ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bigfoot , jeffrey meldrum

Reply
Old 1st November 2017, 09:37 AM   #2801
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
But he's not naming the Bigfoot creature - he's naming the plaster casts...




http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bf-newname
Doesn't matter, ICZN says you must have fossilized traces of trackways, or work, of extinct animals.

There are many fossils found on the beaches that are simply burrows, or feeding lines of animals, but they are fossilized.

ICZN wants no part of naming extant animals, or their parts, based on 'work' after 1930.

Now, you have a fossilized track of a dinosaur? That'll do.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 09:44 AM   #2802
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,003
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). Zoological means animal - it's about naming animals. These are plaster casts not animals.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 10:04 AM   #2803
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
1.2.1. The scientific names of extant or extinct animals include names based on domesticated animals, names based on fossils that are substitutions (replacements, impressions, moulds and casts) for the actual remains of animals, names based on the fossilized work of organisms (ichnotaxa), and names established for collective groups (see, in particular, Articles 10.3, 13.3.2, 23.7, 42.2.1, 66.1, 67.14), as well as names proposed before 1931 based on the work of extant animals.

None of the above applies to extant animals after 1930.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 10:13 AM   #2804
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,003
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
None of the above applies to extant animals after 1930.
Then it's a good thing that he isn't naming any extant (or extinct) animal. He is instead naming two plaster casts. He hasn't yet proposed a name for the animal that he thinks created the tracks.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 10:32 AM   #2805
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Then it's a good thing that he isn't naming any extant (or extinct) animal. He is instead naming two plaster casts. He hasn't yet proposed a name for the animal that he thinks created the tracks.
Doesn't matter, they are not fossilized.

And, they are for an extant creature, therefore invalidated by 1930 exclusion.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

Last edited by Drewbot; 1st November 2017 at 10:40 AM.
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 10:46 AM   #2806
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
Quoting Dr. Ron Pine:
Quote:
The ICZN's rules apply to names based on tracks and 'traces' just as they do for actual animals. Judging from what I've read of Meldrum's writings on his name for what he regards as sasquatch tracks, I think that he knows this. Apparently what he doesn't know is that the Rules say that names based on tracks and other 'work' produced by present-day creatures are all invalid and have no standing in zoological nomenclature. Names for fossil tracks do have standing, but any names for tracks published since 1930, if those tracks were produced by present-day species, have no validity.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 10:54 AM   #2807
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,003
He's not naming animals or animal tracks. He's naming plaster casts.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2017, 11:32 AM   #2808
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
He's not naming animals or animal tracks. He's naming plaster casts.
No, he's naming the work of an extant animal.
Quote:
Anthropoidipes ameriborealis is NOT a proposed name for sasquatch. It is a published name for tracks/footprints that have been attributed to Sasquatch.
This is invalid. Doesn't matter if they are plaster or fossil.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 01:16 PM   #2809
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,154
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
No, he's naming the work of an extant animal.


This is invalid. Doesn't matter if they are plaster or fossil.
Just to be clear, this is in the paper:

Quote:
Traditionally, the tracks of extant animals are not named. First,
they are not fossilized, and therefore attaching a name is not expressly
sanctioned by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN).
Second, because extant trackmakers can ultimately be correlated with
their tracks, the naming of such tracks would appear redundant. However,
in the case of the alleged sasquatch, the presumed species in question
has received no formal name, so the matter of redundancy is presently
not at issue. Furthermore, a precedent for naming the preserved
tracks of an extant taxon has been established by Kim et al. (in press) in
the naming of fossil Homo sapiens tracks. Since faltering steps and
equivocations have been directed towards the matter of naming the footprints,
it seems appropriate to complete that objective properly and
formally by acknowledging the ichnological evidence that bears on the
question of the existence of an unrecognized bipedal ape in the forest
habitats of North America. It should be noted that naming the tracks
neither establishes the identity of the trackmaker, nor does it resolve the
controversy over the existence of sasquatch. Properly naming the tracks
is intended to facilitate objective discussion and comparison of the tracks
within an ichnological context.
A number of ichnologists have stressed the desirability of designating
a trackway (rather than an isolated print) as a holotype for a new
ichnotaxon (Sarjeant, 1989). This guideline is followed here using the
Patterson-Gimlin filmsite trackway, for which multiple casts, molds and
3D virtualizations are preserved in several institutions. Moreover, these
tracks and casts are linked to a film record of the trackmaker in action and
both film and tracks have been intensively studied by numerous researchers
The obvious problem is that the tracks that have been seen and cast were indeed made by two extant species, human track hoaxers, and bears.

There are no actual sasquatch tracks to name.

So, in the end, Meldrum is not naming sasquatch tracks, because such tracks do not exist.
The subject tracks are not those of the suggested extant animal, because said animal also does not exist.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

Last edited by LTC8K6; 2nd November 2017 at 01:20 PM.
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 01:28 PM   #2810
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,154
Note also that as precedent Meldrum uses the line "naming the preserved tracks".

What other preserved tracks of sasquatch do we have besides casts?

I have to conclude that Meldrum is indeed talking about naming the casts.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

Last edited by LTC8K6; 2nd November 2017 at 01:29 PM.
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 01:40 PM   #2811
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 19,154
Just noticed this claim in that paper:

Quote:
FIGURE 9. Composite image of a series of frames depicting two strides reconstructed by Leclerc. Note the track at far right is that illustrated in Figure 2;
the track second from right is filled with plaster and is one of the Patterson casts included in the holotype.
That's interesting. The far right track is nearly unrecognizable in the composite.
The figure 2 cast is perfect.

It's especially interesting if that trackway is the practice one.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 01:51 PM   #2812
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
LTC-
He is talking about naming the WORK of an extant species.

Him citing the Homo sapiens FOSSIL trackway as precedent, is a red-herring.

The Code says that for a name of WORK (in this case a trackway) to have standing, it must be a fossil track.

It also says, that the WORK (trackway) wouldn't be valid for any EXTANT species whether it was fossilized, or not.

Either way, the Anthropoides ameriborealis name is invalid.

It doesn't matter if he says it passed peer review, or if the symposium agreed, or if it is still open to debate. The name is invalid from the get-go. The ICZN rules state that.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2017, 09:54 PM   #2813
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,621
I'm with Drew. His con has surely backfired a little. It's pretty clear he's not following proper scientific protocol. He's certainly not using the scientific method. He can't as it would debunk his cause.

Now to me, the fact he's calling on "science" in general to take it more seriously and get involved "in the hunt" is just more proof he's running a con. It's just words. He knows no legitimate scientist will become involved because there's nothing to become involved with...except with things like deliberate misinterpretations of ICZN code in an attempt to give a known myth some physical reality because you need to pay some bills and your title says "scientist".
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 05:10 AM   #2814
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
Quoting Dr. Ronald Pine again:

Quote:
It is at least conceivable that someone did tell Meldrum that all the trouble that he was going to to try to make his work more scientific looking by coming up with a sciency phony name was a bad idea, but he chose to pretend that this never happened. I choose to believe that it was sheer ignorance on his part though, rather than defying the Rules on purpose.
When I asked him about Meldrum inviting a rebuttal to his paper:

Quote:
"If you mean a petition to the Commission to make Meldrum's name valid, it would simply be immediately thrown in the wastebasket when it got there and that would be the end of it. This would be so whether the track was stated to be, or thought to be a mere nonexistent cryptid instead of a real animal or not. Yes, yes, what I am saying is that Meldrum's name is clearly, unequivically, without question, absolutely invalid and without standing in zoological nomenclature and there's nothing whatsoever that can be done to change that.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 10:45 AM   #2815
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,956
I’ve never been clear on whether some official body has expressly acknowledged this “name”. (Or whether it’s just silence).
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 11:27 AM   #2816
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
No. unless you count the Bigfoot Forums
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 12:29 PM   #2817
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
There is a reason that the ICZN demands type specimens for extant animals.

Quote:
Mammals, especially those in the family Hominidae, are especially likely to be hoaxed, for sensa-tionalist reasons. We have not made an exhaustive search for cases of hoaxes with preserved type specimens since the time of Linnaeus, but we know only of Piltdown Man and the Charlton Brimstone Butterfly. However, in addi-tion to the cases of the Minnesota Iceman Homo pongoides and Ameranthropoides loysi, two hoaxes perpetrated in the 20th century without preserved types, we have names of 10 mammals, two birds, at least 11 and possibly 14 fishes, a three- shelled animal, and three snails involved in hoaxes perpetrated by Audubon on Rafinesque in the 19th century (Woodman 2016). An apparently hoaxed parrotlet was also named from a photo in 2010 (see Donegan et al. 2011). The case of Nessiteras rhombopteryx, a name for the Loch Ness Monster, is notorious. Not only may fraudu-lent names be determined to be so if preserved type specimens were kept, but apparently the urge to perpetrate frauds is more frequently engaged in the absence of such specimens

What is an ‘extant’ type specimen? Problems arising from naming mammalian species-group taxa without preserved types (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...reserved_types [accessed Nov 03 2017].
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...reserved_types
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 05:13 PM   #2818
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,621
Have you confronted Meldrum about this?
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2017, 06:49 PM   #2819
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,496
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
I’ve never been clear on whether some official body has expressly acknowledged this “name”. (Or whether it’s just silence).
You can't tell. Ol' Don Jeffrey brags about it being the most rigorously reviewed paper of our time, but it doesn't matter because no one has read it.

According to a Google Scholar search, that article has been cited 14 times (4 of which are in Meldrum's own journal):

6 of them include Meldrum as an author.
2 are Meldrum's co-authors from some of those other 6 papers (Martin Lockley and Jeung Yul Kim).
1 is Cliff Barackman.
1 is the highly critical Rob Pine paper Drewbot mentioned.
1 seems to be some kind of history of odd Anthropology.
1 is a self-published "research proposal" to look for archeological evidence of bigfoot in Idaho.
1 is a summary of "wildmen" reports from Myanmar.
1 is a Russian document that has something to do with Homo troglodytes.

So, this incredibly important paper has been accessed by Meldrum, Meldrum's co-authors, Meldrum's fans, and people who think the paper is crap.

Now Martin Lockley is a real-deal ichnologist, and evidently a renowned expert on dinosaur prints and tracks. Jeung Yul Kim is well published on the subject, too. As we know, of course, "productive scientist" does not necessarily equate to "good critical thinker." It'd be interesting to get their honest appraisal of the Anthropoidipes paper, given that neither we co-authors on it. If they were some of the experts who reviewed it, of course, then that would just reinforce the idea that the review process was a sham.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 06:06 PM   #2820
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,621
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
...So, this incredibly important paper has been accessed by Meldrum, Meldrum's co-authors, Meldrum's fans, and people who think the paper is crap.

Now Martin Lockley is a real-deal ichnologist, and evidently a renowned expert on dinosaur prints and tracks. Jeung Yul Kim is well published on the subject, too. As we know, of course, "productive scientist" does not necessarily equate to "good critical thinker." It'd be interesting to get their honest appraisal of the Anthropoidipes paper, given that neither we co-authors on it. If they were some of the experts who reviewed it, of course, then that would just reinforce the idea that the review process was a sham.
I'll bet $3.14 million dollars they were. Serious question, do the authors of submissions not know who "reviewed" them? Or do they know but we don't?

In the Small Victories files, there was a pretty respectable "ichnologist" on the old BFF. I don't remember his screen name (DesertYeti?) though I do remember his real one. I ended up talking to him regularly in PMs for a time as I was a mod and he had just totally debunked the Skookum Cast™ as a bunch of skookum (with an actual paper). All the Bigfoot die-hards in there came unglued. Pathetic really. The were a few who were absolutely ruthless with their hate too. I think they actually hated him being allowed to live. It was pretty unreal. He never backed down though (that I know of).
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 07:18 PM   #2821
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,496
Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
I'll bet $3.14 million dollars they were. Serious question, do the authors of submissions not know who "reviewed" them? Or do they know but we don't?
Depends. These days we're allowed - and often encouraged - to provide non-anonymous reviews. I get the arguments for revealing one's identity in a review, but I still prefer to be anonymous. Either way, we need to acknowledge potential conflicts of interest in reviews, regardless of whether the Editor specifically asks if we have them. "Co-author on other papers" would be an enormous red flag for a conflict of interest.

Update - so I checked the ichnotaxon paper. Classic! Martin Lockley (referenced in my previous post) was an Editor on the volume that included Meldrum's paper! Meldrum even includes him (along with one of the other editors) in his acknowledgments. According to that section of the paper: "This manuscript benefited greatly from reviews by Martin Lockley, Spencer Lucas, Allen Tedrow, Brent Briethaupt, and Vincent Santucci."

So there you go: of the five "reviews", two of them were provided by the volume editors. In other words, it's not a peer-reviewed publication, it's a peer-edited publication. That alone doesn't discredit the work of course, and presumably the other three gentlemen provided some independent feedback, but this was a publication that had zero chance of being rejected. If those counted the same as real peer reviewed publications, I'd already be a Full Professor.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 07:37 PM   #2822
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,496
Well that was fun - I looked up the other three guys:

Allen Tedrow - former curator at the Idaho State University Museum = conflict of interest.
Brent Breithaput - museum guy who works for the BLM in Wyoming. That would be unremarkable except for the fact that the BLM actually paid for the printing of the entire volume. (probably a conflict, then)
Vincent Santucci - paleontologist for the National Park Service

So, evidently there was no actual academic peer review on this paper, it was a peer-edited contribution, and of the 5 reviewers Meldrum bragged about this week, he very likely had conflicts of interest with 4 of them.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2017, 11:04 PM   #2823
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,956
I think we went through some of this a long time ago. The journal is more or less a house organ and the editors have come under ethical scrutiny for (“allegedly”) pirating the work of a grad student...
I must say that when Meldrum announced that his nomenclature was “official” I thought he actually had a “letter of approval” from some scientific body. I wonder if his fans know he doesnt.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2017, 10:34 PM   #2824
gigmaster
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Chatsworth, Ga. USA
Posts: 53
People get lost in cities and neighborhoods all the time. People get lost in WalMart. That doesn't make them a 'wilderness'. .


Originally Posted by Pterodactyl View Post
Wilderness in the lower 48 is illusory in the technical sense just described, right up until the point you are lost or injured and need a way out but can't find it.
gigmaster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2017, 04:16 PM   #2825
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,621
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Well that was fun - I looked up the other three guys:

Allen Tedrow - former curator at the Idaho State University Museum = conflict of interest.
Brent Breithaput - museum guy who works for the BLM in Wyoming. That would be unremarkable except for the fact that the BLM actually paid for the printing of the entire volume. (probably a conflict, then)
Vincent Santucci - paleontologist for the National Park Service

So, evidently there was no actual academic peer review on this paper, it was a peer-edited contribution, and of the 5 reviewers Meldrum bragged about this week, he very likely had conflicts of interest with 4 of them.
It's the new math science. A sorta quid pro quo. Scientific breakthrough by having a meaningful lunch. So what happened to the facts? Don "The Snake" Meldrum can't make any Bigfoot money off facts. He only makes it off the fiction he prefaces with the word "science". It's not a coincidence the "peer review" part of his paper was also made up.

Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
I think we went through some of this a long time ago. The journal is more or less a house organ and the editors have come under ethical scrutiny for (“allegedly”) pirating the work of a grad student...
I must say that when Meldrum announced that his nomenclature was “official” I thought he actually had a “letter of approval” from some scientific body. I wonder if his fans know he doesnt.
Of course they don't know as he'd never tell them. To his followers he's as legitimate a mofo "scientist" as exists. If he didn't tell them something then it means it's not important.

And I'm thinking an allegation of lifting a dubious premise from some grad student's work is not on the radar of the worst crimes Meldrum's perpetrated. His (now) relentless "scientific" claim that a monster exists when he knows it doesn't is a far more egregious crime against humanity (and the discipline of science). Even worse, he's now calling on other "actually reputable" scientists to take up the Bigfoot cause con solely to make himself look better. Telling your peers to "go chase a mirage it'll be fun" is arguably anti-social behavior, telling them to go do it so you can secretly profit even more from it makes it approach evil.

Last edited by HarryHenderson; 6th November 2017 at 04:18 PM.
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2017, 12:45 AM   #2826
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,956
Apparently there was a major meltdown at the PGF 50th anniversary celebration. The old Gimlin Guard (Tom Yamarone et al) has been displaced by a guy named Russ Acord who is acting like Gimlins business manager. I don’t exact details other than there was a lot of name calling, and Gimlin didn’t get to speak feels like he was stabbed in the back. Guy is living a lie and now he feels hurt. Waambulance en route to the scene.
__________________
"Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!"
--Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story."
"The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2017, 05:50 AM   #2827
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
Originally Posted by DennyT View Post
Apparently there was a major meltdown at the PGF 50th anniversary celebration. The old Gimlin Guard (Tom Yamarone et al) has been displaced by a guy named Russ Acord who is acting like Gimlins business manager. I don’t exact details other than there was a lot of name calling, and Gimlin didn’t get to speak feels like he was stabbed in the back. Guy is living a lie and now he feels hurt. Waambulance en route to the scene.
Yes! it was funny to listen to as it unfolded.
We started covering it here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1809
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2017, 05:20 PM   #2828
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,621
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Yes! it was funny to listen to as it unfolded.
We started covering it here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1809
Are there any recordings of it online?
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2017, 06:22 AM   #2829
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,879
https://sasquatchchronicles.com/sc-e...in-speaks-out/

Bob Gimlin talks about what happened.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 06:09 PM   #2830
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,496
Check out the lame "editorial" that now accompanies this drivel. Please Jeff, tell us your story!


And I bet you can guess who is their Author of the Month!

Last edited by The Shrike; 17th November 2017 at 06:15 PM.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 08:16 PM   #2831
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,621
The hilarity is he's a supposed "scientist studying Bigfoot" with the mantra "science isn't studying Bigfoot". Which is it? I bet if he came up with some proper Bigfoot evidence, the chicks would be all over him actual science would surely listen. And potentially grant him and other scientists plenty of money to further the cause. He complains yet he's the one least in need of grants having been paid so well promoting it in books, TV shows, Bigfoot round-ups etc. Who better than he to be doing it? He's gotta be closer than anyone to discovering it, one would think.

And yet it's all nothing but a furtherance of the con. It's his new ruse to get away from it all. To step away, go away, be done, retire to Stockholm and develop new currencies for cats, who knows. He has a need to literally hand off the con to another scientist. If Bigfoot "science" were to die because he goes away and nobody legitimate takes over, that just makes him look like the con man he is. That can't happen - so far he's been a master of the con with a well underplayed vanity and he definitely wants (needs) to remain "legitimate" at least until after he's gone gone.

Did the Curies care more about studying radioactivity or more about who they could sell phony concepts to in order to "legitimize" their science careers? The contempt-for-skepticism science guy who insists "it's out there" can't seem to grasp the concept of "then go get one". Needless to say the Curies totally understood it and its benefits.

Last edited by HarryHenderson; 17th November 2017 at 08:19 PM.
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2017, 11:51 PM   #2832
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,605
I like the antipathy directed towards those that request to be shown the monkey.

As if the question of the existence of a 6-9ft bipedal ape occupying a continent it shares with nearly 400 million Homo Sapiens Sapiens has any other answer.

If you can't show it, you don't know it. Any adult who advocates for bigfoot is playing a game, whether they know it or now, and most of them know it. The others, well, there's a sucker born every minute; someone has to transfer monies to those offshore call-center IRS agents.
__________________
A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

Tom McGuane
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2017, 08:48 AM   #2833
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,003
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Check out the lame "editorial" that now accompanies this drivel. Please Jeff, tell us your story!


And I bet you can guess who is their Author of the Month!
That editorial was always there with his article. They just moved it to a different part of the page recently.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2017, 11:01 AM   #2834
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 8,413
Bigfoot doesn't exist. Every sighting is either a hoax or misinterpreted sightings of bears.or whatever.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2017, 07:06 AM   #2835
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,496
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
That editorial was always there with his article. They just moved it to a different part of the page recently.
Thanks. I had wondered if it was actually new. It read like what he claims to be preparing for them next, but I guess that one will be another full article. It'll be interesting to see if Mr. REAL Scientist starts listing these on his CV.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2017, 03:10 PM   #2836
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,621
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Thanks. I had wondered if it was actually new. It read like what he claims to be preparing for them next, but I guess that one will be another full article. It'll be interesting to see if Mr. REAL Scientist starts listing these on his CV.
Would anybody or any body of importance care if he does? If not, he absolutely will. In part because his CV is pretty thin given his years in the profession. I don't think he's done much more than second assistant associate collaborating science author on a 400 page paradigm changing treatise, "Your Feet - On The Question Of Their Necessity". He's close to retirement too. Think shameless mutha ******!
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.