Professor puts his stamp on the legend of Bigfoot
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on December 14th, 2006
In last Sunday’s edition of the Los Angeles Times, a seeming rehash of the critical AP story about Jeff Meldrum was published.
While additional information was included in this article, it had the same negative slant.
Professor puts his stamp on the legend of Bigfoot
His book on the science of Sasquatch, the fruit of a lifelong fascination, troubles his Idaho State University colleagues.
By Sam Howe Verhovek, Times Staff Writer December 10, 2006
POCATELLO, IDAHO — At a glance, professor D. Jeffrey Meldrum would seem to be a star on the Idaho State University campus here.
A popular instructor, Meldrum has written or edited five books, written dozens of articles in academic journals, and ranged across the American West and Canada for his field research. Famed primatologist Jane Goodall wrote a blurb for his latest book, which she said "brings a much-needed level of scientific analysis" to a raging debate.
The problem is the debate: Is Bigfoot real?
Meldrum, a tenured associate professor of anatomy, is in pursuit of the legendary ape-man also known as Sasquatch.
Some of his colleagues are not amused. They liken Meldrum’s research to a hunt for Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, and 20 of them signed a letter earlier this year expressing worry that Idaho State "may be perceived as a university that endorses fringe science over fundamental scientific perspectives that have withstood critical inquiry."
Or, as Douglas P. Wells, a physics professor here, puts it: "One could do deep-ocean research for SpongeBob SquarePants. That doesn’t make it science."
An affable father of six sons, with a mop of brown hair and a bushy gray mustache, the 48-year-old Meldrum declines to say whether he believes Sasquatch exists. But he adds that based on the evidence he has gathered over the last decade, he thinks the likely answer is yes.
"I believe it would be more incredible to dismiss all the assertions about Bigfoot as a series of hoaxes and ruses," he says with academic precision, "than it would be to at least entertain the possibility that an unrecognized large primate exists in North America."
Even as they defend the concept of academic freedom, some who teach here worry that Meldrum’s new book, "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science," is "pseudoscience," in the words of Steven Lawyer, a clinical psychology professor.
"It’s the kind of thing that will make Idaho State the butt of jokes," Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department, says of the book, born out of a 2003 program on the Discovery Channel and published by an offshoot of a science-fiction house.
The controversy over Meldrum’s work is testimony to the enduring fascination with Sasquatch, as the Salish Indians called the ape-man; or Bigfoot, the term the Humboldt Times in Eureka, Calif., coined in an August 1958 article about a local logging crew’s purported discovery of giant footprints.
But although there have been plenty of books on the subject over the years, Meldrum’s is one of the very few that could put its author in the middle of an academic fracas.
Twice passed over for elevation from associate to full professor, Meldrum says he would proudly present his Sasquatch research as part of future consideration. As the book’s overleaf puts it, he is "willing to stake his reputation on an objective look at the facts." (None of his other books deals with Sasquatch, and he covers the topic in just one lecture of a survey class he teaches, on living and fossil primates.)
Pervasive lore
Skeptics say it is absurd to think that a huge ape roams the American wilderness.
No carcass has ever turned up, and many footprint "discoveries" over the years have been correctly dismissed as hoaxes, Meldrum concedes in his book.
Ray Wallace, a force behind the 1958 footprint discovery and a source of Bigfoot photographs over the years, famously confessed on his deathbed four years ago that the hulking creature once captured on film was really his wife dressed in a gorilla suit.
On the other hand, no one has ever proved that Bigfoot doesn’t exist.
Into this void comes the 297-page book, published by Forge. It’s an entertaining compendium of Bigfootology.
A chart compares estimated physical dimensions of one purported Sasquatch with Arnold Schwarzenegger "at the peak of his bodybuilding career." The California governor comes off as a pipsqueak next to the 7-foot-4, 700-pound creature. Sasquatch’s 68-inch waist is twice the size listed for Schwarzenegger, and he — or she — takes thigh size going away, 46" to 28.5".
Meldrum’s small office here is crammed with plaster casts of strange footprints and handprints, even a buttocks print, that he has collected in the wilds and that he firmly says do not belong to any known mammal.
The professor says he has heard the strange wailings that some attribute to Bigfoot, and once he was in a cabin in Ontario when a big rock got thrown against an outside wall.
Bigfoot, he presumes.
Academic status
It is unclear how his new book will affect Meldrum’s review when he comes up again for full professor, perhaps in a year or two.
"Jeff is a great teacher, and he does real good things for his department," says John Kijinski, dean of arts and sciences at Idaho State. "He runs the cadaver lab, and it’s excellent."
Kijinski says he has not read the Bigfoot book and cannot comment on how it would fit into Meldrum’s job review, although he suggests that work in a "non-peer-reviewed press" would probably count less than that in a university press or other academic forum.
"Venue where publication occurs is extremely important," he says. "As is the case with all the scientists here, our basic standard is peer review."
Meldrum’s agent for the book, Michael Hsu, president of Minneapolis-based BooBam Ventures Inc., says it involves "too edgy a topic" for academic presses and is intended for a "general audience."
Meldrum says most of his research has been financed with private donations — about $80,000 so far, the bulk of it from a Texas oilman who believes he may have encountered Bigfoot on a hunting trip to East Texas.
The professor’s supporters point out that his Bigfoot work doesn’t interfere with what he does all day, which is teach human anatomy.
"I had heard he was way into Sasquatch, but he hasn’t even mentioned it in our course," says Heather Lien, a 29-year-old graduate student in physical therapy, pausing in her laboratory dissection of the cadaver of a woman in her 70s. "I gather it’s just a sideline interest of his. I think it’s fascinating."
"Unless I ask, he doesn’t even bring it up," says Steven Johnson, 25, another graduate student involved in the dissection.
The Idaho Museum of Natural History, on the campus, has a popular "Bigfoot: How Do We Know?" exhibit, which details the scientific quest for the great hairy man and discusses the roles of knowledge, belief, faith and folklore in keeping the Bigfoot story alive.
"Faith is believing what you know ain’t so," says a quote from Mark Twain in the display.
Since boyhood
Meldrum’s interest in the topic dates to an itinerant childhood in the prime Bigfoot-sighting terrain of Utah, Oregon, Idaho and eastern Washington, where his father was a produce merchandiser with the Albertson’s supermarket chain.
"I spent a lot of time in the woods," Meldrum recalls. He was fascinated by animals of all kinds.
When he was 13, his parents gave him a book called "Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life," which he keeps in his office. His interest in the creature — and in the mystery and romance of the search for it — grew so profound that one friend wrote in his 1976 Idaho high school yearbook: "Good luck hunting for Bigfoot."
Meldrum received bachelor’s and master’s degrees in zoology from Brigham Young University, and a doctorate in anatomical sciences from the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
His specialty is the evolutionary adaptation of bipedalism, or walking on two legs. (One of the books he edited is called "From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Human Walking, Running and Resource Transport.") Over the years, Meldrum says, he and others have come across large prints that cannot be attributed to known animals.
"The subject begs for investigation," he says, rummaging through the large metal file drawers where he keeps the plaster footprint casts.
Meldrum says many of the prints would be extremely difficult to forge. The "flat flexible feet" — up to about a size 28, quintuple-E-wide shoe — are less rigid and arched than a human foot.
"All in all," he argues in the book, "this would be an efficient strategy for a giant terrestrial bipedal ape."
That quotation, “It’s the kind of thing that will make Idaho State the butt of jokes” reminds me of something that’s occured to me countless times. Like so many other subjects, comedians (including amateur ones) seem to dredge up the same few jokes about this subject, over and over. And you don’t have to be a believer, who’s touchy about them, to notice that. Does anyone, on ANY side of the subject, really need to hear another “Bigfoot-Elvis-UFO-Tabloid” joke? So if that university DOES become the “butt of jokes,” and the jokes are those same stock ones you’ve heard a hundred times, THEY’RE not the ones who should be EMBARRASSED.
Grant, you couldn’t have said it better. It’s like telling people you watch wrestling and they will ALWAYS tell you it’s fake AS IF you had no idea. Just don’t anyone tell THEM that 95% of what they watch on TV is FAKE as well. Somehow you’re a crackpot just because wrestling entertains you. It’s like that story from the 60’s where a woman called the network to know why someone didn’t get poor Gilligan off that island I guess. LOL! If we so much as have an interest in anything like Bigfoot then we’re no better than the old lady trying to save Gilligan.
People are always so quick to shut out and put down things they don’t like or understand. I suppose it’s their way of dealing with it. the old saying goes ‘you should never discuss politics or religion’. Maybe it should be ‘you should never discuss politics, religion, or the unknown’.
More to your point, Grant. I live in Kentucky and I get tired of the ‘Kentuckians don’t have any teeth’ jokes and all the ‘inbreeding’ jokes comedians work so hard to ‘create’. All it does is show how ignorant and near sighted people are any more. I guess we should just let people think what they want, and take solace in the fact that, at least, they are thinking.
What is amazing to me is the way that skeptics try to discourage even the most legitimate questions as to whether it is possible for this animal to exist. Dr. Meldrum, to the best of my knowledge, is simply asking “Why not?”.
The accusations of his work being pseudoscience are obviously coming from people who have never given serious thought to the subject, or been out and conducted any true research.
The peers that are ‘concerned’, perhaps should be concerned. Especially because they seem to have lost the capacity to ask “Why?” or “Why not?” as is the process that is supposed to be involved in any scientific field.
Frankly, I’m more worried about the credibility of those who do not question, than about those who do.
Prof. Meldrum will have the last laugh, I imagine. Just a matter of time before this scientific controversy is ended in his favor. Sooner or later, indisputable evidence will come to the forefront of this debate.
I suspect that part of the reason so many feel the need to make this subject (bigfoot) go away or seem ridiculous is discomfort with the idea we might not be the only sentient being around.
I have noticed over the years that we have to keep moving the marker for ‘intelligence’ as other species are discovered to be fulfilling one or more of the existing criteria. I am not claiming that a bird is intelligent just because it uses a twig to probe for food. Just that I find it amusing to see the bar always being raised, apparently in response to information about animals.
Good morning Cryptos…
Professor Meldrum…”knows what he owns” and has the courage of his convictions….I suspect both will pay handsome rewards soon…JMHO
No bucks…No bigfoot
seeing is believing…
ole bub and the dawgs
I mostly agree with the comments from the previous contributors. Discussions about politics, religion, the unknown are stuff that helps “make the world go round”. America is supposed to be the “land of the free”, the land of free speech, equality, etc. But if you are “anybody” who speaks their mind, you’d better watch what you say (and do), because it seems like “all eyes are on you”, waiting to “tear you down” or apart. And doesn’t it seem like this is getting worse as time goes on? I believe that our time on earth is getting pretty limited (just look around at local and world events). I feel that a lot of discoveries are going to be made in the next few years, but along with that, comes debates, major controversies, and shocking comments in the meantime from who knows who. Our life here is going to become very “chaotic”, and people that we thought we could “lean on” and count on are going to turn against one another, just for the simple fact that our lives (as we know them here on earth) are ending. Everybody is looking out for number 1. Not for their neighbors, not for their colleagues or friends. And most certainly not for people they do not know. Does anyone know what I am “trying to say” here? Dr. Meldrum is a very intelligent man with excellent ideas and evidently is a “powerful” man in his field. But the problem is simply that. He is an easy target for negative comments, and it looks like eventually may cost him his job–but at any cost he is looking out for number 1 and what he believes in, and I am sure his family stands behind him 100 percent. We all need to believe in something, and most of us believe in ourselves and our dreams. For us involved or just interested in cryptozoology, we believe that there are bigfoots living in our wilderness. Maybe we tend to believe in them more because there are so many people telling us that this is impossible. This belief in their existence becomes like a “need to believe”. One reason for our belief is that we hate to be proven wrong. But in any case, we need faith and the ability to believe in things. Because in reality and in the closing days, this is all we will probably have.
What we need to keep in mind about most of the negative comments regarding Meldrum is that they originate from people with NO expertise to comment on the matter. There are no anthropologists or biologists listed casting a doubt, perhaps because they may have actually considered the data present in support of this phenomena.
No, the jibes come from physics professors and a clinical psychology professor! The physics professors, I find, seem to feel qualified to lend their “expert opinion” on nearly any subject under the sun. And it is ironic that they would put this study down, when one definition of physics itself is: The study of the natural or material world and phenomena; natural philosophy.
And as far as the psychology prof is concerned, I don’t think he should be shooting off terms like “pseudoscience” when his own profession has been accused of such many times in the recent press. That feels more like an attempt to feel better about oneself by pulling another down.
And, all three comments seem more about jealousy than reality. The professors ought to be more concerned about publishing their own peer-reviewed work than wasting their wages in a smear campaign.
The Times wrote a negative story about Meldrum? Why would that surprise anyone? Negativity is what they sell. They are the type of newspaper that would write a story calling Jesus a bum because he didn’t have a job…
…“It’s the kind of thing that will make Idaho State the butt of jokes” …
Duh, Not if they will just SHUT UP!
I think a book character I like said it best. “OH Poop!”
This is getting partially off-topic but, again, I’d just like to hear a joke about this subject that doesn’t have Elvis Presley and a tabloid cover, not because HE makes the subject ridiculous, but because that’s such a “lame one” by now. A Bigfoot joke without that would be like a comedy about the French without rudeness, or a comedy about beauty pageants without the “world peace” speech - with all sorts of subjects, professional comedians seem to get stuck in grooves that they don’t get out of. If more jokes about Fortean things were made by people seriously interested in them (in the case of comedy writers, there’s Dan Aykroyd, who evidently is a “Fortean”), MAYBE it would cause them to be more original.
Lord. It never ends.
Try applying scientific methodology to something not mainstream and ridicule follows; and these are the people in academia who belittle professor Meldrum who would teach our young.
I am glad to see that Douglas P. Wells, a physics professor, Steven Lawyer, a clinical psychology professor and Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department at Idaho State University have chosen to opine on the field of primatology. Perhaps Dr. Meldrum should share his thoughts on their hypothesis and theories in their respective fields. This hardly qualifies as peer review.
A few comments from the skeptical end:
Al stated that “What is amazing to me is the way that skeptics try to discourage even the most legitimate questions as to whether it is possible for this animal to exist.”
This is patently ridiculous. Most skeptics do not try to discourage legitimate inquiry into Bigfoot. “Skeptics” couldn’t prevent or discourage such inquiry even if they wanted to: anyone is free to search for Bigfoot as long as hard as they like. No one is preventing them. I don’t have a problem with Meldrum doing his research, as the more evidence the better; the problem I have is with his poor methodology and faulty conclusions.
Richard noted, “Prof. Meldrum will have the last laugh, I imagine. Just a matter of time before this scientific controversy is ended in his favor. ”
Not if Meldrum’s new book is the best argument for the Bigfoot evidence. The problem with much of Jeff Meldrum’s work (and his recent book) is that it is rife with pseudoscience. I don’t have the time or space to list all the problems with the book, but a close review will be forthcoming soon. I hope open-minded searchers on all sides will consider it before trumpeting the book as the best scientific evidence for Bigfoot.
I’d like to see more scientists studying the topic; so far, the more science you bring to it, the weaker the evidence becomes.
I believe that Dr. Meldrum’s research is valid and that he should continue that research.
However, although I do not agree with the nay-sayers who belittle Dr. Meldrum and his research, I can see why some people in the scientific community think that the search for Bigfoot is frivolous. There are some people who believe in the existence of Bigfoot with the fervor usually reserved for religious zealots. Some people attribute behaviors to Bigfoot that are simply outlandish and completely inbelievable.
Things like the whole Carter Farm nonsense, and the Tennessee Bigfoot Lady website, and the people who go on about dogs being afraid to trail Bigfoot, etc. Some of those claims make Bigfoot sound like a supernatural being. And some of those people will NOT consider the possibility that some of the circumstantial evidence could be produced by anything but Bigfoot. They denounce any other possible explanations with all unshakable zeal of other True Believers in (name the unprovable belief). Since a lot of those stories are sensational they makes the “Weird New” and bolster the feeling that anything to do with Bigfoot is off-the-wall. Whereas good solid scientific research, which by its very nature often plods along, seldom makes the news reports (or at least is seldom accurately reported).
I hope that Dr. Meldrum and other serious researchers will continue their efforts despite the undeserved negativity. It is through their efforts that the truth will someday come to light.
“I hope that Dr. Meldrum and other serious researchers will continue their efforts despite the undeserved negativity. ”
I also hope that Meldrum continues his research–I just hope he starts to approach the issue more critically and scientifically, because the search for Bigfoot deserves it.
One other comment: I’ve noticed several posters comment postively on what good science Meldrum uses in his Bigfoot research and book. These people apparently have a much better grasp of scientific methods than does the general public; perhaps they are working scientists?
No? Then what, exactly, is their glowing opinion of Meldrum’s research based on? The simple fact that he’s saying somthing that they want to believe?
I’m not sure that you could approach the issue more critically and scientifically than Dr. Meldrum does.
So far — note I said, “so far” — my convenient capsule definition of “Bigfoot skeptic” is “someone who has no knowledge of, or has not critically considered, either the volume or the nature of the evidence.”
In other words: to think Bigfoot doesn’t exist and to think God does require approximately the same degree of acquaintance with the evidence.
I’d put it a different way, Benjamin. I would like to see ONE skeptic look at Bigfoot evidence critically and scientifically, because the search for Bigfoot deserves it.
None have yet, says I. I’ve never heard a Bigfoot skeptic each of whose points I couldn’t dismiss in 30 seconds.
“I’m not sure that you could approach the issue more critically and scientifically than Dr. Meldrum does.”
Most of the skeptical research approaches the topic more critically and scientifically than Meldrum does.
“I would like to see ONE skeptic look at Bigfoot evidence critically and scientifically, because the search for Bigfoot deserves it.
“I’ve never heard a Bigfoot skeptic each of whose points I couldn’t dismiss in 30 seconds.”
It’s a shame your goal is to “dismiss” skeptics; as a skeptic, I do not “dismiss” anyone’s work, including Meldrum’s. Perhaps you should take a more objective approach, with close critical analysis. Have you read Dave Daegling’s book, Bigfoot Exposed?
Here’s what a skeptic’s critical and scientific approach would have to do to be worth a minute of my time: Discredit a significant number of the thousands and thousands of pieces of evidence, in such a way that most if not all of the remainder could be seen as pretty likely not to be the real McCoy.
The biggest and most glaring target — Patty — has never in forty years been debunked, by which I mean someone showing that it was faked, and how, not someone relying on phony testimony from someone desperate for his 15 minutes. No skeptical analysis relying on science has shown it to be fake.
Of the many, many sightings and track finds, a minuscule percentage have been shown to have been faked.
Ben, before I read Daegling, tell me one, just one, of his major points. That’s all, just one.
In exchange, I’ll give you one of mine. But since Bigfoot obviously exists, you first.
OK, I took a sneak peak at the Amazon blurb of Daegling’s book.
“By book’s end, Daegling has convincingly refuted the few seconds of film allegedly capturing Bigfoot on the loose, effectively questioned the eyewitness sightings that blossomed after the most celebrated manifestation of Bigfoot, back in 1958, and skillfully undercut the “proof” of oversized footprints by reporting on men who constructed fake feet. And he has, almost sorrowfully, assessed the arguments of the truly obsessed, which link Bigfoot’s essential invisibility to the intervention of UFOs.”
I’ll sum up.
I’ve heard all this, and science it ain’t.
Amazing! You state that “I’ve never heard a Bigfoot skeptic each of whose points I couldn’t dismiss in 30 seconds,” yet you apparently haven’t even bothered to read the most complete skeptical analysis–nor, quite likely ANY real skeptical analysis.
You don’t even know what the skeptics say about the topic, yet you are convinced it’s all bunk and you could dismiss any evidence or argument. Wow. Who’s being closed-minded here?
I have spent years of my life studying, writing about, and researching Bigfoot and other mysterious creatures. I have read the arguments and evidence on both sides, and have an informed opinion based on my work, field research, and study.
I suspect you have not done a hundredth of the work I have on the topic, yet you smugly assume you know it all…
As for the P/G film, it has not yielded a shred of hard evidence in 40 years, but you are welcome to keep trying. And the statement that “No skeptical analysis relying on science has shown it to be fake” has it all backwards: the burden of proof is on those claiming it is real–not on anyone to prove it is a fake. That you don’t understand this says a lot.
Ben, Ben, Ben. My my. Where to start?
First with the tone. Why are we so hostile? Hiding something? Yes. Here it is, from one of the reviews on Amazon.com, by a scientist:
“I sometimes regret even being a scientist because scientists–most alarmingly–refuse to prosecute the scientific method yet boldly declare how unbiased they are, almost to a man. How dare Daegling the “scientist” analyze an issue by attempting to poke fun at leading researchers in the field while weaving his “argument” out of disparate threads, cobbled hence and thence, that don’t even comprise a negotiable line of reasoning? Sir, you should be executed, then tortured.”
Except for the last sentence, I’ll go with it. (It’s too much fun to listen to scientists sounding like whacko conspiracy theorists to kill any of them.) And the smugness I’ll go with too. (Who’s being smug, Ben? I don’t presume I know it all. I just want a skeptic to tell me something I don’t already. Apply some SCIENCE, which it doesn’t sound like our scientist Daegling is exactly doing here.)
Here’s a classic example of how scientists turn science on its head when it comes to Bigfoot, straight from you:
“As for the P/G film, it has not yielded a shred of hard evidence in 40 years, but you are welcome to keep trying. And the statement that “No skeptical analysis relying on science has shown it to be fake” has it all backwards: the burden of proof is on those claiming it is real–not on anyone to prove it is a fake. That you don’t understand this says a lot.”
Wrongo, boyo. (That TONE again. Can’t we be friends here?) That film is called evidence. It is no grainier than home movies of my childhood in which I can identify every individual. If that were a deer I’d know what species; if it were a spotted skunk I’d know what subspecies. Here’s A MOVIE, guys. We just had a new species of primate holotyped based on a PHOTO. Here’s a MOVIE. You skeptics are the ones who need to pronounce that it was faked. And to clearly show how, in 1967 mind you, it could have been. That YOU don’t understand THAT says a lot.
Here’s some more nonscience, from the amazon.com blurb. I’ll repost it since you didn’t read it:
“And [Daegling] has, almost sorrowfully, assessed the arguments of the truly obsessed, which link Bigfoot’s essential invisibility to the intervention of UFOs.”
This is an argument against? The “truly obsessed” lumped with Krantz, Bindernagel, Meldrum, Schaller and Goodall? Daegling has to put this forward as one of his major arguments? We wish the UFO/Elvis/shapeshifter people would go away more than you do, Ben! Krantz professed endless exasperation with the “fringe element,” for very good reason. I don’t think I need to read this book based on that alone. (And I noticed you didn’t give me any reason that I should, after getting a clear invitation to do so.)
Further nonscience: the lack of a complete fossil record for the big guy and his antecedents put forward as an argument against. Puh-leeze. Any scientist should know what a fabulously rare process fossilization is. No one should expect — underline that — a complete fossil record, or really even a partial one, for most animals, much less for Bigfoot; we don’t have a complete fossil record for anything else, and wouldn’t, if you think about it for a second, even know it when we did.
OK, let’s sum up. The role of science, when evidence is presented, is to tell us what it IS. In the case of Bigfoot that would be: faked by humans; mis-identification of a known animal; or unknown species. On this simple task modern science has utterly failed.
It’s an eight-foot-tall APE, ferpetesake. Only modern science could fail to see it; and so far — the evidence tells us — only modern science HAS failed to see it.
And we’re letting science tell us what to eat and drink? Hmmmmmm.
So, Benjamin Radford, what exactly is your interest in the subject of Bigfoot? What stake do you have in all this? Why are you so constantly hell-bent on refuting everything about the subject that seems to suggest the notion that maybe there’s some truth to it all? You’re calling Meldrum a pseudo-scientist, but I would suggest that you are pseudo-intellectual.
Why would you even come to this site, and call Jeff Meldrum a pseudo-scientist? Is it because you simply don’t agree with his findings? Is it just to stir up arguments? Disagreement with Benjamin Radford does not a pseudo-scientist make. It seems any time someone interprets things differently than you do, you simply discount them as being pseudo-scientific with the wave of the hand, as though saying so simply makes it true.
I apologize for the tone; I just get a little snippy when I sense my time being wasted in discussions with people who have not bothered to be fully informed before submitting their opinions or challenging others.
You state that the P/G film is “evidence,” but don’t state of what. A hoax? Possibly. A Bigfoot? Possibly. It’s almost certainly one or the other. I’ve been waiting decades for a single verifiable fact about Bigfoot to be derived from the film. Until you can show me one, I wouldn’t call it evidence of anything.
And I will add here, in its entirety, an Amazon blurb from someone who LIKED Daegling’s book.
Ben: tell me what is wrong about ANY ONE of the representations in this blurb. Because this guy sounds like he really read the book.
Which, if he’s right on all points and I’ll bet he is, means we all can save the bucks we’d spend on this one, and buy Meldrum’s and Bindernagel’s instead.
—————————
Okay, so this is a little longer review than I originally intended but bear with me:
David Daegling presents us with a much more intelligent approach to arguing the skeptic view on Bigfoot existence then Greg Long did in his book. While Long was stretching his limits on what counted on ‘proof’ of a Patterson film hoax, Daegling provides some decent arguments on Bigfoot non-existence in general. While Daegling presents a much more informed look, it’s also not convincing. He opts to label ‘believers’ with the term of “Advocates”, kind of a degrading word in itself saying that ‘believers’ are allowing themselves to be duped.
First he presents a “continuity test” regarding lack of any fossil evidence thus the creatures don’t exist. A stalwart argument for the skeptic but faulty in its own right, because if that were the case, many other common animals don’t exist either - due to lack of a fossil record. He questions the ability for the creatures to remain fairly undetected outside eyewitnesses. Well the remainder of the Yahi tribe lived on the outskirts of a California town for nearly 40 years and remained undetected, and these people used housing and fire. He dismisses the Jacko capture at Yale, BC as an escaped circus ape. A shaky argument in either case, pro or con bigfoot. Daegling dismisses the Ostman kidnapping and the Roe description because they are too similar and were brought to public attention near the same time, dismissing it as too coincidental.
Daegling puts a lot of stock in the words of track and film fakers such as Wallace, Marx, and Freeman, allowing that because they claimed fakery that thus everything they may have been involved in had to be faked. The Jerry Crew tracks at a Wallace work site in Bluff Creek is dismissed because Wallace supposedly used an elaborate pulley and weight system through the trees to lay them overnight, that in itself is just as unbelievable as an actual creature. The time just doesn’t seem sufficient to have used such an undetectable pulley system overnight. This doesn’t account for purported changes in shape and track dispersal in the same line of tracks either.
Daegling’s main argument is focused on the simplistic view that just because tracks, evidence, and film of bigfoot can be faked by humans then it must all be faked. [Worthy of major emphasis, because it does indeed seem to be his main argument. In fact, given the sheer volume and the incredibly broad geographic dispersal of evidence, most if not all of which points to an animal any eyewitness could pick out of a cryptid police lineup, it almost would have to be. - DWA]
Because evidence could have been faked by a someone that was deceptive enough, he states is a certainty the creatures don’t exist. He also puts alot of ‘circumstantial’ stock in Danny Perez and the often overlooked sour grapes person of Cliff Crook. He dwells on the infighting of early expeditions between the Big 4 (Byrne, Green, Dahinden, and later Krantz). He likes to focus on bad eggs like Marx and Freeman, known hoaxers and largely discredited by anyone in bigfoot research. [Nnnnnnnnnnnnot soundin’ too good here, Ben.]
The author pretty much dismisses all eye witness testimony on the simple statement that unlike law and courts, science can’t use testimony as proof of something, an admittedly valid response in the case of experiments and lab/field testing. Also, like many skeptics, he says eyewitnesses are hallucinating, misinterpreting what they see, or outright lying. Daegling also seems to be on a personal crusade to discredit anything put forth by Krantz and Meldrum, and pretty much blows off anything John Green has to say. He quotes Green in saying that Green accepts bigfoots because all other possibilities (total hoaxing/fakery, hallucinating, lying witnesses) are beyond reason. Again, admittedly a fair argument, but then Daegling’s arguments are the exact same thing only in reverse saying that because a human COULD fake all the stuff then it must not be real.
He becomes contradictary in discussing the Patterson film in Chapter 5, talking of bagginess to a costume then goes on to says musculature movement could be evident by someone wearing a skintight, size-too-small long johns with hair attached. If it’s skin tight, how is it baggy? If it’s skin tight, how does he explain the bulkiness of the subject in the film? He attacks the sagittal crest evident on the subject saying the obviously female creature shouldn’t have a crest because female gorillas don’t. [A hoary chestnut, dismissed long, long, long ago. The sagittal crest relates to size, not sex. You know how this was found out? When female gorillas were seen in the field — with sagittal crests. - DWA]
…Overall, Daegling questions the measurements (as anyone should) but then unconvincingly downplays the subject of the film itself in concerns of odd arm length, musculature, and fluidity of movement (claiming it’s simply a Groucho Marx walk).
Okay, that was a bit longer than even I expected to make it. Condensed version: Daegling supplies the reader with some intelligent and thought provoking arguments but also remains inconsistent within his own arguments and statements. This is a worthwhile book for skeptic and ‘believer/advocate’ alike. It is so much better than the farce Long put forth. I recommend it to both skeptic and believer.
[Not me. I’m looking for a book that attacks the evidence from a scientific viewpoint. Once again: no character assassination; no hearsay from people looking for 15 minutes or to discredit someone else. If there were a single sound scientific counterargument in here it might be a buy. But there don’t seem to be. Although anyone is free to point one out to me. - DWA]
Ben: apology accepted.
I almost feel stupid saying this but: I’m not totally convinced of the animal’s existence either. It’s just a fabulous supposition: an eight-foot tall (and up) “unknown” ape hiding among 300 million people. Except that so many people have seen one (and logic dictates there must be many, many times more sightings than are reported), and so many reports include so many similar elements, from people who had no prior exposure to the subject nor interpersonal exchange of info, and most of whom seem (when you read them, and I’ve read lots) to have been skeptics at the time of their encounters.
Researchers have given me much to think about. Skeptics haven’t, except for one question: why HASN’T science looked at the evidence yet?
Oh, and one more thing.
“Fully informed” means understanding that extrapolating from a few possibilities, with a few pieces of evidence, to certainty about all the evidence, is not science. How did all this fakery get done? Who did it? How? How do so many people of sound mind, clear vision and extensive outdoor experience mistake any North American animal for a half-ton bipedal ape? And yes, the burden is on science, not on people who have seen the animal. They know. It’s science that doesn’t. Until shown otherwise. (As any scientist will know in his gut when the animal’s existence is proven. Which if I’d have to bet one way or the other seems to be the way to bet. How do I know? Evidence.)
Science has not looked at the evidence. Daegling is no exception; he needs to explain how the enormous volume of evidence can be so simply written off.
From what I’ve read about the book he fails.
Anyone who has bothered to be fully informed (and I’m still waiting for some evidence that Daegling has) would understand this: it would make more sense to try to find the fire all this smoke is coming from than to continually insist that that ain’t smoke, it’s clouds.
Really? SMELL it.
Isn’t the expansion of our angle of regard what science is all about?
The rug’s too small to sweep the evidence under, don’t you think?
“why HASN’T science looked at the evidence yet?”
Several scientists have looked at various Bigfoot evidence (see the Manitoba hair analysis last year for example); it has all been inconclusive. The fault does not lie with scientists, it lies with the poor evidence.
According to The Oxford English Dictionary defines hypothesis as “a supposition made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.”
Please explain what part of that relates to pseudoscience?
The scientific method is as follows:
1. Observe
2. Hypothesize
3. Test hypothesis
Is this not what Meldrum is in the process of doing? He has a hypothesis and now seeks to prove/disprove? So far, his testing apparently leads him to believe in validation of his hypothesis. That no other scientists seem to have the gumption to do the same does not mean he is engaged in pseudoscience.
The hypothesis is that an unlisted bipedal primate exists in North America. Since it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to disprove, it must be proven. Meldrum is working to do just that. That’s not pseudoscience, that’s good science.
“Several scientists have looked at various Bigfoot evidence (see the Manitoba hair analysis last year for example); it has all been inconclusive.”
Maybe I’m missing something but how is that bigfoot evidence if it was identified as something else?
And, no, it hasn’t been all inconclusive. Unknown primate is NOT inconclusive - it is what it is.
Since Meldrum’s hypothesis is that there is an unidentified primate in existence, findings such as “unidentified primate” or even “unidentified mammal” in North America actually tend to give credence to Meldrum’s theory, rather than refute it.
Wait, Ben.
You’re not including the scientists that looked at evidence and pronounced it tantamount to proof.
John Bindernagel — a real scientist if ever was — is, like Meldrum and Krantz, through arguing. He’s pursuing the data to draft Bigfoot management plans. Why? We know more about the sas than we know about most species documented by science is why. And Bindernagel knows it. Maybe “know” is too strong a word; but it’s too strong a word for about 99% of what we “know” about dinosaurs too.
True, evidence isn’t “scientific” until a holotype is produced. THAT is what the skeptics should be doing. You should be doing what the researchers are doing: getting out into the field and looking, right with them, seeing and critiquing what is actually going on, rather than fetishizing old evidence. (A sin of which many proponents are guilty, as well.)
What Meldrum is doing is the purest science. As Sergio notes, he’s following up on mountains of smoke to put together the dimensions of the fire. What DD is doing isn’t good enough to be called pseudoscience.
If DD had one thing in that book that could persuade me to read it, I would have seen it — on this thread — by now. Because you would have made sure, Ben, that it was in here.
But I haven’t seen any such.
I could fake red fox tracks well enough to fool any biologist. That doesn’t mean the red fox doesn’t exist. Yet that seems to be one of DD’s main arguments: if it can be faked, then it was. Again: if there were a better argument, I would have seen it, right here. But DD doesn’t even have another argument that good, much less better, apparently. Here’s what I want to hear, DD: an explanation of how a unified consortium of Bigfoot hoaxers — or even more improbably, hundreds of independents, either exchanging info in detail or, even more improbably, not interacting with each other at all, could produce fakes so consistent with one another that they mimic, as the many many trackways do, the inherent distinctions one would expect among members of a species.
A scientist, applying science, would quickly, I think, come to the same conclusion I have: the only thing more improbable than the ape is the deception.
I think I can say I won’t be reading DD’s book. I want to read what people ANALYZING the evidence are saying about it. So far everyone who has has become a Bigfoot proponent, or at least said science needs to be looking.
Again. Why isn’t science looking? It sure would be better than looking stupid. Not to mention more scientific.
I’m gathering that the Amazon reviewer I quote above had DD’s book right on the button.
Oh, Ben, I didn’t address this.
“You state that the P/G film is “evidence,” but don’t state of what. A hoax? Possibly. A Bigfoot? Possibly. It’s almost certainly one or the other. I’ve been waiting decades for a single verifiable fact about Bigfoot to be derived from the film. Until you can show me one, I wouldn’t call it evidence of anything.”
Um, Ben, it’s prima facie evidence of an unlisted North American animal, probably a primate.
To think anything else would be to presume, every time you see a zebra, that it’s two high schoolers in a suit.
(Lots of high schoolers in that herd. Look at ‘em run! Must have rehearsed that HUNDREDS of times.)
It defies logic to immediately presume “ape suit” about the Patterson film. “Planet of the Apes” came out the next year and shows, incontrovertibly, the state of the art in ape suits. (Come on. It’s a further defiance of logic to think that a megabuck Hollywood film lagged technically behind one that has made, so far, what “PoA” spent on costumes, if that.)
Enough of that. Patty looks like an animal to me, moves like one, and she don’t look or move human. The only prima facie presumption that makes sense is: THAT ain’t human. I’ve heard the old chestnut about extraordinary claims demanding extraordinary evidence so many times that I’m ready to turn it on the skeptics.
Show me a logical, sensical means by which history’s greatest hoax — indeed, one of mankind’s greatest projects, ever — got pulled off.
Or else go out into the field with sas researchers. Bug science to put some more people and bucks on the case. Tell science to prove you right and shut the proponents up.
I’ll call you skeptics when you do that. For now, uninformed will do.
DWA said (to Benjamin Radford):
“You’re not including the scientists that looked at evidence and pronounced it tantamount to proof.”
Oh but he is, DWA. You see, it’s actually a very convenient little arrangement. THOSE scientists have gone over to the DARK SIDE. They’re no longer objective or “critical.” Their findings and input are irrelevant, wrong, inconsequential, tainted…
Hellfire and brimstone, they don’t even practice science anymore, they practice pseudo-science! They must be burned at the stake!!
You see, it’s a tidy way of dismissing those who believe there’s something to this hypothesis that there really IS an unknown North American bipedal ape. Which is, of course, in direct odds with the position of people like Radford, who claim not to have a dog in this fight, but I suggest that they have much at stake, starting with their own reputations.
It’s a classic little catch-22.
Radford and his ilk constantly talk about how they wish someone would truly research this phenomenon scientifically. Then, someone like a Bindernagel or a Meldrum comes along, (infinitely qualified to address the issue from an anatomical, biological and ecological perspective), releases his findings, and then the Radfords and Daeglings of the world shout, “FOWL!! REF, FOWL!!! HE’S A BELIEVER. HE DOESN’T COUNT!! HE’S NOT OBJECTIVE!!!”
Well, if Idaho were to cut him loose it would be to someone else’s gain! Keep up the good work Dr. Meldrum!
Well, it appears that a skeptic-nonskeptic war is about to start.
Benjamin Radford,
It appears that you have ruffled many feathers so to speak. Still it’s good to have differing points of view on such an enigmatic subject. Let me ask you this, if the opportunity ever presented itself would you and fellow skeptic investigator Daegling be favorable in doing a joint in-depth scientific field study with Professors Meldrum and Bindernagel or those with comparable credentials on the possible existence of Bigfoot or is that out of the question seeing you’re not particularly fond of Dr. Meldrum’s research. I ask this because your investigations are done by skeptics like yourself and fellow associates giving the impression of a one-sided view. Don’t get me wrong as I am familiar with some of your books and articles for Skeptical Inquirer. I have concurred at times though not always with your findings and conclusions on certain issues. Be that as it may would you consider such an endeavor? If nothing else it would at least show that skeptics and non-skeptics could work together amicably without animosity (I hope). What better way to prove a point then by doing a thorough investigation by both parties.
It may not settle the issue to everyone’s liking but at least it would be a start.
And with all due respect to your opinion on Dr. Meldrum’s work not being scientific, it’s just that, an opinion not worth further discussion.
Benjamin Radford, I think that the point I was trying to make about skeptics discouraging legitimate questions may have been misunderstood, misstated, or both.
The point I was trying to make had to do with the derisiveness in which people involved in this topic are treated. It is as if there is no legitimate way to actively pursue knowledge in this arena, if you give any credibility to the possibility that this animal exists. Meldrum, being a reasonable legitimate academic, is obviously having to bear the brunt of this derisiveness.
Now you have tooted your own horn about having written about bigfoot. Have you ever seen or encountered any? I have. That is why I don’t give a crap about what skeptics have to say. I know that I won’t convince anyone that this animal is real, therefore, I don’t even bother to try. But if you would like to go where the monsters roam, I’d be happy to take you. Just be prepared for an extended stay, spartan conditions, and long periods of boredom, occasionally interrupted by periods of sheer amazement.
ahem.
Right, Ben. What he said.
No fair to slag scientists who are delving into the data, when your Daeglings (which apparently does not mean “delve” in German) throw up their hands at that approach, because there’s what, too much data?
EXACTLY.
Know what I wish would happen in an ideal world?
—————————-
Press conference. Schaller, Goodall, Bindernagel, Meldrum and Swindler. John Green. All the news agencies and magazines and TV networks. (The Ghost of Krantz would introduce that paranormal element we’re trying to exclude here. Would be cool, but sorry, no can do.)
“We think this unlisted primate species might exist; but it seems every American knows one thing about Bigfoot: you’re a nut if you saw one. That needs to change. We have good reason to believe that thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of times the number of reported sightings have occurred; but eyewitnesses seem locked in an unintentional conspiracy of silence, aided and abetted by the popular press and — most shamefully — by the same science that should be advancing human knowledge….”
Here’s the website; here’s the address. If you have had an experience of this nature — if anyone in your family or circle of friends has — contact us, or encourage them to do so. [All the usual caveats of confidentiality.]
Wanna bet that we’d suddenly have more data points than scientists would know what to do with? I wouldn’t be surprised if some prominent Americans threw off the cloak of anonymity and went public out of suddenly unleashed eco-concern of the sort prominent Americans seem really good at.
What’s keeping Bigfoot invisible, Daegling/Radford et al, is not UFOs. It’s YOU GUYS. It’s the ridicule eyewitnesses all know they’d suffer if they ever dared to submit experiences to your scrutiny.
CHANGE THAT! And your minds might change as well.
One more thing, Ben. That press conference should have been YOUR IDEA!
No charge. You’re welcome.
Oh, Ben. Now that you’re tired of hearing from me, one more thing.
I don’t believe Bigfoot exists.
Sorry, that came out wrong. “Bigfoot exists” is not on my current roster of beliefs. Not only is it, well, a pretty fantastical, if cool notion; but I don’t seem to quite have enough evidence in hand to quite get there.
But the proponents — through what to all appearances has been decades of dogged field work and dedicated, scientific scrutiny of evidence — almost has me thinking yep, sometimes the incredible is the truth.
Skeptics? NOTHING.
I’d say you better get cracking.
I’d welcome the chance to work alongside Bigfoot researchers, and I do think we can “get along.” When I have tried to do so, the BFRO refused to allow me to even see their Skookum cast evidence. What were they afraid of? Skeptics were willing to work with proponents, but the latter would have none of it.
“And with all due respect to your opinion on Dr. Meldrum’s work not being scientific, it’s just that, an opinion not worth further discussion.”
I encourage all who have posted here to wait a month or two to see the full, close, and careful explanation of why Meldrum’s work is not scientific. A joint skeptical review will be published soon. Read it, then decide for yourselves how much science Meldrum brings to Bigfoot.
Good morning Cryptos…a question for the skeptics and scientists.
How many of you are willing to “drop the hammer” on a Sasquatch…cold blooded and calculated…squeeze one off in it’s brain pan? Lots of folks here are clamoring for a voucher specimen…but how many are willing to get bloody?
I’ve spoken with many country folks and researcher/hunters…myself included who could have…but didn’t…why is that?
In NABR chat a few nights ago an ex- Marine sniper and current Federal Law Enforcement officer…related his 40 minute sighting at a thousand yards with a 10X .338 Lupa…more than adequate for the task…when asked why he didn’t drop the Big fella…he responded…”I just couldn’t…it was too humanlike”.
Perhaps the skeptics/scientists would like to visit a few of our Oklahoma research areas…places where even some landowners will not venture outside at night….seems some of our squatches have an attitude. We ain’t the BFRO.
Loren knows how to reach me.
live and let live…
ole bub and the dawgs
I think labelling oneself a skeptic or a believer is already getting off on the wrong foot. It causes one to go in with an already preconcieved notion and can bias evidence that one sees. There can be one piece of circumnstantial evidence and a believer will go on and on about how it points to Bigfoot’s existence, and a skeptic can take that same evidence and point to all the reasons why it doesn’t amount to a thing. After all of this, are we any closer to learning just what is going on without a shadow of a doubt? I consider my self a “want to get to the bottom of what is going on- tic”. I’ve seen evidence that was compelling and evidence that was not, but I try to go in with an open mind in all cases and look at what is in front of me with fresh eyes, without a mind to prove it or disprove it off the bat. I’m still on the fence as to whether it actually exists or not, although I have a good friend who swears he saw it. I am not some armchair schmuck either when it comes to science. I believe in the scientific method even if it sometimes gets slammed here. It is negative publicity like this Meldrum thing that keeps me from ever wanting to let my colleagues know about my interest in this topic.
Just to point this out: Schaller and Goodall have not said they believe that Bigfoot or Yeti actually exist. They have both said that more research is needed.
Benjamin Radford said: “I encourage all who have posted here to wait a month or two to see the full, close, and careful explanation of why Meldrum’s work is not scientific. A joint skeptical review will be published soon. Read it, then decide for yourselves how much science Meldrum brings to Bigfoot.”
Wow. Now we’ll be able to better sleep at night, knowing that Radford and company are preparing a “full, close and careful explanation” of how Meldrum’s work is not scientific, to be published soon.
If Daegling’s work is any indication, then we’re all in for a heck of a treat (like waterbags under a costume as an explanation for musculature). And to think, it’s all because Radford and Daegling just have it in their hearts to shine the light of illumination for numbskulls like us who can’t seem to figure things out independently. They claim to have no stake in any of this, no agenda, no compelling reason, other than they’re just good people, and they’re just smarter than the rest of us.
Actually, I think there IS a motive to all this constant derision and disdain shown by Radford and others, and it AIN’T truth, justice and the American way. I can’t put my finger on it, but I don’t think it has anything to do with truth, or true skepticism.
This “joint skeptical review,” I am sure, will be like a KGB review of one the nation’s founders. I wait with baited breath.
Lemme hog some more bandwidth.
1. Kittenz: didn’t say that Schaller and Goodall believe the critters exist. But I think that, like the skeptics, they should put a bit more lip service, if not money, where their mouths have been on this. I’d want them to express, in a public forum gettng wide play, their belief that more needs to be done. They’re in the appropriate field; they have the appropriate experience to judge the possibilities. Not asking much here in the name of science.
2. Ben: the BFRO has come afoul of a brickbat or two here. Don’t pretend to know a thing about them. (Still maybe the best website, though.) Have you checked with TBRC? Maybe the best site if BFRO isn’t. Personal opinion: you might get some hairs raised in a trip with either organization. (One wishes BFRO would fix what needs to be fixed in its act. Whatever that is.) Anyone else doing this? With the caveat that there are, unfortunately, all kinds in this field. Biscardi, for example, just from what I’ve heard of him, doesn’t count. Paranormal dabblers need not apply, nor should you consider anything you do with them appropriate. Stick within the realm of scientific evidence, thank you. We’re evaluating the evidence for the animal — not the people evaluating the evidence. Everything the skeptics put up that I have seen commits this critical, and unforgivable, error.
3. Ben again: This is why evaluating Meldrum’s science is also inappropriate. That’s not scientific analysis; it’s fetishizing. And I already know where it’s leading from what I’ve seen so far. How can you move from one guy’s, or two guys’, or ten guys’ research to: this animal is made up? Once again: that some evidence could be faked — or that some “science” on it be pseudo- — in no way means that any significant portion of it was indeed faked, nor that the animal is pseudo-. All the pseudoscience in the world on the Norway rat could not make it nonexistent. Look at all of the evidence, and ask: could all of that have been either faked, or a case of misidentifying any American animal as a half-ton ape? What would it take to explain all that evidence, or even most of it, away? (And yes, eyewitness sightings most certainly count.) Does that scenario pass a sniff test? I’ve never seen one that does. As I’ve said before: the only thing more improbable than the ape is the skeptical scenarios I’ve seen.
3. Ben again: Your move on the press conference. For precisely the reason that’s been stated here: If you’ve seen Bigfoot, you’re a nut. Just like you were also a nut if once you thought the Earth wasn’t flat, or that it revolved around the sun as a speck in a galaxy that was itself a speck in an immense universe. Galileo was a nut. IT IS THE ROLE OF THE SKEPTIC TO INITIATE THE INQUIRY. A real inquiry, into the evidence, not an attack on individuals. The best science, indeed, is true skepticism.
4. Mystery Man: I could have written your post, and signed it. Amen.
Benjamin Radford said:
“I’d like to see more scientists studying the topic; so far, the more science you bring to it, the weaker the evidence becomes.”
More condescension, hubris and BS. It’s an absolutely ridiculous statement and totally false, all points of it.
The only scientists Radford wants to see studying the topic are those with preconceived notions and agendas, such as David Daegling. The second one of the scientists would proclaim, “Uh, guys, there may be something to this…” Radford would be so quick to dismiss the individual as a pseudo-scientist.
Give me a FREAKING break.
Hate to say it, Ben. But our friend Patrick here has what I’d call a point.
Again, just examining the evidence.
The problem — pretty obvious one, actually, the way science stands on its head when Bigfoot is the subject — is that the evidence only gets stronger with time, not weaker: more and more sightings, by more and more reliable eyewitnesses; the Patterson film, still reigning unchallenged as the preeeminent cryptid document; more and more people — a majority of Americans, in fact — thinking that the animal exists. The reason Bigfoot stays a hot topic in the popular media is that people are so freaking interested. Hoaxes just don’t stay fresh.
Real animals? Well, they do.
It’s OK, Ben. Bigfoot’s giving you a job. Go find him. Shake his hand. Stop being so, I don’t know, BITTER about it.
“The problem with much of Jeff Meldrum’s work (and his recent book) is that it is rife with pseudoscience.”
Now THERE’S a way to win hearts and minds. I’m sure it goes a long way toward gaining Meldrum’s cooperation, too, as well as that of other bigfoot researchers.
I think the other commenters are right; as long as this sort of arrogance is proudly displayed, there will be no such cooperation; it’s no wonder no one wants to work with them.
Some of the commenters alluded to what sounds like a misinformation campaign by these guys, who act more like antagonists or nemeses than anything else. If they were serious about the subject, they would be seriously trying to find this supposed ape-man, rather than tearing down those who are trying to find it.
It occurs to me that what they (Radford and others) are doing is really nothing new. It’s interesting that one of the commenters mentioned the KGB. One of the KGB’s tactics involved discrediting a source so as to put the source’s credibility into question, and then they would be free to provide a mountain of misinformation or disinformation.
These guys realize that Meldrum is recognized as one of the leading authorities on the subject; his book is receiving good reviews, and seems to be thought provoking. If the antagonists can, by a measure, discredit him, then their misinformation/disinformation campaign will be all the more successful (at least in their closed minds).
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
Pseudoscience is debunking by saying that, if someone devoted his life to faking something, it could possibly have been faked.
Or saying that, yeah, this wasn’t a really good fake we did here (see the latest thread on Daegling); but see, we did something kinda sorta like it, so, you know, you, you know, could fake it if you were really really good, so talented in fact that you could make billions doing this, but chose to waste it all on, you know, faking Bigfoot.
Then concluding that because of this, everything obviously was faked.
Real science? Showing, with the facts and the figures, how extremely, indeed ridiculously, improbable a fake would be, and letting Occam’s Razor take it from there.
My problem with the scofftics is that the only science I’m seeing on Bigfoot is coming from the proponents.
Scofftic, nice word! My problem with some of the skeptic theories is that they sometimes make the mistake of assuming that just because it could have happened, then that must stand to reason that it did happen. Yes, someone who is of freakish proportions could have been found. Yes, in theory a suit could be made using water bags to simulate muscle. Yes, it seems that “cradleboarding” can cause a head shape reminiscent of a saggital crest. And on and on. But just because something is possible in theory does not prove that it is really what is going on. I am very nuetral in my approach to the P/G foortage, but some of these skeptic theories just do not seem very plausible in their presentation as evidence. If they want to impress, they should make this theoretical suit with water bags, dress up a person with these freakish dimensions in it, then have them walk confidently over rough terrain without missing a beat. Then show me how Patterson and Gimlin pulled off the technicality and funding for this in the 60s. Then , I will be more inclined to consider these possibilities.
The BBC already tried a recreation of the Patterson-Gimlin film footage and they miserably failed, as will all others.
They may as well attempt to replicate footage of a gorilla, orangutan or chimp in the wild. They CAN’T do it.
They always respond to such a challenge with, “It’s not encumbent upon us to do it.” Translation: “We know we can’t do it, so we’re going to tell everyone that it’s not our responsibility to do it.”
As alluded to in earlier comments, rather than actually seeking the truth, the holy trinity of their modus operandi seems to be to discredit, obfuscate and misinform. That’s not true skepticism, which should only be interested in uncovering the facts and truth.
What you guys said.
I get really annoyed at the skeptic attitude that proponents are just hanging on to the childish/atavistic/idiotic/whatever need for big hairy monsters in their lives. Talk about pseudoscience. The P/G film is 40 years old, and no one who’s said it was faked has either come forward with how or done it themselves. That, to me, is telling. When you grab the first guy with an axe to grind and a need for fifteen minutes and a paycheck to say, hey, I was the guy in the suit, you have lost all claim to my attention.
Noticed that a Ben Book about lake monsters was on Loren’s top ten list. And Amazon let me read it without wasting any money. I’ve never been a lake monster fan. I think most of them if not all can be otherwise explained, and that it’s really easy to see one thing in the water and think it’s another. Ben and his buddy might have done an OK job using their look-here’s-me-in-the-lake approach on Ogopogo et al.
But their approach falls far short when it comes to the sasquatch. People aren’t seeing ripples in water here; they have an eight-foot biped looking them in the face. They have 20-inch footprints and loud screams that they can’t link to anything else, and they’ve heard everything else. This one’s tougher, guys. Problem is that the sas gets lumped in with Nessie and flying saucers. Big mistake.
I won’t read a skeptical book until the level of argument I’ve seen from them rises. It’s something like sas 23,444 and scofftics 0 at this point.
If the scofftics scored some points they might get back in the game. But from what I’ve read of them, I’m just not seeing it.
And just like mystery, I’m not a “believer.” (One believes in God, the Great Pumpkin and the Easter Bunny, things for which there are no evidence.) The scofftics can have me. If they want me enough.
And Sergio: it surely IS the scofftics’ responsibility to do it. That’s the only way they can score the points.
Correct.
The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be testable.
The “dude-in-a-suit” hypothesis so far has failed all tests to validate it (BBC test being the main one).
The “it-ain’t-no-dude-in-a-suit” hypothesis has to be validated by more footage. So far, that has proven elusive.
Impasse?
Well, it is not looking good for the “dude-in-a-suit” proponents.
All it takes is another piece of footage that is at least as good as PG film to validate the “it-ain’t-no-dude-in-a-suit” hypothesis (or perhaps not even quite as good).
It’s interesting (and sadly telling) that the posters here have carefully avoided explaining how Meldrum’s work is valid science. It’s much easier to accuse me and others of some sort of KGB propaganda campaign against Meldrum or Bigfoot.(?)
Instead of addressing the substance of my criticism about Meldrum’s “science,” I get sarcasm:
“Wow. Now we’ll be able to better sleep at night, knowing that Radford and company are preparing a “full, close and careful explanation” of how Meldrum’s work is not scientific, to be published soon.”
And my favorite is DWA, who likes to think he knows all about the topic, yet hasn’t bothered to read good critical analysis.
“I won’t read a skeptical book until the level of argument I’ve seen from them rises.”
He doesn’t even see the contradiction in his sentence, that he won’t read a skeptical book until he finds a level of argument he likes–which of course can be found in the very same skeptical books he refuses to read!
Good science does not insulate itself from criticism, it welcomes and addresses it.
While many posters here can’t be bothered with the facts, I and other skeptics are actively investigating and addressing them.
While many posters here refuse to read or acknowledge “skeptic” arguments and evidence, I and other skeptics have closely read and analyzed many proponent’s claims.
While many posters here resort to personal attacks and name-calling, skeptics are addressing the actual arguments and evidence.
Too bad so many people here have their minds made up and are unwilling to even consider that the evidence Meldrum and others put forth simply isn’t as good as is claimed.
“Too bad so many people here have their minds made up and are unwilling to even consider that the evidence Meldrum and others put forth simply isn’t as good as is claimed. ”
Sounds like somebody who has a completely open mind to me. How ’bout you guys?
Ben: read the posts again. We’re reading, and analyzing, the skeptical viewpoint. What we’re seeing is: rehashing analyses that have already been done, and instead of laying out a feasible and plausible and complete hoax scenario, showing, not too conclusively I might add, how small facets of a fake might conceivably have been done (under, ahem, ideal lab conditions, ahem). We’ve talked about how that doesn’t meet, well, Meldrum’s standards.
Still, I’m pleased that the power of my arguments has led to my being singled out. Thanks! Maybe *I* ought to write a couple of books.
But I had to quote you here:
———————–
“I won’t read a skeptical book until the level of argument I’ve seen from them rises.” (That were me.)
He doesn’t even see the contradiction in his sentence, that he won’t read a skeptical book until he finds a level of argument he likes–which of course can be found in the very same skeptical books he refuses to read!
Good science does not insulate itself from criticism, it welcomes and addresses it.
———————–
Ben: I pointed this out. I’ve read samples of your work and samples of Daegling’s, and I’ve seen reviews of Daegling’s book — from people who LIKE it, and I put one up here — that tell me that you’re…well, you’re doing what you say science shouldn’t do, and I agree: insulating yourself from the critiques of your stance that make very good points, and refusing to respond to them.
You’re not name-calling; you’re just condescending, which when you’re better than us, is OK, right? “Sadly” isn’t a word that should show up in any true analysis, of any stripe.
You’ve gotten sarcasm. But you’ve gotten a lot of good points too, points that it appears you’re going to condescend instead of address. Maybe we’re just getting a bit frustrated with you here. So you’ll have to forgive us for a) not thinking you’ve read or thought about some very thought-provoking posts; b) not thinking you’ve paid any attention to the loads of compelling reports of encounters; or c) paraphrasing someone else apropos this thread, getting a little snippy when we sense our time being wasted in discussions with people who have not bothered to be fully informed before submitting their opinions or challenging others. (I told you, in detail, what fully informed meant to me. Respond.)
No one has shown how two guys so down on their dough that they rented their camera and borrowed their horses pulled off history’s greatest hoax — in itself just a tiny fragment of the evidence for the sasquatch. Krantz showed Patterson lacked the sophistication to even touch it. So, what, the CIA put the big feller there? Who else knew where they were going to….oh sheesh, I’m done with Patty. NEVER BEEN DEBUNKED. NEXT?
You continue to commit the skeptic’s error of asking us to defend good science. (And good film.) You put the burden of proof on us. I’ve said it before; that’s wrong. THE SKEPTIC’S ROLE IS TO INITIATE THE INQUIRY. THE BEST SCIENCE IS SKEPTICISM. (Not scoffticism.) Proponents have provided the data. (Nice non-job on that, science!) It’s up to science to do what science has — I’m gonna use “sadly” here — failed to do so far. Which is: follow the smoke to the fire. Which is what our men Bindernagel and Krantz and Meldrum have been doing.
So: are you gonna do what I’ve politely asked, or not? Are you gonna go to the websites and review the sighting reports, and really address how so many reports by so many keen observers with no prior knowledge of this critter can be describing the same animal, or not? Are you ever going to acknowledge that all, that would be ALL, science begins with a layman’s observations? Or are you going to do, again, what’s already been done? Over and over and over, with no benefit to your cause? Do you honestly think the Patterson film would be enjoying such a lusty and continuing rebirth were it not for the widespread reaction to it, starting in one’s genetic heritage as a hunter of game, that says: that ain’t fake?
Or are you going to keep pretending that ignorance is bliss?
I say it again: I’m not “a believer.” Whatever that means. The side that does the best science has me.
And so far it’s not yours.
Having read one of Meldrum’s papers on the subject, I’m getting his book. Having read enough scoffticism, I won’t get Daegling’s. You don’t have to give me an argument I “like.” I’m rooting for the sas, gotta admit it. Cool critter; I’d like him to be real. But I will read, and go with, anything that shows me it just ain’t likely. So far, though, sas is driving for a touchdown and the defense ain’t stopping him. That’s just what I’m seeing. Objectively, man! I root for my team. But when they lose, they lose. Patty ain’t losing on this scoreboard, which is just counting points. Wishes count for nothing. I wish every lake monster existed. But I’m willing to bet against any of them, based on the evidence. (OK, from what I’ve read of it, nice book, Ben. On THEM.)
I read good science, not pseudoscience.
OK, Ben, I’ll break it down.
First a little chunk for the Patty-obsessives out there. The rest later, be patient.
The search image in that film is NOT a man in a suit.
Know why?
A man in a suit looks like a MAN.
In a suit.
I’m staking my genetic heritage as a predator on it. The burden of proof is on YOU, the skeptic, to show me how I’m wrong. That you keep either getting that wrong or failing to acknowledge it is, to use one of your favorite words (becoming one of mine too. Thanks, Ben!), telling.
I’m betting against you. Just, mind you, on the strength of what I’ve seen from you so far.
If you can move beyond Patty to the mountain of other evidence, let me know. If you can debunk it, REALLY let me know.
Oh, Ben, I put this at the bottom of a post on another thread.
But since you don’t seem to be reading the truly skeptical side too much (a number of genuine skeptics on this board, but you’d be excused for not noticing), I’ll put it here.
————-
If you’re a skeptic [but like so many of them uninformed, something I should have included the first time], I point you to the BFRO and TBRC websites (and there are others), and tell you to come back to me when you’re educated.
(Ben.)
——————
Thanks for reading this far. If you did.
Radford said: “It’s interesting (and sadly telling) that the posters here have carefully avoided explaining how Meldrum’s work is valid science.”
I said, and will say again: “The Oxford English Dictionary defines hypothesis as “a supposition made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation…Please explain what part of that relates to pseudoscience? (This is the second time that I’ve asked this very simple question.)
The scientific method is as follows: Observe; hypothesize; test; make inferences/conclusions.
Is this not what Meldrum is in the process of doing? He has a hypothesis and now seeks to prove/disprove? So far, his testing apparently leads him to believe in validation of his hypothesis.”
Radford said: “Good science does not insulate itself from criticism, it welcomes and addresses it.”
REASONED criticism IS absolutely welcomed, NOT criticism based in ignorance, arrogance, or based on emotions such as “It’s just NOT possible.” If the so-called skepticism begins from that point, it is not skepticism, nor is it reasoned, and therefore it is not acceptable criticism.
Radford said: “While many posters here resort to personal attacks and name-calling, skeptics are addressing the actual arguments and evidence.”
Actually, from my perspective, calling an Associate Professor of Anthropology of Idaho State University a pseudoscientist absolutely crosses your own hypocritical line of “personal attacks and name-calling.” If you can’t stand the heat…
Last, you keep referring to yourself and your cohorts as “skeptics.” While it may be true that you consistently, and perhaps instinctively, doubt and question, (which is the nature of true skepticism), you and your cohorts go well beyond that. As I have mentioned before, you attack by discrediting, smearing, misinforming and perpetuating.
How can you, in an intellectually honest way, support the hair-brained, preposterous hypothesis of David Daegling regarding the Patterson-Gimlin film subject? Among a whole litany of other idiocies, waterbags as muscles? That hypothesis has been tested; it has FAILED, and miserably. Why are you not on your soapbox about that?
*****************************
Benjamin Radford Says:
December 18th, 2006 at 11:33 am
It’s interesting (and sadly telling) that the posters here have carefully avoided explaining how Meldrum’s work is valid science. It’s much easier to accuse me and others of some sort of KGB propaganda campaign against Meldrum or Bigfoot.(?)
******************************
I am curious. Have you read his book? I have. Apparently you have not. In the absence of reading his book, how can you label his work pseudoscience? What are your criteria for imposing such a label? Dr. Meldrum advocates that science should take a serious look at the bigfoot phenomena based on a multiple forms of circumstantial evidence. He does not flat out advocate that these creatures exist and that the evidence supporting such a contention is irrefutable. Dr. Meldrum has set forth a hypothesis. Are hypothesis not the cornerstone of scientific discourse? The responsible position in this debate should be that of the neutral scientist, not of the believer or skeptic. Neither side is absolutely right. For the believer the circumstantial evidence is simply not enough to withstand the scientific method. Conversely, for the skeptic, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Neither side can win. Nonetheless, I believe the weight of the circumstantial evidence warrants further scholarly study. Dr. Meldrum has started the ball rolling in this respect. He presents a compelling case for further study.
Sergio/Captain et al:
Anyone want to make a wager?
Just like his last one, Ben’s next post will be one he could have written without reading anything we’ve said.
Bets on?
“REASONED criticism IS absolutely welcomed, NOT criticism based in ignorance, arrogance, or based on emotions such as “It’s just NOT possible.”
I think you will find my criticism is quite reasoned, and I have never said anything remotely like, “It’s just not possible.” Please do not put words in my mouth.
“The scientific method is as follows: Observe; hypothesize; test; make inferences/conclusions.”
That’s actually incorrect. There’s not one specific set of steps for “The Scientific Method.” It is in fact a series of methods, and I’ve written a book on critical thinking, logic, and scientific methodologies.
“Is this not what Meldrum is in the process of doing?”
Some of it is, some of it isn’t. For example, Jeff takes up several pages discussing Fahrenbach’s analysis of John Green’s data, compiled from stories and anecdotes, many of which Jeff admits are unreliable. Fahrenbach’s analysis has no scientific validity to it whatsoever, yet Meldrum treats it as valid. Meldrum seems unable or unwilling to distinguish good science from bad; that is one hallmark of pseudoscience.
I challenge anyone to explain how Fahrenbach’s analysis (heavily quoted and cited by Meldrum) is in any way scientific.
“calling an Associate Professor of Anthropology of Idaho State University a pseudoscientist absolutely crosses your own hypocritical line of “personal attacks and name-calling.””
There you go again… Where exactly did I call Meldrum a pseudoscientist? More words in my mouth. In my opinion, and that of others, Meldrum clearly engages in pseudoscience; one example is given a few sentences above. You will notice that I criticize Meldrum’s work, not the man. I happen to like Jeff very much, I just don’t like his way of mixing truth and fact with assumption and conjecture while labeling all of it “science.”
@@@Parse time. Look for these.
————-
“REASONED criticism IS absolutely welcomed, NOT criticism based in ignorance, arrogance, or based on emotions such as “It’s just NOT possible.”
I think you will find my criticism is quite reasoned, and I have never said anything remotely like, “It’s just not possible.” Please do not put words in my mouth.
@@@We’re not; we’re just reading what you write. I’d never call someone’s science bad to sell a book. I’d tell you why it’s bad while I’m telling you that it is. That’s what we’re doing for you: showing you why your logic is faulty. Jeff’s not getting the same courtesy. (No. He’s not. But wait ’til I get there, OK?)
“The scientific method is as follows: Observe; hypothesize; test; make inferences/conclusions.”
That’s actually incorrect. There’s not one specific set of steps for “The Scientific Method.”
@@@But apparently you think there is; and it ain’t that one. And that one is, most certainly, one, if there are any at all. Trust me, human knowledge has been much advanced on precisely the above model. We’ve already explained to you, more than once, what’s wrong with yours. Not hearing what’s wrong with ours.
It is in fact a series of methods, and I’ve written a book on critical thinking, logic, and scientific methodologies.
@@@Not sure that what I’ve seen makes that one worth the shekels. Although, hey, you’re willing to say Bigfoot might exist.
“Is this not what Meldrum is in the process of doing?”
Some of it is, some of it isn’t.
@@@Now that’s SLICK, slick. Who cares if that is or isn’t what he’s doing, when we’ve already heard that it’s “incorrect,” hmmmmm?
For example, Jeff takes up several pages discussing Fahrenbach’s analysis of John Green’s data, compiled from stories and anecdotes, many of which Jeff admits are unreliable.
@@@That’s SLICK, slick. Until we have a body, what is there but stories (true, but stories nonetheless) and anecdotes, hmmmm? You discredit every sighting report and all other physical evidence based on the absence of a body. Since science is doing no heavy lifting here, the scientist operating without assistance uses what he has. The apple hitting Newton on the head was an anecdote. Fleming finding out something interesting about mold was an anecdote. Just like a Bigfoot sighting report is an anecdote. The science FOLLOWS. Let’s get our sequence straight here. (And no word on what, precisely, Jeff did with the unreliable anecdotes. Safe bet: he noted carefully what precisely it was he did with them. But then, I’m buying HIS book. So I’ll just wait, and check there.
Fahrenbach’s analysis has no scientific validity to it whatsoever, yet Meldrum treats it as valid.
@@@Undoubtedly because there isn’t a body yet. SLICK, slick! Maybe I WILL buy yer book.
Meldrum seems unable or unwilling to distinguish good science from bad; that is one hallmark of pseudoscience.
@@@Just on the basis of what I’ve read from you and Daegling, not certain that assertion has any scientific validity to it whatsoever.
I challenge anyone to explain how Fahrenbach’s analysis (heavily quoted and cited by Meldrum) is in any way scientific.
@@@Why bother? You’ll just tell us that you can’t make any assertions about the sas without a body. SLICK, slick! Or you’ll just jimmy your def of “science” on us as you’ve done so capably above.
“calling an Associate Professor of Anthropology of Idaho State University a pseudoscientist absolutely crosses your own hypocritical line of “personal attacks and name-calling.””
There you go again… Where exactly did I call Meldrum a pseudoscientist?
@@@NOWHERE! Why, I can’t see the word anywhere NEAR Meldrum! No prints on this body at all. SLICK, slick!
More words in my mouth. In my opinion, and that of others, Meldrum clearly engages in pseudoscience;
@@@Like I said, Mr. Holmes. No prints AT ALL….!
one example is given a few sentences above. You will notice that I criticize Meldrum’s work, not the man. I happen to like Jeff very much,
@@@AND WITH SUCH FRIENDS I WILL MOVE MOUNTAINS!
I just don’t like his way of mixing truth and fact with ass