From personal experience of having showed him face to face, an 8 megapixel picture of what I would describe as the world’s closest paranormal eyeshine photo, his actions at the time were as follows. He was seated at the same table as Ray Crowe and myself. He pulled out his pocket magnifying glass and examined the 16″x20″ photograph for presumably photoshopping type lines and patterns, and also examined the enlargement of the two sets of two apparent eyes from presumably two paranormal wood gnomes. He then stated, “that’s not photoshopped, that’s something!”

Several months later when this subject came up on the AIBR forum, just before most discussion completely died there, Mr. Crowley stated that he would never make such a statement about a photograph from someone he did not know, or close to that effect. Furthermore, he then proceeded to get myself permanently kicked off of that forum for introducing a subject that did not clearly reinforce the existence of a 24/7 flesh and blood Bigfoot.

So I have fond memories of Mr. Matt Crowley and his apparent ability to make multiple contradictory statements. Contradictory statements is how attorneys like to prove that a witness is committing perjury. Once a witnesses testimony is considered perjurous, that testimony is thrown out entirely, and the witness prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Nuff said.

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.

It’s a hair inferiority complex. Got to be.

But the one experiment seemed to me to get us a whole lot further than any amount (say a couple of decades) of abstract debate.

And, I suspect it was the kind of thing that Ben Radford might read, and actually find to be a positive instance of good, useful science. And that would be nice.

I have just this minute read in the technology section of todays Guardian newspaper about scientists using LIDAR (light detection and range) laser scanners to make perfect 3D digital iamges of dinosaur tracks (in Spain). Apparently, this technique has been used also to study preserved early native american human footprints in mexico, and is being developed for use by police forensics.

Professor Bennett from university of bournemouth (UK) says, “A footprint is essentially a 3-D object and if you treat it in only two dimensions then you are throwing away huge amounts of information. 3-D scans are telling you a huge amount about locomotion and the way in which a dinosaur or a human is moving”.

Dr Manning from Manchester university (UK), says “This is cold hard science, recorded in glorious 3-D”.

Why are we still messing about with plaster casts, and all their inherent problems. Move with the times people…

(ok, so it probably costs a bit)

It’s refreshing to read a skeptic who sounds, well, like a skeptic.

My reservations about the “review” aside, I consider you to have made a considerable contribution to sas research. I tend to forgive proponents like Meldrum and Krantz and Jimmy Chilcutt their occasional jumping to victorious conclusions. After dealing with the brickbats of scoftics and ignoramuses, one does, I am sure, feel the occasional urge to do a sack dance on their heads. It would appear that “dermal ridges” might have been a bit of a premature sack dance. It does seem to be odd, retro-reflecting on this, to consider such fine features as necessarily coming from the foot of the subject. In fact, hasn’t the purpose of casting always been to preserve the OUTLINE, not the fine dermal structure that is going to be imperfectly at best translated into the substrate by the animal?

I have always felt that the significance of tracks, as with sightings, is in their sheer volume, the very unlikely locations and length (for a hoax) of so many of them, and their tendency to an average or center line, with the kind of range and outliers one would expect from a diverse species on whom selective pressures aren’t really that great.

The significance of your work, I hope, is that proponents won’t keep grasping at little straws like this. There really doesn’t appear any need.

So thanks.