FREE TAPATALK APP

The Shrike · 30th June 2012, 06:18 AM

I believe the elements of the story are that one guy was hunting. He's alleged to be quite the avid bear hunter, but I'm not sure if he was after bear at the time.

He encounters some bigfoots and ends up shooting two of them. He closely examines the carcass of at least one of them, gets freaked out, and leaves the scene without taking a photo, grabbing a tuft of hair, reporting the event to law enforcement, etc.

Some time later (weeks?), a bigfoot "researcher" who hears of the story convinces the man to return to the scene. The two of them find and recover a piece of dried flesh and attached hair that has been labeled a "steak." Apparently, this piece of bigfoot was blown off one of the unfortunate bigfoots during the shooting. It was not removed intentionally from the body by the researcher and the hunter - they did NOT find the bodies when they returned to the scene.

I know, this is even dumberer than other interpretations, but I didn't want folks to assume things about the story that weren't being claimed. Carry on.

Correa Neto · 30th June 2012, 06:23 AM

OK, but...
God hates figboots!

Aepervius · 30th June 2012, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

National Geographic talks about the unidentifiable primate hairs. Right at 33:38

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/...ehind-bigfoot/

I'll try to find more sources for the hair evidence...

Unidentifiable do not mean "different specie". It means the sample are so incompelte or so degraded that any analysis is inconclusive.

You can get the same results with human hair which are suffisentely degraded enough as not to give up a conclusive results.

I repeat, this is in no way shape or form "evidence" that bigfoot exists. It is only evidence they found something which could not be properly analyzed.

As for the guy pretending to cut a "steak" and leaves the head, bobes, or leg or hand or whatnot tehre ... You really believe that likely story ? I have a bridge to sell you

.

Jodie · 30th June 2012, 06:33 AM

Shrike has the gist of the story correct.

Derek and company returned with Justin almost 4 weeks later to look for any remains. If memory serves me correctly I believe the shooting occurred on Oct. 10th or 11th and it was around Nov. 17th when they returned to the scene. The weather conditions described don't really coincide with those dates, but Justin's dog is supposedly the one that found the bit of flesh.

At first that piece of flesh was described by Stubstad as being a large gelatinous mess that Dr. Ketchum received in her lab and Justin claimed he had about two pounds of it in his freezer. Now all that is claimed to have been retrieved is that little bit of raw hide that is in that photo that was recently circulated. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the story as time goes on.

Aepervius · 30th June 2012, 06:36 AM

Bigfoot the first Quantum Animal : they are both in great quantity and so rare as to be completely extinct at the SAME time. It depends on what sort of observation you do , then the collapse goes to one state or another.

If you observe for anecdotial witness , then it collapse to "big foot is so widespread from coast to coast or even in the PNW it is diificult to go out of the wood without stumbling into one".

If you observe for evidence science can examine, bigfoot colapse to the "more rare than anything else, can't get bone, corpse, or anything, bigfoot is too rare for that".

A quantum Bigfoot I tell you.

godless dave · 30th June 2012, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Acting unreasonably dense is the same as being unreasonably dense. Acting childishly clueless for effect doesn't magically become acceptable behavior just because you're doing it ironically.

QFT

bruto · 30th June 2012, 07:37 AM

I wonder when this stuff will be published. Is there a cutoff point after which we may assume there's a problem? A hundred years from now will OntarioSquatch's grandchildren be posting somewhere about Meldrum's fantastic evidence?

If I were a bigfoot researcher and found anything that was even close to real science I'd be all over the place trying to get it peer reviewed and out to the public. One really good piece of evidence changes the whole world, but we still have guarded secrets, fuzzy old photographs and vague references to possible unknowns.

I'm not going to say there's no possibility of a bigfoot anywhere ever, but I think it' takes a certain kind of craziness to bother with it.

OntarioSquatch · 30th June 2012, 07:48 AM

The DNA from the steak is Justin Smeja's proof that he's not just making the story up. Dr. Ketchum clearly acknowledged the sample that she received is one of her best.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

That video is nearly 100% debunked BS.

Also, unidentified hairs are not evidence of bigfoot. They are evidence of unidentified hairs.

Stop trying to sneak the word "primate" in there.

The PGF hasn't been debunked and Meldrum clearly said the 15+ samples belong to an unknown species AND the closest group of animals are hominids. Hominids are obviously primates. No secret there. I'm not sneaking that in.

Another thing i'd like to touch up on is how people say footprints don't count as evidence. Footprints and and fingerprints are like the icons of evidence. They are used in criminal investigations. Hunters often like to look for evidence, evidence like footprints and scat when hunting. Just because it's not good evidence to some of us, doesn't mean it's not evidence.

JoeBentley · 30th June 2012, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

The PGF hasn't been debunked and Meldrum clearly said the 15+ samples belong to an unknown species AND the closest group of animals are hominids.

You're doing it again.

TjW · 30th June 2012, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by CORed

Originally Posted by tsig

Are the cables included?

Yes, but I can give you a discount if you don't want them. I won't guarantee the bridge won't fall down without the cables, though.

Don't fall for it, tsig. Sure, cable is included, but the monthly fees will kill you, and there's only like, six channels.

OntarioSquatch · 30th June 2012, 08:03 AM

It's really up to you if you want to believe Dr. Meldrum or not.

Mojo · 30th June 2012, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

I have no idea. But I know it's a big name journal. Once it's published it will no longer just be evidence. It'll be legit proof of an unknown primate living in North America. My guess is they will be revealed as feral humans, not some Gorilla.

Humans are not "an unknown primate". We already know they exist.

JoeBentley · 30th June 2012, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

It's really up to you if you want to believe Dr. Meldrum or not.

If he presented actual evidence we wouldn't have to believe him.

You want to apply the concept and phrase of reasonable evidence to an unverified statement from a known quack that keeps making up transparent and frankly stupid excuses as to why he can't present the evidence that would immediately settle the matter once and for all. That's not intellectually honest.

Non-disclosure agreements? "I got scared?" You're seriously buying that crap?

The Shrike · 30th June 2012, 08:26 AM

Keepontrolling.jpg

Voodoosix · 30th June 2012, 08:36 AM

from what i gathered from a talk with Todd Disotell...

this whole "unknown primate" thing from dna tests as presented is a load of crap. most of the time when a sample gets labeled "unknown" its because the sample is bad, or they are unable to get results from it.

if something is identifiable as a primate but that's as far as they can get it, gets labeled-

Primate- unknown.

and this is where the whole "unknown primate" bs comes from. its that they cant make an ID, not that its some un-before encountered primate but it gets presented as such since- its a mystery...
wooooowwwoooowooooow

Bell · 30th June 2012, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Another thing i'd like to touch up on is how people say footprints don't count as evidence. Footprints and and fingerprints are like the icons of evidence.

There is a chain missing here in your analogy. Can you guess which one?

Vortigern99 · 30th June 2012, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

It's really up to you if you want to believe Dr. Meldrum or not.

Belief does not enter into the matter. Either there is evidence or there isn't. If you can point to it, show it, analyze it, quantify it, test it, attempt to falsify it, it's evidence. If you can't, it isn't. No belief required.

All Meldrum and Ketchum need to do is allow an independent team of scientists with no personal stake in the outcome examine the material. That team will do an error analysis against M and K's conclusions, and publish it.

Until then, it's not evidence: it's an unsupported claim and a personal anecdote.

Sonny2 · 30th June 2012, 09:25 AM

Meldrum also believes in magic underwear and Kolob and that Native Americans are the Lost Tribe.

Nuff said.

TheGoldcountry · 30th June 2012, 09:45 AM

Are all these bigfeets like the vampires in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer?" Do they go up in a poof of dust when they die so that no one ever sees a body?

dafydd · 30th June 2012, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

The DNA from the steak is Justin Smeja's proof that he's not just making the story up. Dr. Ketchum clearly acknowledged the sample that she received is one of her best.

The PGF hasn't been debunked and Meldrum clearly said the 15+ samples belong to an unknown species AND the closest group of animals are hominids. Hominids are obviously primates. No secret there. I'm not sneaking that in.

Another thing i'd like to touch up on is how people say footprints don't count as evidence. Footprints and and fingerprints are like the icons of evidence. They are used in criminal investigations. Hunters often like to look for evidence, evidence like footprints and scat when hunting. Just because it's not good evidence to some of us, doesn't mean it's not evidence.

You don't see a problem with that?

dafydd · 30th June 2012, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

It's really up to you if you want to believe Dr. Meldrum or not.

It's not a matter of belief. Let him produce the irrefutable evidence.

dafydd · 30th June 2012, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Bigfoot the first Quantum Animal : they are both in great quantity and so rare as to be completely extinct at the SAME time. It depends on what sort of observation you do , then the collapse goes to one state or another.

If you observe for anecdotial witness , then it collapse to "big foot is so widespread from coast to coast or even in the PNW it is diificult to go out of the wood without stumbling into one".

If you observe for evidence science can examine, bigfoot colapse to the "more rare than anything else, can't get bone, corpse, or anything, bigfoot is too rare for that".

A quantum Bigfoot I tell you.

Maybe the LHC is really looking for quantum figboots.

paiute · 30th June 2012, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

When the other Bigfoots come to investigate you don't want to be there, believe me.

True. You've seen what BF does to those jerky-eating jerks who are just pranking him.

paiute · 30th June 2012, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

It's really up to you if you want to believe Dr. Meldrum or not.

Evidence is a $20 gold piece. Belief is the cardboard prize in modern day packages of CrackerJack.

Aepervius · 30th June 2012, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

The PGF hasn't been debunked and

IMHO with the repduction of the gait, and the costume shown (even if not 100% identical) and the history of scamming of PG... There is nothing to debunk anymore : it has already been done.

Quote:

Meldrum clearly said the 15+ samples belong to an unknown species AND the closest group of animals are hominids. Hominids are obviously primates. No secret there. I'm not sneaking that in.

If Meldrum said that, he downright lied. All he can tell with current tests as far as I am not too much off, is how much DNA it has in common with current primate, and at best that the test to match a specie are inconclusive. See, you can't start from a DNA branch a says it is a new specie of primate. The reason for that is that the amount of DNA differing among primate is quasi the same amount as differing between human (5% of the non junk DNA IIRC). Thus it is neigh impossible to define a specie from a single DNA sample alone. But what you can do if you have more than one is analyze common protein , and which specie has specific marker common among the specie. And that is if you have a perfect sample. Sample outside can be downgraded quickly making any specie determination trickyETA that is what it means with "inconclusive" : that no conclusion can be drawn as the sample is too much downgraded.

Forget CSI, it isn't 20 or 21 marker DNA protein they use to determine a sample, it is much much more complicated.

Quote:

Another thing i'd like to touch up on is how people say footprints don't count as evidence. Footprints and and fingerprints are like the icons of evidence. They are used in criminal investigations. Hunters often like to look for evidence, evidence like footprints and scat when hunting. Just because it's not good evidence to some of us, doesn't mean it's not evidence.

Firstly criminal investigation do not hold up to science standard. In fact criminal investigation uses witness. That alone RIGHT THERE should tell you it is not up to science standard. Heck fingerprint matching were never really studied scientifically as far as I know and is not really good , it is a often human matching in the end (non withstanding CSI show which shows you animation and a single finger print. Forget that, usually you get a sample of 20 maybe 40 print that the machine spout, and you have to manualy match. And forensic sometimes make error there are some famous US maerican justice case on wrong finger print matching).

You use the usual woo tactic of bringing up criminal invvestigation and says "if police use it then it is valid you should accpet it" well NO, because polcie use a LOWER standard than science. If fact in most case there isn't much evidence left. Look up murder solving statistic. In some states it can be as low as 66% IIRC and as high as 90%.

I think the thread is dead for me, you bring up the exact same argument I saw the guy with the crayon picture bring up YEARS ago (sweatyeti?), and the exact same argument I saw a decade ago, and maybe even older.

Nothing new in the west.

Aepervius · 30th June 2012, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Maybe the LHC is really looking for quantum figboots.

Nan, they draw the line at figment of imagiantion like above C speed or Higgs Boson.

Safe-Keeper · 30th June 2012, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush

If Bigfoot was some type of human the IRS would have found him long ago.

Can you imagine the back taxes he must owe?

He's probably chilling in some mansion in Islamabad, the **********.

I am Bigfoot · 30th June 2012, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Voodoosix

from what i gathered from a talk with Todd Disotell...

Is that from the first episode of Monster Talk? Or does Disotell get around quite a bit?

Here is a transcript. I'd suggest Ontario give it a read. Or just listen to the podcast. It is pretty entertaining.
http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/mons...02/transcript/

Vortigern99 · 30th June 2012, 10:43 AM

[grammar pedant]The singular form of the word species is species.[/grammar pedant]

Now back to your regularly-scheduled disintegration of the OP's belief system.

Correa Neto · 30th June 2012, 11:23 AM

OK, and why Meldrum and Melba never managed to publish their data at Nature or some scientific peer-reviewed journal? What's restricting them to the fringe circles of bigfootery? Why they need people like Ontario Saquatch, Sweaty Yeti, Bill Munns, Huntster, LAL, Mulder, Coleman, Moneymaker, etc. etc. etc. to fight their fight? All it takes to defeat bigfoot skeptics is a paper.

Got one?

Not gonna hold my breath waiting...

Someclevernick · 30th June 2012, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

It's really up to you if you want to believe Dr. Meldrum or not.

No i could not believe him, even if wanted.

But from what i have seen in this thread, it seems obvious that you WANT to believe him.

You know, if you want to believe something that can lower the standarts of required evidence.

Just a thought.

River · 30th June 2012, 11:34 AM

Sorry to disappoint you OntarioSquatch but the hard truth and reality is: There is not one bit of "evidence of bigfoot". There is not one confirmed piece of evidence from even one bigfoot. Got it? Suspected, or unidentified, or other crap simply doesnt cut it. There is nothing, not one iota of bigfoot evidence.

Feel free to prove me wrong. And by prove I dont mean giving me someones "opinion" or wishful thinking. Bigfoot evidence = 0 of it. No DNA, No hairs, No nothing. Even the footprints you speak of are not evidence of bigfoot. Sorry.

sadhatter · 30th June 2012, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

I believe the elements of the story are that one guy was hunting. He's alleged to be quite the avid bear hunter, but I'm not sure if he was after bear at the time.

He encounters some bigfoots and ends up shooting two of them. He closely examines the carcass of at least one of them, gets freaked out, and leaves the scene without taking a photo, grabbing a tuft of hair, reporting the event to law enforcement, etc.

Some time later (weeks?), a bigfoot "researcher" who hears of the story convinces the man to return to the scene. The two of them find and recover a piece of dried flesh and attached hair that has been labeled a "steak." Apparently, this piece of bigfoot was blown off one of the unfortunate bigfoots during the shooting. It was not removed intentionally from the body by the researcher and the hunter - they did NOT find the bodies when they returned to the scene.

I know, this is even dumberer than other interpretations, but I didn't want folks to assume things about the story that weren't being claimed. Carry on.

This just has so many friggen red flags bulls from miles around are storming in en masse.

If he shot it with something powerful enough to blow off a chunk of flesh that could be described as a steak, there should be a rather nasty gore trail leading to a rather obvious giant furred body.

What on earth was he afraid of? He is obviously packing enough firepower to blow chunks off of a rather large creature, and hunts creatures that by all accounts are more dangerous than the bigfoot.

The story kind of hints that the one that had a steak sized piece blown off survived. Where was the chunk from? I mean i have seen steaks, and even if the shot that blew this chunk off hit somewhere non vital, ( can't really think of any areas of a bigfoot that this could apply to, but whatever, for the sake of argument and all that.) infection, and bleeding seem likely to finish it off, or at least make it a pretty good target for other predators.

If they did not find the bodies, then either A) Bigfeet carried them off. or B) Some species of unknown scavenger managed to eat 2 entire giant bodies, with the exception of a large chunk.

if A, then it should be kinda obvious this was done. A bunch of giant folks carrying a giant body, isn't going to leave no traces.

And if it is B, i would be more interested in finding this ultra effective scavenger than BF itself.

sadhatter · 30th June 2012, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

The DNA from the steak is Justin Smeja's proof that he's not just making the story up. Dr. Ketchum clearly acknowledged the sample that she received is one of her best.

The PGF hasn't been debunked and Meldrum clearly said the 15+ samples belong to an unknown species AND the closest group of animals are hominids. Hominids are obviously primates. No secret there. I'm not sneaking that in.

Another thing i'd like to touch up on is how people say footprints don't count as evidence. Footprints and and fingerprints are like the icons of evidence. They are used in criminal investigations. Hunters often like to look for evidence, evidence like footprints and scat when hunting. Just because it's not good evidence to some of us, doesn't mean it's not evidence.

But it has already been explained to you that the "unidentified" bit does not mean "We have a proper analysis, and we don't know." but it is a rather old trick used from Starchild fans to BF groupies. In real scientific terms it means "This is pretty *******, and we can't get a good reading from it." but to those that do not know this, it seems to say something different.

To use an analogy to clear this up.

If i type a bunch of gibberish into a computer programming application. It is not going to be able to identify it. Now this does not mean that i created some amazing piece of technology, but rather than the program recognizes that what i put into it is simply not a proper sample, and due to this anything useful with it cannot be done.

sadhatter · 30th June 2012, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

You don't see a problem with that?

If he doesn't there should be no reason he doesn't come down to my place and pay 50 dollars to go on a hunt for that darned Great Wyrm that keeps screwing with my garden. After all, i clearly said it was true.

sadhatter · 30th June 2012, 11:57 AM

I think south park got it pretty right in the Jewpacabra episode.

For those who havn't seen it.

Cartman is attempting to prove the existance of a mythical creature, due to racist reasons. As a rather dyed in the wool racist, he has quite the stake in making sure he proves it.

He brings a quarter second of something (Obviously not what he was claiming.) into a team of BF researchers, and asks for their opinion. Immediately within seconds of seeing the blurred image they start losing it and claiming that it is obviously evidence of what Cartman has said.

At this point, even with an agenda, and an attitude that encourages manipulation of others he stops for a moment "So yeah, maybe this is a reason to look into it, but its not proof guys." and proceeds to be so blown away by their immediate credibility, that he actually argues against his own cause for a bit.

And that is the way it is, anything, ever is bigfoot proof. A bit of hair that is grungy enough not to be able to be tested, a "Steak" a **** poor video that could be faked for 80 dollars, anything. This is the point where bigfooters need to realize they are just hanging out playing make believe with their friends. And as a pretty big nerd, if you really like hanging about in forests and pretending their are mythical creatures, just get into larp. Less expensive, more fun, and only makes you look about 50% as much like a knob by doing it.

dafydd · 30th June 2012, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

[grammar pedant]The singular form of the word species is species.[/grammar pedant]

Now back to your regularly-scheduled disintegration of the OP's belief system.

Specie means coined money or a coin. Pedant mode off.

Ferguson · 30th June 2012, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

It's really up to you if you want to believe Dr. Meldrum or not.

And that, in a nutshell, sums up Bigfootery and all other faith-based belief systems.

Reality, on the other hand, doesn't give a **** what you want to believe.

kerikiwi · 30th June 2012, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by sadhatter

At this point, even with an agenda, and an attitude that encourages manipulation of others he stops for a moment "So yeah, maybe this is a reason to look into it, but its not proof guys." and proceeds to be so blown away by their immediate credibility, that he actually argues against his own cause for a bit.

Another pedant enters: credulity, not credibility.

sadhatter · 30th June 2012, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Another pedant enters: credulity, not credibility.

Spell checker + other stuff to do = mistake.

I love the JREF but this is honestly one of my pet peeves. Unless the post is so mangled and grammatically anarchistic that it cannot be understood, is there really a point to wasting a post mentioning that someone made a mistake?

Same with the folks who say " It is Bob and I" , if someone says something like " Me and bob went to the movies.", my response is always "And?". I am a rather well spoken gent, but we all make the odd grammatical mistake, to point it out, when the meaning is clear , does nothing but stroke the ego of the person making the statement.

The ironic bit, i find is that when someone's post is the grammatical equivalent of a mosh pit, and one mentions it, you can bet your bottom dollar a half dozen people will come out of the woodwork to explain that some folks just have a hard time putting their thoughts clearly, in written form and they should be given some slack.

30th June 2012, 06:23 AM	#122
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,235	OK, but... God hates figboots!
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

30th June 2012, 06:31 AM	#123
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,891	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch National Geographic talks about the unidentifiable primate hairs. Right at 33:38 http://video.nationalgeographic.com/...ehind-bigfoot/ I'll try to find more sources for the hair evidence... Unidentifiable do not mean "different specie". It means the sample are so incompelte or so degraded that any analysis is inconclusive. You can get the same results with human hair which are suffisentely degraded enough as not to give up a conclusive results. I repeat, this is in no way shape or form "evidence" that bigfoot exists. It is only evidence they found something which could not be properly analyzed. As for the guy pretending to cut a "steak" and leaves the head, bobes, or leg or hand or whatnot tehre ... You really believe that likely story ? I have a bridge to sell you .
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

30th June 2012, 06:33 AM	#124
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,922	Shrike has the gist of the story correct. Derek and company returned with Justin almost 4 weeks later to look for any remains. If memory serves me correctly I believe the shooting occurred on Oct. 10th or 11th and it was around Nov. 17th when they returned to the scene. The weather conditions described don't really coincide with those dates, but Justin's dog is supposedly the one that found the bit of flesh. At first that piece of flesh was described by Stubstad as being a large gelatinous mess that Dr. Ketchum received in her lab and Justin claimed he had about two pounds of it in his freezer. Now all that is claimed to have been retrieved is that little bit of raw hide that is in that photo that was recently circulated. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the story as time goes on.
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,922	__________________ testis unus, testis nullus quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

30th June 2012, 06:36 AM	#125
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,891	Bigfoot the first Quantum Animal : they are both in great quantity and so rare as to be completely extinct at the SAME time. It depends on what sort of observation you do , then the collapse goes to one state or another. If you observe for anecdotial witness , then it collapse to "big foot is so widespread from coast to coast or even in the PNW it is diificult to go out of the wood without stumbling into one". If you observe for evidence science can examine, bigfoot colapse to the "more rare than anything else, can't get bone, corpse, or anything, bigfoot is too rare for that". A quantum Bigfoot I tell you.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life. Last edited by Aepervius; 30th June 2012 at 06:39 AM.

30th June 2012, 06:45 AM	#126
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,138	Originally Posted by JoeBentley Acting unreasonably dense is the same as being unreasonably dense. Acting childishly clueless for effect doesn't magically become acceptable behavior just because you're doing it ironically. QFT
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

30th June 2012, 06:18 AM	#121
The Shrike Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: USA Posts: 1,838	I believe the elements of the story are that one guy was hunting. He's alleged to be quite the avid bear hunter, but I'm not sure if he was after bear at the time. He encounters some bigfoots and ends up shooting two of them. He closely examines the carcass of at least one of them, gets freaked out, and leaves the scene without taking a photo, grabbing a tuft of hair, reporting the event to law enforcement, etc. Some time later (weeks?), a bigfoot "researcher" who hears of the story convinces the man to return to the scene. The two of them find and recover a piece of dried flesh and attached hair that has been labeled a "steak." Apparently, this piece of bigfoot was blown off one of the unfortunate bigfoots during the shooting. It was not removed intentionally from the body by the researcher and the hunter - they did NOT find the bodies when they returned to the scene. I know, this is even dumberer than other interpretations, but I didn't want folks to assume things about the story that weren't being claimed. Carry on.

30th June 2012, 07:37 AM	#127
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,261	I wonder when this stuff will be published. Is there a cutoff point after which we may assume there's a problem? A hundred years from now will OntarioSquatch's grandchildren be posting somewhere about Meldrum's fantastic evidence? If I were a bigfoot researcher and found anything that was even close to real science I'd be all over the place trying to get it peer reviewed and out to the public. One really good piece of evidence changes the whole world, but we still have guarded secrets, fuzzy old photographs and vague references to possible unknowns. I'm not going to say there's no possibility of a bigfoot anywhere ever, but I think it' takes a certain kind of craziness to bother with it.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

30th June 2012, 07:48 AM	#128
OntarioSquatch Muse Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 505	The DNA from the steak is Justin Smeja's proof that he's not just making the story up. Dr. Ketchum clearly acknowledged the sample that she received is one of her best. Originally Posted by LTC8K6 That video is nearly 100% debunked BS. Also, unidentified hairs are not evidence of bigfoot. They are evidence of unidentified hairs. Stop trying to sneak the word "primate" in there. The PGF hasn't been debunked and Meldrum clearly said the 15+ samples belong to an unknown species AND the closest group of animals are hominids. Hominids are obviously primates. No secret there. I'm not sneaking that in. Another thing i'd like to touch up on is how people say footprints don't count as evidence. Footprints and and fingerprints are like the icons of evidence. They are used in criminal investigations. Hunters often like to look for evidence, evidence like footprints and scat when hunting. Just because it's not good evidence to some of us, doesn't mean it's not evidence.
OntarioSquatch Muse Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 505

30th June 2012, 08:00 AM	#129
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,823	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch The PGF hasn't been debunked and Meldrum clearly said the 15+ samples belong to an unknown species AND the closest group of animals are hominids. You're doing it again.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

30th June 2012, 08:03 AM	#130
TjW Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: up in the air Posts: 10,115	Originally Posted by CORed Originally Posted by tsig Are the cables included? Yes, but I can give you a discount if you don't want them. I won't guarantee the bridge won't fall down without the cables, though. Don't fall for it, tsig. Sure, cable is included, but the monthly fees will kill you, and there's only like, six channels.
	__________________ TjW People like TjW -- Kelly

30th June 2012, 08:03 AM	#131
OntarioSquatch Muse Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 505	It's really up to you if you want to believe Dr. Meldrum or not.
OntarioSquatch Muse Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 505

30th June 2012, 08:09 AM	#132
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,489	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch I have no idea. But I know it's a big name journal. Once it's published it will no longer just be evidence. It'll be legit proof of an unknown primate living in North America. My guess is they will be revealed as feral humans, not some Gorilla. Humans are not "an unknown primate". We already know they exist.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

30th June 2012, 08:10 AM	#133
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,823	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch It's really up to you if you want to believe Dr. Meldrum or not. If he presented actual evidence we wouldn't have to believe him. You want to apply the concept and phrase of reasonable evidence to an unverified statement from a known quack that keeps making up transparent and frankly stupid excuses as to why he can't present the evidence that would immediately settle the matter once and for all. That's not intellectually honest. Non-disclosure agreements? "I got scared?" You're seriously buying that crap?
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

30th June 2012, 08:26 AM	#134
The Shrike Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: USA Posts: 1,838	Keepontrolling.jpg

30th June 2012, 08:36 AM	#135
Voodoosix Thinker Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 152	from what i gathered from a talk with Todd Disotell... this whole "unknown primate" thing from dna tests as presented is a load of crap. most of the time when a sample gets labeled "unknown" its because the sample is bad, or they are unable to get results from it. if something is identifiable as a primate but that's as far as they can get it, gets labeled- Primate- unknown. and this is where the whole "unknown primate" bs comes from. its that they cant make an ID, not that its some un-before encountered primate but it gets presented as such since- its a mystery... wooooowwwoooowooooow
Voodoosix Thinker Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 152	Last edited by Voodoosix; 30th June 2012 at 08:43 AM.

30th June 2012, 08:40 AM	#136
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,605	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch Another thing i'd like to touch up on is how people say footprints don't count as evidence. Footprints and and fingerprints are like the icons of evidence. There is a chain missing here in your analogy. Can you guess which one?
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

30th June 2012, 09:17 AM	#137
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,059	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch It's really up to you if you want to believe Dr. Meldrum or not. Belief does not enter into the matter. Either there is evidence or there isn't. If you can point to it, show it, analyze it, quantify it, test it, attempt to falsify it, it's evidence. If you can't, it isn't. No belief required. All Meldrum and Ketchum need to do is allow an independent team of scientists with no personal stake in the outcome examine the material. That team will do an error analysis against M and K's conclusions, and publish it. Until then, it's not evidence: it's an unsupported claim and a personal anecdote.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

30th June 2012, 09:25 AM	#138
Sonny2 Muse Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Dust on the Wind Posts: 669	Meldrum also believes in magic underwear and Kolob and that Native Americans are the Lost Tribe. Nuff said.

30th June 2012, 09:45 AM	#139
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,550	Are all these bigfeets like the vampires in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer?" Do they go up in a poof of dust when they die so that no one ever sees a body?
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten

30th June 2012, 09:49 AM	#140
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch The DNA from the steak is Justin Smeja's proof that he's not just making the story up. Dr. Ketchum clearly acknowledged the sample that she received is one of her best. The PGF hasn't been debunked and Meldrum clearly said the 15+ samples belong to an unknown species AND the closest group of animals are hominids. Hominids are obviously primates. No secret there. I'm not sneaking that in. Another thing i'd like to touch up on is how people say footprints don't count as evidence. Footprints and and fingerprints are like the icons of evidence. They are used in criminal investigations. Hunters often like to look for evidence, evidence like footprints and scat when hunting. Just because it's not good evidence to some of us, doesn't mean it's not evidence. You don't see a problem with that?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

30th June 2012, 09:50 AM	#141
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch It's really up to you if you want to believe Dr. Meldrum or not. It's not a matter of belief. Let him produce the irrefutable evidence.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

30th June 2012, 09:51 AM	#142
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by Aepervius Bigfoot the first Quantum Animal : they are both in great quantity and so rare as to be completely extinct at the SAME time. It depends on what sort of observation you do , then the collapse goes to one state or another. If you observe for anecdotial witness , then it collapse to "big foot is so widespread from coast to coast or even in the PNW it is diificult to go out of the wood without stumbling into one". If you observe for evidence science can examine, bigfoot colapse to the "more rare than anything else, can't get bone, corpse, or anything, bigfoot is too rare for that". A quantum Bigfoot I tell you. Maybe the LHC is really looking for quantum figboots.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

30th June 2012, 10:03 AM	#143
paiute Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Smack in the middle of a de Broglie wavelength. Posts: 1,147	Originally Posted by dafydd When the other Bigfoots come to investigate you don't want to be there, believe me. True. You've seen what BF does to those jerky-eating jerks who are just pranking him.
	__________________ A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong? Now free for download! http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine

30th June 2012, 10:06 AM	#144
paiute Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Smack in the middle of a de Broglie wavelength. Posts: 1,147	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch It's really up to you if you want to believe Dr. Meldrum or not. Evidence is a $20 gold piece. Belief is the cardboard prize in modern day packages of CrackerJack.
	__________________ A Novel and Efficient Synthesis of Cadaverine Organic chemistry, vengeful ghosts, and high explosives. What could possibly go wrong? Now free for download! http://www.scribd.com/doc/36568510/A...-of-Cadaverine

30th June 2012, 10:19 AM	#145
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,891	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch The PGF hasn't been debunked and IMHO with the repduction of the gait, and the costume shown (even if not 100% identical) and the history of scamming of PG... There is nothing to debunk anymore : it has already been done. Quote: Meldrum clearly said the 15+ samples belong to an unknown species AND the closest group of animals are hominids. Hominids are obviously primates. No secret there. I'm not sneaking that in. If Meldrum said that, he downright lied. All he can tell with current tests as far as I am not too much off, is how much DNA it has in common with current primate, and at best that the test to match a specie are inconclusive. See, you can't start from a DNA branch a says it is a new specie of primate. The reason for that is that the amount of DNA differing among primate is quasi the same amount as differing between human (5% of the non junk DNA IIRC). Thus it is neigh impossible to define a specie from a single DNA sample alone. But what you can do if you have more than one is analyze common protein , and which specie has specific marker common among the specie. And that is if you have a perfect sample. Sample outside can be downgraded quickly making any specie determination trickyETA that is what it means with "inconclusive" : that no conclusion can be drawn as the sample is too much downgraded. Forget CSI, it isn't 20 or 21 marker DNA protein they use to determine a sample, it is much much more complicated. Quote: Another thing i'd like to touch up on is how people say footprints don't count as evidence. Footprints and and fingerprints are like the icons of evidence. They are used in criminal investigations. Hunters often like to look for evidence, evidence like footprints and scat when hunting. Just because it's not good evidence to some of us, doesn't mean it's not evidence. Firstly criminal investigation do not hold up to science standard. In fact criminal investigation uses witness. That alone RIGHT THERE should tell you it is not up to science standard. Heck fingerprint matching were never really studied scientifically as far as I know and is not really good , it is a often human matching in the end (non withstanding CSI show which shows you animation and a single finger print. Forget that, usually you get a sample of 20 maybe 40 print that the machine spout, and you have to manualy match. And forensic sometimes make error there are some famous US maerican justice case on wrong finger print matching). You use the usual woo tactic of bringing up criminal invvestigation and says "if police use it then it is valid you should accpet it" well NO, because polcie use a LOWER standard than science. If fact in most case there isn't much evidence left. Look up murder solving statistic. In some states it can be as low as 66% IIRC and as high as 90%. I think the thread is dead for me, you bring up the exact same argument I saw the guy with the crayon picture bring up YEARS ago (sweatyeti?), and the exact same argument I saw a decade ago, and maybe even older. Nothing new in the west.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life. Last edited by Aepervius; 30th June 2012 at 10:23 AM.

30th June 2012, 10:20 AM	#146
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,891	Originally Posted by dafydd Maybe the LHC is really looking for quantum figboots. Nan, they draw the line at figment of imagiantion like above C speed or Higgs Boson.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

30th June 2012, 10:22 AM	#147
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,179	Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush If Bigfoot was some type of human the IRS would have found him long ago. Can you imagine the back taxes he must owe? He's probably chilling in some mansion in Islamabad, the **********.

30th June 2012, 10:38 AM	#148
I am Bigfoot Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 307	Originally Posted by Voodoosix from what i gathered from a talk with Todd Disotell... Is that from the first episode of Monster Talk? Or does Disotell get around quite a bit? Here is a transcript. I'd suggest Ontario give it a read. Or just listen to the podcast. It is pretty entertaining. http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/mons...02/transcript/

30th June 2012, 10:43 AM	#149
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,059	[grammar pedant]The singular form of the word species is species.[/grammar pedant] Now back to your regularly-scheduled disintegration of the OP's belief system.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

30th June 2012, 11:23 AM	#150
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,235	OK, and why Meldrum and Melba never managed to publish their data at Nature or some scientific peer-reviewed journal? What's restricting them to the fringe circles of bigfootery? Why they need people like Ontario Saquatch, Sweaty Yeti, Bill Munns, Huntster, LAL, Mulder, Coleman, Moneymaker, etc. etc. etc. to fight their fight? All it takes to defeat bigfoot skeptics is a paper. Got one? Not gonna hold my breath waiting...
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

30th June 2012, 11:26 AM	#151
Someclevernick Scholar Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Between Sweden and Russia Posts: 77	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch It's really up to you if you want to believe Dr. Meldrum or not. No i could not believe him, even if wanted. But from what i have seen in this thread, it seems obvious that you WANT to believe him. You know, if you want to believe something that can lower the standarts of required evidence. Just a thought.

30th June 2012, 11:34 AM	#152
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,748	Sorry to disappoint you OntarioSquatch but the hard truth and reality is: There is not one bit of "evidence of bigfoot". There is not one confirmed piece of evidence from even one bigfoot. Got it? Suspected, or unidentified, or other crap simply doesnt cut it. There is nothing, not one iota of bigfoot evidence. Feel free to prove me wrong. And by prove I dont mean giving me someones "opinion" or wishful thinking. Bigfoot evidence = 0 of it. No DNA, No hairs, No nothing. Even the footprints you speak of are not evidence of bigfoot. Sorry.
River Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,748	Last edited by River; 30th June 2012 at 11:35 AM.

30th June 2012, 11:44 AM	#153
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by The Shrike I believe the elements of the story are that one guy was hunting. He's alleged to be quite the avid bear hunter, but I'm not sure if he was after bear at the time. He encounters some bigfoots and ends up shooting two of them. He closely examines the carcass of at least one of them, gets freaked out, and leaves the scene without taking a photo, grabbing a tuft of hair, reporting the event to law enforcement, etc. Some time later (weeks?), a bigfoot "researcher" who hears of the story convinces the man to return to the scene. The two of them find and recover a piece of dried flesh and attached hair that has been labeled a "steak." Apparently, this piece of bigfoot was blown off one of the unfortunate bigfoots during the shooting. It was not removed intentionally from the body by the researcher and the hunter - they did NOT find the bodies when they returned to the scene. I know, this is even dumberer than other interpretations, but I didn't want folks to assume things about the story that weren't being claimed. Carry on. This just has so many friggen red flags bulls from miles around are storming in en masse. If he shot it with something powerful enough to blow off a chunk of flesh that could be described as a steak, there should be a rather nasty gore trail leading to a rather obvious giant furred body. What on earth was he afraid of? He is obviously packing enough firepower to blow chunks off of a rather large creature, and hunts creatures that by all accounts are more dangerous than the bigfoot. The story kind of hints that the one that had a steak sized piece blown off survived. Where was the chunk from? I mean i have seen steaks, and even if the shot that blew this chunk off hit somewhere non vital, ( can't really think of any areas of a bigfoot that this could apply to, but whatever, for the sake of argument and all that.) infection, and bleeding seem likely to finish it off, or at least make it a pretty good target for other predators. If they did not find the bodies, then either A) Bigfeet carried them off. or B) Some species of unknown scavenger managed to eat 2 entire giant bodies, with the exception of a large chunk. if A, then it should be kinda obvious this was done. A bunch of giant folks carrying a giant body, isn't going to leave no traces. And if it is B, i would be more interested in finding this ultra effective scavenger than BF itself.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

30th June 2012, 11:48 AM	#154
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch The DNA from the steak is Justin Smeja's proof that he's not just making the story up. Dr. Ketchum clearly acknowledged the sample that she received is one of her best. The PGF hasn't been debunked and Meldrum clearly said the 15+ samples belong to an unknown species AND the closest group of animals are hominids. Hominids are obviously primates. No secret there. I'm not sneaking that in. Another thing i'd like to touch up on is how people say footprints don't count as evidence. Footprints and and fingerprints are like the icons of evidence. They are used in criminal investigations. Hunters often like to look for evidence, evidence like footprints and scat when hunting. Just because it's not good evidence to some of us, doesn't mean it's not evidence. But it has already been explained to you that the "unidentified" bit does not mean "We have a proper analysis, and we don't know." but it is a rather old trick used from Starchild fans to BF groupies. In real scientific terms it means "This is pretty *******, and we can't get a good reading from it." but to those that do not know this, it seems to say something different. To use an analogy to clear this up. If i type a bunch of gibberish into a computer programming application. It is not going to be able to identify it. Now this does not mean that i created some amazing piece of technology, but rather than the program recognizes that what i put into it is simply not a proper sample, and due to this anything useful with it cannot be done.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

30th June 2012, 11:50 AM	#155
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	Originally Posted by dafydd You don't see a problem with that? If he doesn't there should be no reason he doesn't come down to my place and pay 50 dollars to go on a hunt for that darned Great Wyrm that keeps screwing with my garden. After all, i clearly said it was true.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743