• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum - America's "Bigfoot Professor"

Status
Not open for further replies.

William Parcher

Show me the monkey!
William Parcher
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
27,471
Bigfoot Believer Guy

Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum, Ph.D. - Idaho State University, Associate Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology, Adjunct Associate Professor, Dept. of Anthropology, Dept. of Occupational and Physical Therapy, Affiliate Curator, Idaho Museum of Natural History.



Internal communication at ISU...

I am sure that most of you are aware of the recent AP (Associated Press) story in which D. Doug Wells and myself are quoted concerning "Bigfoot." The story contains some inaccuracies. There is no movement afoot here to sanction Dr. Meldrum for his interest in "Bigfoot" (at least that I am aware of) and if there were I would be against it. That is what tenure is for. I am merely exercising my right as an academic and a scientist to question the evidence, which is less than great. Debate is part of peer review and is what academics do.

As you can imagine I got deluged by email and phone calls as a result of this story. Bigfoot aficionados are a sensitive lot. I am fully expecting to show up on /Countdown /as today's worst person in the world any day now.

If you are interested in the scientific basis for Bigfoot I encourage you to check out the publisher of Dr. Meldrum's book /Sasquatch - Legend Meets Science/ (http://www.tor.com/). I would also encourage you to have a look at the /Journal of Scientific Exploration/, volume 18, for what passes for peer review in this area.

Enjoy your break.

Martin (Hackworth)
Click to expand...


Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum, Ph.D., Biography/Resume at ISU
 
Skepchick interviews Jeff Meldrum Part 1.

Part 2.

Jeff Meldrum: Science is by nature conservative. The recent rise of the skeptical movement has made it fashionable to be ultra-conservative, even to the point of cynicism. Therefore, something that has been labeled as fringe, as pseudoscience is deemed unworthy of consideration. One prominent skeptic has pronounced that the “science” begins only after a body is had. Well, if science sat around on its collective hands until the proverbial “bodies” in question turned up, there would have been much less discovery made in our history.

I sense a shift in attitude on the part of some of my colleagues, near and far. We have learned a great deal about the evolutionary and natural history of the great apes. We have learned a great deal about the evolution of hominin bipedalism. There continue to be startling discoveries of new species, to the extent that the editor of Scientific American suggested perhaps it was time for cryptozoology to come in out of the cold. And we have a generation of scientists that have grown up more familiar with the possibility of sasquatch. Sometime it takes the passing of a generation before a novel proposition can sprout to serious consideration.
Click to expand...
 
Meldrum@skepchick said:
Science is by nature conservative. The recent rise of the skeptical movement has made it fashionable to be ultra-conservative, even to the point of cynicism. Therefore, something that has been labeled as fringe, as pseudoscience is deemed unworthy of consideration.
Click to expand...

Been through his book and could not find a single piece of reliable evidence to back his thesis. Decades-old anecdotal data, quite oftens suspected of being hoaxed recycled and packed with lots of usually baseless speculations. Is that all he can provide? This is pseudoscience and no ammount of whining against skepticism will change it. Basically what he is asking is to lower the level of evidence quality. No way. He should collect better data or accept that there's not a single shred of reliable evidence supporting his claim - its a belief, nothing more, nothing less.

Meldrum@skepchick said:
One prominent skeptic has pronounced that the “science” begins only after a body is had. Well, if science sat around on its collective hands until the proverbial “bodies” in question turned up, there would have been much less discovery made in our history.
Click to expand...
Appeal to emotion; the old "Columbus and Galileo" blahblahblah we are tired of hearing from woos... Is that all he can provide? Its not skeptical's fault that the evidence is so poor. If bigfootery had a single piece of reliable evidence -and we all know it does not take a body- the situation would be diferent. Got at least one piece of evidence able to pass through a basic QA/QC?

Meldrum@skepchick said:
I sense a shift in attitude on the part of some of my colleagues, near and far. We have learned a great deal about the evolutionary and natural history of the great apes. We have learned a great deal about the evolution of hominin bipedalism.
Click to expand...
What this has to do with the actual subject? So far none of the above brought bigfoot closer to being a reality instead of a distant possibility.

Meldrum@skepchick said:
There continue to be startling discoveries of new species, to the extent that the editor of Scientific American suggested perhaps it was time for cryptozoology to come in out of the cold. And we have a generation of scientists that have grown up more familiar with the possibility of sasquatch.
Click to expand...
A statement that perhaps he was not aware that would be used by some to bring validity to their cause in the absence of good datsets. Note that time passed and cryptozoology is still in the cold. And the responsability lies on the very shoulders of the cryptozoologists.

Meldrum@skepchick said:
Sometime it takes the passing of a generation before a novel proposition can sprout to serious consideration.
Click to expand...
Not without reliable evidence - unless we are talking about beliefs. Since we are not, got at least a really good dataset to back your thesis?
 
Correa Neto said:
Been through his book and could not find a single piece of reliable evidence to back his thesis. Decades-old anecdotal data, quite oftens suspected of being hoaxed recycled and packed with lots of usually baseless speculations. Is that all he can provide? This is pseudoscience and no ammount of whining against skepticism will change it. Basically what he is asking is to lower the level of evidence quality. No way. He should collect better data or accept that there's not a single shred of reliable evidence supporting his claim - its a belief, nothing more, nothing less.


Appeal to emotion; the old "Columbus and Galileo" blahblahblah we are tired of hearing from woos... Is that all he can provide? Its not skeptical's fault that the evidence is so poor. If bigfootery had a single piece of reliable evidence -and we all know it does not take a body- the situation would be diferent. Got at least one piece of evidence able to pass through a basic QA/QC?


What this has to do with the actual subject? So far none of the above brought bigfoot closer to being a reality instead of a distant possibility.


A statement that perhaps he was not aware that would be used by some to bring validity to their cause in the absence of good datsets. Note that time passed and cryptozoology is still in the cold. And the responsability lies on the very shoulders of the cryptozoologists.


Not without reliable evidence - unless we are talking about beliefs. Since we are not, got at least a really good dataset to back your thesis?
Click to expand...


"...that is an old skeptic game, to ask for evidence." (N.Burghstahler- confidant of Prof. S.Hawking)
 
Regarding the question 'Should there be more scientists involved in Bigfoot Research.

TY at the Bigfoot Discussion forum, had this to say, I thought it was meaningful.

Ty said:
*A few nights ago I heard on an internet radio show Dr. Meldrum describe the Memorial Day footage figure as an "obvious female(Sasquatch)" with "gyrating breasts" and a "baby peering over it's head" as it approached the woods. He says these features were pointed out to him by Rick Noll at Noll's home on a large flat screen TV.
He also said on the same show that MQ raises the bar of how evidence comes to light.

Not to mention him(Meldrum) being pictured in front of an elk lay pointing out Bigfoot body parts.


*A few weeks a go I heard Dr. Bindernagel on an internet radio show say the "Jacob's creature" was most likely a young Sasquatch passing through.

*A few nights ago on MQ's SA 2; Out of 3 scientists Curt Nelson (former BFRO member) was the only one who claimed to have found primate DNA in the screwboard material.
That turned out to be a bust.

I'm sure we're all aware of Dr. Fahrenbach's recent commentary.

Sorry, but if these are the type of scientists this phenomena can only attract, then no, there is not a need for more in my opinion.
Click to expand...

http://bigfootdiscussions.invisionz...php?s=&showtopic=3092&view=findpost&p=1400440
 
Drewbot said:
Regarding the question 'Should there be more scientists involved in Bigfoot Research.

TY at the Bigfoot Discussion forum, had this to say, I thought it was meaningful.
Click to expand...

That guy is an idiot. Read his posts, all he does is complain and take potshots at Bigfoot researchers.
 
I'm often in need of a good laugh, so I've been watching the new episodes of Monster Quest (Hitch's current avatar shows how a bird's beak can appear to be a horselike snout, a fact missing from the Jersey Devil episode) and stuff from the "Paranormal TV" section my cable service's "On Demand" menu. Going there led to a a snippet from an episode of short-lived 2002 "In Search of" revival discussing Bigfoot. Not only do they show the Freeman video and some interview footage of Freeman without a hint of skepticism, but Dr. Meldrum offered some insight on why he feels the Freeman video is worthy of note: The forearms are disproportionally long and the head doesn't seem humanlike. Considering that Patty supporters are often quick to bring up that Patty's "long arms" can't be due to extensions due to the forearms not being disproportionate* like they would be with a simple extension device, I'm amazed Dr. Meldrum could make such an argument regarding the Freeman film.

As for the head issue: Masks can easily make a person's head seem "less human." Or if he's referring to its placement on the body, I once did a post explaining how it could be done.

*They forget that many people with arms as long as Patty's are known to exist. Also, slumping the shoulders forward and the position of the arm during a swing can also create the illusion of long arms.
 
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
I'm often in need of a good laugh, so I've been watching the new episodes of Monster Quest
Click to expand...

MQ never fails to not deliver, and that's what makes it so great. One of the highlights of this season was Meldrum examining footprint casts and essentially saying, "there's nothing here". When Meldrum takes a dump on your casts, you're in trouble.

The "new species are found all the time" argument is misleading, methinks. There's not a concerted effort to find something specific. It's more along the lines of walking through a remote patch of jungle and brushing a half dozen new species off your shirt. Then scraping some more off the bottom of your shoe. Usually the only reason these species haven't been found before is because no one was looking for them. Compare that to a 40 year search for an ape-sized creature using increasingly advanced technology. Or repeatedly combing over every square inch of a Scottish lake.
 
Post #5

So, Rick Noll had to point out to Meldrum the BF "features" of the MD footage. Interesting.

Didn't Noll also persuade Meldrum that the skookum elk lay was a BF impression?

Is Meldrum incredibly stupid or is Noll an incredibly gifted con man?
 
clayflingythingy said:
So, Rick Noll had to point out to Meldrum the BF "features" of the MD footage. Interesting.

Didn't Noll also persuade Meldrum that the skookum elk lay was a BF impression?

Meldrum is incredibly stupid gullible and Noll is a somewhat gifted con man.
Click to expand...


:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom