Pethaps he is refering to the Redwoods footage? I'm not an avid follower of Meldrum's every word (however much I have been accused of it) so I don't know exactly what comments Meldrum made on the Redwoods footage. I don't know if he actually claimed the Redwoods footage was the real deal.
He said this in Jan.,2004, replying to Scott Heriott:
"Everytime this discussion resumes I see that I really need to write up
this incident and get it out there. If I only had more time ( I shoudn't
be responding to this).
I can't comment on Scott's conversation with the owner of Trees of
Mystery. I have personally interacted with him and while he seems to be
working the angle like any entrepenuer, he struck me as otherwise a
straight-shooter. He readily supplied me with samples of hair he had
been given by a local, which we readily identified as bear. He provided
contact information for local eyewitnesses, and was otherwise spoken of
well by local contacts I made.
Look, I am not out to champion this particular piece of evidence. I just
get weary of people perpetuating inaccurate information. If the video is
to be rejected, then do it on the basis of sound data.
First, it was not a "Playboy crew" -- it was the crew of Adventures
Television. The hostess was a former playmate. So what?
Second, there is muscle definition. Jeff Glickman called them folds in
the fabric, but the "folds" are located along the line of the vastus
lateralis and the insertion of the gluteus maximus. Look at an atlas.
Coincidence?
Third, it walks like it just had a Thorazine milkshake? Where is that
coming from? In the initial footage it is striding away from the RV and
under ideal playback conditions it looks alot like the Patterson film
subject. When overtaken by the RV it reacts to the bright headlights and
glares at the witnessesbriefly before promptly stepping into the bush.
Fourth, "unexplained white lines on the base of the feet" -- As I have
repeatedly explained, it was raining and any smooth wet surface
illuminated by the headlights bounced back enough light to washout the
video image, plain and simple. The leaves on the adjacent bush, the
barkless tree tunk, the whatever-it-was at the crotch, AND the hairless
sides of the soles of the feet, were all washed out and appeared "white."
Fifth, wrong again, -- it did not walk twice in front of a moving RV --
It first came onto the road on the right shoulder some distance ahead
when the RV was attemting to back up and walked down the road away from
the RV around a slight leftward bend in the road. This is a narrow
one-lane road, btw. They drove forward to overtake it, at which point it
headed back to the right shoulder, toward the river, as the RV came to a
halt just short of it and turned on the brights. It was virtually an
equal distance to go right or left at that point and getting back to
the nearby river makes more sense to me as an escape route than going
the other direction. Going randomly through that forest off-trail
presents "momumental" obstacle, even for a nearly 8 foot Sasquatch (Oh,
and that height estimate was independently confirmed by multiple methods
on site).
Also:
"We did get the factory specs on the RV, interior and exterior. We got
the stading height of the cameraman. We could very reasonably estimate
the distance from the RV to the subject by recreation on site. Granted
there is room for error, but the margins are quite small given the
distances involved. The subject stepped directly behind a tree that was
clearly identifiable on site. There was an onvious knob on the trunk
that the subject's head passed reltively close under. That knob measured
8'2" off the ground as I remember (I have to go back to my notes). Our
triangulations based on foreground reference points and then background
reference points converged on 7' 9" tall. I am quite comfortable given
the distances involved, in bracketing the height between 7 1/2 and 8
feet tall.
For another perspective we backed the rangers truck to the spot, stacked
some cases and took a picture from the approximate height of me about to
step behind the tree. I was dwarfed at 6'1".
When people with cameras have sightings and film them, it's suspicious, but when people without cameras have sightings, it's suspicious because they didn't film them. See how that works?
No, no, no! Darn you humanity and your short memory! 
