The original thought behind this book was as a companion piece for the DVD of the same name. If Dr. Meldrum was going to do a book on just his work I think it would have been to a much greater depth and not have covered as many topics as did the TV special for Discovery. As it is I think it is fine for its intended purpose, the book that is.

Of course Ben did mention that Jeff left out “a thorough and devastating analysis by Anton Wroblewski…” (). I was not aware of this analysis. I had heard that he was planning on publishing something but haven’t seen anything since. All I know is that the man declined to go on national TV being interviewed on his interpretation of the Skookum Cast. Ben did fail to mention that Jeff also did not include all the material that Owen Caddy produced from first hand experience with the original cast and not just an art piece depicting it. Remember that this was planned as a companion piece and that material wasn’t existing then.

Anton, if people would care to look for his postings on Bigfoot Forums, claimed that the cast was made undoubtedly by an elk. He failed to produce any original information proving this assertion except for some pictures of elk that he obtained from the internet. Apparently he has not seen an elk in the flesh. Anton is a scientist who looks at animal tracings and determines things from them, what I don’t really know since most of his work as really been about worms and he currently works in the oil industry.

He was offered an all-expense paid trip to the Seattle area to view the original cast in person and interview myself but declined stating he had seen enough with the art piece shown at a Texas museum recently. Art really is in the eye of the beholder.

What were you discussing with Dr Meldrum on your visit - care to let us know?

I did not intend to suggest that Jeff purposefully left out Anton’s work (though as an author I know that late material can often be included if the author insists….).

I think what happened was that there were three or four examples of material that were omitted. I didn’t have the space to list each one and try to decide whether it was intentionally left out or not; it wasn’t relevant, so I phrased it such that Jeff was given the benefit of the doubt in all cases. If I was trying to make Jeff look bad (and I had the space), I could have singled out the cases where I know for a fact he could have included skeptical arguments and evidence but chose not to.

Kathy, do you really believe that Jeff would have (or will) do a fair and balanced evaluation of Anton’s work?

Having said that, if you have any influence on Anton, I wish you would encourage him to complete the work he started. I don’t know why DWA states that the case for the Skookum Cast being an elk “got laughed out of courts years before he (Anton) ever made the case.” Am I missing something? I don’t think the case is closed on this cast being from either an elk or an unknown primate. More work is needed and it should be encouraged.

Right on. I have neatly encapsulated your post in a previous blog as follows:

All science is anecdotes, backed by advanced degrees.

Anyone who believes otherwise is treating science as a religion, not a tool. As a matter of fact, I challenge anyone to find anything, in any scientific text, that makes a convincing case otherwise.

It’s the inability to understand this that sticks science in the mud, which is where it is on the question of the sasquatch.

There’s so much to look at, I’ll just note a few obvious comments:

1) “ALL evidence is ultimately anecdotal.” Utterly ridiculous, and shows that alanborky’s understanding of science (and reality) is shaky at best. Everything is anecdote and story? Whatever.

2) “Strange comment by Mr Radford that Dr Meldrum “is reduced to being an armchair analyst”. In the version of the book being reviewed that I read Dr Meldrum goes out into the field looked at BF tracks…bit odd that!” Actually, I was referring to Jeff’s comments on the P/G film.

3) “Mr. Radford’s apparent arrogant dismissal”
I’m really not sure what this refers to… what exactly was I arrogantly “dismissing?” I did not “dismiss” anything, I carefully considered my comments and gave valid reasons for them.

“To tell the truth, although this review is certainly critical, I do not see anything particularly outright dismissive about it and tend to think it takes a relatively rational approach. All arguments that are brought up are backed up with fairly sensible reasons why Mr. Radford thinks this way”

Thank you.

4) I would love to find evidence of a Bigfoot, and I one day hope to.

5) I am puzzled by the criticism that I am seen as dismissive, arrogant, and condescending. I actually try very hard not to be condesceding. I will admit that I used one phrase (about Jeff consulting a mechanic for a toothache) which might be seen as nasty, but it was meant as a good-hearted jibe, and I don’t think he’d take offense to it. I like Jeff Meldrum and consider him a friend; it wasn’t meant in a condescending way.

6) Judy Green criticizes me for not mentioning Chris Murphy’s book, but of course I wasn’t reviewing Murphy’s book.

7) Kathy writes, “One thing I would like to point out is the redherring presented by Radford that Meldrum purposefully did not address Anton’s analysis of the Skookum Cast in his book. As I have noted elsewhere, Anton didn’t begin to present his case until July, 2006″ …Ceroill then picks it up with, “Kathy, wouldn’t that seem to indicate that Radford did incomplete research?”

Actually, a closer reading shows both of them are in error. This was not a red herring, in fact in my review I clearly wrote “Whether intentional or the result of the book’s production deadlines…” so I did not in fact write that Jeff purposefully left out Anton’s analysis.

And this phrase - “complete with a photograph showing an elk in just such a position” - REALLY worked my laugh lines. I’m supposed to think that a photograph of an elk kneeling cinches this supposed “analysis?” Over the real analysis performed by real specialists in actually relevant fields, up close and personal with the cast?

Such is the audience of the Skeptical Inquirer - indoorsmen who have been ticked off ever since their classmates told them the Easter Bunny wasn’t real. People who can be shown a photograph that says, look, elk KNEEL, bet you didn’t know that - and make the vast, Space-Shuttle-engine-assisted jump to “the Skookum Cast is not a sasquatch.”

At least they provide comic relief.