Skepticism always takes the evidence fully into account.

I make the point elsewhere, and might as well here:

Concatenating P/G; this published paper, listing as only a fragment of the type trackways the one laid down by the P/G film subject; and the copious and consistent witness literature, one has more evidence for this animal than one has for much of what science considers proven. (As Meldrum himself says in this paper, citing Gigantopithecus.)

One has more than enough, in fact, to do no damage to science at all – to in fact make a significant effort to advance it – by pushing for the provisional identification of an animal awaiting formal scientific classification.

Do it, Jeff. Join forces with John Bindernagel, who seems ready to make just such an effort.

However, what those professional skeptics fail to realize is that they are also being pseudoscientific, because they don’t use the scientific method, either! That is because they are biased *against* the existence of cryptids!

Therefore, this is my case for why cryptozoology should be an actual science, and why it is certainly not an example of a “pseudoscience”, like so many people accuse it of being; If anything, the skeptics are actually being more pseudoscientific, than we are!

And, so, in the end, I, once again, have to congratulate Dr. Meldrum, for doing actual research on Bigfoot, while everybody else is too closed-minded to even bother taking a closer look at the evidence. Good job, Dr. Meldrum! !

“For this reason it is worth
pointing out that those inclined to take the probability of sasquatch’s
existence seriously are either those with direct experience of seeing or
hearing the animal, or seeing its tracks; whereas armchair skeptics have
little or no direct field experience or knowledge of how widespread the
trackway evidence is. ”

You can add to “armchair skeptics”: most scientists.

With this topic, amounts to: same thing.

We tend to be intimidated by the Expert Role that scientists play in our society. Really, though, outside of their narrow disciplines, scientists aren’t that much more qualified than the rest of us. I’ve said it many times here: I can shred like toilet paper the ‘argument’ – it’s not one – of any scientist who comes on here with a James Randi attitude. I haven’t been wrong yet. I simply know more about the topic.

One doesn’t need to be a scientist – or even a grad student – to know more about this topic than most of the scientific community does. One simply needs to be able to read reasonably sophisticated material. It helps as well to be able to think about what one has read, and to leaven it with one’s own experience.

Very inspiring!

Yes, my tongue is very firmly in my cheek.

I find it harder to believe that every hoaxer who ever donned a pair of Bigfoot shoes knew enough about bipedal morphology to include a mid-tarsal break in the fake feet, than the possibility of an undiscovered North American ape (or hominid.)

Thanks for posting! Dr. Meldrum is one of cryptozoology’s best mouthpieces for promoting a serious academic study on this topic.