Modest conclusion? I suggest you read it more closely or else you do not have sufficient grounding in hominid physiology to be able to understand the nuances in the text.
For a man so sensitive about being quoted accurately, you have no trouble putting words into Glickman's mouth ("Bigfoot is kosher") that are not warranted by the text. Here is an excerpt from the conclusion of
the paper:
"Proof of the source of the Bigfoot phenomenon that is acceptable to the scientific community is the objective of this research. This may come from social science or psychological research into manufacturing and perceptual failure. In the event the phenomenon originates from an uncataloged animal, it is unfortunate, but nonetheless true, that anthropologists will demand a type specimen. By definition, the taxonomy of an uncataloged animal is unknown, which raises complex ethical and moral questions. To date, no type specimen of Bigfoot has been discovered, perhaps because it does not exist, but possibly because of the millions of acres of habitat and the natural disposal system in the montane environment – carcasses of known animals, such as bear, are rarely found."
We are talking Big Foot here, popular "science" for the tinfoil hat brigade.
Name-calling is not a substitute for argument. By categorizing Jeff's article as part of the "tinfoil hat brigade," you do not come to grips with any of his methods for collecting and analyzing data. It seems to me that he is trying to keep an open mind; you are not. I don't see a single syllable in what you have written that reflects an objection to Glickman's work from your familiarity with hominid physiology. "Bigfoot supporters are idiots" is not a finding from hominid physiology.
As for the triangulation of the Bevington object - now that the balloon has deflated and we are seeing much more modest claims for it (give it a month or two and it will have been officially forgotten), ...
Do they teach prophecy in your trade? That seems to be a fact-free declaration of belief, not a scientific conclusion from data.
... how about all details being made available?
I suppose the decision about how and when to publish his argument is up to Jeff. He certainly did make his argument "available" in the Symposium.
Wasn't this the thing that won the audience with the Secretary of State, and Ballard's imprimatur or was that a different object that no one seems to want to revisit to confirm it is that wonderful thing outlined in the photo.
Yes, Jeff's analysis is what catalyzed the event at the State Department.
Nothing has changed. It is an error in logic to say that because nothing was found with the time and equipment available that we now know that the Bevington Object was not from the Electra. I believe several searches for the Titanic failed before Ballard picked up the trail of debris that led to the wreck site.
In fact, as others have pointed out, the boat is still in transit to Hawaii. Time will tell whether there is anything of interest in the tapes brought back that may have escaped the notice of the crew during the search.
Here are the logical possibilities consistent with Niku VII not finding any identifiable artifacts from the Electra:
- The Electra was never on Niku. The Niku hypothesis is false.
- The Electra has been pulverized (Howard's Hypothesis); the Niku Hypothesis is true, but cannot be proven from underwater searches.
- The Electra parts are in the area searched, but are hidden in crevices or caves, or are mingled with parts of the Norwich City.
- Identifiable parts are to be found outside the area that was searched on this expedition.
