The review is what is biased; it is clearly delivered by someone who doesn’t understand how science operates. Meldrum has been led to where he is by evidence. The evidence is bolstered by sound, intelligent speculation. The reviewer expects the scoffers to be given something like equal time. Why? They have delivered not a scrap of evidence to back their position; and when you are countered by a scientist, presenting evidence, you must do the same. It reflects badly on mainstream science that Ray Wallace even gets a mention in this book; it is only the public’s ignorance – including what seems like the vast majority of scientists – that allows guys like Wallace the time of day in this discussion.

To call a scientist biased when he has been led to an unpopular position by his review of the evidence is ignorance, pure and simple. Meldrum wrote this book not because he wants to get rich or find out about insane asylums firsthand. He wrote this book because he did what any responsible scientist should do before pronouncing an opinion: his homework. And here is his opinion.

Ignorant people bring an insurmountable bias. And this review was written by one. That’s not intended to be nasty, or bitter. It’s just the truth, based, as the truth must be, on evidence.

Is the book better than the vid? Is it the same old scenario that the book is always better than the movie?

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

We read “bias” as having a negative connotation — but that is a relatively recent association. I respect Dr. Meldrum and his work, but he does have, as I myself do, a bias from which he writes. Note that the reviewer never questions, or implies question of, Dr. Meldrum’s methods or integrity.

Not having yet read the book, I cannot speak to the comment about Dr. Meldrum lauding researchers whose findings support his bias (used in the original sense of the word), nor can I speak to its converse about Dr. Meldrum sneering derisively at those who declare it to be a hoax.

The reviewer has also done a good job of considering the various audiences that might encounter this book and has also correctly anticipated their responses to it.

The reviewer’s sole mistake is in the desire to be glib and clever at the end. Those last two sentences actually sabotage his/her objectivity, which is unfortunate. Of course, logically (somehow this has been the mot du jour), physical evidence cannot be circumstantial (in the cases we’re referring to, anyway), so the whole thing falls apart there. And that’s unfortunate. And yes, I know many will respond saying that it is those two final lines that will have great impact on the reader, but an intelligent reader will be able to read between the lines. Plus, the reviewer him/her-self does not suggest that the evidence ITSELF is circumstantial, but that it CAN be lumped into that category — as many skeptics and naysayers most certainly will do. He/she JUST saves his/her case.

Just my two cents.

This reviewer was more than just a little biased. He admitted as much when he mentioned that “if you’re convinced the big guy only exists in the minds of kooks, you’ll probably get worked into a lather over the author’s bias toward the subject.” Isn’t that what 80% of the guy’s review was about?

The reviewer made sure to mention that Meldrum’s analysis of the subject is skewed because of the experience that Meldrum had early on. So Meldrum and others are not supposed to consider any evidence that supports the existence of an unknown species? Shouldn’t such experiences play a part in the overall experiment to determine its existence? Or, are Meldrum and others merely to discard all affirmative experiences for non-affirming ones?

Why is it such a pervasive attitude among skeptics that once someone claims to have seen a bigfoot or something related to it that all their work and everything they say from that point on is to be pushed aside as not objective or just outright dismissed?

It’s as if they suddenly crossed over to the “dark side.”

God, am I so sick of people like this reviewer; people like Hackworth at ISU; people like Ben Radford; people like David Daegling; people who have been self-appointed with all the secrets and knowledge of the universe.

It sounds as if we should all begin praying to these people. They are the saviors who will save us from our own ignorance.

All the more reason to buy Jeff’s book…and see for one’s self….JMHO

seeing is believing…No Bucks…No bigfoot…

ole bub and the dawgs