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.

If the article seems choppy, that’s because it is. The entire review (available in the current issue of the magazine) was composed of four separate sections, each written by a different person within their expertise. It was never meant to be cut up into separate parts. Each contributor only had a limited amount of space to cover a lot of material, and the review was already about twice as long as usual.

Um, yeah. This happens all the time with Ben.

I’m starting to develop a theory about all this. Because he’s from all I’ve read too smart to actually be missing our points so execrably badly - and trust me you express yourself as clearly as anyone on this board - I think he was once a rabid True Bigfoot Believer, and he got so tired of being constantly disappointed that he’s now trying the exact opposite tack - ultra-negative wishful thinking.

I think he envies those of us who just keep an open mind, think the subject’s cool, critter or not, and just want to know more about it. He’s too emotionally invested to be that way about it.

Just a theory. But I’ve seen behavior that could be explained this way before.

And am I the only one who notices that according to Ben the only relevant discipline in sas research is cognitive psychology?

Every time I post something you manage to completely miss either the point of the argument (quite possibly my fault for not writing clearly enough- although no-one else seems to have quite the same problem understanding what I am saying), or to miss whole sentences that I have written (which I can only attribute to the fact that you are terribly busy and necessarily skim over what is written here..)

In response to my earlier post you write:

“he is correct that Meldrum is far from the only scientist who does it [selectively uses data], but that’s no excuse, in fact it’s a logical fallacy called “tu quoque” (roughly, “you’re another!”)”.

My raising of the point about selective use of data in the practice of science was followed specifically by the phrase;
“That is no defense of Meldrum”.

Therefore, as I was not using this point to defend or excuse Meldrum, there was clearly no logical fallacy (if meldrum himself had raised that argument then it might aplly, but he didn’t- I did).

In response to my wider point about the fact that you seem sometimes to judge BF research against a pure (and never actually attained) ideal of the scientific method, you wrote;

“it is at its heart the same fallacy. He seems to be saying that it’s okay that a lot of the “science” in BF research is biased or bogus, because science is hard to do, and there are few wholly perfect studies. But it’s NOT okay; in fact, it has failed. All the research so far on Bigfoot has failed to provide concrete evidence. I suggest the solution is better science, not accepting a lower standard!”.

Nowhere did I write (or even suggest) that flawed science was acceptable. If I suggested anything it was that by your own idealized criteria a great deal of what you undoubtedly consider legitimate scientific reasearch would fall down, and that you fail to acknowledge that fact. I guess it was an implicit accusation of double-standards, but in no way was it a call for lower standards.

And, incidentally, I somewhat regret the vehemence of my earlier comment about the writing quality of the article- I think I went a bit over the top. However, I still maintain it really could have done with being given to an editor; it has no discernable overall structure or flow, and several points seem to be raised to no particular end. (This is now offered by way of friendly and constructive- if subjective- criticism, rather than as the slightly low and nasty blow it might seem to have been originally).

I’m pleased that ThingintheWoods acknowledges this fact. And he is correct that Meldrum is far from the only scientist who does it, but that’s no excuse, in fact it’s a logical fallacy called “tu quoque” (roughly, “you’re another!”) Just because one person does something wrong or makes an error does not mean it’s okay for others to do the same. Jeff holds himself up as the most scientific BF researcher, and he should do his best to actually be that!

“it seems to me that Radford et al have rather a habit of criticising BF researchers against a pure ideal of how science should be done, without acknowledging that really no science as actually carried out manages to live up to that pure ideal)”

This is an interesting criticism, but it is at its heart the same fallacy. He seems to be saying that it’s okay that a lot of the “science” in BF research is biased or bogus, because science is hard to do, and there are few wholly perfect studies. But it’s NOT okay; in fact, it has failed. All the research so far on Bigfoot has failed to provide concrete evidence. I suggest the solution is better science, not accepting a lower standard!

I can’t promise that this is as it is published in Skeptical Inquirer. I don’t have the issue, and it’s not available on their website.

On April 24th, Ben Radford emailed me, informing me of the review, and that if I was interested in posting it for Cryptomundo, he would have it emailed to me.

Two days later, I received a pdf file in an email from an employee of the Center for Inquiry per Ben’s request of the four pages from the magazine that comprise the review.

I typed it up, as is, and posted it here on Cryptomundo. I assume that the pages they sent me are as they were published in the magazine.

One of the glaring weaknesses of the scoftic - I really can’t bring myself to call it skeptic, and may never - position is the unseemly readiness to drop data from the database at the drop of a hat. CONVICTED HOAXER? Don’t even label it; drop it, it can’t be real. You know, The Boy Who Cried Wolf did eventually encounter a wolf.

As to science: What Ben and Den seem to be practicing - and what they seem to think is the only science anyone ever practices - is what I call Fourth Grade Science Fair Science. You mix known ingredients A and B and you get known reaction C. Um, hey, good there, Junior! Write it up. But, er, what happens when an unknown ingredient enters the picture? Hmmmm? Ben and Den say, ignore it, it can’t be real. Twist our knowledge of human nature to explain it away. Even clearly seen critters on film become no more than moving Rorschach tests. Say that everybody is, basically, hallucinating and can’t be trusted, and that when you’re in the woods and see a woodchuck your initial reaction will be: SASQUATCH!?!?!?! I was in the backcountry yesterday, attentive as I always am lately to the potential shadows of eight-foot apes among the trees, when I heard a titanic bouldery racket around the bend of the stream. My instant reaction: BEAR? Many many of them where I was. Sas did enter my mind. Wouldn’t it be cool. Don’t hold yer breath there, sailor. (The culprit? Three riders on horseback.)

It’s now only mildly annoying to watch such as Ben and Den do the same cherrypicking and exclusion of alternative explanations of which they accuse sasquatch researchers. But it’s far less annoying now that I realize I’m just better informed than they are.

If its the first, then it is terribly written (whatever you might think of position it argues for)- i certainly won’t bother subscribing to the SI. It reads like it was cobbled together for some high-school magazine (or like it’s someone’s off-the-top-of-my-head ramble on a message board…).

Still, it is hard to argue with the (one) substantive point made- that Meldrum is selective in his approach to the data. That is a problem.

(But then again, show me a scientist who isn’t selective. They are pretty rare. I can think of few works in my field in which people don’t have at least some tendency to cherrypick those bits of data that support their theory, and forget to mention- or at least downplay- those inconvenient bits that contradict it in some way.

That is no defense of Meldrum- and maybe he’s worse at it than others- but it seems to me that Radford et al have rather a habit of criticising BF researchers against a pure ideal of how science should be done, without acknowledging that really no science as actually carried out manages to live up to that pure ideal).

As regards evidence claimed by known hoaxers, well, I’ve argued before that we should put all claimed evidence out there and let it stand or fall on its merits, so I can’t rightly say we should ignore such data.

However, I agree with mystery_man that we have every reason to be extremely wary of it. So let’s file it, but let’s file it with a big red stamp on it that says ‘CAUTION- CONVICTED HOAXER’.