In any case, my reply about the sequential castings was not about matching dermals, it was about matching tracks with evidence of individual variation, as longtabber seemed to be requesting (dermals not being the only noteworthy trait of a particular track). Apparently such a thing exists, if one is to believe Meldrum. Again, read Meldrum's book before taking his technique to task. I don't see the value in speculative critiques, but perhaps I'm missing something.

>>>as longtabber seemed to be requesting (dermals not being the only noteworthy trait of a particular track). Apparently such a thing exists, if one is to believe Meldrum. Again, read Meldrum's book before taking his technique to task. I don't see the value in speculative critiques, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Its not about "belief", its about facts and data- nothing currently exists

Many scientists ( myself included) would cut his findings and conclusions to shreds based on improper technique and misapplied science as well as a void of complete scientific evaluation of the prints.

The fact he wrote a book is nice but doesnt establish anything- he doesnt have a good data set, his methods are FAR from exhaustive regarding scientific technique and his conclusions are based on speculation.

Apparently you may be missing something because ( from what I have seen) the entire science of forensic analysis of the tracks is sadly wanting as applied to BF.

Would you like a primer of ideas about what should be done to build a legitimate scientific case? Included with the "how to"? Maybe then the 2 could be contrasted to see why and how the current results amount to literally nothing

To quote Granny Hawkins from The Outlaw Josey Wales: "I say that big talk's worth doodly-squat."

You know, thats a VERY fair and legitimate challenge- I will comply with your request

However, since we are doing a party tonight- I'll see you first thing in the morning on this thread

tootles

BUT, look for a detailed example in the morning- you will have it so you will have something to contrast it with- you may even want to make it a new thread ( thats your and the Mods call- not mine)

see you about 0900 EST with an answer

Sorry I'm a bit late but I did promise you

Heres the background work first

1) I would do a 3 D solidworks model of a test sample foot ( complete with ridges, b*lls etc)- put the G codes in a 3 axis CNC and actually make a 3 D "test foot"

2) I would get a hydraulic cylinder with pump gauges and make a tripod ( this would be about $1000) the purpose of this is to make controlled imprints with known pressures ( to establish a database with known test samples and their effects in a controlled enviroment to compare field samples with)

3) I would use one of our digital microscopes ( we use stereo 500X at about $800 for FMEA and RCA analysis and ours have the GD&T [ gauge, dimension and tolerance] overlays so they can also measure- but there are cheaper hobby models at about $150)

4) get the dyes and powders ( magnetic and pumice and UV dyes for leak testing and crack testing) and the UV lights

Now to the "found" prints ( I already have the database to measure known distortions and establish an error range)

1) I would set up the test foot and make impressions of the same depth at the same location ( give an estimate of the exact weight of the originator of the print)

2) i would then use the dyes and UV light ( with the microscope) to measure the track and any detail within it ( this would be undistorted and in real time) I would also do the same with the test foot sample to have a comparative known to compare against.

3) Then I would make the cast and measure it against the visual data to define any deformation, deviation etc.

The report generated from that type of analysis would stand up to more scrutiny ( because it has test samples, as well as microscopic detail of the print base and other things) than just pouring plaster in a hole and saying "look what i got".

The way you deal with a scientific rebuttal is to anticipate how they will challenge your findings and have your answers ready ( and the data to support them)

Its no different than in a court when you have your direct, cross and redirect

My methodology above ( and its not detailed as there are a few other things i would do) would put me in a much better position to defend my claims because i used a variety of recognized testing and evaluation methods, having controlled tests and accurate estimates of weight, details etc.

That actually doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I'm not sure you've carved up Meldrum's work with it.

It does bring up the question, is it possible to shoot a hologram of a track imprint? If so that would preserve more detail than a casting ever could.

It's possible I guess, but I doubt it's practical, despite the advances in lasers it still needs some pile of equipment I think. For the same kind of money most researchers would be thinking of buying thermal imaging gear instead.

>>>That actually doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I'm not sure you've carved up Meldrum's work with it.

Its not about carving up his work as theres nothing that needs carving because it doesnt stand on its own due to the lack of comparative data- it was "carved" before the cast came out of the hole

>>>It does bring up the question, is it possible to shoot a hologram of a track imprint? If so that would preserve more detail than a casting ever could.

It most certainly is ( altho I dont work with them- the same science applies) but you can "pan' the print- convert it to g code and cut a replica- its done all the time when back engineering a machine with missing parts

longtabber, you're ignoring the fact that he's an authority on the evolution of human bipedal locomotion. His opinions about the imprints don't just dry up and blow away because you trot out some equipment. What you are suggesting could add a degree of precision to estimates of weight and any discussion of minute details (which as far as I can tell does not exist apart from dermals). But as far as talking about the macro- trends and patterns found in trackways, which is where Meldrum seems to have found his bread and butter, I don't see where a lot of value is added.

That's cause he didn't. He just gave us a list of what he would do if he were the study the issue.

Longtabber, you keep claiming that you can "cut his findings and conclusions to shreds based on improper technique and misapplied science" but you haven't yet done so. Since you are a scientist, would you please demonstrate where Meldrum has fallen short?

Thats right he is- heres the problem ( and the reason he hasnt gotten any further than he has)

His expertise in HUMAN bipedal locomotion is solid and the reason its so solid is that we know about HUMANS, we have human skeletons and millions of examples known to be true. That expertise in one field doesnt auto-transmute across the board to a different field

Sasquatch isnt HUMAN however so now his expertise so "authoritive" since

1) his recognized expertise isnt in sasquatch bipedal locomotion

2) there is no recognized "science' regarding sasquatch

3) all of his data is SUBJECTIVE thus open to scrutiny

See, I dont view him as an icon and his work isnt a "holy grail"- to me he is just another PhD working for a paycheck trying to realize a dream- no different than me or any other. ( he wants to prove BF exists- I personally want to build the first operational hand phaser- we all have dreams and goals) I dont see him as the "best' or "foremost" in anything ( because those accolades dont mean anything, hell, I've been introduced as a leading expert in TPM and World Class maintenance at seminars from ASE, ASME and the JIPM in country and overseas- everybody at a professional level uses those terms- they dont mean anything)

Bottom line, theres nothing he, i or anyone else does that isnt open to scrutiny, critique and improvement.

And as far as science and recognized investigative technique- theres a lot more out there than is being currently used- the reality is- thats part of the reason the production of usable data is so low

Actually longtabber, he's an expert in human AND primate locomotion. Here is his bio:

Meldrum received his B.S. in zoology specializing in vertebrate locomotion at Brigham Young University in 1982, his M.S. at BYU in 1984 and a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences, with an emphasis in biological anthropology, from State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1989. He held the position of postdoctoral visiting assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center from 1989 to 1991. Meldrum worked at Northwestern University's Department of Cell, Molecular and Structural Biology for a short while in 1993 before joining the faculty of Idaho State University where he currently teaches. He is also an affiliate curator of vertebrate palaeontology at the Idaho Museum of Natural History.

Yes, I've read his CV and its good

That doesnt alter the fact that his research is inconclusive and full of holes. It also doesnt alter the fact that there are superior methods long in existance that arent being used which would make for a stronger case.

If you ever wonder why his associates in other fields are so critical of him ( even those in his field) this is one of the reasons why.

They are aware of some of the methods I mentioned ( and hundreds more) that simply arent being used- nothing I have mentioned is rocket science, secret or invented by me, they are in use everywhere and they produce RESULTS.



>>The argument for the thermal imager certainly makes financial and practical sense, but is it possible to make use of this sort of system to extrapolate the nature of the creature making the track? Even if we can't lug the thing into the forest. Anytime you can use multiple techniques to come to the same or similar conclusion it begins to develop a little more 'weight' (no pun intended).

The thermal imagers are man portable and no bigger than a VHS camcorder. All they would tell you is the heat signature ( but that would tell a lot)

>>>To make a long question short...could this technology be used in the field and be useful to the BF community?

Yes, all of this stuff is designed to be portable and used in the field- it would be of great help because it would give you onsite real data

I'm sorry, but that is just false logic. Research can't be inconclusive or full of holes because in your opinion there are other methods that you would use to study the same subject. People are experts in their own fields; both Jeff and I are anthropologists but I don't use the same methods he does because my research focus is different (same subject, but I'm trying to get to the same point as him but through a different angle). If I want to criticize his work, then I can criticize it based on how he did study it...not how he didn't. Nor is that why associates are critical of him. They contend (and rightly so in many ways) that the data set he is starting with has a false premise...he can't factually conclude that all the casts in his study are authentic representations of a living foot. And in fact, the methods you listed above would also not avoid that criticizim as all you are doing (unless I'm misreading it) is a different method of collecting the same data...the print in the ground...not the printmaker.

(and I should note that Meldrum has done work as you describe above with chimps...he's talked about it many times during presentations).

Then let me do it for you now

EVERYTHING he has produced is an end product of HIS ESTIMATION ( nothing more) of what COULD BE ( his theory based on his knowledge) using specimens that have NOT been "proven" to be true in the first place. His finding were "cut to shreds" the minute they were produced because none of his results rise above his OPINION. ( science doesnt accept OPINIONS as FACT)

Just to illustrate the point- he has a cast of a hole in the ground

1) it LOOKS like a "foot' but where is the proof it comes from a REAL animal

2) There are impressions and ridges that "LOOK" like something that would be expected from a real animal

3) in multiple casts ( in the same set) the same exact results arent duplicated ( which one would expect)

In the end, it all boils down to a "could be" hypothesis based on a "what if" scenario- thats as far from empiracle science as one can get. The fact that he has a group of believers and a cheering section dont change the above.

His falling short come from the fact he doesnt use current accepted forensic technology to go further in depth with his research.


What I wrote certainly wont be popular but rest assured- its reality

HA! Beat you too it (see my post above yours).

So, based on the methods you proposed, how do you expect to get around the same criticism (ie., who made the prints vs. just a detailed analysis of the print itself)?

Theres nothing false about it

>>Research can't be inconclusive or full of holes because in your opinion there are other methods that you would use to study the same subject.

It most certainly can, its the difference between using an eyeball versus a microscope when one is available. Its hard for me to promote any scientist ( in any field) that doesnt seek out and utilize the best methods available.

>>People are experts in their own fields; both Jeff and I are anthropologists but I don't use the same methods he does because my research focus is different (same subject, but I'm trying to get to the same point as him but through a different angle).

You hit the nail on the head right there ( different fields) and I'm not looking at it thru the eyes of an anthropologist- I'm looking at it thru a discipline that is math and physics based and focuses on precision,accuracy, detail and the technology to obtain them as well as being governed by universal constants and is inherently "unforgiving". It might be a little cold or hard to the softer sciences ( I dont deny that) but thats the reason for it- we dont have the luxury of being imprecise.

You hit another nail on the head ( research focus)- if his sole purpose was to build probability models and hypothetical arguments, I would be behind him 100%- he has crossed that line to taking inconclusive data to try to build a position that no amount of inconclusive data can shore up. He is actively promoting an unknown creature exists and attempting to use the most questionable of evidence to accomplish it. As you mentioned and i quoted below- he HAS to know his premise isnt supported by the data and evidence he presents- if thats true ( and i cant see how its not since he is a scientist with an impressive CV)- then he has willingly and knowingly crossed a line he knows exists so he worthy of the professional scorn he gets.

>>>Nor is that why associates are critical of him. They contend (and rightly so in many ways) that the data set he is starting with has a false premise...he can't factually conclude that all the casts in his study are authentic representations of a living foot.

I believe thats what I've been saying all along- they are right

>>And in fact, the methods you listed above would also not avoid that criticizim as all you are doing (unless I'm misreading it) is a different method of collecting the same data...the print in the ground...not the printmaker.

You are correct ( to a point) nothing I suggested would be effective in "proving" a BF exists- what it would do is serve at the opposite end of the scale and reduce the number of obvious fakes but it would give some usable data for a probability model that was a little more solid when a critique comes but little else.

But at the end of the day- we both know nothing short of a 3 D specimen will ever 'prove' anything

I think i answered this while you were typing your response.

I would avoid the criticism by never speaking beyond what my data would support.

If it were me, i would adopt the premise of:

Heres what I found ( a print)

My analysis shows X ( whatever it showed and culling any sample that even remotely smelled of fabrication)

This print has a statistical probability of coming from an unknown species ( not sure i would mention BF given all the history surrounding it) I would leave it open ended.

I would draw a data base showing similarity between the characteristics with known species.

I would IDENTIFY and EXPLORE ALTERNATE explanations as well ( beat them to the draw and demonstrate i am looking at ALL angles thus not bringing my credibility into question)

I would NEVER promote any idea or theory my data wouldnt support.

You are 100% correct that "my" methods ( they arent mine, I didnt invent any of them- they are just what I do) would NEVER rise to the level of "proof"- the BEST they could do is build a probability model but at least i would have the benefit of saying I used all methods available to test my hypothesis and findings in every possible way. ( that has great effect when keeping the wolves at bay)

Thats how i would approach this and why. Just curious, what do you think of my proposition?

I honestly don't see anything different in your proposal and what Meldrum has done. For the record, Meldrum just published a paper in a peer reviewed journal. Obviously his peers felt that his conclusions were supported by his data or it wouldn't have been published.

Sure peers in his field accept his work- thats a no brainer, what about critiques from other disciplines that have higher standards of proof.

I know the process of peer review quite well ( I have reviewed and been reviewed) and its more political than science ( its not PC to admonish another professional to a great extent) so appearing in a PR forum doesnt carry that much weight with me. All a PR forum does is give a scientist name recognition ( and builds his standing)

A paper will be published because of name and many other reasons in addition ( and often regardless) of the subject matter and initial "reviews' are often sent to associates or people with "like' minds who will be more complimentary than critical. ( how often does a scientist send a paper to an adversary for a harsh review?)

I see a lot ( from reading some of his work- not all of it so I may have missed something) but i dont see a great level of application of high level techniques and i certainly dont see much in the way of alternative theories.

I agree with your appoach and the concept that you're proposing to gather evidence to support the probability of Bigfoot existence. There is a slight difference between your approach and that of Dr. Meldrum. From what I gather, your proposal would present the evidence suggesting that the prints were created by a yet unidentified creature, whereas Dr. Meldrum would present the prints and suggest they came from a Bigfoot (creature believed to exist but not yet identified). I see your point that you might propose Bigfoot as one of multiple possibilities, where Dr. Meldrum points to Bigfoot as the most likely possibility.

As a molecular biologist I understand where you're coming from on this, that you need to put forth concrete evidence to support your claim, and what has been presented thus far is simply not concrete. In most any other science the method would approach what you suggest. However, as scientists, we have to have a preconceived hypothesis before we start regardless of the situation. A researcher would believe the tracks are cast by an unidentified bipedal hominid or I believe they are created by hoaxers. Researchers would then present evidence and try to evaluate the known possibilities and suggest hypotheses to test and retest before drawing conclusions. While that is true, Dr. Meldrum is trying to suggest the hypothesis that Bigfoot is responsible for specific tracks, your major point is that he's walking into it with a preconceived hypothesis.

It seems that the case of Bigfoot has to be handled a little differently in that there is no clear evidence of the existence of such a species, and there already exists a large array of fabricated evidence. While I agree with your method, I think you would have to address the possibility that a Bigfoot created the track as Bigfoot has been described in modern media, whether you believe Bigfoot exists or not.

Am I right in reading your posts correctly?

And can we please move this to a different thread since it has little if anything to do with the original topic?

I couldn't possibly disagree with you more.

All disciplines have the same standard of proof for evidence. To suggest that the journal would publish something out of political reasons or because of Meldrum's name is profoundly absurd. Not to mention, most peer reviewed journals have a standard board of reviewers and I doubt sincerely that the Journal of Cenozoic Vertebrate Tracks and Traces is flush with pro-bigfoot proponents. Like it or not, the publication of that article is significant...both in the sense of some validation of Jeff's methodology and conclusions as well as the overall concept of bigfoot.

Completely agree that the peer review process is really a sort of 'cover'. While it gives some 'weight' to a subject, there are plenty of 'peer reviewed' publications that are blatant fabrications (ie the stem cell work from Korea). However, I think in this case it is important for Dr. Meldrum's work to be viewed by other researchers and editors (even if they are supporters of his) and deemed worthy of publication in the field.

You are reading them EXACTLY correctly ( I'm glad someone else does)

>>> I see your point that you might propose Bigfoot as one of multiple possibilities, where Dr. Meldrum points to Bigfoot as the most likely possibility.

>>>While that is true, Dr. Meldrum is trying to suggest the hypothesis that Bigfoot is responsible for specific tracks, your major point is that he's walking into it with a preconceived hypothesis.

The reason i would avoid the mention of BF is as you stated- theres already decades of "stigma' attached ( with known fakes etc) so if you went out initially proclaiming BF as the most likely candidate- you are opening your work up to immediate coloring due to the current polarization.

I would use the "back door" method and let the data lead the observer to the point of my hopothesis ( it being a BF) by letting them think it was THEIR conclusion rather than buying what I was selling.

The big thing i see working against meldrum is there has been a stigma attached to BF long before he got so deeply involved and his methods have caused him to fall in the muck. I'm not going to say its right or even soley his fault- but he has fallen into the quicksand of the BF "aura" and a lot of it is his own doing.

You summed it up prefectly- Bigfoot MUST be handled differently because its BIGFOOT



Hairy, I hate to be the one to inform you of this but its done every day everywhere.

Lets go back to cold fusion, stem cell research, some UFO's and others

a "peer review" is nowhere near a holy grail- its the mixture of politics and science.

ETA- "some validation or methodology and conclusions" is a misnomer- theres no "validation" ( scientifically) in a peer review process- all it means is you produced a nice paper that wasnt full of obvious and immediate errors.

There are many here who no doubt believe these things carry great scientific weight but those of us who have done it know better. It has a purpose, it gives recognition to a scientist and an idea ( or subject)
and it puts information out to the masses. ( which are good) but thats as much as they do

The FINAL ( and only) real determination of a scientists work is in what the work produces. Right now, thats where its lacking.

Since I publish often, I certainly do not subscribe at all to your beliefs (and I know of no peer reviewed journal that prints UFO articles).

However, if that is indeed the case, then I would suggest that all those that complain the bigfoot research can't be taken seriously unless it's published in a peer reviewed journal need to stop saying it. We can't have it both ways - either publication in peer reviewed journal is the standard for which we are to strive to achieve or it's not. Pick one and stick to it.

Longtabber, you're (essentially) a day late and a dollar short (second time I've said that today, hmmm) in arguing Meldrum's 'conclusions'. And not that you're not making valid points. There is a more pertinent thread for this specific debate and it's in fact where I essentially made your GENERAL point several months ago. And I still agree (with myself?) that Meldrum is going to have to 'cough up' an actual body to attain the true 'SCIENTIFIC' respect he may be seeking.

Now, your criticism of his stance that 'it could be Bigfoot' because what he's seen leans in that direction isn't all that valid in that, as a duly appointed 'scientist', only HE and he alone should be the one to decide what's the right and wrong of the methodology HE uses. Your idea of what is 'better methodology' is at best, your opinion. Despite any criticism 'we' may have of him, we would (seemingly) have to assume he uses the best 'ways and methods' he personally has access to and that he personally know and prefers. I seriously doubt any of those methods would be considered 'unscientific' given his entire career and existence hinges on him being a good 'scientist'.

And I think you need to re-evaluate your response to this subtle but important quote from HairyMan re Meldrum: "Nor is that why associates are critical of him. They contend (and rightly so in many ways) that the data set he is starting with has a false premise...he can't factually conclude that all the casts in his study are authentic representations of a living foot." You have in fact not been 'trying to say that all along'. You've been trying to say what you said in your next sentence: "You are correct ( to a point) nothing I suggested would be effective in "proving" a BF exists- what it would do is serve at the opposite end of the scale and reduce the number of obvious fakes but it would give some usable data for a probability model that was a little more solid when a critique comes but little else." You are (and have been) simply saying he could use better 'methods' to possibly get more accurate results so as to possibly improve the basis of the entire premise that it's possibly a big hairy man-ape causing all this possible commotion.

I'll reiterate, Meldrum can be and should be righteously questioned. I mean, he is essentially attributing a known quantity/quality to an unknown origin, and in anybody's 'scientific book' that can't necessarily be all good. But, if you go down to the bottom line, his bottom line, he's seeing something in there somewhere that says it could be something other than a hoax/fake. It's simply his specific attribution as to the cause that's got him 'on the ropes' so-to-speak. Regardless, I hope he's planning on doing some of that 'coughing up' soon.

I never said a PR forum isnt a good thing or doesnt help the cause ( it is and it does, much the way 100 pennies makes a dollar so a PR forum is a penny)

But does a peer review constitute 'evidence' or "proof' of a subject or serve in establishing a scientific fact or validity or a premise?- thats snake oil, pure plain and simple

I, nor anyone, has ever said that peer review is evidence or proof...is that what you've been arguing this whole time? What I stated is that by being peer viewed and then published, the journal found that you presented a set of data and your conclusions are supported by that data. Based on what I know of this journal, it is a highly respected with no reason to suggest that they published the article for political or non-scientific reasons.

A few comments harry

>>>Now, your criticism of his stance that 'it could be Bigfoot' because what he's seen leans in that direction isn't all that valid in that, as a duly appointed 'scientist', only HE and he alone should be the one to decide what's the right and wrong of the methodology HE uses.

Actually, he has gone way beyond "it could be"- he is actively saying "it is"- thats where the validity gets lost- granted an individual scientist has the right to use whatever methods he sees fit but from the prespective of "right and wrong" regarding methodology is more institutional thus brings critique.

Using me as an example, I could use a yardstick and my eyeball measuring a shim and say I "believe" this shim is .015- but the institutional standard is to use a micrometer. As a scientist, its also his duty and obligation to constantly review his methodology and improve it. ( thats also a tenet of science in general) so if he is casting a print hoping to get information from a print- thats a forensic science so he should consult investigators and others in casting fields to see what better methods exist and employ them.

>>> Your idea of what is 'better methodology' is at best, your [i]opinion. [/i]

Its beyond "opinion" when the methodology is used in like applications and has proven its effectiveness and accuracy.

>>>Despite any criticism 'we' may have of him, we would (seemingly) have to assume he uses the best 'ways and methods' [i]he personally has access to and that he personally know and prefers.[/i]

you know what happens when one "assumes"- I'm not one who takes things for granted

>>>I seriously doubt any of those methods would be considered 'unscientific' given his entire career and existence hinges on him being a good 'scientist'.

Its not a case of scientific V unscientific, its a matter of good, better and best

>>> You have in fact [i]not been 'trying to say that all along'. You've been trying to say what you said in your next sentence: [/i]

No, but I see how you got that ( I didnt break it out) I wasnt speaking specifically regarding the comments in this thread as a complete singularity. I was referring to my comments as a whole. I stand corrected as i did not make that clear.

Longtabber in Post 217, I read:
" would use the "back door" method and let the data lead the observer to the point of my hopothesis ( it being a BF) by letting them think it was THEIR conclusion rather than buying what I was selling."
Not that it matters, but hat word "hopotheis"...is that a typo or a hybrid of hope and hypothesis...if it isn't mabye it should be.

Just to head off any misunderstanding off at the past.

I in no way meant to express or imply you believe that or have ever said that.

Journals themselves dont "find' anything- they publish according to their criteria



my keyboard skills are somewhere between suck and whatever is worse than suck- its a typo

hopothesis! Typos often are better than the real thing!




Meldrum doesn't personally cast the prints that he is studying. They were casted by others and sent to him. And yes, it would be nice if we all had pocket scanners, but we don't...so in the meantime those of us who do use the most current method of casting (as taught by forensic science and beat into my head greatly by Rick Noll) help teach it to others so that all the evidence possible can be captured.

>>>Meldrum doesn't personally cast the prints that he is studying. They were casted by others and sent to him.

Another nail in the coffin, no way to confirm the test samples were evaluated and taken according to accepted protocols

>>>And yes, it would be nice if we all had pocket scanners, but we don't...so in the meantime those of us who do use the most current method of casting (as taught by forensic science and beat into my head greatly by Rick Noll) help teach it to others so that all the evidence possible can be captured.

they arent expensive and i dont know what school of forensics wrote the BOK and POI of what you were taught but theres a lot more out there in the science of impression analysis than just pouring a casting.

Are you saying that you thought that Meldrum had personally casted all of the hundreds of prints he has, including the ones in his published article from 1967 (when he was 9)? I am very sure he has casted his own prints (such as those when he visited Paul Freeman) but in general, Meldrum gets prints from witnesses directly and from investigators looking at witness reports. He studies the prints and dismisses at good (as I recall him saying) 90% of what he gets due to misidentifications, poor quality, etc.



What test samples? Of prints? Of soils? What accepted protocols?


Yep.

I think what LT is saying, is that there is no chain of custody, or standard operating procedure for a cast. We all saw what that did to the O.J. Prosecution. Also, Hairy-One are you saying that Meldrum gets a bunch of casts, but only keeps the ones that fit his theory? The other ones are thrown out as hoaxes, or bad casts.

Ouch............. that sounds bad.............

Thank you, thats EXACTLY what i was saying.

All you just stated is a part of the scientific process regarding validation of evidence. ( and no theory, hypothesis or even "hopothesis" is stronger than the evidence that supports it)

I am finding it somewhat "odd" that some "scientists' dont seem to understand science- how it works, how it establishes itself, the precautions and steps necessary to produce and support theories and data, evidence collecting and analysis.

The steps and methods to enhance credibility are there for a reason. The seemingly apparant LACK of their use is one of the main contributors to the poor quality data.

If i did an FMECA on this subject, that would be the first failure mode

At one time we had a regular contributor named Desertyeti (still a member but not a contributor anymore) who has a Ph.D in a very closely related discipline (Ph.D. Sedimentary Geology [emphasis on alluvial and incised valley fills, and ichnology]). In fact he broke the whole Skookum Cast™ debacle wide open ( please don't pelt me with rocks and garbage). I don't know/recall if he ever addressed Meldrum's work specifically (besides Skookum), but you might want to read some of the stuff he wrote here in case.

>>>Are you saying that you thought that Meldrum had personally casted all of the hundreds of prints he has, including the ones in his published article from 1967 (when he was 9)? I am very sure he has casted his own prints (such as those when he visited Paul Freeman) but in general, Meldrum gets prints from witnesses directly and from investigators looking at witness reports. He studies the prints and dismisses at good (as I recall him saying) 90% of what he gets due to misidentifications, poor quality, etc.

That raises the obvious question. if he dismisses 90%- what criteria makes the other 10% valid? What benchmarks? What standards? what methods? What is the threshold of acceptance?

>>What test samples? Of prints? Of soils? What accepted protocols?

all the above- testing the print, the soil of the print- everything gets tested

I am unclear what you mean by "only fits his theory"? As a scientist, he has to identify what the cast is...known animal, so poor of quality can't tell, hoax or unknown. I know that a cast that I sent him that was a bear double tap he mailed back to me. What those percentages are in each category, I don't know...but I'm not sure what difference it makes. The man gets hundreds of unsolicited casts and weeding through them hardly be called "fitting his theory."

I havent fully read this site ( theres a lot of good stuff here but I'm eating this elephant one bite at the time) but I do focus on his, apemans and a few others who are high up the food chain comments.

Let me clarify this point ( I think its gotten lost or skewed) I'm not commenting on the body of his work ( i dont know his work, havent reviewed it etc)- I'm commenting on specific areas of his work where it crosses other disciplines such as those i have experience in ( forensics, and others) and the techniques used and what has been released.

He has many papers that detail what qualities he looks for in prints. Why would it surprise anyone that he would dismiss 90% of what he gets? The man is very well known and gets sent hundreds of prints that he doesn't ask for. I get unsolicited Native American stories and pictures of rock art all the time...am I less scientific because 90% aren't at all even related to bigfoot, let alone usable?

P.S. that doesn't mean of course he doesn't keep track of what he is sent and what the results are...I am very sure he can say xx percent a year are bear; xx are this; xx are that.

P.S.S. I just realized that we have completely taken over this thread on a totally unrelated subject. Maybe we should talk about this somewhere else, like over in the thread about Meldrum's article. Sorry for the derailment!

It doesnt surprise me he dismisses 90%- what surprises me is that his dismissal percentage is that low.

I cut him no slack regarding him getting hundreds of unsolicited casts- he put himself in the position of being the "front man" and that comes with the territory.

If thats an issue- he should post a detailed criteria of what he expects in a sample and instructions on how to send them and if it doesnt meet the criteria, dont send the sample.

Now, the minute he does- he just gave hoaxers a literal blueprint on how to make a more "acceptable' fake and set himself up for further embarrasment when some engineering grad student gets with a cohort in an anthropological science and decides to make some high level forgeries just to fool him and then reveal it- that too comes with the territory.

I think he might ought to consider re evaluating the qualities he accepts and maybe up his rejection percentage to 99% or higher

This still comes back to the idea that we have to find a 'happy medium' between what is accepted in science and what we can do in the BF community. What LT is saying is that tossing 90% of your prints, for whatever reason, would be viewed by the scientific community as the equivalent of me running 30 experiments and tossing 27 of them so I only had the three left that fit my theory.

The problem is that by virtue of BF, we're confronted with having to selectively omit evidence as a forgery. Not that Dr. Meldrum isn't dealing with those situations, but someone else needs to go through the prints with different criteria, toss their own 90% based on their own criteria and come to the same conclusion...hopefully that a large hairy bipedal ape exists.

yeah we did and i'm as guilty as any- I just go with the flow sometimes.

At least we entertained the masses. Thats half the fun of blogging.

Probably need to start a new fresh thread titled along the lines of scientific analysis methods or techniques or something like that. I wouldnt attach a name to it to stay focused on the method and technique, not the person

>>>The problem is that by virtue of BF, we're confronted with having to selectively omit evidence as a forgery. Not that Dr. Meldrum isn't dealing with those situations, but someone else needs to go through the prints with different criteria, toss their own 90% based on their own criteria and come to the same conclusion...hopefully that a large hairy bipedal ape exists.

Exactly, not only blind and double blind testing- but from testing from other applicable sciences- that bolsters ones position greatly, as you stated- when someone ELSE ( using different methods) reaches the same conclusion as you

It could be higher than 90%, that's just what I remember him saying.

I would think that criticism might be true if he didn't keep records on what he is being sent, which I stated I am certain that he does (just like hoaxed/misidentified reports are kept in the system but aren't published). I don't know what Meldrum's checks and balances are, but I'm sure there are some in place.

P.S. Yeah, maybe the moderators can move this great discussion to another thread? Otherwise, it will be lost in here...

I agree its a good and fruitful discussion even tho its far from the OT ( I think its had the posts of the day)

but they will have to do it ( I'm an ME and EE, not a computer guru) and I'm not sure of the thread starting protocols here ( yes i know they are there in the thread- but I'm an engineer, we NEVER read instructions until we break it first)

>>> I don't know what Meldrum's checks and balances are, but I'm sure there are some in place.

Just as a casual observer and you apparently know him- you might want to suggest he publish them in a checklist format and let a few others in different disciplines review them- that might take some heat off of him ( he also needs to remain vigilant because he just published a blueprint for more elaborate forgeries and you can bet your bippy someone (s) going to try to set him up)

I sure up'd my post count today.

I only bug Meldrum when I see the opportunity to brown nose. I just saw him so I'm good for a few months.... (just kidding...)