Is bigfoot "bad" science? Options

[tugboatwa]

http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2007/05...ocal/news01.txt

Is bigfoot "bad" science?

POCATELLO — The editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Benjamin Radford, worries valuable research dollars are being wasted on topics such as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFOs and little green men.

Radford is convinced such researchers damage the name of science by studying fiction and calling it fact.
But Jeff Meldrum, a leading expert on Bigfoot and an associate professor of anthropology and anatomy at Idaho State University, takes exception to Radford’s label for his work — “bad science.”

The skeptic and the believer traded arguments Thursday night at the Pond Student Union ballroom after Radford concluded a speech delving into the harm that can be done when impostors are treated as the equals of scientists by the public.

About 50 people attended the speech, organized by ISU biology staff members and others.

Radford said he’s seen far too many people dedicate their lives to unworthy causes, only to retire after unfulfilled careers.
“It’s not what’s possible, it’s what’s probable,” Radford said during his 45-minute talk. “These things deal with empirical questions. Either it is or it is not. Either Bigfoot exists, or he does not exist.”

Radford noted many people believe in ghosts, aliens and other natural phenomena because they often misunderstand what science is. They consider personal anecdotes to be evidence which supports their claims supporting the existence of monsters and UFOs.

However, these stories cannot be taken seriously because people don’t take scientific considerations into account, such as control groups, validity, or the scientific method, Radford argued.

But Meldrum sees no reason why anecdotes should be so easily dismissed. Many Sasquatch sightings and stories have been reported by knowledgeable and experienced experts, such as forest rangers, veterinarians and wildlife biologists.

Regardless of the reported sightings, Radford claims that the evidence for Bigfoot is no better now than it was five, ten, or even 50 years ago.

Sasquatch enthusiasts argue that better evidence would exist if there were more money and more opportunity for research, Radford said.
“Research should follow good evidence and not the other way around,” Radford said.

Last year, Radford came to the Bigfoot conference at Idaho State University hoping to see new evidence, but instead found that a film from 1967 was still being analyzed as one of the most supporting pieces of evidence. Another supposedly new piece of evidence was that of a body print found in the woods believed to have been left by a Bigfoot. Radford believes that the print could just as easily have been left by a kneeling elk.

Responding during the question-and-answer session of the speech, Meldrum asked Radford what constituted evidence to him. Radford answered that evidence should be tangible and testable. There have been no Bigfoot bones found or anything more concrete than an ambiguous print in mud, the skeptic said.

Even the 1967 film offers evidence to Meldrum. Every time the film is studied, Meldrum said something new comes up.
Furthermore, he said he and other scientists have compared the Bigfoot print — he notes it was actually found in clay — with a print from a kneeling elk. They didn’t match.

When the elk print was made, Meldrum said Radford asked to see it but was denied access due to his lack of expertise.

Meldrum notes his research on Bigfoot is just one facet of his larger research at ISU. His main emphases are human locomotion and bipedalism.

If Bigfoot does exist, Meldrum said it would help humans to learn more about themselves, as well as the North American ape.

And if it doesn’t exist?

Meldrum still feels that his studies will have had a purpose — helping to prove that Bigfoot doesn’t exist is worthwhile, in his estimation, too.

Whether Bigfoot is real or not, and whether it is “bad” science or “good” science, the legendary creature is still leaving footprints on today’s scientific world.

[rockinkt]

When the elk print was made, Meldrum said Radford asked to see it but was denied access due to his lack of expertise.

If this is true - I really have to question Meldrum's motives.
If you are confident with the validity of your evidence - you should be happy to show it to anyone who takes an interest.
Being able to defend your evidence is one of the cornerstones of science.

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

The reasons why Radford was denied access to the Skookum Cast has been discussed on this forum before, I'd recomend giving it a search. My understanding of the situation was that the Cast was only open to analysis by qualified scientists, which Radford is not. Dr. Daris Swindler, a known skeptic of the subject, analyzed it and openly admitted he thought it was genuine, which I suppose means he will now be considered a follower of “bad science,” which is of course ridiculous.

Mr. Radford seems to be getting alot of publicity lately, but I am certainly glad to see Meldrum was given a chance to stand up for himself in this article. Can't wait to hear him speak in June !

[HarryHenderson]

Meldrum is putting himself into a position to have to be the one to go out and FIND one of the sumbitches himself. Which would be, coincidentally, what he as a 'scientist' is usually expected to do.

[slewfoot]

With the present mindset of the mainstream scientific community towards the subject of bigfoot, you have to realize that Dr Meldrum must walk a tight line with his investigations.

After all, he must keep in the good graces of these people to put food on the table and pay the bills. He can not put himself in the position where he can jeopardize his tenure.

One whiff of sensationalism or hoaxing and his reputation could be smeared by jealous colleagues that are competing for his research dollars.

Can you imagine how hard it is to argue for funds to research an animal that most on the board think is a figment of Meldrum's imagination?

In the current atmosphere of collegiate competition for tuition dollars, the lack of controversy is held in higher regard than scientific achievement of it's faculty. IMHO

This post has been edited by slewfoot: May 19 2007, 04:03 AM

[rockinkt]

In the current atmosphere of collegiate competition for tuition dollars, the lack of controversy is held in higher regard than scientific achievement of it's faculty. IMHO

Sad - but very true.

[rockinkt]

The reasons why Radford was denied access to the Skookum Cast has been discussed on this forum before, I'd recomend giving it a search. My understanding of the situation was that the Cast was only open to analysis by qualified scientists, which Radford is not. Dr. Daris Swindler, a known skeptic of the subject, analyzed it and openly admitted he thought it was genuine, which I suppose means he will now be considered a follower of “bad science,” which is of course ridiculous.

Mr. Radford seems to be getting alot of publicity lately, but I am certainly glad to see Meldrum was given a chance to stand up for himself in this article. Can't wait to hear him speak in June !

I remember that thread - but the point still stands.
If you are fully confident in your evidence - you should be willing to defend it against all comers.

There are a lot of very talented "amateurs" in this world whose opinion about tracks and animal sign I would take over any PhD. After all - we are talking about marks in mud - not biomechanics in a laboratory - in this case.

[bipto]

When the elk print was made, Meldrum said Radford asked to see it but was denied access due to his lack of expertise.

If this is true - I really have to question Meldrum's motives.
If you are confident with the validity of your evidence - you should be happy to show it to anyone who takes an interest.
Being able to defend your evidence is one of the cornerstones of science.

From what I understand, Meldrum did not then and does not now control access to the cast. Any motives then would not be Meldrum's.

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

I remember that thread - but the point still stands.
If you are fully confident in your evidence - you should be willing to defend it against all comers.

There are a lot of very talented "amateurs" in this world whose opinion about tracks and animal sign I would take over any PhD. After all - we are talking about marks in mud - not biomechanics in a laboratory - in this case.

Yeah Meldrum doesn't have control over who see's it. And Radford is not a scientist, why should he be allowed to examine something that fragile?

Marks in Mud reveal alot about the biomechanics of an animal, think about how much we have learned about prehistoric life from their fossil prints.

[rockinkt]

Biomechanics as a science is not what is at issue. That is a red herring.

What is at issue here is a fundamental questions of ethics. Are you really OK with dividing the world of sasquatchery into "scientists" and the great unwashed?

Saying that such evidence is in the exclusive domain of "scientists" is just a preposterous attitude - IMHO.
Or, are you saying that Radford would purposely destroy the cast or that he would be foolishly clumsy and break it? Give me a break...


If Meldrum has no influence on who sees the cast - then I apologise.
But - as a scientist who has taken an unpopular stand and suffered for it - he should be the first to speak out against discrimination based on one's beliefs. IMHO

[Judaculla]

The skookum cast is the property of Rick Noll. Rick hasn't exactly had it hidden away. It has been available for public viewing at conferences at Rick's trouble and expense for transporting it.

Radford hasn't been granted a private viewing at his convenience, that's true. I believe Matt Moneymaker was the person to say no to him, but it's unclear if Matt had Rick's say-so to speak for him or if Matt was just assuming he could be the gatekeeper at the time of the request. Neither Matt nor the BFRO own the cast, and Meldrum would be the first to say it's Rick Noll's property. I don't know if Rick has directly said no to Radford or not.

Rick has been open to granting private viewing/examination time to those with some relevant expertise to evaluate the cast even if they were skeptical, such as DesertYeti. DesertYeti declined the offer.

Radford's retort when told that he didn't have any particular expertise to evaluate the cast was that other colleagues or acquaintances of Rick's/Matt's/the BFRO/whomever didn't have any particular expertise either, but they were allowed to view the cast.

[Hairy Man]

Um, actually, rockinkt this the standard in all sciences. You can walk into any musuem in the U.S./Canada and ask to see a collection and you'll get the exact same response....No. If you an't a scientist in the subject covered by the collection, then you are not going to be allowed access to it. That's just the way it is. Artifacts (especially potentially one of a kind) are too valuable and fragile to allow that. Radford has no credentials that would aide in the analysis of the artifact. If a qualified scientist was denied access, then I would too be very upset...but that hasn't happened. In fact, Desertyeti (who IS qualified) was offered an all expense paid trip by me to see the cast and he turned it down.

As for Radford and the article above, I'm actually very insulted.

Radford states: "he’s seen far too many people dedicate their lives to unworthy causes, only to retire after unfulfilled careers." Who is he to determine what an unworthy cause is? If I want to spend my money on chasing unicorns, then that's my business, not his. Fulfillment is in the eye of the doer, not the viewer....

[bipto]

In Pocatello, Radford had ample opportunity to see the cast as did everyone in attendance. When asked informally what he thought of it, he said something to the effect that he couldn't make heads or tales of it. I should know since I was the one who asked him.

Now, as someone clearly not qualified to interpret the cast and as someone who also has the ability to communicate his uninformed opinion to a great many people, why should he be allowed to view it ahead of those more qualified to interpret it?

[HarryHenderson]

I know it's mostly UNCOOL to listen to anything Radford has to say on the subject, but forget that crap, I've read his stuff and he's not 100% full of s**t. This quote from his review of Meldrum's LMS book is telling IMHO. "...Whether intentional or the result of the book’s production deadlines, some parts of Sasquatch are simply incomplete and outdate. For example, Meldrum does not include a thorough and devastating analysis by Anton Wroblewski [Desertyeti] showing that the much-touted Skookum cast imprint was most probably created by a kneeling elk - complete with a photograph showing an elk in just such a position..." A FELLOW 'scientist', with a Ph.D, with FAR MORE experience than Meldrum in the EXACT science necessary to analyze such a specimen, writes an analysis that is 'unflattering' to the previous dogma and he's not given even a complete sentence in the new book? I would love to hear even just a 'reasonable explanation' from anyone here as to why that occured (or didn't occur?)? And forget about the argument he didn't analyze the 'original cast', he worked from a 'more than adequate' (his words) facsimilie. Or did he in fact use the original cast, just not in a 'private viewing'? I'm not sure, but either way he (DesertYeti) was apparently satisfied it was enough.

This post has been edited by HarryHenderson: May 20 2007, 03:14 PM

[Hairy Man]

Um, I would further like to mention that if you check the dates on WHEN Desertyeti first came forward with his analysis and WHEN Meldrum's book went to the publisher, I'd like to know how exactly Meldrum was supposed to include it in his book. Once your book it as the publisher, that's it...you can't break a contract to hold up publication for something mentioned on the BFF. Seems to me that Redford is throwing out a redherring....

Also, Desertyeti's analysis is neither thorough nor devastating. It isn't published anywhere for Meldrum to use (it's on a thread here...but in pieces). Desertyeti stated to me that he would prepare a paper for my review so that his analysis would be thorough and complete...that never happened. So, just as a thought, it seems greatly unfair to be busting Meldrum's head over something that a: happened after his book went to press and b: never fully happened anyway. Folks like to complain about how bigfooters don't fully document their evidence; well the same standards should apply to skeptics.

AND, Bipto is completely correct...the Skookum cast was right next to Redford for two whole days in Idaho. He had his chance, but it's not as much fun to look as it is bitch.

P.S. and I disagree that Desertyeti, in this case, is more than an expert than Meldrum. First, IF it was an unknown primate, Meldrum is more qualified; if it was an elk, then neither are experts in elk prints; if it was a cretaceous species that left behind a tracing, then yes, Desertyeti trumps all.

This post has been edited by Hairy Man: May 20 2007, 03:58 PM

[HarryHenderson]

Hairy Man, you're not gonna get off that easy. I have to ask when exactly did it go to the publisher (actually leave Meldum's desk for the last time and conveyed to the publisher)? DesertYeti's first post on this board on his own analysis was July 10, 2006. According to what I have found, the LMS book was published September 16, 2006. So, I would agree it seems 'theoretically' too late to address it, but there was in fact 2 months between the dated indications. That is if Meldrum was inclined to address it at all. Do we have any idea when Meldrum may have got wind of DY's analysis, if he did at all? Personally, I'm positive he got wind of it AND early on.

Now, being that Meldrum probably used very little 'peer reviewed' analysis and evidence (of his or others work) in his writings, and in fact probably used mostly his own and others 'informal' writings and observations, the notion that it (DY's analysis) wasn't "in a complete form' is not near as important as maybe it would be in some other book by some other scientist on some other topic. Considering the damaging nature of the analysis, I don't blame Meldrum for NOT addressing it (whether he could or couldn't at that late date) as it had the possibility of making him look like an idiot.

It is pretty ironic though that one of the very few other 'professional scientists' investigating the Bigfoot mystery, who was in fact holding a scientifically based 'missive' that just happened to run contrary to the author's position, was not mentioned. Based on just the rough dates above, it was not an 'absolute impossibility' to include it if it was 'important enough'. I guess it wasn't important enough.

The problem is, that while we can defend Meldrum 'til the cows come home, one still has to consider that his 'opinion' is not the only one. And obviously it's not the only EDUCATED one. When such other opinion(s) is from a source as 'eductated' and seemingly impeccable as Meldrum's, it really has to be considered SERIOUSLY, despite any and ALL the negative ramifications it may have. As a scientist I'm sure you're more than aware that 'cosmic truth' is never dependant on the observer.

P.S. I have not nor would debate Radford's own experiences with (or not with?) the cast. I was only addressing his valid reference to another's experiences with it.

[Hairy Man]

Well, unless I'm completely mistaken, we saw the proof copy of Meldrum book in June, 2006 at the Idaho meetings. The proof is the final copy prior to the full run and the absolute last chance to correct misspellings, caption errors, etc. This was a full month before Desertyeti even brought up the subject. It should also be noted that in my own book contract (which is standard) it clearly states that once the proof is produced, outside of corrections of what is in the proof, no additional info can be added unless it's paid for by the author (and it wasn't available to add anyway). My contact also states that I have 10 days to review the proof and send it back. So again, Meldrum is being unfairly accused of omission which in fact, it isn't true.

Yes, it's very true that Meldrum cited work by others that were not from journals or other publications. However, NONE of the work Meldrum cited came from a message board. Matt Crowley's work was presented at a conference, a written report on his own webpage and through conversations with between Meldrum and Matt. Surely you aren't suggesting that work discussed on the BFF under the name of 'desertyeti' should be used as a reference? All Anton had to do was put together a concise writeup of his work, slap his name on it, and circulate it. It didn't have to be a publication, but something in usable form is necessary (I would also like to point out the apparent double standard here...how many times have we heard that making "pro" statements about the Skookum Cast on the BFF doesn't cut it and that it should be written up and submitted to a journal for peer review...and yet Meldrum should have included statements on the BFF in his book??? It can't be both ways...what's good for one side is good for the other).

No one said Meldrum was the cat's meow (cause we all know I am!!! LOL! Sorry, too much caffeine). I personally would still like Anton to finish his work so that I can read it and make my own decision. I'm sure when Meldrum revises his book for the next printing, it will be included then. If you would like, I will ask Meldrum his opinion of Anton's work when he's on the radio show in a couple of weeks.

This post has been edited by Hairy Man: May 20 2007, 06:58 PM

[HarryHenderson]

I'll concede both your points - that it was apparently too late to add or subtract anything and that DY may not have put the paper 'out there' properly enough for it to actually be considered.

But there is still the problem that it is 'out there' even IF only on this board. So as to not talk in riddles, I'm confident Meldrum is NOT a complete stranger to this board, and I'll bet even less so than we believe. Regardless, my genuine question is, taking into account where it was discussed (here), is it honorable for a guy like Meldrum to dismiss it completely given that it wasn't presented to him directly or through the quasi-proper channels, despite the fact there's apparently no single protocol (above his opinion I mean) he used to accept or dismiss the evidence and 'science' he uses in the book? Like I mentioned above, DY's analysis does nothing to HELP Meldrum's cause, so his 'ignoring' it is a worthwhile endeavor IMO in terms of self preservation, at least for now.

[Hairy Man]

I have no way of knowing how often Meldrum visits this board...you would know better than I. So, since you are confident that he does, right now is the appropriate place for a suck up moment (HI JEFF!!!).

I don't know Jeff very well, but everything I have seen of him has always given me the impression that he is nothing but honorable. In fact, at the October 2005 Texas Conference, Meldrum and I discussed Matt's work. I was critical and Meldrum chided me for being so. He went on to give me specific details of the points that he felt Matt had made and where he wanted Matt to go with the research. If Jeff was going "diss" someone's work, I think that would have been the opportunity to do so, and he didn't. He was respectful. I think there is a lot of misconceptions out there that people like myself, Meldrum, Noll, etc. are so set on bigfoot being real that we dismiss evidence to the contrary. I don't think that's true at all. Just because we don't agree, doesn't mean it's being dismissed. So, having said that, I believe Meldrum will be addressing Anton's work. How and when that will be done, I can't say...but I'm confident it will be.

[rockinkt]

Um, actually, rockinkt this the standard in all sciences. You can walk into any musuem in the U.S./Canada and ask to see a collection and you'll get the exact same response....No. If you an't a scientist in the subject covered by the collection, then you are not going to be allowed access to it. That's just the way it is. Artifacts (especially potentially one of a kind) are too valuable and fragile to allow that.

Actually - I know about things like that.
I hate to have to ask - what museum is this cast currently being displayed in?

As far as the book dispute - the time frame in which the publisher dictates nothing can be changed or added is the only question that needs to be answered.
Who was the publisher? (edited to add - I found the answer to that question- FORGE Books)

This post has been edited by rockinkt: May 20 2007, 11:34 PM

[bipto]

I hate to have to ask - what museum is this cast currently being displayed in?

I hate to have to ask - what museum are the countless priceless pieces of scientifically significant items from across the spectrum of subjects that are currently in private hands currently being displayed in? And, more importantly, what difference does that make to the price of tea in China?

The cast has been studied by qualified individuals and, from what I understand, more analysis is ongoing. The fact that it's not in a museum doesn't seem to be an entirely relevant question. Are you suggesting it's in hiding somewhere?

[Hairy Man]

Actually - I know about things like that.
I hate to have to ask - what museum is this cast currently being displayed in?

As far as the book dispute - the time frame in which the publisher dictates nothing can be changed or added is the only question that needs to be answered.
Who was the publisher? (edited to add - I found the answer to that question- FORGE Books)

As already stated, the only person that I know of (but I don't know everything) who was denied access was Radford, who admitted after having seen the original cast for two days next to him in Idaho that he couldn't make "heads or tails" out of it. For Radford or anyone else to use this as some sort of "gotya" is a red herring. Radford could add nothing to the discussion of the Skookum cast.

As for the book, their website doesn't appear to have much info on it, but it shouldn't be to hard to track down a standard book contract. However, this seems like a silly argument, as it has already been pointed out that Desertyeti didn't even bring up the subject until July, 2006 and Meldrum's book was to the public in Sept, 2006. Do you really think that he could have pulled a book (likely already printed) in August 2006 to include info from the BFF? (Don't forget that Amazon was offering pre-sales in May 2006).

Truly, out of everything that Radford said, is this what people are going to concentrate on?

This post has been edited by Hairy Man: May 21 2007, 09:47 AM

[Tirademan]

...However, these stories cannot be taken seriously because people don’t take scientific considerations into account, such as control groups, validity, or the scientific method, Radford argued.

But Meldrum sees no reason why anecdotes should be so easily dismissed. Many Sasquatch sightings and stories have been reported by knowledgeable and experienced experts, such as forest rangers, veterinarians and wildlife biologists....

I also was in Idaho with my book Big News Prints. In it are over 400 strange animal/wild man/bigfoot stories going back to 1764. I also had over 142 more on disc and something like 35 of them printed out.

I was sitting next to Ben at the sales booth. I showed him my book, and some of the other "classic" stories I had printed. I'm not exaggerating when I say he spent 1.5 minutes flipping through the book. He was not interested at all. I pointed out some of the more detailed stories from the 1800s..."8 feet tall, covered in hair, 'man or gorilla?'" stories...no response but a smile.

I'm not arguing that all the stories I've found imply sasquatch, or that the stories themselves connotate proof, but a complete refusal to even examine history because "stories can't be taken seriously"? Seriously?!

I mean, Ben is a nice guy and all, but I just don't think he is very logical when it comes to the historical fabric of sasquatch.

What was also compelling is that he was selling his seamonster debunking book. When I told him I had come across countless old and detailed "seamonster" accounts at www.newspaperarchive.com he ALSO didn't seem too interested. I got the distinct impression that he wasn't going to spend time on anything that might counter his views. Science anyone?

Seems to me a skeptic would want to be aware of old stories so they could be better informed...oh well.

Just my 2¢

tirademan

[Huntster]

Is it in bad form to point out that Benjamin Radford is the managing editor of The Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and it's probably his "business" to poke holes in sasquatchery?

[LAL]

I remember that thread - but the point still stands.
If you are fully confident in your evidence - you should be willing to defend it against all comers.

Dr. Meldrum is not the curator of the cast.

As I recall, Radford wasn't denied, he was made to wait like the rest of the public.

Dr. Daegling has the credentials, but he evidently thought Cliff Crook's opinion was good enough and, to my knowledge, never examined it. It made it to his book though.

[Lyndon]

Is it in bad form to point out that Benjamin Radford is the managing editor of The Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and it's probably his "business" to poke holes in sasquatchery?

Ah, you mean he's probably doing it for the money and not for science??

Hmmmmm, I always wondered just why some of these scoftics are so er, 'passionate' about trying to refute the existance of sasquatch.

[HarryHenderson]

I have no way of knowing how often Meldrum visits this board...you would know better than I. So, since you are confident that he does, right now is the appropriate place for a suck up moment (HI JEFF!!!).

I don't know Jeff very well, but everything I have seen of him has always given me the impression that he is nothing but honorable. In fact, at the October 2005 Texas Conference, Meldrum and I discussed Matt's work. I was critical and Meldrum chided me for being so. He went on to give me specific details of the points that he felt Matt had made and where he wanted Matt to go with the research. If Jeff was going "diss" someone's work, I think that would have been the opportunity to do so, and he didn't. He was respectful. I think there is a lot of misconceptions out there that people like myself, Meldrum, Noll, etc. are so set on bigfoot being real that we dismiss evidence to the contrary. I don't think that's true at all. Just because we don't agree, doesn't mean it's being dismissed. So, having said that, I believe Meldrum will be addressing Anton's work. How and when that will be done, I can't say...but I'm confident it will be.

That's great news. Truly, I hope I'm one of the first to read anything he puts forth on the matter. And honestly, I have no 'insider information' whatsoever on Meldrum's activities here, I was just speculating. Now, I have to giggle a little at your 'facade of indifference' (or it could be 'genuine', I'm still not sure) regarding this. I know you're defending science and scientists. But here's the scenario: A 'key Bigfoot scientist' writes a mostly-well-received 'key Bigfoot book' using a 'key piece of Bigfoot evidence' that was coincidentally, and concurrently being refuted during the actual 'key Bigfoot book printing'...yet it's really not that important?! I assume one would 'worry' about their entire scientific CAREER if evidence came forth that intelligently refuted something they had previously staked their CAREER on (in a recently published book no less) as being otherwise. But, that's just me.

.....Truly, out of everything that Radford said, is this what people are going to concentrate on?

I may have been mistaken, I was under the impression you (and others) not only believe that "everything that Radford said" is BS, but that you all had ALWAYS felt anything he's ever said was BS. Actually, I'm a bit surprised you think this particular little aspect is NOT 'anything that important'. As a point of information, in this instance it's not Radford as culprit, he's simply the messenger. Wanna know what my own personal problem with it all really is? Probably not, but I'll say it anyway...hypocrisy. "These laws are eternal, except for this weekend." Meldrum uses the cloak of legitimacy his stature as a professor and scientist affords him, then plays fast-and-loose with the rules of assembling a genuine 'scientific case', then theoretically screams 'protocol failure foul' when confronted with something contradictory (and quite possibly detrimental) that may have been proffered/obtained in the same/similar fast-and-loose manner as his own 'evidence'. I mentioned something recently asking why doesn't Meldrum, since he is a scientist and stuff, just go out and 'obtain' one of the beasts himself and put the whole matter to rest - like other scientists and stuff do. And be a hero too. Nobody here is saying he can't do it on some lazy Sunday afternoon after a steak and ribs barbecue with the neighbors. He doesn't have to assemble an 'official expedition' or anything for our benefit, just take a big can of whoop-ass and go get the big guy. He can be back by sundown.

Just so you know that I'm an equal opportunity critic, any mention of David Daegling makes me throw up a little in my mouth. I've read his pablum numerous times and been through "Bigfoot's Screen Test" piece by piece several times and simply put, Daegling is an IDIOT...genuinely. An 'educated' IDIOT presumably, but an actual and certified grade D IDIOT. If you know him, you can pass on my opinion. It's not above possibility that I could debate him in HIS OWN FIELD and probably win (and I know very little about anthropology). He needs to stay in his own little cubicle and forget about what 'Bigfoot' is and is not up to.

[the evilist sere...]

Claiming complete objectivity here (I was very disappointed in Meldrum's book) and expertise (edited science journals for 15ish years and still in the pub biz), no way could Meldrum have addressed DY's theory between its introduction on 10 July 06 and a shelf date of 16 September 06. Absolutely impossible. Going backward in a perfect scenario, printing delta is a minimum of 2 weeks (6 weeks if printed offshore, but apparently LMS was printed in the US [although I know that is commonly not true despite what is printed]), blue line passes are 1 to 2 weeks (computerized, there's still a "blue line" stage) prior to that, and galley passes (to author and reviewers, to editor, to proofer, cx incorporated, proofer again) are another 2 weeks minimum. That would leave a maximum of 2 weeks for Meldrum to address DY, which is unfair to expect, not conducive to the kind of research I'd respect, and understandably impossible for a pub to accommodate. Also, an author can't just say, "Oh, need 2 more pages in the book"; my experience with books is that 4 months is about the max between page count final and press. Additional trickle-down would be redoing the TOC, page numbering, and the index--a minimum of a week's worth of work if done "on the fly," 2 weeks if done conscientiously.

I also "fifth" the observation that the Skookum Cast was completely open for close scrutiny, examination, photographs, whatever study someone was inclined to do, for the full 2 days in Pocatello, where Radford spoke.

[Huntster]

(Huntster @ May 21 2007, 07:42 PM)
Is it in bad form to point out that Benjamin Radford is the managing editor of The Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and it's probably his "business" to poke holes in sasquatchery?

Ah, you mean he's probably doing it for the money and not for science??

Actually, I wasn't thinking about his monied interest. I was thinking more of his ideological position.

Hmmmmm, I always wondered just why some of these scoftics are so er, 'passionate' about trying to refute the existance of sasquatch.

For some (like those "passionate" enough to manage a magazine like "The Skeptical Inquirer"), skepticism goes beyond science. It approaches religious levels.

[rockinkt]

Claiming complete objectivity here (I was very disappointed in Meldrum's book) and expertise (edited science journals for 15ish years and still in the pub biz), no way could Meldrum have addressed DY's theory between its introduction on 10 July 06 and a shelf date of 16 September 06. Absolutely impossible. Going backward in a perfect scenario, printing delta is a minimum of 2 weeks (6 weeks if printed offshore, but apparently LMS was printed in the US [although I know that is commonly not true despite what is printed]), blue line passes are 1 to 2 weeks (computerized, there's still a "blue line" stage) prior to that, and galley passes (to author and reviewers, to editor, to proofer, cx incorporated, proofer again) are another 2 weeks minimum. That would leave a maximum of 2 weeks for Meldrum to address DY, which is unfair to expect, not conducive to the kind of research I'd respect, and understandably impossible for a pub to accommodate. Also, an author can't just say, "Oh, need 2 more pages in the book"; my experience with books is that 4 months is about the max between page count final and press. Additional trickle-down would be redoing the TOC, page numbering, and the index--a minimum of a week's worth of work if done "on the fly," 2 weeks if done conscientiously.

I also "fifth" the observation that the Skookum Cast was completely open for close scrutiny, examination, photographs, whatever study someone was inclined to do, for the full 2 days in Pocatello, where Radford spoke.

Excellent information. It has also been my limited experience that the publisher - not the writer - holds the final decision on revisions.

I am not nursing a grudge against the people involved in the Skookum Cast. I hold Rick Noll in high regard (I can disagree with a person and still think they are of the highest intelligence and credibility) - and I certainly do not know enough about Dr. Meldrum to make assertations one way or another.
It just gets my dander up if I think an unfair decision has been made.

However, based on the information provided in this thread - and after reading through that other humoungous thread - it is obvious to me now that Radford had every opportunity to study the cast and was making an unfair request that was probably designed to make Rick look bad.
Apologies to Rick Noll and Dr. Meldrum.

[bipto]

I also was in Idaho with my book Big News Prints. In it are over 400 strange animal/wild man/bigfoot stories going back to 1764. I also had over 142 more on disc and something like 35 of them printed out.

Dude, I shoulda bought your book in Idaho but didn't. I want to now. Got a link or something?

Oh, and I completely agree with your assessment of Radford.

[damndirtyape]

I actually like Ben Radford’s lake monster book. Wish they would have done a little more experimenting but it was a good effort. But I also see that it came from a slanted view point. It seemed that every case presented in it bolstered only the authors.

For once I would like to see science in one of these books about cryptids. You start with the authors premise and then go seek out observations made by others, reporting all things, change the premise a bit to fit those and then do experimentation and refine once again. I think this would make a very strong case and there was a hint of this in the book when some observations could not be accounted for by the author’s theory.

This article though… tsk, tsk, tsk.

During the conference I video interviewed Ben about the book for over an hour on his theories, Bigfoot and generally the cryptid biz. He seemed to have his head on his shoulders then and had some very good answers.

This article could have been more balanced with a panel of writers consisting of a neutral person, with no prior knowledge, someone who is a proponent of the creature and one who is not. Oh and force them all to really read the book. It just seemed that each of them were taken to task in the book and had to counterpoint it.

Maybe Ben was a little miffed sharing the article, slash, commentary, slash book review with others. Just not his style.

[LAL]

As already stated, the only person that I know of (but I don't know everything) who was denied access was Radford, who admitted after having seen the original cast for two days next to him in Idaho that he couldn't make "heads or tails" out of it.

It seems Cliff Crook was denied as well, with reasons given here.

If and when Ichnos publishes DY's paper, Jeff, or someone, might be inclined to answer, but I think he's already answered him in the book. Elk lay was considered from the beginning.

DY's "thorough" analysis included showing photos of the copy (which is missing 60% of the hair flow, is painted and doesn't match the original in the measurements - my source is the BFF) to elk experts, who after looking for five seconds or less (he timed them) pronounced it the imprint of some type of ungulate.

This according to DY, is an elk knee imprint with misidentified hair:



(Is one picture still worth a thousand words, or has inflation changed all that?)