Rampage explains how outer space is a hoax

[BearGrounds]

Any logger or park ranger could retire a millionaire if they came across evidence of bigfoot this is a real dumb take.

Wrong.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Accuse is a good word because that's all you're doing. Accusing. You want everyone to address your point of view as though it's first time any of us have had this discussion when we've been there and done that. You arrogantly assume only you have considered things the way you do like you're some sort of guru. It's gross and sad.

You can do better.

I'm not sure how you could even believe the supplies to my positions?

I'm not sure. I've argued even once for my position on what Bigfoot is in this thread (maybe I have) and I've certainly never pretended my position is necessary. I'm not even convinced that my position is accurate, it's just the best one I could come up with... You've got to be kidding me with that kind of an accusation, right?

My position has been pretty consistent all through this thread. It's been that there is a way to discuss fringe topics without mocking and with true open-mindedness and that actually accounts for the data....

I've also observed that this is part of a larger phenomenon that is being discussed by many of the world's thinkers today. The polarity between the science-minded people and the people who are trusting their gut more often. But these discussions lay blame at both sides and part of the blame goes on the so-called scientifically minded crowd that mocks and denigrates without even being willing to analyze evidence or data or discuss that data honestly.


I've also pointed out that when uneducated people see that happening they're not stupid.... they do see it happening and it causes them to distrust science.

So what I've argued is that on threads like this, the last thing we want to do is just mock people constantly and make fun of their positions constantly and lie about and slander their positions rather just engage their ideas as best we can and not claim certainty when we don't have it.

And I've argued that we do this to preserve the integrity of the scientific method in people's perceptions.

 

[BearGrounds]

LMAO @ bigfoot bodies and any remotely plausible reason to keep them a secret.

Your incredulity literally makes it easier to do so.

You guys are the easiest to fool.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

No, you're really not. You've admitted as much. You've called others, and me, names for insinuating that you might be wrong. You've admitted that you can't be wrong about this for any other reason than the supernatural. You are a hypocrite who is either trolling, or really is that egotistical to think you are so much smarter than everyone else. Don't pretend you're open minded, you've completely proven that you are the exact opposite.

Keep getting your ass handed to you by the half-dozen guys in here. You're SOOOO much smarter than everyone else, but can't even keep your posts and responses organized. Keep digging buddy, you'll get there eventually.

Like I said man, I thought you were somebody else and I apologize.

 

[BearGrounds]

You’re probably the most embarrassing poster on this site now. Your whole agenda on here is religion ,UFOs , and now Bigfoot…

Constantly writing essays on fake fairy tales of your shitty belief system.

That weirdo clown @BearGrounds right behind you as the delusional duo.

You definitely think about me before you go to sleep at night, seething.

I love it.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

You launch ad hominem attacks at people, calling them liars and other names, and then you suggest people shouldn't respond to that if they don't want to respond to the rest of your spiel?

Are we going to play "Who started it" now, like a couple of 10 year olds?

The thread topic is "space is a hoax according to some" and there is zero need to take such a silly claim seriously. Ditto Bigfoot and Bigfoot's ghost. People experience all kinds of things and put labels on them to help conceptualize. That doesn't mean those labels reflect reality.

This Jungian mythology you refer to is no more than imagination masked as philosophy.

Ever notice mystics who reach trance states and see visions and what not are generally fasting during their meditations or, like the Oracles at Delphi, under the influence of something external?

I'm against giving air to things like this because it paves the way for snake oil salesmen to separate gullible people from their money. That and only that I my primary objection here.

So, I suggest you stop calling groups of people liars and stick to proving your case on an individual basis.

There has been lying in this thread and I have called it out when it's been accurate. One lie (the main one) was that Jeff meldrum has been debunked by serious scientists. I asked for the proof of that and received a hack article instead that lied omitted facts and slandered his work. That article even pretended Jeff Meldeum's book written for the public was a scientific paper and treated it as such rather than actually trying to debunk his scientific paper, he really has published. I doubt the poster who posted the article was lying. I just think he took on faith that the debunkers who wrote it were sincere people but those people were lying.

I have also gone out of my way to not name any names and just talk about the principles behind the topic which is that we really must discuss things honestly if possible if we're going to get anywhere.

I think what paves the way for snake oil salesman is the so-called scientific crowd being unwilling to look into any fringe topic with an open mind and instead mocking slandering, lying and omitting facts about it. Intelligent but uneducated people who are not allied to science as an identity then see that and react accordingly and stop trusting science.

I think the kind of behavior we see on this thread is one of the main reasons people are abandoning science because people who claim to be coming from a scientific perspective are not being scientific at all and it's obvious to anyone who see's it.

That's why I posted the NPR segment from ira flatow because that's an example of how to intelligently and maturely look into a fringe topic in a way that won't make people doubt scientists are even sincere people.

 

[BearGrounds]

What!

Hence, a false equivalency.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Delete.

 

[James Eagle]

Damn I thought you said you didn’t like punching down. Now you’re insulting me knowing I have emotional problems. Q_Q

liberalism is a mental disorder

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Well Native Americans can talk to animals and spirits so they are the go to source if you’re trying to find something in the woods.

Since he doesn’t want answer the question of who found the irrefutable proof of Bigfoot foot prints I’ll go ahead and do it for him.

Jeff Meldrum found them. So please, go waste your time listening to an hour long podcast and reading this guys book.

Jeff Meldrym is the head of his department at Idaho State University and holds a PhD in the exact area of expertise required to analyze bipedal footprints. He also has tenure in his position obviously.

Don't we often argue against the right rejecting experts out of hand because we have to have some trust in our institutions? Don't we count arguments as false when all they do is say I just don't believe the experts? Don't we rightly tell the right that they must examine the evidence when it goes against something they believe?

But also he has tracks he didn't find himself that have been sent in from all over the country.


So I think it's disingenuous to pretend that the head of his department and PHD with expertise in the exact area of footprints and trackways should not be listened to and taken seriously.

Do we only trust heads of our institutions when they say things we agree with? Implying that you don't need to even examine his evidence suggest you think he's a hack or a fraud and I don't think that position is warranted.

 

[Andy Capp]

There has been lying in this thread and I have called it out when it's been accurate. One lie (the main one) was that Jeff meldrum has been debunked by serious scientists. I asked for the proof of that and received a hack article instead that lied omitted facts and slandered his work. That article even pretended Jeff Meldeum's book written for the public was a scientific paper and treated it as such rather than actually trying to debunk his scientific paper, he really has published.

Well, that's pretty easy,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bigfoot-anatomy/

"To Meldrum's critics—including university colleagues and scientists in his own field—that same collection does not constitute valid evidence, and Meldrum's examination of it is pseudoscientific: belief shrouded in the language of scientific rigor and analysis." Dec 1, 2007


"In his famous “Cargo Cult Science” lecture in 1974, Richard Feynman described scientific thinking and integrity as “a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards” to raise and examine every doubt, every interpretation. This kind of thinking, critics say, is missing from Meldrum’s Bigfoot work, whereas it infuses his fossil and primate gait research. Meldrum’s principal critic from his own field is Daegling, who concludes that the “evidence doesn’t look better on deeper analysis, it looks worse.” He adds that “this isn’t about Bigfoot—it is about how scientists go about doing their work and how we should be self-reflective and self-critical.”"

And,
https://www.deseret.com/2006/11/5/19983464/skeptics-think-bigfoot-researcher-is-a-big-joke
"That Meldrum blends myth and math, fable and forensics, is what puts off so many of his colleagues. A scientist should not be a believer, said Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department at Idaho State University."

"Hackworth called Meldrum's research a joke and said some 30 professors signed a letter scolding the university for hosting Meldrum's Bigfoot gathering on campus."

https://tetzoo.com/blog/2021/4/23/comments-on-an-interview-with-jeff-meldrum
"Given that compelling biological evidence for the existence of bigfoot still has yet to be presented, it isn’t surprising that most publications and most reviewers will reject any relevant manuscripts off the bat....

I’m in full agreement with the interviewers (and not with Meldrum), then, that the difficulty he faces and has faced is therefore a reflection of the persisting lack of good evidence: what’s been presented so far, what exists so far, still doesn’t cut it. Which – if the ‘biological bigfoot’ exists – is problematic. I’m all for continued testing and searching and collecting, but an editor or reviewer right now would be correct in rejecting the premise that the biological bigfoot exists. In short, there’s a good reason for the general ‘rejectionist’ attitude toward the phenomenon that exists within the technical zoological community."




Not difficult at all really, was it, now? And about that last reference, the article is particularly friendly toward Meldrum--not that the others are especially harsh--so I challenge you to find anything in it that suggests it's intended as a hit piece.

 

[BearGrounds]

We find bones of dinosaurs from 65 million years ago. But Bigfoots really good at hiding shit

How do you expect someone to verify a hair sample without a confirmed one to cross reference it with?

Hair and scat samples will be categorized as unidentified, and are. They are found.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Well, that's pretty easy,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bigfoot-anatomy/

"To Meldrum's critics—including university colleagues and scientists in his own field—that same collection does not constitute valid evidence, and Meldrum's examination of it is pseudoscientific: belief shrouded in the language of scientific rigor and analysis." Dec 1, 2007


"In his famous “Cargo Cult Science” lecture in 1974, Richard Feynman described scientific thinking and integrity as “a kind of utter honesty—a kind of leaning over backwards” to raise and examine every doubt, every interpretation. This kind of thinking, critics say, is missing from Meldrum’s Bigfoot work, whereas it infuses his fossil and primate gait research. Meldrum’s principal critic from his own field is Daegling, who concludes that the “evidence doesn’t look better on deeper analysis, it looks worse.” He adds that “this isn’t about Bigfoot—it is about how scientists go about doing their work and how we should be self-reflective and self-critical.”"

And,
https://www.deseret.com/2006/11/5/19983464/skeptics-think-bigfoot-researcher-is-a-big-joke
"That Meldrum blends myth and math, fable and forensics, is what puts off so many of his colleagues. A scientist should not be a believer, said Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department at Idaho State University."

"Hackworth called Meldrum's research a joke and said some 30 professors signed a letter scolding the university for hosting Meldrum's Bigfoot gathering on campus."

https://tetzoo.com/blog/2021/4/23/comments-on-an-interview-with-jeff-meldrum
"Given that compelling biological evidence for the existence of bigfoot still has yet to be presented, it isn’t surprising that most publications and most reviewers will reject any relevant manuscripts off the bat...."


Not difficult at all really, was it, now? And about that last reference, the article is particularly friendly toward Meldrum--not that the others are especially harsh--so I challenge you to find anything in it that suggests it's intended as a shit piece.

I'm really glad you posted that, but where is the debunking of his work?

I've heard all the accusations leveled against him but what I haven't heard is any detail analysis as to why people think that. It should also be noted that Idaho State University has refused to listen to that kind of criticism because it isn't true and they've allowed him to keep his position at head of the department and his tenure.

It also needs to be made distinct whether or not these people are criticizing his book written for the public which includes anecdotal evidence accounts he's heard from people he trusts etc. And his scientific work. Often the two are conflated unscientifically.

It should be noted that many of his colleagues have also stepped forward defending his work and so to pretend thats some kind of consensus would be wrong.

It should also be noted that disagreements among scholars happen all the time and it doesn't mean one is a pseudoscientist and the other isn't.

 

[Andy Capp]

I'm really glad you posted that, but where is the debunking of his work?

I've heard all the accusations leveled against him but what I haven't heard is any detail analysis as to why people think that. It should also be noted that Idaho State University has refused to listen to that kind of criticism because it isn't true and they've allowed him to keep his position at head of the department and his tenure.

It also needs to be made distinct whether or not these people are criticizing his book written for the public which includes anecdotal evidence accounts he's heard from people he trusts etc. And his scientific work. Often the two are conflated unscientifically.

It should be noted that many of his colleagues have also stepped forward defending his work and so to pretend that some kind of consensus would be dishonest.

Just read the articles I linked to. And you'll be all set. There is nothing to debunk until he presents sufficient evidence to even give his claim any credence whatsoever.

I repeat from the post you just replied to, "the difficulty he faces and has faced is therefore a reflection of the persisting lack of good evidence: what’s been presented so far, what exists so far, still doesn’t cut it."

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Just read the articles I linked to. And you'll be all set.

You put forth this work as serious criticism of his actual positions and I haven't seen any serious criticism yet. But even if you find some, it won't matter because that won't prove he's wrong. It'll just prove there's disagreements in his field which there would be....

And keep in mind that many people from his university and elsewhere have come forward to defend his work and that Idaho State University has not chosen to stop letting him be the head of his entire department.


My position is just that his work has not been debunked and that was the claim made by the poster in question. It would be very difficult to find any scholar that didn't have his or her detractors wouldn't it?

Also calling Jeff Meldrum believer is something he himself disputes. What he says is that he is convinced by the evidence that it is there. That's not the same thing as a believer.

And once again, let's keep in mind that I don't even agree with Jeff meldrum's position on bigfoot. I'm not defending his position. I think he's wrong. What I'm defending is that he is a real scientist doing real work and pretending he's a hack is dishonest.

 

[Andy Capp]

You put forth this work as serious criticism of his actual positions and I haven't seen any serious criticism yet. But even if you find some, it won't matter because that won't prove he's wrong. It'll just prove there's disagreements in his field which there would be....

And keep in mind that many people from his university and elsewhere have come forward to defend his work and that Idaho State University has not chosen to stop letting him be the head of his entire department.


My position is just that his work has not been debunked and that was the claim made by the poster in question. It would be very difficult to find any scholar that didn't have his or her detractors wouldn't it?

Also calling Jeff Meldrum believer is something he himself disputes. What he says is that he is convinced by the evidence that it is there. That's not the same thing as a believer.

And once again, let's keep in mind that I don't even agree with Jeff meldrum's position on bigfoot. I'm not defending his position. I think he's wrong. What I'm defending is that he is a real scientist doing real work and pretending he's a hack is dishonest.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I think we need a catch-all CT thread.

Would probably be the only thread I'd keep an eye on

@irish_thug

Would this be permissible?

If we put a disclaimer that the thread was for some out there ideas, could we keep it in the WR?

 

[Copper Burner]

Uh yeah. If bigfoot didn't exist would there be footage of him standing next to a girl holding a bird? I don't think so.

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

The whole thread.

 

[kflo]

• Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department, called Meldrum’s research a “joke.” “Do I cringe when I see the Discovery Channel and I see Idaho State University, Jeff Meldrum? Yes, I do,” Hackworth said. “He believes he’s taken up the cause of people who have been shut out by the scientific community. He’s lionized there. He’s worshipped. He walks on water. It’s embarrassing.”