34 Responses to “Meldrum Tapdances”

1. MBFH responds: March 8th, 2007 at 8:47 am

   Strange. The postie delivered my copy of Jeff Meldrum’s “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science” this morning…

2. MBFH responds: March 8th, 2007 at 9:33 am

   Has anyone read TAPS - is it to be recommended? Does it compare favourably to the Fortean Times for example?

   Thanks

3. mystery_man responds: March 8th, 2007 at 10:28 am

   I’ve been interested in this mag for quite some time now but I’ve never read a copy of it. Can anyone tell me how it is?

4. DWA responds: March 8th, 2007 at 10:44 am

   When I saw the headline I thought, here’s Ben Radford again.

   Is this Radford bait?
   There’s still this unsettling lumping of crypto with paranormal phenomena. Whatever the provenance and explanation of the latter, they’re NOT cryptozoology. And whether TAPS makes the separation clear or not, many mainstream scientists don’t even see the separation.

   I know, I know. But just pointing that out.

5. Loren Coleman responds: March 8th, 2007 at 10:59 am

   This sounds like we all should modify our behaviors based on what “mainstream scientists” think?

   Come on.

   Is anyone anti-Meldrum now, just because he appears in a Fortean magazine?

   What logic is there to such reactions?

6. DWA responds: March 8th, 2007 at 11:05 am

   “This sounds like we all should modify our behaviors based on what “mainstream scientists” think?”

   Nope, just sounds like what I wrote. Although when the questions come up why crypto isn’t a branch of mainstream zoology, behaviors could possibly factor in.

   “Is anyone anti-Meldrum now, just because he appears in a Fortean magazine?”

   Nope, everybody asking for Meldrum’s tenure on a stick just notes where Bigfoot appears.

   Like it or not, that’s the world we live in.

7. squatchwatcher responds: March 8th, 2007 at 1:01 pm

   Haven’t you heard the old saying there’s no such thing as bad press? Sure mainstream science probably won’t take bigfoot serious if an article occures in a mag like these, but have they ever taken bigfoot serious? It takes dedicated people like Dr. Meldrum and Mr. Coleman to present the evidence to the people to learn the truth. It seems to me that mainstream science has never openly admitted to believing in unknown species, but when one is discovered who is the first in line to study it? No matter how much ranting and raving we believers do it’s not going to change the majorities mind about things, so why not enjoy the fact that we have always believed one way or another. Either in witnessing one of these creatures or by actually studying the evidence laid before us and coming to a conclusion that can only point to one answer, they exist. So instead of worrying about what type of medium an interview appears in why not read it for yourself and learn all you can from someone like Dr. Meldrum. By the way, Dr. Meldrums book “Legend meets science” is an excellant read, one of the best books out there! I own the DVD to and the book has a ton more information. If you are a skeptic about bigfoot read this book it will change your mind!

8. Greg(Not that Greg) responds: March 8th, 2007 at 2:41 pm

   “It seems to me that mainstream science has never openly admitted to believing in unknown species..”

   Actually “mainstream science” isn’t about “believing” in anything without evidence.

   I am not aware that mainstream science has a problem with any number of yet-to-be-discovered species; what they have a problem with, is concluding a species exists, when there is no verifiable evidence to support such a claim.

9. DWA responds: March 8th, 2007 at 3:31 pm

   Thanks (Not that Greg).

   My personal contributions to cryptozoology, if I can get where I’m going:

   1. Forcing the scofftics and denialists to confront the ocean of evidence for the sasquatch (my personal Most Likely Cryptid), and then try to continue to assert, with straight faces, their to-all-appearances preposterous thesis that it’s all either misidentification or fake.

   2. Expunging the phrase “believe in” from cryptozoology. One “believes in” things for which there is no evidence. Yes, there are many who “believe in” the sas, in total ignorance of the ocean of evidence. And many who “believe in” its nonexistence, out of the same ignorance. Then there are those who insist on, and base their opinions on, evidence. A cryptozoologist must be in the latter camp.

   3. Discovering the sas (or living to see it).

   That said.

   Mainstream science’s problem is ignorance of the ocean of evidence. By “ocean” I mean

   (1) far more than exists for many species confirmed by science to exist and

   (2) far more than enough for science to commit resources to a serious search, provided they can be found/freed up.

   And that said: You just hope that there are enough scientists out there who can ignore that cover and read the Meldrum article with an open mind.

10. squatchwatcher responds: March 8th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    There seems to be some confusion with my last statement. What I meant by saying “believe, or believing” in a species was acknowledging such a species does in fact exist. I understand where DWA and Greg are coming from. I personally do not “believe”, in your sense of the word, but I have an idea to which the evidence I have read or studied points to acknowledging an unknown primate living on the north american continent. Another point I was trying to make was that mainstream sciences do not “believe”, therefore, they will probably never study the ever growing pile of evidence on the sasquatch. This is just my own opinion on mainstream science.

11. squatchwatcher responds: March 8th, 2007 at 4:38 pm

    I’m sorry but I have to rant again. Another point I was trying to make was, to me, it shouldn’t matter if mainstream sciences accept in the fact that sasquatch is indeed a living species of primate. The only thing that should matter is that you, and others like you, do in fact know that there is an unknown primate living in the world. Use the fact that you are not “ignorant” to the evidence of sasquatch to study and perhaps even help bring sasquatch into the realm of mainstream science, so, as Dr. Fahrenbach so eliquently put it, we can rub their noses in it.

12. DWA responds: March 8th, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    squatchwatcher:

    As you say in your first post, so I say in mine: mainstream science doesn’t “believe.” In fact when it comes to the sasquatch, most mainstream scientists seem to be True Believers in Nonexistence - a position about as rational as believing in the Tooth Fairy.

    And with regard to your second post: I don’t know about the existence of this primate. I consider myself a skeptic - which simply means that I require conclusive evidence, i.e. proof, before I totally accept the existence of the animal. This is quite different from the folks you will hear me label “scofftics,” “denialists” or “True Believers in Nonexistence.’” Those folks in my opinion don’t deserve to be called skeptics, and it’s one of the most unfortunate things in this field that they get away with it.

    The evidence I have seen, however - if it can be taken at face value - at least leads me to conclude that the sasquatch is worth a concerted effort by science to confirm its existence.

    As to Dr. Fahrenbach’s desire, I can totally understand rubbing scofftics’ noses in it. But let’s not paint mainstream science with too broad a brush. We’ll need the more open-minded among them, I think, to help with the confirmation of the animal.

    And after all, Meldrum and Krantz (and Fahrenbach) and Swindler and Bindernagel are mainstream scientists - with an unconventional conviction.

13. Loren Coleman responds: March 8th, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    You all might like to look again at some of the quotations in Craig’s previous blog about “belief” and “believers.”

14. DWA responds: March 8th, 2007 at 6:45 pm

    Thanks, Loren.

    I grabbed a post excerpt from that thread:

    “I look at Bigfoot the same way I look at UFOs: UFO “believers” or “knowers” never change their thinking, regardless of the evidence. A light in the sky becomes a craft, becomes an alien spaceship. When shown to be a flare, the believer attacks the explanation. Nothing will get them to change their minds. Their “knowing” interferes with logic.”

    I see the same thing with the evidence for Bigfoot: fuzzy videos and pictures are automatically regarded as “real” with the onus on the skeptic to disprove it. And if skeptical explanations are given, they are ridiculed just as often as “believers” are ridiculed by skeptics. It is a two-way road.”

    This poster, like most who dignify their position with the term “skeptic,” writes from pretty much utter ignorance of the evidence.

    Not sure how many times I have to say this. The P/G film is not fuzzy. If that were a skunk or a deer, I’d know what kind; if that were one of my relatives, I’d know which one. Fuzzy that film ain’t.

    When someone gives me a skeptical explanation (so called) that makes an ounce of sense, I’ll listen. This the denialists and scofftics (hereinafter referred to as DS) have never yet done, on any aspect of the evidence. As opposed to the position of proponents, which is carefully crafted on evidence, the DS position is fundamentally based in illogic and wishful thinking.

    1. It should only take a second to recognize that the position that the P/G film isn’t an unknown biped is fundamentally irrational. It has never been backed with a shred of evidence that has withstood scrutiny. People going for their 15 minutes of fame have never been able to give a reasonable soupcon of evidence for one jot of their claims. The EASIEST thing they have to explain is how the most sophisticated costume of the 1960s - one that many in the field of costumes and special effects don’t think could be done today, much less in 1967 - got made. Each such “explanation” has been laughable. And it gets tougher from there.

    2. DSs don’t read sighting reports. If they say they do, they are covering up illiteracy. If they really have, they need to put forward a plausible scenario how all these people are seeing an animal a composite sketch of which would lead all of them to say: that’s what I saw. This is what’s happening. Almost every physical and behavioral feature of the sasquatch - many of which are at odds with the mass media perception of the animal - is corroborated over and over again, in reports spanning thousands of miles, the entire demographic spectrum, and decades, even centuries, of time. The information - rendered by people who didn’t compare notes; who aren’t biologists, for the most part; and most of whom had heard little or nothing of the animal, and did not believe it existed, before their encounters - is uncannily consistent, such that some biologists say we already have a good head start on the biology of the species.

    3. The belief that most trackways are fake - and remember, THEY ALL HAVE TO BE FAKE for the animal to be fake - is, if anything, even more irrational than the dismissal of the P/G film. No one has suggested a rational motive other than one of the more peculiar mass cases of mental disturbance on record. (And no one has suggested what would almost have to be an organized deception that would make the D-day runup look like a church bazaar.) And once again, no one has come up with a plausible scenario. Oh. I just said that.

    4. I can’t even get started on the irrational idea that people are misidentifying known animals - other than to say: no, they’re not.

    Unfortunately, too many proponents - and I see this over and over again - have no conception how strong their case is, and how compared to that case the DS case is a wet Kleenex with pretty much nothing behind it.

    Once again, to clarify:

    1. Skeptics regard the lame proposition that everything sasquatch is a fake with the disdain it deserves, barring someone’s showing how that really was done.

    2. True Believers click their heels together three times and say it’s not real, it’s not real, it’s not real.

    Right. So let’s start framing this argument in the proper terms. Shame on calls-itself science. It’s AWOL on this issue.

15. squatchwatcher responds: March 8th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

    It seems as though DWA is trying to persuade me into taking his side when it comes to the ideas of accepting the evidence of sasquatch. I fully understand where you are coming from, but I, myself, do accept the mounting evidence towards the existence of an unknown hominid in parts of the world. As someone else has pointed out, “it doesn’t matter what your neighbor believes in, he doesn’t pay your bills”. I tend to lean more towards this philosophy. Believer or skeptic, as long as the pursuit for the truth is followed with open-mindness and honesty with oneself, and all of the evidence, to be able to journey towards an answer to the many questions to this subject is all that should be important, not someones opinion towards someone else’s opinions.

16. DWA responds: March 8th, 2007 at 6:50 pm

    Oh. And this sentence, from the same poster on the thread Loren links to:

    “But without any actual, indisputable evidence (i.e. a body, etc) it’s not up to skeptics to do anything. It’s up to the ‘knowers.’”

    Wrong. As I have pointed out, the call-themselves skeptics (proper term, as I have noted, denialists/scofftics or DS) have to explain a preposterous thesis.

    They haven’t even begun to do that. And their feet need to be held to the fire until they do. THIS could be what finally gets mainstream science off its [thesis] on the sasquatch. Because that thesis is just not something a scientist can buy.

17. DWA responds: March 8th, 2007 at 6:56 pm

    squatchwatcher: not trying to persuade, just inform.

    It boggles my mind how little of what I am saying I have ever heard from a proponent of the sasquatch. I’ve heard it from Krantz. I’ve heard it from Green. I’ve heard snippets of it from others.

    But I just don’t think there’s any excuse for Bigfooters to come off sounding as lame as they frequently do in debate on this topic. They need to turn the tables and do some roasting, because the evidence as it stands is very much on their side.

    If the Skeptical Inquirer is the best the DS can do on this topic…well, that is lame. And eminently crushable by the people with the evidence.

    Maybe this is all fake. And maybe someone will prove it. But not without a kick in the rear. Which proponents have the ammo to provide, big time.

    It’s all about the truth. Who wants it?

18. DWA responds: March 8th, 2007 at 10:21 pm

    Speaking of the Skeptical Inquirer: because some intelligent dissection of the opposition is required in this discussion, check this out: The Pseudo-Skeptic Mind - Part I

    Keep that link for handy reference. Next time Ben Radford checks in, see if it doesn’t sound more than a bit like him.

19. MBFH responds: March 9th, 2007 at 9:22 am

    DWA,

    ’scofftics’? - is this a name given to people who scoff? Never heard it before.

    I tend think you’re right. I’m currently up to Chapter 4 in Jeff Meldrum’s book. It’s very good. Looking at the background, myth and legend, hoaxes, before getting to the evidence. Then the evidence is going to be looked at scientifically. This is a serios book and with the other weight of evidence that serious researches are pulling together and looking at objectively it should be time to turn the tables. Another millionaire oil tycoon would be handy to fund it!

    I take what you mean about the cover of Dr Meldrum’s book as well. Last night reading it I came across a passage where he was saying that the perception of sasquatch wasn’t helped by portrayal in media and film. Why the flip did you put that cover on the book then! Other than that, it’s a worthy read and if anyone who reads this site hasn’t got it they should.

20. MBFH responds: March 9th, 2007 at 9:23 am

    In my opnion!

21. DWA responds: March 9th, 2007 at 9:36 am

    MBFH:

    My cover comment actually referred to the TAPS magazine cover above.

    But yep, I did feel exactly the same way about the cover of Meldrum’s book, which seems to cater to the aboriginal Sinister Big Ape archetype, one that early researchers looking for the gorilla had to wade through as well. (One native story about the gorilla was that it specialized in killing women by squeezing them.) Of course, at least some of those researchers got caught up in it as well….and we wound up with King Kong. Somebody taking Meldrum’s approach had many better images to choose from…and I think images that could not only have cleaved more to what people are seeing, but that could have sold more copies as well by showing what the animal might actually look like. Sounds like a scientist taking bad editorial advice to me.
    I saw scofftic for the first time on another website. Liked it. But in my post above yours, I found “pseudo-skeptic”, which might actually be better, as we’ve been brainwashed into using the term “skeptic” for people who really aren’t, and who have a bad habit of labeling good science as pseudo-science.

22. mystery_man responds: March 9th, 2007 at 10:40 am

    Ah man, looks like I missed out on this rather interesting discussion! In my opinion, skepticism is a very healthy thing to have in this field. It requires that the evidence provided be of a good standard and that people really think things through from both sides of the equation before making bold claims. I am an open minded skeptic myself and that is the key word here, open minded. If a skeptic is on a mission to merely cherry pick evidence to debunk Bigfoot, then I feel he isn’t really a skeptic at all, but a “scofftic”. That is a word DWA has been using for while here and I really like it. I have no patience for these, nor for the “true believers” for which every twisted branch is Bigfoot’s work. There are some skeptics here that rub people the wrong way, such as Radford, but I feel that he is contributing to the research by requiring us to really think about what we consider to be evidence. Having a hard core skeptic or scofftic lean into you is a very good learning experience in my opinion, because it demands that your theories are water tight and viable. Of course, it can only go so far, and when perfectly good evidence is scoffed away unrealistically, with skeptical theories as absurd as some true beleiver theories, skepticism (scoffticism?) turns into sort of a psuedo science itself.

23. DWA responds: March 9th, 2007 at 10:52 am

    mystery_man: that link I put in my above post is an excellent dissection of exactly what you refer to in your last sentence.

    I personally don’t agree that pseudo-skepticism helps the field. I think it sets it back. It’s the lowbrow mass-lunkhead take, given an intellectual veneer. It creates a wall of noise that must be surmounted by the scientist - at the potential cost of his funding and his status as a scientist before he ever gets near his goal. It’s Giordano Bruno’s fate, without the smell of burning flesh.

    Read that link. This guy knows what makes people buy the Skeptical Inquirer. They want to feel intellectually superior without the brainwork. That’s it in a nutshell. I’d touched on that in my thinking. But I never said it quite that well.

    I don’t respect pseudo-skeptics. I respect true skeptics. I know, for example, that you and others here come with good debunking software. But you’re always willing to listen, learn and modify your views if the information says that’s indicated.

    I never see that from Ben Radford.

24. mystery_man responds: March 9th, 2007 at 11:05 am

    DWA- Well, I can certainly see your point. Some pseudo skeptic behavior and modes of thinking are certainly a bit frustrating. It can be the same way with true believers too. There are certain other threads here on invisible stuff you could read to see how frustrating that can be for me. In those cases I guess it is not really a learning experience at all, but an excercise in futility if they have theri minds made up to the point that nothing can sawy them, no matter how compelling. You are right on the money when you say that people have to be willing to listen, learn, modify their views, and I’ll add one, be reasonable.

25. DWA responds: March 9th, 2007 at 11:16 am

    I probably should also add here that it’s fine to be nice to people who disagree with you.

    But some people here are TOO nice to people who hold divergent views.

    Let me explain.

    Silvereagle, for one example, is a smart guy who has opinions that differ with those of many of us here. He’s also an entertaining poster, by which I mean smart and witty, not flaky. The problem many of us have with his views is that they’re not - at least at present - subject to scientific confirmation. (And for whatever reason, independent personal confirmation hasn’t come to us yet.) The discussion pretty much has to end there; but people clearly say what they think and are respectful about it. (And humorous, as required.) It’s clear: we have to agree to disagree.

    I see something subtly but distinctly different when scofftics visit this board. I notice that many cryptos act defensive and even a bit obsequious around scofftics. (OK, m_m, I like it too. :-D) It’s as if the scofftic is actually scoring some debate points, which I somehow don’t see. Now some posters here do get after it when the pseudos come to call; but I don’t hear it ever stated nearly as well - by nearly as many - on this board as it is stated by those debating with silvereagle. And I wonder why.

    Is it that we consider ourselves somehow intellectually superior to folks who believe paranormal phenomena, but somehow inferior to scofftics?

    Remember this: The paranormalist at least seems to be experiencing something. The scofftic seems to be doing nothing but saying: nope, you didn’t experience that, and I’m smart enough to know that. Even if you aren’t.

    Are we getting into new-thread territory here?

26. DWA responds: March 9th, 2007 at 11:22 am

    Mystery_man:

    Another difference between skeptics like you and scofftics is…well, you have experience dealing with what legitimate scientists see as legitimate biological puzzles. And living in Japan - a country that’s considered by many in the West to be a termite nest of people, but you see it differently - has been, I’m sure, one of many things that help you keep an open mind about cryptids.

    In other words, you have the background to engage in intellectual debate on this topic.

    Scofftics, I’ve observed….well, as I said to one once: we need a primatologist on this case, not a shrink.

27. mystery_man responds: March 9th, 2007 at 11:54 am

    DWA- Living in Japan has certainly had a profound effect on the way I view things and it has definately contributed to my open mind about things. You have some very good observations on the differences between debates with scofftics and paranormalists. Those types of debates with paranormalists exasperate me a bit, but even then I try to keep an open mind, I just require something other than heresay. I have a scientific background and even though I am not as regimented in my thinking as some and I have an open mind, I still maintain that need for verifiable evidence or at least a sound theory with at least some semblance of scientific methodology. Meldrum is going through this kind of process I feel, where as some of the paranormalists are not and neither are some of the scofftics. Rather they pick apart theories by people like Meldrum and try to find holes or inconsistencies to exploit. You have a very valid point when you say that people get more fuming when a scofftic hops onto a thread. Your comment has really made me wonder about that. I think the main difference is the taking of the easy path without requiring any real knowledge or work to back up their claims. It is easy to debunk and also more acceptable to main stream scientists so they think that gives them ammo to their argument although I don’t beleive it does. I think maybe it’s the flat denial and ignoring of pro-Bigfoot evidence, the putting of the burden on us without feeling the need to explain their position, that annoys people here. At least paranormalists can somewhat explain the mechanisms behind their ideas, (4th dimensional theory, etc.), even if they lack evidence. Some of their stuff at least sounds like it is in the realm of possibility if it could be backed up. These types of skeptics, on the other hand, don’t need anything other than the lack of a body for them to, sometimes smugly, shoot down the idea of Bigfoot. Perhaps this is what gets people worked up. It is an interesting thing to think about.

28. Loren Coleman responds: March 9th, 2007 at 11:57 am

    Please, please, let’s be careful to keep on track on my blogs, not characterize countries with semi-racist terminology, and get into subjects from other threads where you can debate other comment maker’s personalities. I won’t tolerate it here, and I’ll delete such comments. Period.

    You can interpret that as nice, nasty, or whatever. It is the way it will be here.

29. mystery_man responds: March 9th, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Well, I’d still like to know anyone’s opinions on this magazine if they have read it. I cannot find it where I live and I really would like to give it a look. It seems as if it has some articles that would be of interest to me, so if anyone can tell me if it is any good, I’d appreciate it.

30. Mnynames responds: March 9th, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    I know I’m coming late into this discussion (Been on the road, moving to OK), but I feel the need to note one possible difference in how we here regard paranormalists and “scofftics.” There is always the potential to learn something from the paranormalists. What can the “scofftics” offer us except aggravation? This, to me anyway, is the likely reason why we don’t engage the “scofftics” in debate as much.

31. DWA responds: March 9th, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    Thinking a bit more about the scofftic thing.

    1. Re: the attitude proponents take toward scofftics. It may be something about where you come from. I’ve never seen cryptids as a paranormal thing, but always as a straight zoological thing. I know that many sas proponents came to the field through an interest in the paranormal. Maybe that feeling that you’re on shaky ground, where you’re really not, fosters the greater slack proponents tend to cut scofftics. Or maybe the feeling that, well, the public isn’t with me on this issue (even though the public, well, isn’t well informed, period, on topics scientific). I’ve always been most interested not in the “mystery” aspects of the sas, but in the biological aspects. It seems an extremely plausible animal to me, and I can see right through the canned “arguments against.” So I tend to lose patience with scofftics. They use science as a banner and a weapon. But they tend not to be well versed in it. They don’t view it as a process worked by people who tend to be imperfect (and more than a bit rigid in their thinking, generally); they view it as a sort of New Religion. They wave it like a priest does incense.

    2. I haven’t read Meldrum’s book yet. But I’ve read one of his technical papers; and he seems to have the required ammo. Then, however, he runs into the scofftic wall of noise I spoke of above, and that’s what he’s been struggling with. Hopefully people, just reading the book and hearing him talk, will start to turn that around. (When I say that scofftics do quite the opposite of helping the field, Meldrum and what he’s contending with is precisely what I have in mind.)

    3. There’s no need to burn scofftics at the stake. Just note that, like most pots calling kettles black, they never change their argument and never supply the evidence. And with the crazy theses they put forward, they sure as hell are deficient in the evidence department.

32. DWA responds: March 9th, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    Oh, and mnynames, you make a good point.

    Some folks don’t like arguing with a brick wall. I consider it practice!
    But that link above is sort of my last word on scofftics. From now on, I’m only doing discourse with people whose minds are open.

33. MBFH responds: March 11th, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    DWA - you really should read Dr Meldrum’s book. I’ve just finished it. It’s a very convincingly argued case that their is enough circumstantial evidence to support funded, academic research into Sasquatch. I never knew that there is so much evidence. How it can be ignored is beyond me.

34. DWA responds: March 11th, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    MBFH -

    to those of us who see it from this side of the pond, it isn’t so amazing that the evidence is being largely ignored.

    It has to do with Americans’ ignorance about things like science, evidence and logic, and with general fear of being the nail that sticks up to get hammered down, and with the scientific community’s fear of endangering pet views of the world, to say nothing of the careers and grant money that go with staying in one’s comfort zone - and may go away if you’re too bold about going outside that zone.

    Incredibly frustrating, oh yeah. But very unfortunately understandable.

    And of course this is my main problem with scofftics. While contributing nothing to the discussion, the escalate the wall of noise with which those truly searching for the truth must deal.

    Meldrum’s as brave as Columbus. At least intellectually, he is.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|