The people calling for Meldrum’s tenure are scientists. The press’s attitude comes mainly – almost wholly – from the attitude of ignorant scientists like these. The press simply carries their water.

“In that article some people at his university say they’re embarrassed but he gets kudos from Jane Goodall.”

Which should be more than enough to tell skeptics: stop picking on amateurs and start wondering why some of the best scientists are backing this horse. And why they don’t have the support of their lesser lights. (And it should be emphasized that their “embarrassment” is expressed by ostracizing their colleague and calling for his job.)

“Science is not monolithic. Interdisciplinary criticism obviously is a sore-point for you – but sometimes it is appropriate and other times it is not.”

It is always inappropriate when the criticism is uninformed. If you are ignorant, don’t show it, is a good idea for scientists. As I have said, scientists knocking the sasquatch and yeti show their ignorance, and they do it quickly.

“If you want to believe that science is a confederacy against bigfoot feel free. But your own evidence says otherwise.”

Not at all sure what that means. I don’t think scientists do anything on this matter but shoot their own curiosity in the foot. All my evidence says that, with obvious exceptions, scientists are ignorant when it comes to the yeti and sasquatch.

“I gather from many of your comments that you don’t listen to MonsterTalk – and that’s fine. But I think we’ve done a better job of addressing these topics there than I can in intermittent thread posts.

“I also think your dismissal of Ben Radford and his work is a mistake. He’s one of the few skeptics willing to get out in the field and do original research on these topics. Which is what you wanted, right?”

Until the skeptical community raises its game from what I have seen – and that goes double for Ben Radford, who as I have said doesn’t grasp science well and dismisses the bulk of the evidence without a look – to engage the professional proponents on their ground, I’ll stick with the Meldrums on this topic. Evidence is on their side, and that’s everything.

My previous two posts stand unchanged.

In that article some people at his university say they’re embarrassed but he gets kudos from Jane Goodall.

Science is not monolithic. Interdisciplinary criticism obviously is a sore-point for you – but sometimes it is appropriate and other times it is not.

If you want to believe that science is a confederacy against bigfoot feel free. But your own evidence says otherwise.

I gather from many of your comments that you don’t listen to MonsterTalk – and that’s fine. But I think we’ve done a better job of addressing these topics there than I can in intermittent thread posts.

I also think your dismissal of Ben Radford and his work is a mistake. He’s one of the few skeptics willing to get out in the field and do original research on these topics. Which is what you wanted, right?

“The idea that scientists don’t want to encounter new evidence that challenges their beliefs is a myth. An easily debunked myth if you actually talk to or listen to working scientists.”

Read it, right here on this site:

Associated Press Attacks Meldrum

So much for openness in the hard sciences.

There it is, my bottom line. Refer to this and my previous post with any questions.

As I frequently have said here…

IT’S NOT SCIENTIFIC, AT ALL, TO BLAME AN ANIMAL’S NON-EXISTENCE ON THOSE SEARCHING FOR IT.

My problem with the skeptic fringe of crypto is that it engages only the amateur fringe, rather than calling the professionals to action. What you skeptics *should* be doing, if you really are skeptics, is challenging the pat societal assumption that cryptids aren’t real.

The Patterson-Gimlin film threw down the proponent gauntlet, clearly, in black and white. Over 40 years later it stands unchallenged. When you say, doctoratlantis, that there are knowledgeable people on both sides, you omit the difference: the knowledgeable proponents have made a solid case.

I have no taste for “monsters,” at all. I only dig critters. The proponents’ case is the only reason I am here.

I have said this a million times, mostly here:

1) Knowledgeable scientists, in directly relevant fields, believe either that the sasquatch and yeti are real or that the search needs to be engaged by science. Their scientific case is clear, and unchallenged.

2) No case that all the evidence amounts to a false positive has ever been made. And one won’t be. Until one is, the skeptics are without argument. Which one kind of needs in a scientific discussion.

3) NO ONE ON THE SKEPTIC FRINGE IS ADDRESSING THE SCIENCE, AT ALL. And that includes the skeptical scientists, none of whom has made an argument I can’t riddle in minutes.

Bottom line.

If you want cryptids to be real, put your money where your mouths are. Stop ridiculing amateurs, and start clearing the way for the big dogs to hunt. Because the evidence says there is something to hunt for.

Period.

That’s too safe a passage, and you know it.

It’s easy to say you’d be willing to write up findings.

Then you have to do it. Suddenly, your wager means something. Like your career.

If “The idea that scientists don’t want to encounter new evidence that challenges their beliefs is a myth,” why hasn’t a primatologist taken out a full-page ad in Nature, Science or Scientific American encouraging sasquatch research? Heck, why don’t the very editors of those august publications come right out to challenge their colleagues to take this up? If it would actually be so cool – as so many skeptical scientists say – if the sasquatch and yeti were real, why do so few working professionals put their money where their mouths are?

I hear talk. What I see very little of is walking that talk. What I see is a PHYSICIST, of all people, trying to shout down Jeff Meldrum and get his research discredited. Do you think that could happen in a world where “the idea that scientists don’t want to encounter new evidence that challenges their beliefs is a myth”?

Come on now. We both know the answer to that one.

I don’t need to see scientists drop everything to look for Bigfoot. What I do need to see is that it’s safe to even discuss it.

It’s not. When one hears all around one “this would be the scientific discovery/gold mine/take your pick of the century,” why isn’t there a freewheeling hunt for the truth, encouraged actively among full-time professionals? Why are people who simply say they saw one treated like nuts?

When the poles and Mount Everest were unconquered, there was a full-on rush to be the first there. If it were safe to talk freely about this topic, the sas and yeti would be “biological Everests.” They’re not. Why is that?

No one who wants to feed his family with a scientific career.”
==========================

Okay – that’s just wrong. I’ve talked with quite a few scientists and all of them would be happy to write up findings on anomalous animal DNA. Todd Disotell, for example. He frequently tests odd samples. Why? Because it is a zero risk game. If he doesn’t find anything – he’s risked nothing. If he does find something he risks… what? Academic acclaim? The idea that scientists don’t want to encounter new evidence that challenges their beliefs is a myth. An easily debunked myth if you actually talk to or listen to working scientists.

“But you also seem to imply that scientists aren’t doing field research in those woods right now. Have you ever read about the hair-trap projects that are used to measure bear populations throughout the forests of the Northwest? Have any of those thousands and thousands of samples produced any anomalous primate hair? And what about all the DNA testing done on scat samples – has any of that turned up primate evidence? And who is doing all that DNA testing? Scientists.”

You forgot the important question:

Who’s going to come forward and say “hey, there’s primate hair on this trap?” Or, “know what? This crap came from a large primate, not a bear!”

No one who wants to feed his family with a scientific career.

Indeed, anomalous samples have been flat thrown out after testing “inconclusive” – which means “exciting” in English, because one can’t get “bigfoot” without a type specimen.

That’s the way it is. Until scientists change it. They can.

“…However, there is a subtext to your allegation that “If science did what you say science does, there would be several full-time expeditions in the field, right now.” And that is that finding bigfoot requires field investigations by scientists. I don’t think it does, does it? Unqualified non-scientists can collect samples – or even SHOOT A BIGFOOT – if they want to. It doesn’t take a degree, just a gun.”

Well, many hunters have been in that situation – there’s no more reason to disbelieve than to believe the accounts – and as you say no one’s brought in a dead one. Many have said it was a tad close to murder for them; yet at least two hunters I’m aware of examined one they had killed. I know why one didn’t bring back evidence. No clue why the other didn’t; but he described the foot to Grover Krantz. It was precisely the structure Krantz had theorized would be necessary for a biped that size. No more reason to believe than to disbelieve that.

You also have to be out long enough to get a shot. (Or to get documentation that will be accepted as proof.) Three days won’t get you a wolverine. I suspect it won’t get you something like this either. (Unless you get lucky; and apparently – if you believe the accounts – we haven’t had enough get lucky yet.) Nobody but Patterson and Gimlin seem to have put in the required time to reliably do this; P and G just had a different kind of shot in mind. But they did get it.

The P-G film doesn’t settle anything by itself. But I’ve suggested the proper take on it. It should intrigue and challenge more scientists than it seems to. Fortunately, it did intrigue Naish; and he has the right take on it too.

I think there’s a better way to do this than to wait for an amateur spending two days outside to kill one. And there’s enough evidence to go forward with it. This is where sighting reports come in handy; the places they suggest are places I would think from my experience would be good ones. I don’t think Leakey paid much to get Jane Goodall into the field; the ‘expedition’ doesn’t have to be big. And indeed shouldn’t be; I wonder how many chimps a team of 500 would have encountered. Time and open-minded observation – and someone who knows how to collect and preserve evidence – are more important.

The leading edge of crypto *is* scientists, working with scientists; and it’s their work I’m concerned with. What needs to diminish is the hostility displayed by scientists unacquainted with the evidence (like that physicist at Idaho State who wanted Meldrum’s tenure on a pike). The operative paradigm now is that to show crypto leanings endangers one’s livelihood as a scientist. That needs to stop.

The only thing a scientist should be allowed to scoff at is scoffing.

Don’t conflate the media with science. I despise the media’s treatment of cryptozoology as much as you do – but its guileless acceptance of every claim as newsworthy is not limited to this topic. Think balloon-boy, run-away-bride, and the annual Halloween ghost stories.

There is a large body of work on the sightings. Some of them are genuine mysteries, others are mistakes, and others still are hoaxes or confabulation. If the sightings are consistent and replicable, then I agree with you that further investigation seems warranted. However, there is a subtext to your allegation that “If science did what you say science does, there would be several full-time expeditions in the field, right now.” And that is that finding bigfoot requires field investigations by scientists. I don’t think it does, does it? Unqualified non-scientists can collect samples – or even SHOOT A BIGFOOT – if they want to. It doesn’t take a degree, just a gun.

But you also seem to imply that scientists aren’t doing field research in those woods right now. Have you ever read about the hair-trap projects that are used to measure bear populations throughout the forests of the Northwest? Have any of those thousands and thousands of samples produced any anomalous primate hair? And what about all the DNA testing done on scat samples – has any of that turned up primate evidence? And who is doing all that DNA testing? Scientists.

Science isn’t the enemy of cryptozoology. As long as there are mysteries, science is the best thing going for figuring out what is real and what isn’t – so long as what evidence is found is testable.

I don’t want to debate the PG film. There are people who find it compelling evidence of an anomalous primate, and people who see a man in a suit. There are very qualified people on both sides of the argument – and the conclusion I have drawn is that barring further evidence it is impossible to know precisely what the film shows. So that film can’t settle the matter.

If somebody ever gets around to killing one of these beasties or finds a corpse – well I’ll be cracking open a bottle of champagne which is sitting cold in my fridge right now. I’m a skeptic not a denier.

But I think you’re in a strange position when you’re complaining that science isn’t giving its endorsement to cryptozoology – yet dismissing science as…dismissive? Cryptozoology needs to work with science and scientists or get used to that “pseudoscience” moniker.

See, the fringes of crypto – both skeptic and proponent –aren’t scientists. They don’t think scientifically. So they have a tendency to just go at each other, to pick on what is easy to pick on. The non-scientific skeptics pick on the Georgia Boys, Ray Wallace, Youtube videos, and all this other stuff that true cryptos know is fringe quackery. Then come the true believers on the proponent side – you must believe me! They’re human! They live in tribes! They’re shape-shifting and coming down on flying saucers! – which of course loads the skeptics’ guns quite nicely.

Meanwhile, Jeff Meldrum, the BFRO, the TBRC, John Bindernagel, John Mionczynski, et al are just quietly collecting evidence, noting correlations, accumulating reports, and going about their hard-science business. The skeptics don’t have their guns loaded sufficiently for big game, and they seem to know it. So they never engage these guys, at all. The questions I always ask skeptics:

(1) if all of this is such obvious fakery, why do you even bother? You don’t see me going around wasting my time on folks I know aren’t worth it;

(2) why don’t you ever directly engage the scientists, in highly relevant fields, who disagree with you?

Why do you keep coming at me with Ben Radford, one of those hammers who thinks every problem is a nail, and has a psychology degree that he badly misuses every time I read him, but since he has a psych degree, that’s the one he thinks is needed here? We’ve put so many holes in his flag here that it’s more hole than flag, but he keeps coming back with the same old tired stuff. Why does Daegling, an alleged scientist in an allegedly relevant field, pick on his pet peeves and areas of ignorance, when what he was asked, plainly, to do was to review a book that I have read, and can tell you he didn’t have to read to write what he wrote?

Huh?

I have put these questions to skeptics numerous times – and I’m not alone – and have never gotten answers. Why?

In your last post, you talk about the “interesting dichotomy between the amateur field investigator and the professional research scientist.” The way that’s set up, you don’t seem to acknowledge that most skeptics are the former, and a number of the latter are cryptid advocates. Who are so convinced that they have taken it up pro bono. I’m going with the pros over the amateurs every time; and some hard-hitting pros are saying the sasquatch is real. The skeptics aren’t contesting them at all; if this were a softball game, the murder rule would have been invoked years ago.

You know – you would have to know, and shame on him so would Naish – who’s zealously guarding their information. It’s the quick-buck quacks, the Georgia Boys, the Johor Jokers. That’s who. “Step this way and see the real th…wait, gotta pay me first!” Those guys. The ones up there on Mount Why Bother with Ray Wallace. Why waste your time? Meldrum has a book, right there. The TBRC and BFRO websites have provided you with reading material for weeks, if not months. Don’t summarize them with the “eyewitness testimony is bad evidence” canard or I’ll just have to laugh. Eyewitness testimony has reeled in more than enough new species to put that one to bed.

An actual review of what Meldrum actually wrote – a direct confrontation with Meldrum’s science, rather than a he’s-gone-to-the-dark-side dismissal – would do. Start there, and you might make my work a little harder than it, frankly, is. If you think this is such an interesting topic, you might, you know, try to do something to, you know, make it, well, interesting.

Which it is, as exciting as anything going on in science. As long as one tunes out the skeptics, that is.

The reason that cryptozoology is so largely amateur: If science isn’t met with science, it doesn’t pay well.