This will not increase my popularity among footers...
OK, at last I read Meldrum's paper more carefully. Here are some comments.
At the very Introduction of the paper, Meldrum assumes that bigfeet are real. It’s implicit from his review of the work made by Krantz. This is a major problem, since the existence of the creature is at least highly debatable. He states later, at the second paragraph of the Systematic Discussion
Meldrum said:
It should be noted that naming the tracks neither establishes the identity of the trackmaker, nor does it resolve the controversy over the existence of sasquatch.
This could be interpreted as an attempt to remain as neutral as possible regarding the existence of bigfoot. However, this is a feeble attempt. The whole article is based on the premise that bigfeet are real. This approach is mistaken or faulty; the correct position should be that the tracks can be explained by one or more of the following: (i) hoaxes; (ii) misinterpretations (iii) real bigfeet. This was not clearly stated at his paper.
This lack of impartiality or objectivity permeates the whole paper. PGF subject is accepted, for example, as being a real bigfoot. All that he writes about the controversies surrounding the footage is
Meldrum said:
Affirmative and skeptical reactions to the film include Meldrum (2006) and Daegling (2004).
That's all you are going to read about it there, folks... Controversial and conflicting timelines, versions, development time, Hieronimus, and the rest of PGF's shady story are ignored. Let me stress this point again: Everything that indicates that PGF is a hoax was ignored. He assumes Patty is a real Bigfoot and that the tracks were made by Patty. This is the core of his paper. A number of enthusiasts might feel Patty is the real deal, but PGF subject was never established as not being a human in a modified gorilla suit. Every single piece of evidence gathered and presented by its defenders has been successfully countered by skeptics. PGF is inconclusive at best and the worse of it all- it is tainted, since it is suspected to be a fraud. Data sets of such poor quality should not have been used as the backbone of a serious scientific work. Once again, this is nothing but biased and bad data handling.
Meldrum argues that it can be established from the similarity between the feet of PGF subject and the tracks that Patty created the tracks while the footage was being shot. Note that this by no means excludes the possibility that the feet of PGF’s subject were rigid and made of wood. Not even the possibility that the tracks were faked at an occasion independent from the shooting of the footage can be excluded by such argument.
Now, let’s look a bit further in to the casts themselves. Figure 1 shows replicas of Paterson's casts, while Figure 3 shows ten casts made by Titmus. They are virtually identical when it comes to morphology! Toe positions are virtually identical, there are no discernable changes in the relative positions. How likely it is that this could be seen in a track created by a real foot with mobile, articulated toes? This is major evidence, I think, that the tracks were created by stomping or pressing rigid fake (wooden) feet. Such hypothesis is not taken in to consideration by Meldrum.
This brings us again to PGF. Figure 5 is composed by cropped PGF frames. Meldrum claims the midfoot flexibility can be seen at the rightmost frame. The central frame is supposed to show dorsiflexion of toes. I can't see any of the features. These three frames also do nothing to help the "compliant gait" claim that could be one of the answers for the footprint morphology (see below and above).
Figures 5 to 8 are supposed to demonstrate evidence for mid-tarsal flexibility. Meldrum does not discuss the fact that similar tracks can be made by human feet and by rigid or flexible fake feet. There are several photographs available at the Internet showing tracks made by rigid and flexible feet as well as human feet (wearing shoes or not) with morphologies that are identical to what’s shown at these figures. This is ignored by Meldrum. Other problems related to the alleged mid-tarsal flexibility (non-opposing toes are present in non-flexible feet, inefficient energy transference, etc.) are also ignored.
Further ahead, Meldrum writes:
Meldrum said:
As noted by Meldrum (2006) the likelihood of a conspiracy of hoaxers, or simply anatomically-correct copy-cats, coordinated over a huge region for many decades is vanishingly small
This is an old argument raised by bigfoot proponents. And it’s easily refuted.
First of all, there's no need for a "conspiracy of hoaxers"; only a few isolated individuals who decided to have some fun or make money. Neither there is need for "anatomically-correct copy-cats". All it takes is a wood plank, carving tools and for the “anatomically-correct” model, take a look at your own feet. No, the odds are not "vanishingly small" especially when one takes in to account the existence of a bigfoot subculture and the possibility of somehow profiting from it (shades of Marx, Freeman, Biscardi, Moneymaker and Creekfreak, among others).
Meldrum does not help his own case by making the following
ad hom:
Meldrum said:
For this reason it is worth pointing out that those inclined to take the probability of sasquatch’s existence seriously are either those with direct experience of seeing or hearing the animal, or seeing its tracks; whereas armchair skeptics have
little or no direct field experience or knowledge of how widespread the trackway evidence is.
Here Meldrum completely misses the mark, since many skeptics are not from the "armchair" variety, they include several experts in zoology, for example. Not to mention that among those who are "inclined to take the probability of sasquatch’s
existence seriously" there are many armchair footers... The most important point here is that if his text was supposed to be a scientific paper, Meldrum should have restricted himself to evaluate and attack the reasonings and not the evidences that could to counter his positions not those who present them. This was a basic mistake. He lowered himself to the same status of proponents who write angered posts aimed at skeptics at internet forums. No content, no evidence, only whining. Expressing frustration in such a manner is inadmissible at a serious scientific paper, regardless on how unhappy you are with the reception of your work. The proper way to counter would be by presenting good works with reliable evidence and sound reasonings.
A similar basic and unexplainable error follows:
Meldrum said:
That an “extinct” giant ape is accepted by science on the basis of such scant fossil evidence, one might ask why serious consideration has been slow in coming to the hundreds of documented footprints (not to mention sightings, vocalizations,
hair, scat, etc.).
I will not discuss anymore here the many problems with these evidence pieces as well as with the presumed affiliation of bigfeet to the Gigantopithecus genus. Dr Meldrum is, of course, aware of what's needed to describe a species. So, he knows perfectly why bigfeet are not recognized by mainstream science as real creatures. This sort of complaint has no space at a scientific paper.
I could go on pointing other flaws such as the highly imprecise location map, but I decided to stick to a few topics.
The bottomline is: No scientific paper should be backed by tainted evidence. PGF is suspected of being a hoax, this is more than enough to render it useless, its not reliable, its substandard evidence. Meldrum's paper is based on a piece of evidence that lacks quality, reliability and reproducibility. The old and worn-out "After 40 years skeptics have not managed to prove PGF is a hoax" line is completely irrelevant, since its defenders have not been able to prove it is not a hoax. Had a similar weight been applied to the hoax possibility, the paper would be more impartial and useful. A more ample, straightforward and balanced approach, using more data sets (other tracks) and exposing all possible explanations for (hoaxes, misidentifications and real bigfeet) would have more merit. Such an impartial and balanced approach should have been sought. Unfortunately, I consider the paper as being of little if any use to advance the cause of giant bipedal apes living in North America. It might sound OK for Bigfoot proponents, especially for those not very used to the scientific method, but it is more likely to be a shot in the feet.
The editor of Nature may be right, maybe its time for a more detailed look at some cryptids. But Meldrum, at this article, unfortunately, I'm afraid, missed the opportunity to advance the case.
