not justify me treating you poorly, even if my blood was up, so I was wrong for that.

Third, I have noticed that you have a domineering streak in your personality that is never going to play well in here, no matter how many letters you pile up after your name. An example is your sneering response to what I consider valid and honest, if blunt, criticisms of your style and approach. I can't help that you don't want to hear what many have been thinking. I have had to hear things in this forum that I didn't want to hear either.

Fourth, I am a lay person, but that doesn't make me ignorant. I am quite comfortable with the arguments I have made, and if some have been in error, I try to acknowledge them. I'm okay being proved wrong, as long as I learn something. What I don't want to do is get into a situation where it becomes about winning the argument rather than pursuing the truth, and I feel that you have the disposition to win the argument first, sort the truth out later. I can't prove it, but that is what I see. So take it for what it is worth.

Fifth, I think if you would simply ease up a little, you would be surprised by how interested we might be in the knowledge you can add to this discussion. If you are what you say you are, you would appear to be a fairly unique individual that, if he was willing to look a little bit farther into the field, could become a valuable asset in the investigation, even on a hobby basis. There is a genuine need for experts in this field.

So, longtabber, I hope this was useful to you, but even if it was not, this is my last word.

Good luck.

HarryHenderson wrote:





Hey, what happened to the ol' "stumblin' across a carcass or bone fragment find" possibility? Harry, you're a mean, mean man.

I could only hope to write with the style of MOI. That was certifiably righteous dude!

Longtabber, just add a little humility and I think you'll find the place a lot more interesting.

edit: Changed the title of the thread (mostly just because I can) one last time to more accurately reflect...something.

Longtabber may very well have a dominating personality, no doubt this comes in part from his confidence in his education and knowledge of the subjects at hand. While some may wish he'd take a 'Dale Carnegie Course' perhaps 'how to win friends' none-the-less, he does know what he's talking about. No doubt his military background (check the avatar) also explains in part his confidence level as well. Who wants a wishy washy Special Forces Solider?

Absolutely, there is a need to continually improve the methods of BF investigation. Let's face it what you've been doing hasn't worked so far. And it's not just a shortage of funds (though that would be a great place to start), check out our public education system, abundant funds don't guarantee results. And a constant need to update and improve methods is not isolated to BF research, it needs to be done in every field of research!

A great place to start with BF research would be to cease making wild and unfounded claims. Like that certain sounds recorded of an unseen and unverifiable entity are in fact BF speaking in Native American Dialects as well as perfect Queens English. These things and a hundred more make BF research look very BAD in the eyes of the public not to mention the Scientific Community.

Perhaps what one needs is a dominant and uncompromising personality to collectively slap everyone in the face and shout WAKE UP!

And Longtabber, thank you for your service to this Country that I Love!

>>>longtabber, I'm not sure I should reply because I think this is dangerously close to become a pissing contest.

Thats fine

>>>So I'll confine myself to a few general remarks. First, I agree that you are qualified to speak about science itself

Thank you

>>>What I take issue with is you speaking on Dr. Meldrum's science without taking the trouble to acquaint yourself with either his evidence or his techniques. That is hard to take, and as Dr. Meldrum is not present, I have tried to the degree that I am capable to defend him. Perhaps that was a mistake.

This isnt "Meldrums" science ( he didnt create it) and i have a good understanding of his methods ( his evidence is stand alone inconclusive)- I never intended for this to reflect on Meldrum personally.

>>>Second, I neither hate you nor am jealous of you, but I do think that you treat people poorly. That does not justify me treating you poorly, even if my blood was up, so I was wrong for that.

Nor i you- this aint my first tour of duty and i have a thick skin

>>>Third, I have noticed that you have a domineering streak in your personality that is never going to play well in here, no matter how many letters you pile up after your name.

I already explained I come from a discipline that speaks from absolutes- in the end, it is what it is, I didnt write the canon of science

>>>An example is your sneering response to what I consider valid and honest, if blunt, criticisms of your style and approach. I can't help that you don't want to hear what many have been thinking. I have had to hear things in this forum that I didn't want to hear either.

define 'sneering"- I'm all about criticism- its those on the receiving end of such "criticism" that have argued the most, I'm the one who has been valid, honest and blunt- I listen to everything but I know where the line in the sand is

>>>Fourth, I am a lay person, but that doesn't make me ignorant.

I dont recall saying you or anyone else was "ignorant"

>>>I am quite comfortable with the arguments I have made, and if some have been in error, I try to acknowledge them. I'm okay being proved wrong, as long as I learn something. What I don't want to do is get into a situation where it becomes about winning the argument rather than pursuing the truth, and I feel that you have the disposition to win the argument first, sort the truth out later. I can't prove it, but that is what I see. So take it for what it is worth.

I dont whine and i wasnt arguing. i stated facts as they are and all i have done is "pursue the truth"- if you call standing on facts an attempt to win an argument, then OK but my position is if standing on facts wins an argument, the argument was lost before it was voiced so it was meaningless to begin with.

>>>I can't prove it, but that is what I see. So take it for what it is worth.

I do and i suggest you may need to modify your view?

>>>Fifth, I think if you would simply ease up a little, you would be surprised by how interested we might be in the knowledge you can add to this discussion.

So i have seen since i started off making comments ( little ones-some even from my own experience) and then being "called to the carpet"by people proclaiming their 'expertise" ( and being flatly WRONG) so that put me not only in the position of defending myself but setting the record straight. ( re: this thread and the monsterquest one) Am I wrong in your eyes for stating the facts, standing my ground and being factually correct? What about those who jumped me with no solid position and were completely wrong- what words of 'wisdom" do you have for them? Where is their rebuke? where were you and your rational thought then? Your discourse seems somewhat onesided to me. Nobody offered to speak out then- why now? ( is it just because i had the facts and it hurt peoples feelings?- you tell me, where were you then with your "objectivity?") Dont be silent then and offer commentary now- thats somewhat 2 faced

many people have expressed interest ( if the volume of PM's is an indication) in what i have said- that kinda blows that theory out of the water

>>>If you are what you say you are, you would appear to be a fairly unique individual that, if he was willing to look a little bit farther into the field, could become a valuable asset in the investigation, even on a hobby basis. There is a genuine need for experts in this field.

I am what i am (otherwise i wouldnt be able to take the onslaught) and what i have said speaks for itself. yes, there is a genuine need for EXPERTS in this field- no doubt

i didnt intend to be either humble or arrogant- I stated facts as they are( i put no emotion into it- despite those times when i was challenged with nonsense and really wanted to express some "emotion") Where were the other admonitions for "humility' when i was in the crosshairs? or is it just me? or was it "just" me?

, would you rather me just be a "yes man" and maintain the status quo?

Very good question.

Sad to say but that's what a lot of people here would prefer.

If somebody starts singing Kumbayah, I'm gonna puke.

RayG

Gotcha. No kumbaya.

I'm really starting to doubt longtabber's grasp of science, or his knowledge of what's happening in the bigfoot field.

He seems to confuse data with the interpretation of data. Both are always open to criticism, but they are two different things. A bad interpretation does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the data is bad.

And his statement that there is no data is just plain false. One example- Fahrenbach's library of unidentified hair samples follows established protocols for conserving and analyzing mammal hair. It is an established and growing data set, available for any serious professional to examine.

And, to cut you off at the pass, longtab, just because this isn't proof does not make this data nonexistant or worth nothing or "not data." That the hair will eventually be shown to be BF, human or your grandma's left armpit growth does not affect the original data set one iota.

You do have a problem with circumstantial evidence, which surprises me since you tout your knowledge of science and practical experience in. How do you think new fields of study get started? A bit of stumbled upon data intrigues a few and not the many. They form an hypothesis to explain it, test it with new data, etc. The hypothesis ends up being crap, and they move on, or they find they're onto something.

Also, using the newly affordable technology now available, which you confidantly stated was not being used properly, a number of experienced groups and individuals are getting results, usually in the form of footprints and apparent unknown animal sounds.

Not to rag on you too much, longtab, but when you make an unqualifiedly certain statement that is false, it doesn' t help your credibility.

That said, I do think you have something that will add to the discussions on the BFF. I hope you stick around for more good debates. Wild and woolly equals mucho fun.

Yep - we have our annointed ones. They may not be right - but they are the annointed ones.
How dare someone come in and tell people the truth like LongtabberPE has!!!
In the fairy tale - the little boy who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes was treated as a hero. On this board - in this weird little corner of the world - that same boy would be insulted and cast as the villain.

Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya
O Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s laughing, Lord, kumbaya
O Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s crying, Lord, kumbaya
O Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s praying, Lord, kumbaya
O Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s singing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s singing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone’s singing, Lord, kumbaya
O Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya
O Lord, kumbaya

"I'm really starting to doubt longtabber's grasp of science, or his knowledge of what's happening in the bigfoot field".

Based on your post - some may have doubts about yours as well.

"One example- Fahrenbach's library of unidentified hair samples follows established protocols for conserving and analyzing mammal hair. It is an established and growing data set, available for any serious professional to examine."

Great example! Perhaps you could enlighten us on what use human and known animal hairs that make up Fahrenbach's samples are good for? A lot of people have claimed great things about his hair samples - even Farhenbach now knows they offer nothing of any evidentiary value regarding sasquatch. Even he has decided that they are most likely human.

"He seems to confuse data with the interpretation of data. Both are always open to criticism, but they are two different things. A bad interpretation does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the data is bad."

Longtabber was referring to valid scientific data. In other words - data that is unverifiable and untestable is NOT scientific data! Of course a bad interpretation of the data does not mean that the data is bad. But - if the data is not valid - ALL conclusions MUST be considered spurious. That is just basic science.

"You do have a problem with circumstantial evidence, which surprises me since you tout your knowledge of science and practical experience in. How do you think new fields of study get started? A bit of stumbled upon data intrigues a few and not the many. They form an hypothesis to explain it, test it with new data, etc. The hypothesis ends up being crap, and they move on, or they find they're onto something"

Do you have any idea what "circumstantial evidence" is??? Here is a hint - stop watching TV crime shows and reading crime novels. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that leads you to only one compelling conclusion. NOT a myriad of possiblities.

"Also, using the newly affordable technology now available, which you confidantly stated was not being used properly, a number of experienced groups and individuals are getting results, usually in the form of footprints and apparent unknown animal sounds."

You claim "results" using new and improved technology. What sort of compelling and incontrovertible evidence do they have? Where is it? Or, is it just more of the same old "possible" evidence?
More "apparant unknown animal sounds"??? Give me a break!!! A duck farts and everybody gets excited that it is sasquatch!

"Not to rag on you too much, longtab, but when you make an unqualifiedly certain statement that is false, it doesn' t help your credibility."

LongtabberPE is certainly not the one that lacks crediblity!