This is a split thread (it required actual work too, boy was I stupid) from 'The Four Categories of BF' thread focusing on Meldrum's work and methods. The debate is surely worthy of its own home and it would be a shame for it to 'get lost' in the middle of another thread. The thread's title is open to BRIEF (first hour) discussion if you don't feel it fits, otherwise it is what it is. And please stay on topic in this one.

I'm in the beer drinking mode now so wont be fully operational until after duck hunting tomorrow.

I would suggest you drop any names as that could reasonably be viewed as possibly "attacking", ridiculing or being critical of another individual and thats not the idea or goal.

If this goes to fruition- its about methods ( good or bad) their flaws, effectiveness and betterments- not about the individuals employing them.

Speaking for me, I was never attempting to be critical of him ( the scientist) but many of my posts could have been viewed that way. That was not the intent.

If the goal of this thread is to bring methods to the table, discuss the applicable science, effectiveness et al- then names shouldnt be a part of it.

Just my thoughts

I thought a hypothesis was a "could be" and scientific techniques/methods were applied to "prove" the case, or not.

I read his book, and his CV. I'm educated, but not a physical scientist. I understand "techniques" or methods but don't typically apply them in my line of work. Anyway, seems he has a "dataset" provided to him and he is applying what he "knows" to them to prove whether they could be made by something. To say they were made by a "primate" or animal doesn't prove the existence of bigfoot, but it might prove they weren't made by some other means (a guy running around with wooden carvings of feet). Honestly, I don't think track casts available are enough to "prove" something made them; but again, it might prove something didn't make them, and then what we are left with are options to believe or not believe the possibilities out there. Some people might then "create" new possibilities, like an unknown primate. My thought though is there is a number of things you can do with the casts, and he's doing something. Again, doesn't mean he's proving the existence of something at this point though.

Maybe it's science, and maybe because we don't have proof of a bigfoot it's not empirical. If we had proof of a bigfoot, maybe then it could be empirical. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis. Seems that's what he's doing. We don't have a known, so it makes hard science hard.

I think if you say 99% should be dismissed you're making a requirement of the findings before examing the data provided. Maybe 80% are actual prints of a bigfoot, it it exists at all, maybe 10% are, maybe 1%. You're making an expectation of the data before looking at it.

>>>I thought a hypothesis was a "could be" and scientific techniques/methods were applied to "prove" the case, or not.

Thats correct but for a scientifically valid hypothesis- the hypothesis can be a "could be" but the facts supporting it need to be solid ( they are the "stilts' that the hypothesis sits on)

>>> Anyway, seems he has a "dataset" provided to him and he is applying what he "knows" to them to prove whether they could be made by something. To say they were made by a "primate" or animal doesn't prove the existence of bigfoot, but it might prove they weren't made by some other means (a guy running around with wooden carvings of feet).

His data set doesnt meet the criteria because nothing in his dataset has been established as legitimate data

>>>I think if you say 99% should be dismissed you're making a requirement of the findings before examing the data provided. Maybe 80% are actual prints of a bigfoot, it it exists at all, maybe 10% are, maybe 1%. You're making an expectation of the data before looking at it.

No- I pulled 99% out of my head

The point was there need to be accepted standards applied that can be reviewed to establish the validity of any sample ( thats a testing criteria review- that can be reviewed itself)- that cannot hinge on a a persons opinion

hey researchers good evening wow this is a wonderful new thread about dr. jeff meldrum & sasquatch research i realy like the above opinions as well. please keep the replys comeing indeed. thanks bill green

I prefer to keep Dr. Meldrum's name out of it for reasons stated upthread.

longtabber, please let me know when you've solved the ontological problem of categories, and quantified the physical essence of various life-forms with an equation, so I can notify the department of philosophy.

Thank you.

And now we return to your regularly scheduled program...

As i stated before- not my field of expertise

I am not qualified or even interested in qualifying or quantifying ontological problems ( or anything else)

I'm also not interested in commenting on the "physical essence" of various lifeforms ( way outside of my degree field)

Also, I'm not a philosopher- I am a scientist who is grounded in PHYSICAL science. I give no credence to pseudo science, metaphysics or wishful thinking- I'm a FACTS and DATA guy.

I deal in REALITY only and if BF is reality, then its existance falls into that category

Let me explain my stance from the original Ghostbusters ( dont remember the exact wording)

Ackroyd's character said " you dont know how they are in the private sector, I've worked in it, they EXPECT RESULTS"- thats how i view it- show me results or get out of the game.

Please let me know when you get EVIDENCE that can be examined under a microscope and may come up with something other than "inconclusive"

You're welcome now regularly scheduled programming can resume

Hey Doc, the point (you appear to have missed it) is that the life sciences contain elements that are subjective and cannot be quantified in the way you propose. Articulated maybe, but not quantified as in a rigid set of criteria. This is the problem with having an engineer tell a biologist how to do his job.

Lets define what the "Scientific Method" is.

Scientific Method (Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Edition)

The Scientific Method

The scientific method has evolved over many centuries and has now come to be described in terms of a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps. First, information, or data, is gathered by careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. On the basis of that information a preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed, usually by inductive reasoning, and this in turn leads by deductive logic to a number of implications that may be tested by further observations and experiments (see induction ; deduction ). If the conclusions drawn from the original hypothesis successfully meet all these tests, the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory or law; if additional facts are in disagreement with the hypothesis, it may be modified or discarded in favor of a new hypothesis, which is then subjected to further tests. Even an accepted theory may eventually be overthrown if enough contradictory evidence is found, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, which was shown after more than two centuries of acceptance to be an approximation valid only for speeds much less than that of light.

Role of Measurement and Experiment

All of the activities of the scientific method are characterized by a scientific attitude, which stresses rational impartiality. Measurement plays an important role, and when possible the scientist attempts to test his theories by carefully designed and controlled experiments that will yield quantitative rather than qualitative results. Theory and experiment work together in science, with experiments leading to new theories that in turn suggest further experiments. Although these methods and attitudes are generally shared by scientists, they do not provide a guaranteed means of scientific discovery; other factors, such as intuition, experience, good judgment, and sometimes luck, also contribute to new developments in science.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, it would appear to me, that by collecting data and recording information, and casting aside what you find holds no information - even if they are casts of tracks done by more than one person, is helping to build toward a hypothesis.

Which is science. Where else does one start?

If this is not done, in some fashion, where do you start? I find that last bolded sentence very interesting.. Who would have thought intuition played any role in science, let alone luck?? I sure did not.

Nice observation Melissa. Need that bold text in 72 point font.

WRONG

This universe is common unto itself ( Newtonian physics)

So if there is "life"- it must exist within the laws of physics and biology

To quote ( and paraphrase Deming)

If it exists- it can be measured- if it can be measured, it can be managed

Theres nothing "subjective' to it ( as in open to interpretation)

if BF exists- he exists as a mammal, he exists in this universe and thus is subject to what other mammals are

FYI- biology is as empiracle and unforgiving as my field

>>>life sciences contain elements that are subjective and cannot be quantified in the way you propose. Articulated maybe, but not quantified as in a rigid set of criteria.

Thats a load of crap- if a biological entity exists, it has to be physical, leave traces of its presence, eat, sleep, reproduce, expell waste- the whole 9 yards just like the rest of us. All of that is measurable and quantifiable. The only question is "have we discovered it yet"- once discovered, its all measurable

>>>This is the problem with having an engineer tell a biologist how to do his job.

Thats why you NEED an engineer ( even tho the biological sciences agree with me) to keep you grounded in SCIENCE and not in wishful thinking- making things up to suit metaphysics so you can have at least a premise of an argument

Dunno if I agree with all of that, on account of to all appearances, this is one "animal" that we practically need a full "psychological profile" on before we can start finding verifiable trace evidence. Therefore, only the people who take the subjective measure of building such a profile of the critter are likely to come up with the goods.

The forensics will put the murderer away, but to even get close to finding him, we've gotta work on the profile. The profile is scientifically and evidentially useless, but the only other way is dragnetting the entire planet or getting real lucky.

Good, lets do exactly that

>>>]First, information, or data, is gathered by careful observation of the phenomenon being studied.[/

That doesnt apply because the 'careful observation" isnt exhaustive or empiracle- its subjective

>>>On the basis of that information a preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed, usually by inductive reasoning, and this in turn leads by deductive logic to a number of implications that may be tested by further observations and experiments (see induction ; deduction

Even logic must give way to reason and facts- the FACT is the hypothesis is formed on less than empiracle data, it pretty much ends there, everything else is speculation

>>>If the conclusions drawn from the original hypothesis successfully meet all these tests, the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory or law; if additional facts are in disagreement with the hypothesis, it may be modified or discarded in favor of a new hypothesis, which is then subjected to further tests. Even an accepted theory may eventually be overthrown if enough contradictory evidence is found, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, which was shown after more than two centuries of acceptance to be an approximation valid only for speeds much less than that of light.

You just made my point for me ( although I doubt that was your goal)- the hypothesis' proffered dont past any tests- at best, they are wishful thinking, at worst- BAD science- if they passed any test, there would be FACTS to debate- not theories

>>>All of the activities of the scientific method are characterized by a scientific attitude, which stresses rational impartiality.

none of that exists when one operates from a premise of "belief" ( impartiality goes out the window- thats what I have said many times upthread- again, you made my case for me even tho i doubt that was your intent)

>>>Measurement plays an important role, and when possible the scientist attempts to test his theories by carefully designed and controlled experiments that will yield quantitative rather than qualitative results. Theory and experiment work together in science, with experiments leading to new theories that in turn suggest further experiments.

we are SADLY lacking in that department arent we? ( that was also my point upthread- theres been NO testing or controlled experiments- again, you made my argument for me, Thank you)

>>>So, it would appear to me, that by collecting data and recording information, and casting aside what you find holds no information - even if they are casts of tracks done by more than one person, is helping to build toward a hypothesis.


the problem is the data isnt verified thus the results are flawed

>>>Which is science. Where else does one start?

at square 1- using all means to find the truth

>>>If this is not done, in some fashion, where do you start? I find that last bolded sentence very interesting.. Who would have thought intuition played any role in science, let alone luck?? I sure did not.

intuition is a guiding factor- not an empiracle result of testing

hope that helps

How do you verify data on a subject that has not been proven to exist??

Where do you start without a hypothesis?? Which is a very important part of the Scientific process.

Now you are arguing with an Encyclopedia definition??

>>>How do you verify data on a subject that has not been proven to exist??

you dont and you cant- thats why one doesnt promote opinions as fact- you simply eveluate the data you have with the BEST methods available and stop there

>>>Where do you start without a hypothesis?? Which is a very important part of the Scientific process.
Sure and I never said any different

>>>Now you are arguing with an Encyclopedia definition??

No, just defining it, explaining it and putting it into proper perspective

I think that, for example, physicists, keep it simple for, for example, civil engineers, in that they fail to point out the finite possibility that, for example, a steel beam tested to support 20 tons, may suddenly fail under only it's own weight, out of fear of them having aneurisms. 100-1x10^-30 times out of 100 it will support 20 tons just fine.

Dont see how that applies

That certainly makes it hard to confirm anything.



It's not so much where do you start, as where do you finish? Experimentation and testing of a hypothesis is also a very important part of the scientific process. What experimentation and testing has Dr. Meldrum conducted to support or refute his hypothesis?

RayG

Wouldn't the work he's done with living chimps (recording their locomotion/prints/etc) be an example of such testing? I believe he's worked with human subjects as well (but I heard him say the chimps were better behaved, better smelling, and smarter.... ).

I don't see how you could have understood it to the degree at which you would be able to deduct that it doesn't apply.

In other words...............what?

I understood the comment...it means never send an engineer to do a job unless you want it to cost twice as much and take twice as long as estimated...cause they are very precise (although all our engineers have extremely messy desks, so what's up with that??).

Nice signature mkianni...(you do know I'm a lady, right...and yes I use the term "lady" rather loosely...)

if his hypothesis was with chimps, yes- now he is applying subjective comparisons with a BF- thats 2 different things ( or 3 if you count humans)

I do. But thats got to sound strange to someone that doesn't. Wouldn't you agree?

oh no sweetheart- make no mistake about it ( you are MORE correct than I'll admit in a thread)- you want to spend money- ask an engineer ( we will test you to death and be happy to invoice you for it)

no argument there ( it bothers me you figured out our secret- just dont tell everyone- PLEASE- its a trade secret)


if you do- I'll find somebody to report you to and very vigorously whine about it- and you dont want that

Pretty much anyone who has met me would find the term "lady" to be very odd, yes!

The situation boils down to these two questions - IMHO
How is the evidence verified as being scientifically valid?
Is the scientist following where the evidence leads him/her - or trying to get the evidence to fit his/her preconceived notions?



edited for change of question to situation

LOL! Remind me to tell you the story of the dreaded Bailey Bridge, an arch site, and a Congressman....

So, those who are now reeling over the possible changes in time span in human evolution - they should be thinking what? Their work was less than scientific, now that they are probably wrong? They worked from data, they had a hypothesis, they had bones - and it turns out, they may be wrong.

Their "facts" started out with a theory, a hypothesis, and data. So, Dr. Meldrum is wrong because???

They also worked off the available information they had at the time. There is trial and error in everything.





That is your implication.

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.





I just thought that final quote was cute. LOL

You do that

I'm going to file a formal report to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Engineers. We are a well financed PAC

Be SKEERED, be VERY skeerd

We have our eyes on YOU

I was trying to imply the concept that the "can-do" culture of engineers is kind of opposed to and insulated from the harsh reality of there being no absolute truth or certainty in science. Engineers believe in armor plate, physicists are uncomfortably aware of a phenomenon known as quantum tunnelling.
Customer: Will 20mm armor plate stop handgun rounds?
Engineer: Yes!
Physicist: 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of the time.

If you don't want an answer with a defined degree of uncertainty in it, don't ask a scientist, if you want "truth" ask a priest.

Not even close, unless squatch feet and chimp feet so closely resemble each other that experts can barely tell them apart.

(In reality chimp feet are quite different from squatch prints.)

http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/i...ages/chimp2.jpg
http://www.greenscreen.org/articles_jr/ani...imals/chimp.jpg
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/15/photos/flo-feet.jpg
http://www.billybear4kids.com/Rozi/FeetHands.shtml
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp...Djoum_Chimp.jpg

RayG

Melissa, I'm moderately lit so if I err, ask me again in the morning ( the answers may be different)

>>>So, those who are now reeling over the possible changes in time span in human evolution - they should be thinking what? Their work was less than scientific, now that they are probably wrong? They worked from data, they had a hypothesis, they had bones - and it turns out, they may be wrong.

Thats really not applicable because we arent discussing evolution but the here and now

>>>Their "facts" started out with a theory, a hypothesis, and data. So, Dr. Meldrum is wrong because???

I'm not discusing 'them" and i have already covered meldrum

>>>They also worked off the available information they had at the time. There is trial and error in everything.
That is your implication.


T&E sure, but keep it in the realm of legitimate science

>>>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.

No, I said exactly the opposite

>>>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.

I think I covered that also

Longtabber, if you've reached a suitably contemplative state of mind, could you lay-out a scenario of how you'd conduct a research project?
What would it take to have that in collaboration with a recognized academic, like DrM? He seems like an admirably reasonable guy from everyones' description of their encounters with him.

Well, you will just have to get your digs in before tomorrow - cause I will be away from my keyboard most of tomorrow.





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.

So, they will simply pick up and move forward..





Well, I am. And thats the title of this thread.

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





How is my comment not in the realm of legitimate science?





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?





Well, then I am not sure why you have an issue with Dr. Meldrums "Science". Maybe he does not approach it exactly the way you do, but that does not make him wrong for the approach he uses.

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

How do you know? I doubt there is a "squatch". There is however something leaving 17.5" tracks (multiple prints, in stride) in the woods of the PNW. It's probably just a really big chimp, with quite different chimp feet.

Or Shaq knows he’s gonna get the ax in Miami and is trying to find Portland.

Melissa, excellent work. Excellent.

I want Dr. Moreau to formulate a mathematical algorithm which will conclusively identify a bear track, 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.

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.

Better yet, just put that in your friggin pipe and smoke it, Professor Klump.

That's Rene Magritte, not Foucalt.

You're right, he did not paint it, he merely explained it.

Calling people names is really childish.
The fact that he swats your arguments (LOL!) away with the ease of a man shooing pesky mosquitos must be really getting on your nerves.

How do you know?

RayG

I think Meldrum made a mistake when he subscribed to the Dermal ridges on the casts as being indicative of a primate's foot. When Tube showed that casting artifacts lead to the same type of thing, It basically should have ended the Dermal ridge era of bigfoot research, but Meldrum still subscribes to it.

Meldrum also maintains that Bigfoot has Mid-foot flexibility, Which is found in apes, but not found in humans. Apes are quadrupedal, humans are bipedal, if bigfoot is bipedal, then why would it have mid foot flexibility?

Bigfoot, if bipedal and able to run, should have a well-developed achilles tendon, well-developed achilles tendons and mid-foot flexibility are not found in gorilllas, chimps or orangutans.

"Swats away arguments with ease??" I might think that too - if infact others still did not have questions as to the comments being made. Its very apparent to me that once again, someone has come along preaching about the "Scientific Method" and instead of defining it so people understand what it is, so they may apply these priciples, they simply tell us thats what we need to do - well, I think we already know that.

Childish is also when you tell someone they are not qualified to have a conversation with you - unless they list out their educational background and employment history for you to decide if it suits your level of expertise. We all may have extended knowledge of our respective fields, but on this board - we are all learning, and I hope from each other.

I am in this to help people regardless of their backgrounds and their knowledge - I would hope that would hold true for everyone.

I don't think it means he's wrong because he equates dermal ridges with primate feet. Something doesn't seem quite right about him accepting tracks someone else has cast though. Can he be certain measures were taken to prevent casting artifacts? Before proclaiming them possible dermal ridges of an unknown primate shouldn't he at least show an identifying dermal link between two individual casts/prints?

With regards to the mid-tarsal break, if squatch has flat feet, what's the advantage of having a flexible mid-foot?

Melissa: While it's true that asking a group of scientists to define 'scientific method' may result in answers that differ slightly, the main gist of it remains the same:

1. Observe
2. Formulate a hypothesis
3. Conduct tests/experiments
4. Analyze the results
5. Form a conclusion

Too often in bigfoot research, steps 3 and 4 are skipped.

RayG

I totally agree RayG - and I think its a very important point you make. I think those last two things for some are very difficult - as they are dealing with not just information gained while in the field, but also (for some) personal experiences.. Which is why I have always said, if I ever have a sighting, and I cant evaluate a report and be just as critical of the information I hear as I am willing to listen and evaluate, I will stop taking reports.

But regardless Ray, while we agree - telling someone to do something they have never done before without the information as to how its done (and done properly) is really quite unfair. It sets people up for failure, and I really dont think anyone who spends their time and money on this wants that. Most are in this for documentation - not more failure.

I appreciate your breakdown - I think that list could be very helpful for new researchers who come by this thread. Thank you

That would be like me asking you to draft a stipulation, but giving you a Blacks Law Dictionary to do it. I know what I want - but how could you possibly know?? Yes, you will have the jargon at your fingertips - but thats simply not enough information.

Edited to add a thank you

Well, that may be the case Drew - but what need would a gorilla, chimps or organutans have for a well-developed achilles tendon if they do not spend the majority of their time walking bipedally? Based on reports most witnesses state they see this animal walking upright - so I would think it only logical that this animal would have a well-developed achilles. Now, if you look at the Patterson Film, I think there is a good argument for "Patty" having just that..

But, as with everything in this - who knows....

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

I'm getting rather tired of having to agree with you 'rockinkt' I really wish you would stop forcing me into this position.....

I 've really enjoyed this thread. I wonder what Dr. M would think of it. I do get the impression that Dr M is a little apprehensive and/or defensive about his claims and seems a little bit aware of the shortcoming the evidence for his hypothesis. Maybe if he were to modify the stated intent of the research and collaborated with someone who could bring state of the art testing techniques to the work we could indeed find a scientifically supportable paper, even if it weren't as bold in its presumptions.
I can image a suggestion like that might bruise an ego or two, but I have huge respect for anyone who can put down a well worn and much loved tool for one that works better and promotes the goals of an enlightened society. I think that's kinda how progress occurs, actually.