My review of the speakers:
Rick Noll - As with some of the others, Rick's presentation was basically the same I've seen him give before with some updates. Covering the events surrounding the impression that became the Skookum cast and the resulting interpretation of it is very interesting, even for those who've heard it before. In fact, if you haven't heard it from Rick, you should. I'll be posting a recording of his presentation this weekend.
Chris Murphy - Murphy's mile a minute presentation style allows him to pack a boatload of info into a measly 60 minutes. Similar to his book Meet the Sasquatch, his talk was a good overall primer on the subject of bigfoot. Nothing really earth shattering if you're sufficiently well read on the topic, but his enthusiastic delivery and obvious passion makes his time at the mic very entertaining.
Kathy Moskowitz Strain - I think Kathy's work on the Hairy Man pictograph and Native American beliefs is fascinating stuff. I like to use it on the rare occasions where I find myself explaining to someone why having an interest in sasquatch is not analogous to belief in the Tooth Fairy. I'm looking forward to seeing it published in the (hopefully) near future.
Benjamin Radford - Radford is a likable guy, but that doesn't change the fact that he suffers from an excessive amount of skepticism. He bemoans the fact that those of us on what I guess is the not-so-skeptical side of things are always lumping all skeptics into one gooey mass instead of recognizing that some (like him) are reasonable people who apparently are being fair and balanced when it comes to appraising bigfoot evidence. But that doesn't stop him from doing the exact same thing those on the other side. My problem with Radford is, when asked what of the existing evidence is most compelling, his response is the Skookum cast, but even that isn't all that good since it's all just a jumble of shapes to him. Apparently, all those casts and the work of people like Meldrum have no impact on him. He also dismisses all encounter reports since witnesses are unreliable. I agree that witnesses can be unreliable, but there are a number of reports that aren't the run of the mill "hairy thing by the side of the road" kind and aren't easily dismissed. But he dismisses them anyway. IMO, having Radford on the ticket was a good stab at presenting a balanced slate of speakers, but if this is the best the skeptical crowd can deliver, it would have been best to leave him out.
M.K. Davis - Davis is obviously very enthusiastic and dedicated to his work, but his presentation is not much more than him opening up a bunch of random files on his computer and showing them to the audience. It's not a presentation at all since he doesn't seem to have any kind of hypothesis or sufficiently defined objective he's trying to put forth except that he's got a lot of animated GIFs that he thinks show all kinds of stuff on the PG film. I've never seem him present before, so I don't know if this is typical or just an off night. In any event, it could have been better.
Jeff Meldrum - Aces. It does not get better than this. A real, live scientist showing the result of actual science applied to print and cast evidence. Again,
basically the same as I've seen before but with some updates. Nonetheless, IMO Meldrum's doing more to legitimize interest in sasquatch than anyone before him.
Doug Hajicek - Hajicek is making slickly produced TV shows that might rekindle interest in sasquatch in the general public. I get that. I just don't like his presentation all that much. I'd rather watch his programs than his PowerPoint any day. He dropped a hint at the end of his talk that he will be making some kind of announcement soon regarding a new program regarding (I assume) sasquatch, so we have that to look forward too. Here's hoping whatever it is doesn't involve looking up people's nostrils for 30 minutes.
Owen Caddy - As I posted before, Owen has done what I think is groundbreaking and unprecedented analysis of the PG film. He gets pretty technical and can't show all the frames he's analyzed in an hour presentation, but his work could (literally) change the face of sasquatch research. Good stuff.
Darrell Smith - Smith's talk started out good with folksy humor and a down to earth delivery, but after about 15 minutes it became obvious that he's out there on the fringe. Once I heard him mention the black helicopters, I wandered off in search of something better to do (like find a Coke machine). I don't think Smith should have been on the agenda. Guys like this don't help advance the field and look especially out of place next to people like Meldrum, Kathy, and Owen.
John Mionczynski - This guy's the real deal. His extemporaneous talk was filled with compelling retellings of encounters he's investigated, as well as his own. It's just these kind of witness accounts that skeptics like Radford never talk about. After he spoke, I found out that Mionczynski spends the majority of his time out in the deep woods working, lives without electricity, and obviously has more manly ability in his left pinky toe than will ever be found in my body or the of bodies of the next three generations of my male descendants...combined.
Eric Penz - I admit to not seeing his presentation since I was at the museum next door looking at the bigfoot exhibit. I did buy his book, though.
Here's a review of the book. You can buy it
here.
Willie Preacher panel discussion - This was one of the more interesting discussions and it's too bad it was left until last and most of the audience had gone. The Native American perspective on bigfoot is not one I've spent a lot of time exploring in the past, but I hope to become more aquatinted with it in the future.