kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Just to be clear I am not overly optimistic that Dr. Meldrum will accept my invitation to post here but I am somewhat more hopeful that he'll address my e-mail somewhere in some form.
This thread is for those members who wish to engage in respectful discussion with Dr. Meldrum concerning sasquatch evidence and I would humbly ask that that be kept in mind when posing questions to him. For the time being the central question to him is the one from my sig and my e-mail to him but of course there will be so many other equally important questions.
I really hope he accepts so let's keep our fingers crossed. Here's the e-mail:
Dear Dr. Meldrum,
Thank you for taking the time to read this mail. Given the nature of your efforts regarding sasquatch evidence and the number of people, proponents and skeptics alike, familiar with them you undoubtedly receive large volumes of correspondence much of which is unworth replying to. I hope this mail will prove otherwise.
First, if I may, please allow me to make a brief preface and introduction of myself so as to better give a context for this correspondence. My name is (my real name) and I am a member of the JREF skeptics forum (which I believe you are already familiar with) where I post under the handle 'kitakaze'. I'm sure the mention of that site does little to pique your interest and if you still reading I hope you will bear with me.
I have had a particularily keen interest in the subject of sasquatches from a very young age and as an adult have continually researched the subject to the best that my circumstances will allow which are limited due to the fact that I live in Japan. I did find the tracks of (appeared to be an adult and juvenile) and had a subsequent close proximity encounter with what at the time I interpretted as being sasquatch several years ago while camping on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I must admit that in the time since I have become skeptical of the existence of sasquatches and question my original interpretation of that event based on what is in my opinion a lack of reliable evidence. Beyond naturally remaining open to the possibility I will also readily admit that I would like very much for sasquatches to exist as I'm sure you'll agree that would be pretty darn cool (to be frank).
After lurking at the BFF for two years I joined the JREF forum as a fence sitter regarding sasquatch as I wanted to educate myself as much as possible about evidence that could withstand critical scrutinization and it seemed an appropriate environment. I'm guessing you probably disagree with that assessment which is certainly understandable given how vociferous some members criticisms of your efforts regarding sasquatch might have been. I myself have on a number of occasions suggested that the challenge of applying your professional skills to a subject that you had a deep and abiding interest in as a youth might lead to some extent of not being completely neutral when evaluating the evidence. I know you must rail at such suggestions and if I have offended you I apologize. I hope you appreciate that such a surmation isn't exactly unreasonable given the fact that my access to the evidence supporting sasquatch is obviously nothing compared to yours.
This brings me to the point of this mail and I apologize for the lengthy exposition. Alleged sasquatch prints displaying what may appear to be dermatoglyphics represents as I'm sure you agree a pedigree of evidence that while of course not as conclusive as a type specimen or hair, tissue, or fecal samples of one is still of very high quality and if confirmed to in fact be primate dermatoglyphics it would go a very long way in favour of a real animal (though some proponents might argue that). These alleged dermals are the subject of much current debate at the JREF.
In support of these dermal claims Jimmy Chilcutt in his involvement with you has staked his reputation on his pronouncement that these features are in fact that of an unclassified primate. Meanwhile, as you have acknowledged in your recent book the work of Matt Crowley concerning dessication ridges and other casting artifacts deserves consideration as well. In our debate at the JREF I have raised what as become a central question regarding these alleged dermatoglyphics which has yet to be answered and is in my opinion, though quite simple, extremely significant in terms of the veracity of actual dermal versus dessication ridges in these casts which is as follows:
Can anyone anywhere clearly demonstrate in regards to alledged dermatoglyphic sasquatch print casts at least two separate casts from a successive trackway displaying matching (not similar) dermal features (ridge flow patterns of friction skin, scarring, flexion creases, etc.)?
Since I initially posed this question it has been suggested to me (by a member of the JREF and BFF who goes by the handle 'LAL' with whom I believe you've had prior correspondence) that in your collection you are in possession of two such casts, one of which I believe is the Onion Mountain cast labeled CA-20 and have addressed the issue on page 256 of LMS (I must admit I have yet to read your book though I'm now having it delivered). It has been established that such a demonstration is not to be found in the book and therefore it is to you that we must look for an answer.
I don't think it necessary to overly emphasize the importance of this question given that were such a demonstration made it would effectively discount Crowley's dessication ridge argument and I must say that I find it puzzling that the issue hasn't been addressed earlier if such casts do indeed exist. If you are in possession of such casts I would humbly implore that a demonstration be made as it would silence many who are skeptical on the matter. I personally (though in a humourous manner at the time) have stated at the JREF that were such a demonstration made available that I would renounce my skepticism and return to being an ardent proponent for what little that is worth. Certainly you can see the value of such a demonstration in addressing skeptics. Any light that you would be able and willing to shed on the subject would be greatly appreciated. I again thank you for any time that you spend or have spent on this matter.
In closing though I'm aware you have stated elsewhere that posting on the JREF would not be worth your time and appreciate the reason for such sentiment I would invite you to reconsider this position. I will be opening a thread there in which I will post this mail and with your permission a response should you be able to find time to make the effort to do so. I will also be petitioning in this thread for only members to participate who wish to engage in respectful discussion of sasquatch evidence with yourself and to remain considerate of that when posing any questions to you. I think you might find yourself glad that you did should you choose to reconsider.
Best regards,
(my real name).
P.S. I would be remiss were I to forget to make mention of the fact that LAL has asked that I include a query on her behalf about whether or not you would be willing to sell copies of the casts which I am inquiring about should they exist.
This thread is for those members who wish to engage in respectful discussion with Dr. Meldrum concerning sasquatch evidence and I would humbly ask that that be kept in mind when posing questions to him. For the time being the central question to him is the one from my sig and my e-mail to him but of course there will be so many other equally important questions.
I really hope he accepts so let's keep our fingers crossed. Here's the e-mail:
Dear Dr. Meldrum,
Thank you for taking the time to read this mail. Given the nature of your efforts regarding sasquatch evidence and the number of people, proponents and skeptics alike, familiar with them you undoubtedly receive large volumes of correspondence much of which is unworth replying to. I hope this mail will prove otherwise.
First, if I may, please allow me to make a brief preface and introduction of myself so as to better give a context for this correspondence. My name is (my real name) and I am a member of the JREF skeptics forum (which I believe you are already familiar with) where I post under the handle 'kitakaze'. I'm sure the mention of that site does little to pique your interest and if you still reading I hope you will bear with me.
I have had a particularily keen interest in the subject of sasquatches from a very young age and as an adult have continually researched the subject to the best that my circumstances will allow which are limited due to the fact that I live in Japan. I did find the tracks of (appeared to be an adult and juvenile) and had a subsequent close proximity encounter with what at the time I interpretted as being sasquatch several years ago while camping on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I must admit that in the time since I have become skeptical of the existence of sasquatches and question my original interpretation of that event based on what is in my opinion a lack of reliable evidence. Beyond naturally remaining open to the possibility I will also readily admit that I would like very much for sasquatches to exist as I'm sure you'll agree that would be pretty darn cool (to be frank).
After lurking at the BFF for two years I joined the JREF forum as a fence sitter regarding sasquatch as I wanted to educate myself as much as possible about evidence that could withstand critical scrutinization and it seemed an appropriate environment. I'm guessing you probably disagree with that assessment which is certainly understandable given how vociferous some members criticisms of your efforts regarding sasquatch might have been. I myself have on a number of occasions suggested that the challenge of applying your professional skills to a subject that you had a deep and abiding interest in as a youth might lead to some extent of not being completely neutral when evaluating the evidence. I know you must rail at such suggestions and if I have offended you I apologize. I hope you appreciate that such a surmation isn't exactly unreasonable given the fact that my access to the evidence supporting sasquatch is obviously nothing compared to yours.
This brings me to the point of this mail and I apologize for the lengthy exposition. Alleged sasquatch prints displaying what may appear to be dermatoglyphics represents as I'm sure you agree a pedigree of evidence that while of course not as conclusive as a type specimen or hair, tissue, or fecal samples of one is still of very high quality and if confirmed to in fact be primate dermatoglyphics it would go a very long way in favour of a real animal (though some proponents might argue that). These alleged dermals are the subject of much current debate at the JREF.
In support of these dermal claims Jimmy Chilcutt in his involvement with you has staked his reputation on his pronouncement that these features are in fact that of an unclassified primate. Meanwhile, as you have acknowledged in your recent book the work of Matt Crowley concerning dessication ridges and other casting artifacts deserves consideration as well. In our debate at the JREF I have raised what as become a central question regarding these alleged dermatoglyphics which has yet to be answered and is in my opinion, though quite simple, extremely significant in terms of the veracity of actual dermal versus dessication ridges in these casts which is as follows:
Can anyone anywhere clearly demonstrate in regards to alledged dermatoglyphic sasquatch print casts at least two separate casts from a successive trackway displaying matching (not similar) dermal features (ridge flow patterns of friction skin, scarring, flexion creases, etc.)?
Since I initially posed this question it has been suggested to me (by a member of the JREF and BFF who goes by the handle 'LAL' with whom I believe you've had prior correspondence) that in your collection you are in possession of two such casts, one of which I believe is the Onion Mountain cast labeled CA-20 and have addressed the issue on page 256 of LMS (I must admit I have yet to read your book though I'm now having it delivered). It has been established that such a demonstration is not to be found in the book and therefore it is to you that we must look for an answer.
I don't think it necessary to overly emphasize the importance of this question given that were such a demonstration made it would effectively discount Crowley's dessication ridge argument and I must say that I find it puzzling that the issue hasn't been addressed earlier if such casts do indeed exist. If you are in possession of such casts I would humbly implore that a demonstration be made as it would silence many who are skeptical on the matter. I personally (though in a humourous manner at the time) have stated at the JREF that were such a demonstration made available that I would renounce my skepticism and return to being an ardent proponent for what little that is worth. Certainly you can see the value of such a demonstration in addressing skeptics. Any light that you would be able and willing to shed on the subject would be greatly appreciated. I again thank you for any time that you spend or have spent on this matter.
In closing though I'm aware you have stated elsewhere that posting on the JREF would not be worth your time and appreciate the reason for such sentiment I would invite you to reconsider this position. I will be opening a thread there in which I will post this mail and with your permission a response should you be able to find time to make the effort to do so. I will also be petitioning in this thread for only members to participate who wish to engage in respectful discussion of sasquatch evidence with yourself and to remain considerate of that when posing any questions to you. I think you might find yourself glad that you did should you choose to reconsider.
Best regards,
(my real name).
P.S. I would be remiss were I to forget to make mention of the fact that LAL has asked that I include a query on her behalf about whether or not you would be willing to sell copies of the casts which I am inquiring about should they exist.
Last edited: