Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

The Rancho La Brea tar pits museum has something like 300 dire wolf (Canis dirus) skulls on one wall. It's one of the few times paleontologist a have been a blue to do population studies, in fact. Beautiful creatures. I wish I could clone one.

That's the cool part of REAL science--we get to study monsters made even more awe-inspiring by the fact that they were real. They in fact encountered humans.

You want to be really terrified, look up short-faced bears. Closest thing to a demon humans have ever encountered.

You want to take another shot at that?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

You want to take another shot at that?

I suspect a spell checker that misread an accidental space in "able."

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

You want to take another shot at that?

I posted that on an iPad one evening, because I didn't want to fire the computer up. Unfortunately, autocorrect is horrible when it comes to science. It turned "lacustrine" into "locust rinse", to the great amusement of my boss. I still haven't figured that out....

"a blue" should be "able".

As for the intended statement, it's true. Paleontologists--particularly vertebrate paleontologists--tend to work with very small datasets composed of individuals from geographically and temporally separated areas. It's called time- and space-averaging. A real nightmare when trying to do paleoenvironmental reconstructions. A raptor can have a huge home range, and skeletons of creatures from multiple biomes can end up in the same regurgitated pellet, to say nothing of rock formation. Worse, we generally only have a few pieces of skeleton to work with--hardly ever a full animal, and it's even more rare to have the same piece from multiple animals of the same species. La Brea is one of the few places we actually have multiple members of a single species in a relatively well-constrained deposit (temporally and geographically speaking). This lets us do studies of the population that are impossible for other formations. We can't do ALL the studies, to be sure--there remains a certain amount of averaging. But we can certainly do some.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Originally Posted by jerrywayne

You point out an important, probable cause for some of the phenomena -- the out of the way prank. This does not require a conspiracy of hoaxers. Instead, one thread of Bigfoot "evidence" is manufactured by an individual on a lark or a fun side trip intentionally sowing wonder and surprise.

Exactly. It always kills me how many proponents fail to take this (and overlaid animal tracks) into account when they breathlessly discuss tracks made in remote locations. Then again, it's amusing how people always seem to find these supposedly "remote" areas.

Quote:

This type of prank is a possible explanation for cryptid artifacts like Bigfoot tracks. I'm not sure how it would relate to sightings, unless an artificial cryptid was left out some place to be glimpsed.

Although documented cases of people making static artificial cryptids are rare, they do exist. Back on the old BFF, there was a post detailing a case where someone put a cut-out (either cardboard of plywood) that looked like Bigfoot in a wooded area and successfully tricked people into thinking they saw Bigfoot. I also recall a case there where someone was leaving some sort of UV-reactive markers in the woods while they were hunting. They had arranged a couple to look like a pair of eyes to amuse themselves and scared the crap out of themselves while coming back later in the evening with their night vision goggles on after having forgotten their own joke! Of course, that's not to say that a full-fledged monster prop wouldn't generate sighting reports. Imagine someone weatherproofing the hell out of this and leaving it out in the woods.

I have also heard cases of people making wind-powered noisemakers out of coffee cans and leaving them up in trees to prank people. This sort of device might be called a "moose whistle," but I'm not 100% sure on that.

Oh, and I should note that the link for "art" in my last post is broken. This is the correct link.

[HarryHenderson]

Originally Posted by jerrywayne

...
You point out an important, probable cause for some of the phenomena -- the out of the way prank. This does not require a conspiracy of hoaxers. Instead, one thread of Bigfoot "evidence" is manufactured by an individual on a lark or a fun side trip intentionally sowing wonder and surprise.
...

On that same thought, suppose you were out in the middle of the Bronson Gifford Pinchot Forest being all Bigfooty and stuff and wanted to make the loudest possible 'natural' (but non-human) sound you could make that wasn't your own voice, what would you do? If actually presented with such a scenario, it would probably take you less than a second to realize you just needed to pick up a stick say 2 inches in diameter and pound it it hard as you can against a bigger stick say 24 inches in diameter. It's about as close to a no-brainer as no-brainers get.

Rocket scientists like Moneymaker made up that "Bigfoot big and loud. Bigfoot like wood knocking." crap up years ago for his own marketing purposes, and has used it to great success actually making literally thousands of dollars with it by mentally abusing the attendees on the BFRO Bigfoot hikes since 'wood knocking' is considered a Bigfoot encounter.

[Drewbot]

Not even pranks needed to fool them.

When I was a boy scout, we used to go into the woods, knock down dead trees and make giant Teepees in the middle of the woods. We didn't think anyone would think they were Bigfoot houses.

Same with hunting blinds. On state land, you can't leave your tree stand out there, so hunters make wood fall blinds on the ground. These are not places where Bigfoots sleep.

[Drewbot]

Check this prank detailed on EHOW.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_8234291_make...ints-snow.html

Quote:

When the first snow falls, it can be an exciting and fun-filled time. Not only can you create whimsical snowmen and take part in a snowball fight, but you can make also make tracks in the snow. One way to make snow tracks even more humorous is to create giant bigfoot-sized tracks that resemble those a Sasquatch would have left behind. You can make large footprints using only a few craft materials that can be found at an art supply store.

[jerrywayne]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Not even pranks needed to fool them.

When I was a boy scout, we used to go into the woods, knock down dead trees and make giant Teepees in the middle of the woods. We didn't think anyone would think they were Bigfoot houses.

Same with hunting blinds. On state land, you can't leave your tree stand out there, so hunters make wood fall blinds on the ground. These are not places where Bigfoots sleep.

I've been wondering about the now standard Bigfoot lore concerning "stick structures." This explanation deserves further exposure.

[jerrywayne]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Check this prank detailed on EHOW.com
http://www.ehow.com/how_8234291_make...ints-snow.html

I don't doubt that this explains many of the snow tracks. But, tracks in deep snow and of long strides are hard to explain this way.

Not sure what to make of these tracks. At such a distance, we cannot tell. I'm guessing a four-legged bounder.


http://www.bfro.net/news/snow_track_season.asp

[jerrywayne]

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

On that same thought, suppose you were out in the middle of the Bronson Gifford Pinchot Forest being all Bigfooty and stuff and wanted to make the loudest possible 'natural' (but non-human) sound you could make that wasn't your own voice, what would you do? If actually presented with such a scenario, it would probably take you less than a second to realize you just needed to pick up a stick say 2 inches in diameter and pound it it hard as you can against a bigger stick say 24 inches in diameter. It's about as close to a no-brainer as no-brainers get.

Rocket scientists like Moneymaker made up that "Bigfoot big and loud. Bigfoot like wood knocking." crap up years ago for his own marketing purposes, and has used it to great success actually making literally thousands of dollars with it by mentally abusing the attendees on the BFRO Bigfoot hikes since 'wood knocking' is considered a Bigfoot encounter.

Scroll down this article and find the photo of a Bigfoot wood-knocking station. What-ever, who-ever, used a "displaced" piece of firewood.

http://woodape.org/index.php/our-res...rojects/206-oe

[The Shrike]

Re: prints in deep snow: yes, 4-legged bounder. I've never seen anything from one of those examples that would lead me to suspect anything else. Note, for example, how often those prints in snow look like they were made by a truly enormous beast, judging from the stride length and the snow depth. Note as well the "cleanliness" of the prints, as if they were laid down in an almost vertical plane. Just how tall would that Bigfoot need to be to show an 8' stride in deep snow while lifting and stepping so close to vertical? I'm not sure, but I'd think that to do that it's *legs* would need to be close to 8' long.

[HarryHenderson]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

...it's *legs* would need to be close to 8' long.

Hey don't knock it mister, there's been reports of 13 foot tall Bigfeet before. And I believe everything I ever read about them.

[rockinkt]

But Harry - if their legs are 8 feet long and they don't have tails - what's that line in the snow between their feet that seems to indicate something dragging?

[jerrywayne]

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

Hey don't knock it mister, there's been reports of 13 foot tall Bigfeet before. And I believe everything I ever read about them.

13 ft. tall? Must be females. "The figure was as tall as the spruce trees beside it. That meant it was 15 feet tall." (From Hall and Coleman's TRUE GIANTS, on an Alberta 1969 sighting.)

But, if we believe the Hall and Coleman lore, our Bigfoot is not so big. They report an account from, of all places, Scotland. They quote from a source:

"a great brown creature...swaggering down the hill...it rolled slightly from side to side, taking huge measured steps. It looked as though it was covered with shortish brown hair" and according to the report, the witness "later calculated its height as between 24 and 30 feet." (p. 27)

[jerrywayne]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

But Harry - if their legs are 8 feet long and they don't have tails - what's that line in the snow between their feet that seems to indicate something dragging?

I, for one, wouldn't have a clue. According to Ostman, sasquatch guys have shortjakes, not longjohnnys.

[rockinkt]

Good Point!

The one thing Ostman teaches us though is that with a trivial fact or two - you can fool a lot of fools.
Ostman obviously never left the beer parlours that often.

Only tenderfeet fools like Green who had absolutely no knowledge of the incredibly rugged fjords of BC and the completely inhospitable terrain of the West Coast - would believe Ostman's preposterous story.

Even if Ostman had stated nothing about squatches - his story should have been dismissed (and was by knowledgeable people) entirely due to his abysmal lack of knowledge about the geography and terrain he supposedly had ventured into.

Edited for typo

[HarryHenderson]

Originally Posted by rockinkt

Good Point!

The one thing Ostman teaches us though is that with a trivial fact or two - you can fool a lot of fools.
Ostman obviously never left the beer parlours that often.

Only tenderfeet fools like Green who had absolutely no knowledge of the incredibly rugged fjords of BC and the completely inhospitable terrain of the West Coast - would believe Ostman's preposterous story.

Even if Ostman had stated nothing about squatches - his story should have been dismissed (and was by knowledgeable people) entirely due to his abysmal lack of knowledge about the geography and terrain he supposedly had ventured into.

Edited for typo

I never could buy that guy's 'story', even way back in my early days of Bigfootingdom. In no small part because he claimed he'd never told anyone before that late date that something so unusual had happened to him 40(?) years earlier. Really? Kidnapped? By a whole family of Bigfeet? Really? I've seen his interview(s) before and he's as sincere as an actor ever was. I think he was mostly just a ne'er-do-well type who'd probably never done much of anything in life except regularly seek simple-to-create-but-always-undeserved attention or glory.

I've in fact come to know many similar phony eccentric types during my career. Their actual 'cleverness' is in getting you to think they're being honest and sincere by using the 'a trivial fact or two you can fool a lot of fools' method. Their ruse inevitably involves some form of their possessing a 'grand secret' that (in essence) only they have. A story, a design, a product, a technique, a treasure, a game changer, a cure-all. That you can know about if you're nice, and have if you're rich. I'm pretty sure Ostman made uber little money from it, but he's almost infinitely famous.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

A lot of people forget the revelation at the old BFF that Ostman's tale was directly lifted from an old Swedish folk tale, right down the the escape via snuff box! From what I understand, he starting telling his story after he was left with no family and was inspired to "come forward" after seeing how much attention the Roe encounter got in John Green's newspaper (speaking of which, I love the claims agent's comment on Roe's affidavit).

Had Sanderson not been so seemingly hell-bent on discarding any information pointing towards a hoax (as he was known to do), he might have caught on sooner. One blatant clue as to the folkloric origin of his story was his comment about getting sick due to eating a supposedly poisonous "broody grouse." Although Sanderson recognized that was pure nonsense, he still gave Ostman a pass! Even when his story kept gaining details in each telling and Ostman's habit of dodging any attempts to provide details on one of his female captors, Sanderson still found a way to justify it. If only he had paid more attention to his own offhand comment about Ostman's humorous nature...

Here are tow more fun pieces of information about Ostman: Not only did Rene Dahinden declare the story a hoax based on the timeline issues (funny how he gave the PGF a pass on this), but Ostman said that Patty wasn't the same sort of creature that kidnapped him after seeing the PGF!

[jerrywayne]

Given old newspaper reports of "gorillas" and wild men in America's hinterland, and the purported Native American belief in tribes of giants, most skeptical commentators are reluctant to give a defining moment in time to the origin of the sasquatch myth that is comparable to the Kenneth Arnold episode relating to the UFO myth. I see it differently.

I see the sasquatch myth as beginning with Green, Dahinden, Sanderson, Ostman, and Roe. They are the sasquatch founders. Rene was the passionate spark looking for a yeti anywhere he could find it. Green, a convert, was a self-important journalist who was bent on scooping the world. Sanderson, a zoologist, was now making money as a writer of nature and Fortean subjects. Roe dreamed up a story to help celebrate "sasquatch days" and, apparently called on it, sanctified it by swearing to its truth. And tall-tale spinner Ostman joined in with a fairy-tale updated for British Columbians.

Green converted the sasquatch of Indian lore into the British Empire's "Abominable Snowman," the yeti, itself a Darwinian apeman vision of muddled Sherpa lore. He took the Roe and Ostman accounts, along with the Ruby Creek Incident (see posting up thread), and created an enduring legend of the Giant Ape of North America (and contrary to what Roe and Chapman at Ruby Creek said were human). Sanderson, making a living writing up a Fort viewpoint, and the only celebrity of the bunch, entertained his audience dutifully, even if they didn't see the wry and the winking.

It all really started with these guys. The singularities, like the Jacko story and the Ape Canyon story, were dug up and given new contexts. And then came Northern California in the late 1950's, with hoaxer Wallace and company, serious and gullible Jerry Crew, the name "Big Foot," and then John Green to link it all to his yetiized sasquatch.

This origin transpired as cryptozoology was being introduced by maverick zoologists and popularizers of Fortean and occult phenomena. They needed big cryptids to promote to the public. And the rest, as they say, is history.

[HarryHenderson]

^^^ Said very well by somebody who's been paying Bigfoot attention for awhile. I would also include Roger Patterson even if he did come along several years later. IMO his appearance 'on the Bigfoot scene' was so perfectly timed (for the perpetuation of the gag) that it couldn't have been algorithm-ed better. That is, if all that you've said is true, then the PGF is the glue that's held it all together for the Bigfoot 'faithful' all these many years since. "Cripes man are you blond blind, there's a real beast and he's right there on film."

Whatever Green and Sanderson et al had written previously on the subject became instantly sanctified and certified the minute the PGF came out. Green's alliance (and still ongoing as far as I know) with Patterson was not a random decision. I wonder what all those guys' 'reputations' would be like nowadays had the PGF been proven fake say 30 years ago?! Surely non-existent and/or long forgotten.

[jerrywayne]

A little known fact. Green also supported Ivan Marx's fake Bigfoot film. Peter Byrne brought the hoax down by finding the location of the filming and exposing the Bigfoot's human size.

Also, neither Sanderson or Green ever met or interviewed Roe. Roe, basically, is a cypher.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by jerrywayne

Peter Byrne brought the hoax down by finding the location of the filming and exposing the Bigfoot's human size.

Given the attitudes of Pattycakes this one should not be considered debunked. So if the subject is within the human height range then it automatically cannot be a Bigfoot?

Doesn't modern Bigfootery now require Munns to decide if something on film is Bigfoot or not?

Yeah, I'm saying that what Byrne did to discount the Marx Bigfoot would be considered simplistic scofticing. If you look at the way the believers treat the PGF you will see that they have completely different standards for evaluating Marx.

If you use their PGF Standard of evaluation then you know right away that the Marx film has never been debunked. But I think they don't want to go near that because it shows that even the most "obvious" fake cannot be debunked when you use their methods.

[The Shrike]

^A thread devoted to this very topic would be an excellent illustration of the double-standard in debunking applied to the PGF.

[dmaker]

^ That is a great idea and I would love to see someone do that. I leave the PGF well enough alone over at the BFF anyway. I make a point of not getting involved in those discussions. I'm not a PGF apologist by any means but those Pattycakes are pretty zealous folks. I made the mistake once of posting my opinion on the PGF. I was quite clear that it was only my opinion and not meant to be the result of extensive study or expertise. I simply said that my gut reaction to it is fake. Always has been, even when I was a kid. Not that I instantly thought fake when I was a kid, but it sort of settled in after watching it a couple of times. It's a great fake, but I've always felt that it was a fake. Well it seems that until you have drawn a couple dozen red circles, flown to Bluff Creek and taken soil samples or measured every rock and branch, then you are clearly not entitled to voice a mere opinion on the PGF. I was mocked for even mentioning a gut reaction on so serious a topic. I was immediately put upon to explain this or that or just stay the heck away from the subject. The staying away part is fine, I have no interest in a deep engagement on the PGF. But the zeal some of them display and the knowledge they demand for an even entry level discussion is absurd. In some ways, they are more ridiculous than the habituators.

[The Shrike]

^Although there's no need for the PGF to be real for bigfoot to be real, bigfoot is not real, so the 'footers NEED THE PGF TO BE REAL.

For example, Meldrum's entire case for the footprints rests on "Patty's" prints from Bluff Creek. No PGF, no Meldrum. No Meldrum?

[dmaker]

^ They would still have Bindernagel.

I'm sure he is a pleasant gentleman, but I'm going through The Discovery of the Sasquatch ( 2010) again right now. The first time I barely read it, this time I am trying to give it a worthy read through. But I just keep running into issues. I enjoyed the prologue and the forward with their lecturing on the scientific method. But when he starts talking about Bigfoot, he starts to lose me. His argument is basically that prevailing knowledge is wrong and it prevails because no one takes BF seriously enough. The only prevailing knowledge that he mentions is that all tracks are fakes and that eye witness reports are the results of mis-identified bears. Uhm, say what? That is a pretty narrow approach that completely ignores things like hallucinations, liars, ADHD, depression, coercion, peer pressure, mis-identification of other animals, pareidolia and a host of other possible reasons for the origins and tenacity of this particular phenomenon. So he gets to dismiss those and move onward with the assumption that Sasquatch is real. Maybe there is more to the book as I go along, but so far that is the general gist.

Sorry for the little Bindernagel derail.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

^Although there's no need for the PGF to be real for bigfoot to be real, bigfoot is not real, so the 'footers NEED THE PGF TO BE REAL.

For example, Meldrum's entire case for the footprints rests on "Patty's" prints from Bluff Creek. No PGF, no Meldrum. No Meldrum?

Well IMO Meldrum has painted himself into a Bigfoot Exists corner that goes far beyond the PGF and does not require the PGF. He has his own encounter and hundreds of casts and thousands of eyewitness reports.

Originally Posted by dmaker

So he gets to dismiss those and move onward with the assumption that Sasquatch is real.

IMO, Bindernagel wrote his book for people who already believe in Bigfoot like he does. It doesn't have to make sense.

His book isn't meant to cause people to think "wow I guess they are real after all" it's meant to cause them to think "yeah dammit I know they are real too".

[jerrywayne]

Harry,

You are right about Patterson. While he wasn't there at the creation of "America's Abominable Snowman," we wouldn't have the Bigfoot phenomena as it is now constituted without Roger's contribution. For one thing, seeing Patterson's film when he was a youngster led Jeff Meldrum into believing in Bigfoot and getting a science degree relevant to credentialing his belief. As a kid he was taken in by one hoaxer, and as a scientist he was convinced by another hoaxer, Paul Freeman.

It is interesting that Ostman didn't see a species representative of his kidnapper in the Patterson film. Probably realized his phony story would be hurt by association if Patterson's hoax was ever revealed.

William,

The Marx film really looks fake. It says a lot about Green's foolability that he initially bought into it.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by dmaker

^ They would still have Bindernagel.
<snip>
That is a pretty narrow approach that completely ignores things like hallucinations, liars, ADHD, depression, coercion, peer pressure, mis-identification of other animals, pareidolia and a host of other possible reasons for the origins and tenacity of this particular phenomenon.

Don't forget about the effects of alcohol and the drug that creates most of the sightings in Northern California.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by jerrywayne

The Marx film really looks fake.

But that alone isn't good enough to say debunked or proven fake.

Quote:

It says a lot about Green's foolability that he initially bought into it.

But not any more foolish than believing that Bigfoot exists in the first place.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by dmaker

^ They would still have Bindernagel.

His argument is basically that prevailing knowledge is wrong and it prevails because no one takes BF seriously enough.

Hmm, that perspective sounds really familiar. It's almost like we've been dealing of late with a Bindernagel devotee.

[dmaker]

^ Oh, believe me, I know exactly who you mean. And yes, he is so blatantly parroting this book that after reading 1,000 posts from him I don't know why anyone would need to bother with the book.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Well IMO Meldrum has painted himself into a Bigfoot Exists corner that goes far beyond the PGF and does not require the PGF. He has his own encounter and hundreds of casts and thousands of eyewitness reports.

What's his encounter, that Snelgrove Lake thing?

I was referring to his mid-tarsal break research. His "ichnotaxon" paper is the closest he's ever gotten to publishing something scholarly on bigfoot. Of all the hundreds of casts in his collection, he considers Patty's prints as the holotype for his ichnotaxon:

"Anthropoidipes ameriborealis ichnosp. nov. Figures 1-3

Derivation of the name: North American ape foot.
Diagnosis: Same as for ichnogenus
Type Material: Holotype: Preserved portion of Patterson-Gimlin
trackway, with Smithsonian Institution (SI) specimen 390041, left pes rubber mold and duplicate cast and SI 390042, right pes duplicate cast, representing left and right feet respectively.
Additional material relevant to the holotype: An additional 10 casts from the site, eight of these comprise SI 390043-50 (CA-11-18), including molds for SI 390047 and SI 390050.
Type Locality: A sandbar along Bluff Creek, in Del Norte County, California, midway between Notice Creek and the North Fork. Approximate latitude 123.70 degrees West, longitude 41.44 degrees North (Fig. 4).
Discussion: The type pair of casts was originally made by Roger Patterson on October 20, 1967. These represent the earliest documenta- tion of the footprints in nearly pristine condition. Krantz labeled this pair as CA-9 and CA-10 respectively. Dupliates [sic] are reposited in the Division of Physical Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. Ten additional casts relevant to the holotype were made by Bob Titmus at the film site, nine days after the filming. The original ten casts are reposited in the Willow Creek – China Flats Museum, Humboldt County, CA."


That's a pretty big matzoh ball hanging out there . . .

[William Parcher]

Meldrum believes that a Bigfoot touched his tent at night while camping many many years ago. He heard its footsteps and saw the shadow of its hand. I think that was his personal encounter.

[jerrywayne]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Hmm, that perspective sounds really familiar. It's almost like we've been dealing of late with a Bindernagel devotee.

Which pill is bigger: the Bindernagel devotee or the Meldrum devotee with the Mad Magazine logical fallacies supplement?

[HarryHenderson]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

...That's a pretty big matzoh ball hanging out there . . .

Said like a true fan of Seinfeld.

And it's a HUGE matzoh ball. Please Dr. Dubious D. Meldrum, a Bigfoot "ichnotaxon" paper? Based on Roger Patterson fakes? Seriously? Couldn't that paper be called the ultimate in confirmation bias?

Seems Meldrum has a lot more arrogance than he's proven worthy of possessing. Perhaps I'm hyper critical of him, but I seriously doubt Meldrum has ever been called 'bright'. And I think most serious 'skeptics' now see that his ability to run his BigCon is predicated not on any kind of intellectual superiority - that he's never proven to possess - but on the premise that he never acknowledges nor responds properly to anyone he doesn't want to, regardless of their own or their query's legitimacy. As ABP has said, 'selective' attention and indifference depending on the subject matter. And for the Muldurs and Sweatys of the world, the evidence for that is pathetically overwhelming.

The key though is that it doesn't matter...yet. He plays the game like his PhD is made of Teflon, and until somebody comes along who has the ability to turn the heat up high enough to melt it, it seems he'll play it that way indefinitely. For better or worse, he's got the present-day system completely wired and he's laughing all the way to the bank.

Despite our but-only passive interest, if this guy is to be dealt with justly and properly, the next move is ours.

[Drewbot]

ATOMIC MYSTERY MONSTER:

What Swedish Folk tale involves a snuff-box?

I can't locate any.

Thanks,

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

Despite our but-only passive interest, if this guy is to be dealt with justly and properly, the next move is ours.

There's an entire Meldrum thread here that is "our move." There's no point in challenging his ideas in the peer-reviewed literature because he hasn't published anything bigfooty in the peer-reviewed literature.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

ATOMIC MYSTERY MONSTER:

What Swedish Folk tale involves a snuff-box?

I can't locate any.

I don't know the name of it. If you still have a BFF account, you can try looking up the old Ostman discussion where it's brought up and ask the person who mentioned it.

[HarryHenderson]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

There's an entire Meldrum thread here that is "our move." There's no point in challenging his ideas in the peer-reviewed literature because he hasn't published anything bigfooty in the peer-reviewed literature.

Simply as a point of information, my reference to "ours" was a general reference to pretty much everyone on 'our' side of the debate, not necessarily just the JREF. Additionally, I know I have a different philosophical POV about science than many here, that is, while I thoroughly understand its importance, I do not think the salvation of the world is in science. I don't think it could if it wanted to. Furthermore, science is only as good as the practitioners of it. And I believe that if the future of the world depended on Dr. Don Jeffrey Meldrum TO DO the right thing, mankind would die a horrible death.

But forget about that. I think you just opened up a can of worms. The problem is apparently much bigger than I had any clue. What you've said, essentially, is short of his doing any legitimate scientific 'publishing', he can for all intents and purposes preach any amount of hoakum about any kind of hoakum to any number of hoakum followers that he so hoakumly desires and take in as much hoakum money as he can possibly fit in his pockets, as long as he doesn't publish it for peer review. I have to assume you see the cosmic insanity in that.

Keeping it necessarily vague, I at one time had the state board come down on me "like flies on a rib roast" for (ultimately) just wanting to get paid. It was a $25MM project and I was owed a lot of money. In fact it was my client who inadvertently but-easily steered them my way and I hadn't done even a single thing wrong. It still took me 6 months of regularly explaining to them their mothers were ugly before they finally got off my back. I can only speculate on what would have happened had I been accused of actually conning somebody or stealing their money. Or loading them up with buckets and buckets of pure Meldrumed™ hoakum.

Anyway, I think everyone can agree this matter isn't about some no-name 'scientist' somewhere who used a nitrite instead of a nitrate and is now being asked to answer for the 'discrepancy'. Far far from it. This is about a real nerd guy employed at a real workplace university with a real Ranger Rick science degree and its accompanying real Special Education honorable designation and yet most curiously and ironically, he's using it to scientifically perpetuate NOTHING real.

I've admitted before my lack of real insight as to the day-to-day running of all this 'science'. As such, your revelation above thoroughly confuses me as to how you guys really operate when the questions involve the most serious matters of honesty, morality, ethics, integrity, character, etc. And I don't mean all (or most of) you are whacked. I mean, those are legitimate concerns for anyone in any endeavor anywhere and I've not seen any convincing argument as to why 'science' should be allowed it's own little tweaked version of it.

My point: Taking into account all the 'agents' on whom Meldrum relies for his income, I will need to be convinced a whole lot more that his 'publishing' is the only way in which his particular brand of hoakum will be 'realized' an/or found out by anyone who has any say in his future, particularly his financial future. And if that is in fact true, we are seriously in trouble.