Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Some comments on Noll's interview.
1- Gear & field activities.
I disagree on some of his lines of reasoning. Gear is only a hindrance for inexperienced people. Experience will help you to choose the gear that's better suited for your task. He seems to consider the "less is the best", thus helping explain the failure to obtain reliable evidence such as good images. I partially disagree. An experienced outdoorsman/woman will be able to carry a nice variety of photographic gear plus material for sampling collection. Not to mention only fools wander alone in the woods, thus increasing the amount of cargo. And carrying a well balanced backpack plus a shoot-ready cam is by no means impossible neither will make an experienced person noisy enough to scare wildlife away.
Searching for wildlife is not just wandering around the woods. It’s choosing the most likely places where the animals will sooner or longer pass, getting yourself in to a hidden comfortable position with your gear ready and wait. Have no time for that? Game cams are available.
I do not think explanations involving bigfeet's alleged higher intelligence (when compared with other animals) and über stealthiness are anywhere near of being convincing.
2- Keeping data from other researchers.
Well, by one side I can understand his POV regarding keeping information. Exposing exact research locations may create problems. Archeologists, geologists, paleontologists and biologists quite often do the same, since some sites can be (intentionally or not) ruined by people not familiarized with the work or willing to make profit out of it. Data from still ongoing research may also be kept "locked" until a better evaluation is carried out, for obvious reasons. I can't help but getting the impression that there is a lot of rivalry between organizations and individuals. This is usually not a good thing. Healthy competition is OK and desirable, but I have the impression of seeing true feuds.
On the other hand, keeping data away (or showing it only to the chosen ones) might create a bad impression. One can't help but thinking maybe there's nothing truly important there at all.
3- My questions regarding Skookum cast.
I am pretty aware that probably they would be better suited for Meldrum. Here's what I think, anyway. Its interpretation by those who defend its a bigfoot body print is always made as if the elk hypothesis can be safely ruled out. If this is true, then a 3D computer model based on a laser scan would not be needed to bring more data and eventually convince skeptics. Hair flow, skin folds, dermals, etc. are nothing but additional info; the main data, the bulk of the evidence must be the anatomy; the impressions of body parts that by no means match with those from an elk. Thus the question of why it has not triggered a major interest in North American zoologists if elk can be ruled out stands.
Sure, how would Noll present it to zoologists? Of course knocking at Smithsonian's door saying "hey, come take a look at this cast" does not seem to be a very productive strategy. Noll might as well have done all he could within his limits to show it to scientists. However, Meldrum as well as Swindler and Krantz must have (or had) the right contacts. Once again, why it has not triggered a major interest in North American zoologists? I can't help but conclude somehow Meldrum failed when presenting Skookum cast to scientific community. The main reasons for this IMHO can be because elk can not be ruled out as easy and certainly as it was said and/or the approach was somehow inadequate.
I understand the following has little if anything to do with Noll. Papers on Skookum cast were indeed submitted to peer-review journals. And they were refused. Now, usually a paper is not just "refused" but sent back to the authors with recommendations/suggestions for its improvement. Once the corrections are made, the article is published; its worthwhile to note that some suggestions may be ignored by the authors- its a dialogue between authors, reviewers and editors. A simple refusal means it most likely was really below the journal's quality standards. What authors do in these cases is to take the reviewers' comments and recommendations in to account, make major changes to the article and submit it again, even if to another journal. Why not improving the article by adding to Skookum cast the footprint casts from Meldrum's collection and then submitting it say, to Ichnos?
I can't help but think that maybe Meldrum does knows -even if deep down- that it is a highly questionable piece of evidence. I have the impression Noll considers it can't have been created by anything else but a bigfoot. How much of this is backed by belief instead of balanced analysis, I don't know. From his interview, I think belief prevails. But I may be wrong.
1- Gear & field activities.
I disagree on some of his lines of reasoning. Gear is only a hindrance for inexperienced people. Experience will help you to choose the gear that's better suited for your task. He seems to consider the "less is the best", thus helping explain the failure to obtain reliable evidence such as good images. I partially disagree. An experienced outdoorsman/woman will be able to carry a nice variety of photographic gear plus material for sampling collection. Not to mention only fools wander alone in the woods, thus increasing the amount of cargo. And carrying a well balanced backpack plus a shoot-ready cam is by no means impossible neither will make an experienced person noisy enough to scare wildlife away.
Searching for wildlife is not just wandering around the woods. It’s choosing the most likely places where the animals will sooner or longer pass, getting yourself in to a hidden comfortable position with your gear ready and wait. Have no time for that? Game cams are available.
I do not think explanations involving bigfeet's alleged higher intelligence (when compared with other animals) and über stealthiness are anywhere near of being convincing.
2- Keeping data from other researchers.
Well, by one side I can understand his POV regarding keeping information. Exposing exact research locations may create problems. Archeologists, geologists, paleontologists and biologists quite often do the same, since some sites can be (intentionally or not) ruined by people not familiarized with the work or willing to make profit out of it. Data from still ongoing research may also be kept "locked" until a better evaluation is carried out, for obvious reasons. I can't help but getting the impression that there is a lot of rivalry between organizations and individuals. This is usually not a good thing. Healthy competition is OK and desirable, but I have the impression of seeing true feuds.
On the other hand, keeping data away (or showing it only to the chosen ones) might create a bad impression. One can't help but thinking maybe there's nothing truly important there at all.
3- My questions regarding Skookum cast.
I am pretty aware that probably they would be better suited for Meldrum. Here's what I think, anyway. Its interpretation by those who defend its a bigfoot body print is always made as if the elk hypothesis can be safely ruled out. If this is true, then a 3D computer model based on a laser scan would not be needed to bring more data and eventually convince skeptics. Hair flow, skin folds, dermals, etc. are nothing but additional info; the main data, the bulk of the evidence must be the anatomy; the impressions of body parts that by no means match with those from an elk. Thus the question of why it has not triggered a major interest in North American zoologists if elk can be ruled out stands.
Sure, how would Noll present it to zoologists? Of course knocking at Smithsonian's door saying "hey, come take a look at this cast" does not seem to be a very productive strategy. Noll might as well have done all he could within his limits to show it to scientists. However, Meldrum as well as Swindler and Krantz must have (or had) the right contacts. Once again, why it has not triggered a major interest in North American zoologists? I can't help but conclude somehow Meldrum failed when presenting Skookum cast to scientific community. The main reasons for this IMHO can be because elk can not be ruled out as easy and certainly as it was said and/or the approach was somehow inadequate.
I understand the following has little if anything to do with Noll. Papers on Skookum cast were indeed submitted to peer-review journals. And they were refused. Now, usually a paper is not just "refused" but sent back to the authors with recommendations/suggestions for its improvement. Once the corrections are made, the article is published; its worthwhile to note that some suggestions may be ignored by the authors- its a dialogue between authors, reviewers and editors. A simple refusal means it most likely was really below the journal's quality standards. What authors do in these cases is to take the reviewers' comments and recommendations in to account, make major changes to the article and submit it again, even if to another journal. Why not improving the article by adding to Skookum cast the footprint casts from Meldrum's collection and then submitting it say, to Ichnos?
I can't help but think that maybe Meldrum does knows -even if deep down- that it is a highly questionable piece of evidence. I have the impression Noll considers it can't have been created by anything else but a bigfoot. How much of this is backed by belief instead of balanced analysis, I don't know. From his interview, I think belief prevails. But I may be wrong.
