Has Dr. Meldrum's Reputation Or Career Been Damaged By His Involvement With Bigfoot?

[Guest UPs]

What of us scientists who consider the issue but find the evidence - including Jeff Meldrum's best efforts to cast it in a favorable light - wholly unconvincing?

If you read his and other scientists arguments, he does not argue from a position that the evidence is proof that this animal exists, but rather it is enough for scientists to get involved and find the evidence (body) of proof. There has been a steady resistance from the scientific community to even look for the proof.

IMO, its going to take more than a handful of scientists to answer the tough questions such as:

- what left the trackway on Selwyn Lake in the early 1990,s?

- what is responsible for the woodknocks?

- what is actually on the PGF?

- what is responsible for making certain recorded howls?

- what is it that many highly respected people see?

- what is responsible for throwing rocks at people?

- what animal do the many hair samples come from?

When I read skeptical arguments, they will many times argue a point that is not supported by facts. As an example, a trackway is found in a very remote area. Based on the facts, it is unknown what left the trackway, but the skeptical argument is that however unlikely it was a human, a human was responsible. Let the facts lead us to the correct answer and in many cases it is that we do not know. If the evidence leads to humans creating a bf myth, then I do not see that as a failure, but rather a correct conclusion. As long as scientists such as Jeff Meldrum seek the truth, I am willing to support them 100 percent (this also includes skeptics). His credentials certainly allow him to analyze and weigh his opinion on footprints. If his theories are incorrect, other qualified scientists should critique his work, but instead, the critique is basically a statement that bf does not exist so you are wrong. UPs

[Guest]

Since none of us knows whats in Dr. Meldrums mind I'm going to suggest everyone is entitled to their personal opinion of the man & leave it at that. Everyone is entitled to revise their opinion of Bigfoot and holding someones feet to the fire regarding the consistancy of their statements is to a degree counterproductive.

Overall Dr. Meldrum besides being a member here has done the field of Bigfootery a service....so nitpicking is pretty disrespectful. Last I checked anyone could sent him an email outlining their beefs with him or his positions. Going to the horse's mouth is generally better than guessing or speculating.

Everyone posting here needs to be mindful he is a member and post accordingly. With the same courtesy you would expect.

Thank You,

Grayjay

[Guest]

I firmly believe he will be seen as being ahead of his time, similar to this scientist:

Vindicated

Hopefully this happens while he (and I) are still alive.

Has his reputation or career been damaged? I dunno, that's his call I think. Only he can decide if it's been worth it.

[Guest]

If you read his and other scientists arguments, he does not argue from a position that the evidence is proof that this animal exists, but rather it is enough for scientists to get involved and find the evidence (body) of proof.

Yes, he's shrewd enough not to come right out and express his conviction that there are real bigfoots out there, but he comes awfully close. More to the point though, neither he nor anyone else has successfully made the case for why "science" needs to "get involved." Anyone in the right place and at the right time with an automobile, rifle, shovel - or indeed, a camera - has a better chance of unequivocally "discovering bigfoot" than 100 scientists offering their opinions on dermal ridges, mid-tarsal breaks, and ambiguous hairs.

There has been a steady resistance from the scientific community to even look for the proof.

But AAAS Council Member Jeff Meldrum is very much part of that community. So are the "other scientists" you referenced above. How many Meldrums do we need before we can say "OK, I guess the scientific community has looked into this"?

This illustrates the complexity of bigfooters' relationships with Jeff Meldrum. In that community, he is almost universally lauded for his willingness to openly conduct research on bigfoot. Almost universally though, bigfooters can in the next breath complain that "science" won't give bigfoot the time of day. Well, isn't that what Meldrum is doing? Sometimes it looks like his supporters dismiss his work more readily than his detractors.

- what left the trackway on Selwyn Lake in the early 1990,s?

- what is responsible for the woodknocks?

- what is actually on the PGF?

- what is responsible for making certain recorded howls?

- what is it that many highly respected people see?

- what is responsible for throwing rocks at people?

- what animal do the many hair samples come from?

Even if the answer to every one of those was "We don't know," that would not mean that there are bigfoots in them thar hills.

The way to address those questions actually goes a bit like this:

1) obtain a bigfoot (live or dead)

Then, you can examine its feet to see what its prints would look like. You could examine its anatomy t see if matches "Patty." You could analyze its hair to see if it matched purported samples from other places, etc.

[BobbyO]

- what left the trackway on Selwyn Lake in the early 1990,s?

Can't find anything at all on the UP, what's the deal with it ??

[Guest UPs]

Bobby, it is described in the beginning of LMS. A wildlife photographer helicopters into a lake and finds a long trackway. He follows it for a while until he decides he does not want to meet what left the prints. When I get home, I will describe it much better. UPs

[Guest 127]

Since none of us knows whats in Dr. Meldrums mind I'm going to suggest everyone is entitled to their personal opinion of the man & leave it at that. Everyone is entitled to revise their opinion of Bigfoot and holding someones feet to the fire regarding the consistancy of their statements is to a degree counterproductive.

Overall Dr. Meldrum besides being a member here has done the field of Bigfootery a service....so nitpicking is pretty disrespectful. Last I checked anyone could sent him an email outlining their beefs with him or his positions. Going to the horse's mouth is generally better than guessing or speculating.

Everyone posting here needs to be mindful he is a member and post accordingly. With the same courtesy you would expect.

Thank You,

Grayjay

Excellent points. As well he can respond here just like the other members if he would like to defend his position on something.

Edited October 14, 2011 by 127

[Guest]

Excellent points. As well he can respond here just like the other members if he would like to defend his position on something.

I would feel bad if he felt compelled to do that. Honestly when I started this thread I had not considered the fact that he is actually a member here himself, and I was just trying to learn what the scientific community's attitude is towards someone who devotes significant effort in researching Bigfoot. It was no way intended to be something that would require him needing to defend himself.

Apologies to Dr. Meldrum, if you're out there.

[Guest UPs]

Can't find anything at all on the UP, what's the deal with it ??

It was not a helicopter, but a floatplane. The lake is located about 1000mi from Winnipeg. The intro to LMS can be found by using Google. Briefly, film producer Dough Hajicek flew to this remote lake to film giant lake trout. They found a fresh trackway with 17in prints and followed them for over a mile before deciding they did not want to catch up to whatever left the prints. He, like many of us, was surprised that the evidence is ignored....etc.

UPs

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I see that post was removed pretty quick ~~~~ but i got it copied in time

[bipedalist]

It was not a helicopter, but a floatplane. The lake is located about 1000mi from Winnipeg. The intro to LMS can be found by using Google. Briefly, film producer Dough Hajicek flew to this remote lake to film giant lake trout. They found a fresh trackway with 17in prints and followed them for over a mile before deciding they did not want to catch up to whatever left the prints. He, like many of us, was surprised that the evidence is ignored....etc.

UPs

Yeah, special forces ops in Alaska reached the same conclusion.

[Guest]

I agree Jeff certainly does play to a tough and rigid crowd but he seems to handle it with calm determination . I personally would like nothing more than the DNA study give us very strong evidence. I hope the Russian expedition is a huge success, you know as long as the money for greasing palms hold out

Given the completely corrupt nature of the Russian government on virtually every level these days (Russia is more correctly referred to as a Mafiaocracy than a democracy), they'd better have REALLY deep pockets.

[Guest]

Reputation is another matter, but even this is nuanced in Meldrum's case. Among his scientific colleagues, it looks to me like he enjoys the respect of other physical anthropologists. People cite his scholarly work, and that's probably the best indication that he's well-regarded in his field. With respect to his association with bigfoot, I would say that he's generally not highly regarded by the scientific community. Opinions range from that he's a well-meaning guy who's simply fallen prey to logical fallacies and wishful thinking, to that he's really trying to give this topic a fair shake but has lost his objectivity, to that he's actively engaging in fraud and deception to keep promoting himself as a bigfoot expert so that he can sell books, appear on television, etc.

And you don't see the cognitive dissonance behind that, Sas? He's an excellent professor and scientist, except for when he speaks for the proponent side on BF, then he's not...classic CD.

[Guest]

There are things for which Meldrum deserves credit and things for which he invites criticism.

Special pleading. On other topics, Dr Meldrum's science is "just fine", but if the topic is BF, then that SAME science is suddenly not enough, and his motives get called into question.

many bigfooters reject the opinions of a collective thousands of biologists and other scientists in favor of one guy (Meldrum) who says what they want to hear

.

Argument from consensus. Reality is not a matter of adding up how many scientists think A and how many think B and declaring a "winner". The "consensus" has been disproven time after time after time after time and almost always starting with a single individual who is willing to follow the facts where they lead instead of trying to shape the facts to fit into prevailing sentement.

[Guest UPs]

Yes, he's shrewd enough not to come right out and express his conviction that there are real bigfoots out there, but he comes awfully close. More to the point though, neither he nor anyone else has successfully made the case for why "science" needs to "get involved." Anyone in the right place and at the right time with an automobile, rifle, shovel - or indeed, a camera - has a better chance of unequivocally "discovering bigfoot" than 100 scientists offering their opinions on dermal ridges, mid-tarsal breaks, and ambiguous hairs.

But AAAS Council Member Jeff Meldrum is very much part of that community. So are the "other scientists" you referenced above. How many Meldrums do we need before we can say "OK, I guess the scientific community has looked into this"?

This illustrates the complexity of bigfooters' relationships with Jeff Meldrum. In that community, he is almost universally lauded for his willingness to openly conduct research on bigfoot. Almost universally though, bigfooters can in the next breath complain that "science" won't give bigfoot the time of day. Well, isn't that what Meldrum is doing? Sometimes it looks like his supporters dismiss his work more readily than his detractors.

Even if the answer to every one of those was "We don't know," that would not mean that there are bigfoots in them thar hills.

The way to address those questions actually goes a bit like this:

1) obtain a bigfoot (live or dead)

Then, you can examine its feet to see what its prints would look like. You could examine its anatomy t see if matches "Patty." You could analyze its hair to see if it matched purported samples from other places, etc.

So you are arguing that in absence of a body, we should not properly investigate evidence to its conclusion? I am not a big fan of that approach and instead think that the evidence can be used to lead to discovery (a body). This seems to be the direction that only a few scientists are willing to take.

I am not stating that absence of a conclusive reason for the items I listed above mean there is an animal described as bf, but that before we can rule that out, the evidence needs to be followed to a fact based conclusion. With the lack of this, we are left with theory. I believe Jeff Meldrum is trying to prove his own theories and those do not seem to be very popular within the scientific community. The stigma associated with bf is slowly disappearing and that can only be a good thing for the discovery process. UPs