Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[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]

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]

^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.

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]

^ 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]

The Marx film really looks fake.

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

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]

^ 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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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.