Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Professor Tracks Bigfoot
Bigfoot Forums > Bigfoot/Sasquatch Discussion > Media > News & Magazine Articles
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
RayG
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Nov 4 2006, 12:53 PM) *
This sort of comment always flusters me. Because you think that Meldrum is wrong on some point and some us think he’s right, that’s worship?


No, it becomes worship when his opinions/speculations are held in higher regard than his scientific discoveries/experimental results.

QUOTE
I’m sorry, I don’t attend the Meldrum Church on Sunday.


I'll bet you're getting his Holy Book of bigfootdom. :wink:

QUOTE
However, if he says black and you (and anyone else on this forum) says white, I’m more apt to believe Meldrum because he educated, skilled, very intelligent, and he hasn’t let me down yet. Do I think he’s infallible, no…no one is, but he’s more likely to be right in his interpretation of a footprint, etc. than folks who have no background in anatomy or primates or early man.


I'm no scientist and that's exactly why I depend upon actual scientists to make determinations about things I'm not qualifed to speak about. I like knowing what the scientific consensus is, what other similarly trained and educated experts think about his research and results, whether that research has been replicated, and the results picked apart in a peer-reviewed process before being published in a reputable scientific journal. Books might be an okay place to publish an opinion, but if you want your peers to sit up and take notice get published in a scientific journal.

QUOTE
Never confuse respect for worship…they aren’t the same thing.


One shouldn't confuse his book for the Holy Grail of bigfootdom either. :wink:

QUOTE
QUOTE(RayG @ Nov 4 2006, 07:54 AM) *

So no, I don't agree with lofty scientists who poo-poo Meldrum's enthusiastic approach to solving the bigfoot mystery. Having said that, it's necessary to adhere to scientific principles when addressing any evidence that's presented concerning bigfoot. Without a foot to examine, skeletal determination is speculative at best. Inconclusive means exactly that, and no amount of wishful-thinking will make something conclusive.


So, we should all go home and call it a day?


Nah, not at all, nor have I ever advocated he or anyone else should pack it in. I'll stress again the importance of strictly following scientific principles and procedures when examining purported bigfoot evidence. It can be fun to speculate what the possibilities might be, but at the end of the day speculation is no better than guesstimates.

QUOTE
The point is, you CAN'T make any progress unless you are studying what we do have and determine if its possible evidence of a bigfoot or not.


Yeah, but isn't all of it possible evidence of bigfoot? Trouble is, none of it has advanced beyond possible.

QUOTE
Until a dead bigfoot falls into someone's lap, that's what we got to work with.


Which isn't a whole lot.

QUOTE
If you don't accept that as a basic premise, why are you here?


Because I refuse to close the door on a possible bigfoot.

QUOTE(Snow Kitty)
...show me some of your science that contra indicates his conclusions, using the same original data...


Show me the general consensus of other scientists, in the same area of expertise, who have used the same original data to support his conclusions.

QUOTE(HarryHenderson)
Even Ray has to admit she owned him, at least for a few seconds, on that one. :laugh:


Heh, and maybe I even liked it. :new_lmaosmiley:

RayG
billgreen2005bigfoot
hey everyone im very mad about this article about dr jeff meldrum becouse i feel it definetly makes him look bad toward his friends etc and that not right at all.... so he believes in sasquatch why should his university or people in there even care what kind of research he does they should back him up etc. plus the media had a field day this situation which is realy wrong. i hope dr jeff meldrum comes out with return statement about this bad article about him. thanks bill
Hairy Man
QUOTE(RayG @ Nov 4 2006, 08:35 PM) *
I'll bet you're getting his Holy Book of bigfootdom. :wink:
One shouldn't confuse his book for the Holy Grail of bigfootdom either. :wink:


Nope, his book isn't my bible, but it certainly is good and well worth reading. I do own it, along with about 200 other bigfoot books as well.

QUOTE(RayG @ Nov 4 2006, 08:35 PM) *
Yeah, but isn't all of it possible evidence of bigfoot? Trouble is, none of it has advanced beyond possible.


Well, the best way on how I look at bigfooting is this: in the field, because of my training, I rule one rock to be nothing and another to be something. I take the "something" back into my lab and sometimes find it's really nothing, while other times I'm astonished that I found something very, very cool and important. It's been laying there in the forest for 100s of years, waiting to be found, but wasn't until I found it. How did I find it? Well, it was because when I surveyed the land, I looked at ALL the land, not just where I thought artifacts would be...artifacts don't always come in the form we think it should be and all rocks are potentially artifacts until they are looked at and determined not to be (and it takes mere moments in the field to do that). You are correct, we do seem stuck in "possible"...but somewhere out there is the "WOW!"

QUOTE(RayG @ Nov 4 2006, 08:35 PM) *
QUOTE(HarryHenderson)
Even Ray has to admit she owned him, at least for a few seconds, on that one. :laugh:


Heh, and maybe I even liked it. :new_lmaosmiley:

RayG


:new_lmaosmiley:
Wildman
QUOTE(mike2k1 @ Nov 4 2006, 10:54 AM) *
If you are in the public eye...especially involved in a fringe subject; you will have critics. You\'ll have people call you a quack. Comes with the program. I\'m sure Dr. M expects stuff like this and it probably will not phase him.


Yup. If any of this bothered Meldrum, he wouldn't be as public about it as he is. He obviously isn't stressing out about it. Why should anyone else be?
belemnoid
QUOTE(scarey678 @ Nov 4 2006, 06:06 PM) *
Did anyone notice that it was the physics department that did most of the complaining? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone from the biology and anthropology departments take a shot at Dr. Meldrum. I don't see how wormholes and alternate universes can be less "out there" than bigfoot. The physics department probably lost some funding and they're lashing out at a convenient target. Keep up the good work Dr. Meldrum.



That's because he's well respected as an anthropologist. My friend who just got her PhD from UC Davis in bio-anthropology sent me the link to his book because she knew that I have an interest in BF and she has worked with him and his students on several non-BF projects and thinks very highly of him.
MultipleEncounters
I took it upon myself to write Professors Hackworth and Wells with concern about their statements, when they probably have never even investigated the evidence themselves. I did receive a short reply from Hackworth, who asked "Did I find any money under my pillow when I woke up" for my standing up to his closed minded opinions.

I have also never met nor spoke with Prof Meldrum before this. However I did cc him a copy of my memo. Meldrum did reply: "The reporter has sensationalized the situation to some extent, i.e., my tenure is not at risk."

Still, I would recommend that some of the serious researchers here who have tidbits of evidence, to send an email to Professors Hackworth and Wells. A few compelling photos or soundfiles will do. A footprint. A treetwist. A vocalization. Give them something to think about. Tell them a short story of your encounter. Maybe they will realize that there may be more to this phenomenon then they ever realized.

D. P. WELLS wells@physics.isu.edu
MARTIN HACKWORTH hackmart@physics.isu.edu

Dave
Huntster
QUOTE(P.L. Pinkham @ Nov 4 2006, 11:13 PM) *
QUOTE(mike2k1 @ Nov 4 2006, 10:54 AM) *

If you are in the public eye...especially involved in a fringe subject; you will have critics. You\'ll have people call you a quack. Comes with the program. I\'m sure Dr. M expects stuff like this and it probably will not phase him.


Yup. If any of this bothered Meldrum, he wouldn't be as public about it as he is. He obviously isn't stressing out about it. Why should anyone else be?


Dr. Meldrum is obviously a very brave man to continue in this field. And he's obviously not stupid. He knows "they" will do to him what they did to Krantz.

But I'm sure this kind of backlash bothers him. If not, it should. It damned sure bothers me.

I've gotten lots of flak from some regarding my criticism of "science" and "academia" regarding this issue, but it's water off of a duck's back, because I'm not in the industry. Dr. Meldrum is. He is literally the front line, and there are a lot of guns aimed at him.

I've been involved in lots of political and social issues in the past. I'll never forget what a friend told me once regarding the "opposition":

QUOTE
When you hear the Beast screaming the loudest, it's because you've cut him, he's bleeding, and he's furious.
tugboatwa
Google News now has 185 links to organizations which have carried the AP story on Dr. Meldrum.

It is my understanding that news organizations which subscribe to the Associated Press have the ability to use all or some of the story sent to them. And as can be seen below, they can use whatever headline they wish...

Idaho Prof Criticized Over Bigfoot Study

Bigfoot Research Makes Professor A Campus Outcast

Professor's Bigfoot Research Called 'A Joke'

Professor's Bigfoot research criticized

Prof who has 'proof' Bigfoot exists is an outcast on campus

Idaho professor becomes a campus outcast with his Bigfoot research

Professor who studies Bigfoot stirs debate

Bigfoot prof fights for tenure

Idaho professor stirs debate with serious research on Bigfoot

Bigfoot research embarrassing to school, some say

Professor backs his belief in Bigfoot

Anatomy professor takes heat for believing in Bigfoot

Skeptics think Bigfoot researcher is a big joke

Professor's Bigfoot hunt brings notoriety, ridicule

Sasquatch scientist: One foot in fantasy land?

American professor believes Bigfoot lives

Bigfoot studies render academic an outcast

These headlines seem to indicate the news organization's percentage of belief in the possibility of Bigfoot.
Sunflower
Maybe if Ms Jane Goodall could chime in here just a bit. I think, and I could be mistaken, that a statement from her might put a lid on it.

Sunflower
LAL
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Nov 3 2006, 10:34 PM) *
"Himself a hulking figure"
It sounds like that was lifted from an article on Krantz.


Dr. Frankenstein comes to mind.

It even made AOL News. I mercifully missed it, but a friend sent me a link.
LAL
That story has pictures. Goodall gets a mention:

"Jane Goodall, the world's authority on chimpanzees, lauds Meldrum on his book cover for bringing "a much-needed level of scientific analysis" to the Bigfoot debate."

Polls:

Do you think Bigfoot exists?
Yes 58%
No 42%
Total Votes: 234,375


Do you think Jeffrey Meldrum's tenure should be revoked?
No 88%
Yes 12%
Total Votes: 224,520

http://servedby.advertising.com/click/site...60x600;ct.4/01/
RayG
Yegads, if we had gotten rid of all the scientists who think a little off-center, who exhibit eccentric behavior, who investigate weird and mysterious things, most universities would have to slash their science departments in half, or in some instances, shut them down completely. Besides, who would Gary Larsen have made fun of?



:laugh:

RayG
CoolFoot
I like this quote from Jeff...
QUOTE
I place legend under scrutiny and my conclusion is, absolutely, Bigfoot exists."


It's amazing that he can conclude Bigfoot definitely exists...without there being any evidence of such a creature?
How's that possible?
Maybe RayG can explain how....he's always said there's no such thing as "Bigfoot evidence".
Volsquatch
QUOTE(CoolFoot @ Nov 5 2006, 10:28 AM) *
Maybe RayG can explain how....he's always said there's no such thing as "Bigfoot evidence".


There's other threads for that discussion. Let's keep this one on topic.
PEPPERSFARMS
I’ve never actually seen the creature, I‘ve had an experience which fits into some of the patters listed as BF activity whether it was or not without a physical sitting I can’t say for sure. I read many of the sightings on this sight and others from people who sound very creditable and a reported local sighting from a person who I have faith in. This is why I believe.

Dr. Meldrom wether he is right or wrong he is standing up for what he believes in, in todays society that is very commendable, in it’s self. To take an unpopular position oppisite you pears takes courage and confiction. Wether you believe or not you have to admire him for taking a stance and his courage in doing so. :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:
GrandCherokee
I think that is one term which should be eradicated from our dialogue...'believer'
It smacks of cultism..and sure makes it easier for all of those engaged in such conversations to be labeled in a derisive manner by the press and the general public.
As for this story being the cause of loosing possible believers? Well..I am not sure that I would depend upon ( Or be deprived from missing..) the ideas and opinions of such individuals who cannot think for themselves and allow others to easily do so for them.
As for Doctor 'J"??
Well we all do what we do and our detractors do what they do. I see nothing new or astonishing in the text, or sub text.....except that.. at this time we got the name of someone who took it on the chin.
just my .02..
RogerKni
"Believer" has the connotation of "fanatic," but "believe in" is less tainted and its denotation at least doesn't imply any irrationality. We can use Daegling's "advocate" if we want a connotationally more neutral word--although its denotation (formal definition) actually implies more partisanship than does believer.

There were three errors in the article that I objected to: Meldrum's hulkiness, the smears of the PGF, and the flub about the joints and arch. But I don't object to the rest of the article as an article. If some other profs. turn up their noses at his activities, that's worth reporting. If the reporter took an "amused" viewpoint toward this tempest, that stance makes things entertaining and readable--and is a necessary self-defense measure by the media against predictable squawks from members of the skeptics movement that the article is undermining rationality by implying the public should take such pseudoscience seriously.

I don't think the article "took sides" (except about the Wallace footprints and the PGF--and that I'm sure was due only to unfamiliarity with the subject, not malice). And the context in which the criticism of Meldrum arose should be realized: it was a reaction to the use of University facilities for the Pocatello Bigfoot conference. (The skeptics' movement has always found "public funding" an objectionable point--and has always made use of it as a key component in its strictures against proponents of Weird things. And they kind of have a point, up to a point.)

The main objection I have to the article is that it failed to mention Meldum's new book. The title wouldn't have had to be mentioned, if there were a concern about giving it publicity, only a passing phrase like "Meldrum, whose book on the subject has just been printed, ..."

This article will surely lead to additional publicity about Bigfoot and Meldrum, and additional interviews with him. These in turn will contain references to his book and to informational websites. So the bottom line, a year from now, is that the article will have had a positive effect.
tugboatwa
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Nov 5 2006, 01:13 PM) *
The main objection I have to the article is that it failed to mention Meldum's new book. The title wouldn't have had to be mentioned, if there were a concern about giving it publicity, only a passing phrase like "Meldrum, whose book on the subject has just been printed, ..."
It's rare to be able to correct something that Roger posts... in fact this is the first that I can remember.
QUOTE(AP Story)
Still, Meldrum has a distinguished supporter in Jane Goodall, the world-famous authority on African chimpanzees. Her blurb on the jacket of Meldrum's new book, "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science," lauds him for bringing "a much-needed level of scientific analysis" to the Bigfoot debate.
RogerKni
Oops! You know, I read thru my printed-out article three times (rapidly) looking for a mention of the title. It just goes to show that the old chestnut about proofreading is true--one is blind to the mistakes in what one's written oneself.

Well, the mention of the title just adds to my main point, though, which is that the article isn't that bad, and that its long-term effects will be mostly positive.
Flashman
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Nov 5 2006, 04:13 PM) *
it was a reaction to the use of University facilities for the Pocatello Bigfoot conference. (The skeptics' movement has always found "public funding" an objectionable point--and has always made use of it as a key component in its strictures against proponents of Weird things. And they kind of have a point, up to a point.


Great, save money on seeking out potential "new" forms of life, so it can be spent finding faster, better, larger ways of killing stuff instead. :new_tiredsmiley:
PEPPERSFARMS
be·liev·er [bi lvər]
(plural be·liev·ers)
n
1. somebody with religious faith: somebody who believes in the teachings of a particular religious faith
2. supporter of an idea: somebody who holds a belief and usually acts in accordance with it
a great believer in discipline


Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The definition in red is the meaning I intended, but I understand your concern. :new_weirdsmiley: :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:
tugboatwa
The following are two versions of the same story... the first is the version as seen on LA Times.com. This is similar to the story linked to in the first post of this thread.
QUOTE
Professor's Bigfoot Research Criticized

By JESSE HARLAN ALDERMAN, Associated Press Writer, 2:26 AM PST, November 4, 2006

POCATELLO, Idaho -- Jeffrey Meldrum holds a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences and is a tenured professor of anatomy at Idaho State University. He is also one of the world's foremost authorities on Bigfoot, the mythical smelly ape-man of the Northwest woods. And Meldrum firmly believes the lumbering, shaggy brute exists.

That makes him an outcast -- a solitary, Sasquatch-like figure himself -- on the 12,700-student campus, where many scientists are embarrassed by what they call Meldrum's "pseudo-academic" pursuits and have called on the university to review his work with an eye toward revoking his tenure. One physics professor, D.P. Wells, wonders whether Meldrum plans to research Santa Claus, too.

Meldrum, 48, spends most of his days in his laboratory in the Life Sciences Building, analyzing more than 200 jumbo plaster casts of what he contends are Bigfoot footprints.

For the past 10 years, he has added his scholarly sounding research to a field full of sham videos and supermarket tabloid exposes. And he is convinced he has produced a body of evidence that proves there is a Bigfoot.

"It used to be you went to a bookstore and asked for a book on Bigfoot and you'd be directed to the occult section, right between the Bermuda Triangle and UFOs," Meldrum said. "Now you can find some in the natural science section."

Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department, called Meldrum's research a "joke."

"Do I cringe when I see the Discovery Channel and I see Idaho State University, Jeff Meldrum? Yes, I do," Hackworth said. "He believes he's taken up the cause of people who have been shut out by the scientific community. He's lionized there. He's worshipped. He walks on water. It's embarrassing."

John Kijinski, dean of arts and sciences, said there have been "grumblings" about Meldrum's tenure, but no formal request for a review.

"He's a bona fide scientist," Kijinski said. "I think he helps this university. He provides a form of open discussion and dissenting viewpoints that may not be popular with the scientific community, but that's what academics all about."

On campus, Meldrum -- himself a hulking figure, with a mop of brown hair, a bristly silver mustache, and a black T-shirt with a silhouette of a hunchbacked, lurking Bigfoot -- gets funny looks and the silent treatment from other scientists, and is not invited to share coffee with the other science professors.

Over the summer, more than 30 professors signed a petition criticizing the university for hosting a Bigfoot symposium where Meldrum was the keynote speaker.

He pays for his research with a $30,000 donation from a Bigfoot believer.

Still, Meldrum has a distinguished supporter in Jane Goodall, the world-famous authority on African chimpanzees. Her blurb on the jacket of Meldrum's new book, "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science," lauds him for bringing "a much-needed level of scientific analysis" to the Bigfoot debate.

"As a scientist, she's very curious and she keeps an open mind," said Goodall spokeswoman Nona Gandelman. "She's fascinated by it."

Bigfoot is sort of the Loch Ness Monster of the Pacific Northwest. The legend dates back centuries. Indian folklore includes murmurs of a man-ape that roams the hidden hollows. Sasquatch is a Salish Indian word meaning woodland wildman.

Newspapers began recording sightings of Bigfoot in the backwoods during the 1920s. But skeptics have challenged the accounts, and practical jokers have staged elaborate hoaxes, including grainy film footage of someone in a monkey suit and phony footprints stamped into the ground with giant molded feet.

Meldrum said it was a decade ago in Walla Walla, Wash., that he first discovered flat 15-inch footprints in the woods. He said he thought initially that they were a hoax, but noticed locked joints and a narrow arch -- traits he came to believe could only belong to Bigfoot.

"That's what set the hook," Meldrum said. "I resolved at this point, this was a question I'd get to the bottom of."

When not in the lab, he loads his Chevy Suburban with tents and forensic gear and heads for the woods of Washington state and Northern California, where he has collected what he says are footprints, hair and feces from the ape-man. He tests hair samples and uses physics to produce charts that purport to show how Bigfoot would walk.

Meldrum wonders aloud how much longer he will be on the faculty. But he said he also dreams of one day bringing back a bone or a tooth or some skin, and silencing the "stuffy academics."

"Is the theory of exploration dead?" he asked. "I'm not out to proselytize that Bigfoot exists. I place legend under scrutiny and my conclusion is, absolutely, Bigfoot exists."
The second story was posted the next day in the Casper Star Tribune and has the same by-line. I noticed the difference when I read the story in the Vancouver, WA Columbian print edition, but I was unable to find a link to it online.
QUOTE
Bigfoot prof fights for tenure

By JESSE HARLAN ALDERMAN, Associated Press writer Sunday, November 05, 2006

POCATELLO, Idaho -- The professors talking over coffee in the Life Sciences building at Idaho State University don't include Jeffrey Meldrum. As usual, the scientist is alone in his laboratory, weaving past jars of yellow liquid and plaster molds of giant, dinosaur-like footprints.

He opens a thin, metal filing drawer.

"These are the first ones I collected," he says, "of Bigfoot."

In the muddy Blue Mountains near Walla Walla, Wash., the footprints lay about 35 or 40 in a row, each about 15 inches long.

He thought he'd dismiss them as a hoax. But Meldrum, a primatologist and anatomist, noticed locked joints and a narrow arch -- traits he would argue in the following 10 years of research that only could belong to Bigfoot.

"That's what set the hook," said Meldrum. "I resolved at this point, this was a question I'd get to the bottom of."

Meldrum has collected more than 200 Bigfoot prints. He says he believes in the principles of science and in Bigfoot. His colleagues at Idaho State University are hostile, some even calling for the school to revoke his tenure. One physics professor D.P. Wells, wondered if Meldrum also planned to research Santa Claus.

If Meldrum's right, he's a lonely visionary. If he's wrong, he's a rogue scientist on the fringe of academia. Still, Meldrum has added the scholarly research of a tenured Ph.D. to the murky catalog of Bigfoot sham videos and supermarket tabloid cover stories.

"It used to be you went to a bookstore and asked for a book on Bigfoot and you'd be directed to the 'occult section,' right between the Bermuda Triangle and UFOs," Meldrum said. "Now you can find some in the natural science section."

The Bigfoot legend dates back centuries. American Indian folklore in the Pacific Northwest includes murmurs of a man-ape beast that roams the hidden hollows. Sasquatch, as Bigfoot is often known, is a Salish Indian name meaning woodland wildman.

Newspapers began recording the first Bigfoot sightings in the 1920s, as several backcountry reports surfaced. Just as quickly, skeptics arose to challenge the accounts and practical jokers staged elaborate hoaxes.

Without a fossil record or a confirmed sighting, Bigfoot entered the realm of fantasy until Grover Krantz, an eccentric professor at Washington State University, began supplementing his traditional research with papers on the sasquatch.

In many ways, Meldrum is a disciple of Krantz. The anthropology professor first linked footprints to the existence of Bigfoot and traveled around the Northwest with a spotlight and shotgun looking for remains.

Krantz never found any Bigfoot bones and after a long career he donated his own bones to the Smithsonian Museum when he died of cancer in 2002.

Krantz was an author of anatomy textbooks and a collector of Irish wolfhound bones. In much the same way, Meldrum's office reflects that mix. It's half sterile laboratory and half rural roadside attraction.

The dimly lit rooms are stacked with research manuals from floor to ceiling, but also plastic Bigfoot wind up toys, ape dolls and postcards from northwestern California's Bigfoot Scenic Byway.

That Meldrum blends myth and math, fable and forensics, is what puts off so many of his colleagues. A scientist should not be a believer, said Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department at Idaho State University.

On campus, where students order from Bigfoot Pizza and Meldrum was the keynote speakter at a Bigfoot gathering this August, many scientists are ashamed of what they call Meldrum's "psuedo-academic" pursuits.

They bristle at Meldrum appearances on the Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel and his new book "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science," released in September by Forge Books, an offshoot of a science fiction novel publisher.

Hackworth called Meldrum's research a joke and said some 30 professors signed a letter scolding the university for hosting Meldrum's Bigfoot gathering on campus.

"Do I cringe when I see the Discovery Channel and I see Idaho State University, Jeff Meldrum? Yes, I do," Hackworth said. "He believes he's taken up the cause of people who have been shut out by the scientific community. He's lionized there. He's worshipped. He walks on water. It's embarrassing."

However, the university backs Meldrum. "He's a bona fide scientist," said John Kijinski, dean of the school's College of Arts and Sciences.

Meldrum has other substantial supporters, including Jane Goodall, the pioneering primate specialist whose 45-year study on chimpanzees in Africa has won awards from the United Nations, the British government and Harvard University.

Her review on the jacket of Meldrum's new book lauds him for bringing "a much-needed level of scientific analysis to the sasquatch - or Bigfoot - debate."

Goodall believes in the legend. She said tribal elders throughout the world have recounted their sightings.

"As a scientist, she's very curious and she keeps an open mind," said Goodall spokeswoman Nona Gandelman. "She's fascinated by it."

Despite the support from one of science's few celebrities, Meldrum finds himself a loner on Idaho State's wind-dried campus in the yellow hills of Pocatello.

He wears no lab coat, but a bristly mustache and a black T-shirt with a silhouette of a hunchbacked and lurking Bigfoot. He pays for his research with a $30,000 donation from a Bigfoot believer.

Meldrum is drawn to the mystique of Bigfoot -- that there could be a species that man has not "plumbed and fathomed." The believer side of him has set up trap cameras in Washington's Olympic National Park and signed autographs for the Bigfoot-obsessed RV-drivers at amateur exhibits.

The other side of Meldrum is the scientist, who charts simulation models using advanced physics and tests hair and scat samples to trace an evolutionary lineage from Gigantopithecus, an extinct 10-foot-tall giant ape that lived 200,000 years ago, to Bigfoot.

He knows that most scientists dispute his research methods. They say he seeks to prove, rather than test, his theories. His frustration makes him wonder aloud how much longer he will be on the university faculty.

But it also feeds the urge to chase down each new footprint sighting in his Chevy Suburban. One day, he hopes to bring back a bone or a tooth or some skin and silence the "stuffy academics," he said.

"Is the theory of exploration dead?" he asked. "I'm not out to proselytize that Bigfoot exists. I place legend under scrutiny and my conclusion is, absolutely. Bigfoot exists."
RB
QUOTE(tugboatwa @ Nov 5 2006, 03:47 AM) *
Google News now has 185 links to organizations which have carried the AP story on Dr. Meldrum.

It is my understanding that news organizations which subscribe to the Associated Press have the ability to use all or some of the story sent to them. And as can be seen below, they can use whatever headline they wish...


Yeah... but here's what the title should read:

Jealous Arrogant Asshole Bastards Whine About Not Being the Center of Attention at Otherwise Unknown Idaho University

or...

Pocatello Bed-Wetters Unite Against Chaffing (and anyone else who rubs us the wrong way)

or perhaps...

The Sun Don't Shine in My World

or even...

Me Want Be Famous Too

but my favorite is...

Pull My Finger




[edited to remove several graphic anal references...]
sojourner
Meldrum is discussing this on Coast-To-Coast right now..
HuntFish
QUOTE(RB @ Nov 6 2006, 02:57 AM) *
QUOTE(tugboatwa @ Nov 5 2006, 03:47 AM) *
Google News now has 185 links to organizations which have carried the AP story on Dr. Meldrum.

It is my understanding that news organizations which subscribe to the Associated Press have the ability to use all or some of the story sent to them. And as can be seen below, they can use whatever headline they wish...


Yeah... but here's what the title should read:

The Sun Don't Shine in My World



Wasn't that a title for one of those old sappy country songs?
RogerKni
QUOTE(sojourner @ Nov 5 2006, 10:18 PM) *
Meldrum is discussing this on Coast-To-Coast right now..

I just missed it--but the first hour of C-2-C is rerun in many markets after the show ends. I.e., at 2 AM Pacific Time, or 5 AM Eastern. I'll listen up for it then.
Saskeptic
Holy crap - Jeff Meldrum is 48?!


Look folks, a university faculty is not a happy bunch of flower children sitting in a meadow sharing uplifting impressions of each other's work. A LOT of us scientists are cantankerous, bitter, selfish curmudgeons, and we are often in competition with each other for similar pots of grant money, space and resources on campus, and merit-based raises. So if you took bigfoot out of this story entirely, you'd probably find similar sentiments among physics or chemistry faculty ("pure" or "hard" scientists) directed at wildlife scientists, ecologists, and anthropologists (somewhat "softer" scientists) at almost any university. And we biology types are just as guilty of leveling similar criticism against sociologists, psychologists, landscape architects, etc. There's a gradient of "science", and often there is tension from one end of it to the other.

I was on our university's promotion and tenure committee last year, and we had a chemist on the committee who disregarded every penny a researcher had brought in unless it came from a source that provided the requisite 52% overhead for the university. It didn't matter if the people under review were supporting a labful of people on external grant dollars, for this guy it had to be the right kind of money. So the kind of elitist snobbery in this article is commonplace. The fact that it's bubbled over to a call for tenure revocation is linked to the "bigfoot" stuff, but the underlying tension would've been there anyway.

That said, Dr. Meldrum knows darn well what is expected of him as a tenured professor at a major research university. If he's got a teaching appointment, then he needs to display excellence in the classroom. For his research, however, I assume that he is expected to compete for and receive external grants capable of supporting a stable of graduate students (both master's and PhD level) and probably an occasional post-doctoral researcher. The degree to which the grants he receives contribute indirect costs (the 52% overhead above) to the university is also of grave importance. He's expected to participate in professional societies and especially to serve as a peer-referee for manuscripts submitted to the journal(s) most relevant to his field. Above all, he is expect to publish in those peer-reviewed journals, and at a rate of at least 2-3 papers a year to remain in good standing.

If Dr. Meldrum's bigfoot research is helping him accomplish the above, then he should be left alone. If not, then it's up to his dean and department head to turn the screws on him. Even "fringe" science at a university should lead to something, and be publishable. I'm not convinced that Meldrum's work meets those criteria, i.e., that it's leading to the better understanding of something or that it's appropriately publishable. If he is throroughly convinced that his work proves the existence of bigfoot, then he's got to publish his results in mainstream, peer-reviewed literature - not in his personal book.

~just one professor's curmudgeony opinion
twinkletoes
That's terrible that Jeff is treated like that by other scientists. They sound like stuck up idiots. What about let's prove it doesn't exist before snubbing someone..I would've figured that scientists would have open minds and know that sometimes anything is possible...there are animals being discovered all the time and places on this earth where man hasn't gone before. Maybe there are lots of sasses there, we don't know and those stuffy scientists don't know..let's prove it doesn't exist before we look down on people who say they've seen it. :icon_bang:
RogerKni
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Nov 6 2006, 10:44 AM) *
Look folks, a university faculty is not a happy bunch of flower children sitting in a meadow sharing uplifting impressions of each other's work. A LOT of us scientists are cantankerous, bitter, selfish curmudgeons, and we are often in competition with each other for similar pots of grant money, space and resources on campus, and merit-based raises. So if you took bigfoot out of this story entirely, you'd probably find similar sentiments among physics or chemistry faculty ("pure" or "hard" scientists) directed at wildlife scientists, ecologists, and anthropologists (somewhat "softer" scientists) at almost any university. And we biology types are just as guilty of leveling similar criticism against sociologists, psychologists, landscape architects, etc. There's a gradient of "science", and often there is tension from one end of it to the other.

This animosity applies to political and social and cultural and artistic factions within society at large as well. "Filthy Pierre" (Erwin Strauss) laid it down as his Grand Unified theory that human behavior amounted at bottom to groups of humans (males mostly, tho he didn't say so) forming up into groups and competing for one-up status and associated perks within and between such groups. I've developed a paper suggesting a new political arrangement, foot-voting, based on this insight, titled "YOU'RE the Goober!"

QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Nov 6 2006, 10:44 AM) *
Even "fringe" science at a university should lead to something, and be publishable. I'm not convinced that Meldrum's work meets those criteria, i.e., that it's leading to the better understanding of something or that it's appropriately publishable. If he is thoroughly convinced that his work proves the existence of bigfoot, then he's got to publish his results in mainstream, peer-reviewed literature - not in his personal book.

just one professor's curmudgeony opinion

My curmudgeonly opinion is that you're being unrealistic in the objectivity you impute to peer review, and therefore are being unreasonable in demanding that anomalistics researchers publish or perish. I've examined the peer reviewer's comments on Dmitri Bayanov's 1978 papers at the Vancouver UBC Bigfoot conference. It was full of scoftical attitudes and jibes (the pink unicorn chestnut and others), and uninformed or unjustified but sure-of-itself sneering. Basically, it followed the scoftical script that dismissed the evidence he presented as inconclusive and susceptible to other interpretations, dismissed the "claim" as so extraordinary that nothing short of proof would suffice in its favor, asserted that a merely speculative paper didn't deserve the name of science and therefore should be rejected. All other "pro" Bigfoot papers were similarly rejected from the conference proceedings, Manlike Monsters on Trial (but only one side was presented!). The Glickman report was similarly rejected when submitted to "leading" journals, probably for the same reasons.

Since NARN (Northwest Anthropological Research Notes) announced it was willing to publish responsible speculative material on Bigoot, and did so in the 70s and 80s, it's too bad Meldrum hasn't published there. (Or has a new editor come in and changed the policy?)

And it's too bad if Meldrum has claimed he has proof. That's bad tactics, because it makes him look like a "believer" and lays him open to the objection that what he's got is weaker than Euclid, and therefore can be disregarded in toto. We believers must be more canny, and claim only that we have enough intriguing evidence to justify an investigation, despite it being a longshot (4-to-1 against, say), given the matter's importance. It's 100 times harder to discredit that claim. We can say that the evidence seems to us strong enough to be convincing--that qualifier sanitizes our proof-claim.
Texas Tracker
QUOTE(Saskeptic @ Nov 6 2006, 12:44 PM) *
Look folks, a university faculty is not a happy bunch of flower children sitting in a meadow sharing uplifting impressions of each other's work. A LOT of us scientists are cantankerous, bitter, selfish curmudgeons, and we are often in competition with each other for similar pots of grant money, space and resources on campus, and merit-based raises. So if you took bigfoot out of this story entirely, you'd probably find similar sentiments among physics or chemistry faculty ("pure" or "hard" scientists) directed at wildlife scientists, ecologists, and anthropologists (somewhat "softer" scientists) at almost any university. And we biology types are just as guilty of leveling similar criticism against sociologists, psychologists, landscape architects, etc. There's a gradient of "science", and often there is tension from one end of it to the other.


Regardless, ISU professors (such as Hackworth) napalming one of their fellow professors to someone from the Associated Press for an article to be published in major publications is absolutely and totally in poor taste; the act suggests a totally reckless disposition and a lack of regard for professionalism. If I were the dean, or a member of the board, that's what I would have a problem with.

I'm amazed that you almost seem to excuse it, and almost seem to be saying in a small, condoning, motherly voice, "well, university professors will be university professors..." Maybe, but when the national media is involved, they should have the common sense to stuff a sock in it. Who, with any sense at all, wants to put their dirty freaking underwear out for millions of people to see?

What's obvious to me, while it may not be to you, is that loose cannons such as this Professor Hackworth, may ultimately cause more damage to the university and its reputation than anything Meldrum could do.
superd
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Nov 5 2006, 04:13 PM) *
This article will surely lead to additional publicity about Bigfoot and Meldrum, and additional interviews with him. These in turn will contain references to his book and to informational websites. So the bottom line, a year from now, is that the article will have had a positive effect.


After all the smoke has cleared, I think the effect will be a positive one.
This is about a Professor in a university that is studing the facts, not a cheap fab of an article in a cheesy supermarket weekly.
Some people will sit up and take notice.
I wonder how many unreported sightings will come over Jeff's desk because of this?
My two coppers worth.
DarkRabbit
Just one example, may not be pertinent.

The last few comets, who discovered them, professionals with PhDs or amateur astronomers? Loaded question.

The PhDs were looking for a bank while the amateurs were looking at the sky.

Jaded? Perhaps.

Anyone can buy a PhD. Not to say there aren't smart as hell folks out there with one; but I've met too many, or seen them on TV, that don't impress me as having any better insight into life as the person sitting next to me on the bus. Their input can be considered, but thinking is all our responsibility.

A PhD is a title someone earned the right to by meeting certain institutional requirements. Respect is not automatically earned with it. That comes later when a spirit of learning about this universe without prejudice is demonstrated.

$0.02 cents. And them coins are glowing hot.

DR
DarkRabbit
What strangers have taught,
on the bus or at the El,
or in a bar, or in the Mall,
can be worth a PhD,
cause what they know might feed me,
not with knowledge, but the damn protein my body craves,
so I can live to think
of them and their words
another day when my belly swells
with the food they taught
me how to grow.

The insight that "normal" unPhD'ed folk have can be priceless.

Apologies for my head in the clouds.

DR
LAL
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Nov 6 2006, 05:24 PM) *
And it's too bad if Meldrum has claimed he has proof.


Has he said that? Everything I've read and seen from him is very cautiously worded.
peregrine
QUOTE(LAL @ Nov 7 2006, 09:02 AM) *
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Nov 6 2006, 05:24 PM) *
And it's too bad if Meldrum has claimed he has proof.
Has he said that? Everything I've read and seen from him is very cautiously worded.
In my reading of Meldrum's book I have to say that he was consistently and appropriately tentative in his references to evidence.

For example, in referring to a Scientific American article, Meldrum writes, "The text was reasonably and refreshingly objective in addressing the question, but the editorial choice of title betrays a persistent underlying "tongue-in-cheek" attitude and an underappreciation of the accumulating evidence suggesting the potential existence of a North American ape." (p. 275; emphasis mine)
Volsquatch
Maybe so, but he also writes, “I’m not out to proselytize that Bigfoot exists. I place legend under scrutiny and my conclusion is, absolutely, Bigfoot exists.”. (emphasis mine)

IMO, that's not "very cautiously worded", especially for someone in his position.

I admire Dr. Meldrum for his openness, knowledge, candor and willingness to stay the course, but at the same time I'm very concerned about what these noble traits may ultimately bring upon him from his peers.

http://www.physorg.com/news82037218.html
LAL
He says that's his conclusion, not that he has proof.

Incidently, AOL has set up a message board to discuss the article.

It is my hope that all the publicity will help sell books, that Meldrum will be able to take a leave of absense in order to devote more time to his North American Ape Project and avoid bumping into his detractors in the hall.
Volsquatch
QUOTE(LAL @ Nov 7 2006, 11:54 AM) *
He says that's his conclusion, not that he has proof.


Ah, I see. Then he should've said 'I’m not out to proselytize that Bigfoot exists. I place legend under scrutiny and my conclusion is, absolutely, Bigfoot exists; however, there is no proof.'.

Right?
Saskeptic
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Nov 6 2006, 04:24 PM) *
My curmudgeonly opinion is that you're being unrealistic in the objectivity you impute to peer review, and therefore are being unreasonable in demanding that anomalistics researchers publish or perish.


Well, if Meldrum's dean is cool with him being an anomalistics researcher, that's for them to decide. The rest of us poor saps, however, have to make a living by publishing.

I think the whole "point" of Jeff Meldrum is that, either by his design or someone else's, he's the guy who has the knowledge and the analysis that shows bigfoot to be mainstream - not anomaly. If that's true, then he needs to publish.

If I understand Dr. Meldrum's work in the proverbial nutshell, he claims that certain foot impressions allegedly left by sasquatch-like creatures show evidence of a "mid-tarsal break." This is significant because the mid-tarsal break is a presumed ancestral condition for a bipedal primate, and it would apparently better support the weight of a large bipedal animal like a sasquatch than would our relatively inflexible human feet. That break would also be darned near impossible to hoax.

I think the above is the primary reason Dr. Meldrum is a believer or an advocate or whatever we're calling people in this thread who think there are real, live sasquatches running around the PNW as I type this.

OK, so what's the big deal about publishing this in a reputable journal? First, he'd have to demonstrate how he'd ruled out other species as having made the prints he examined. Should be easy enough. Then, he'd have to make the case that the mid-tarsal break really is what's being interpreted in those prints. If that's inconclusive, then the paper is appropriately rejected. Let's say he's successful up to that point, however. He's talking about prints that belong to no other animal, and they definitely show a mid-tarsal break according to the opinions of three peer referees and an editor.

Now he needs to demonstrate that the prints could not have been hoaxed, or at least rule out the possibility of a hoax with some high degree of confidence. That's easier said then done, especially regarding a phenomenon that has been the subject of so many hoaxers down through the years.

Despite whatever snide comments a reviewer might make on a manuscript (I get snide comments back all the time), these people who pooh-pooh Meldrum's work are not all evil closed-minded scoftics. Maybe, just maybe folks, Meldrum's work cannot stand on its own merit. It could be really cool, but it is still inconclusive.

Remember, we're asking "science" to accept the existence of a new and unique creature living essentially under our collective nose based on one scientist's opinion regarding the interpretation of something that's often the product of a hoaxer. If anything, Dr. Meldrum's work should be held to a higher standard than other manuscripts because he is claiming something truly fantastic.

I would like to see his work get a fair review as much as anyone here, but I'm also open to the likelihood that there just plain isn't as much there as some would like to think. If that's the case, it not necessarily an anti-bigfoot conspiracy that keeps bigfoot papers out of mainstream journals. It could be that the work just can't stand up to honest, critical scrutiny.
Saskeptic
QUOTE(Texas Tracker @ Nov 6 2006, 08:35 PM) *
I'm amazed that you almost seem to excuse it, and almost seem to be saying in a small, condoning, motherly voice, "well, university professors will be university professors..." Maybe, but when the national media is involved, they should have the common sense to stuff a sock in it. Who, with any sense at all, wants to put their dirty freaking underwear out for millions of people to see?

What's obvious to me, while it may not be to you, is that loose cannons such as this Professor Hackworth, may ultimately cause more damage to the university and its reputation than anything Meldrum could do.


Excuse or condone that kind of behavior? Hardly. I just wanted to point out that there wasn't anything all that unusual about one professor or group of professors lambasting another one in a public forum.

What we don't know about this story is this: Has research at the university been stymied due to the Meldrum effect? For example, whether real or perceived, is there a notion on campus that scientists in other areas (like physics) have been having difficulty getting grants due to the university's association with Dr. Meldrum? I would say that the fear or perception of such a thing could be very likely, and a nugget of basis in reality wouldn't be so hard to envision either.
peregrine
QUOTE(Volsquatch @ Nov 7 2006, 10:48 AM) *
Maybe so, but he also writes, “I’m not out to proselytize that Bigfoot exists. I place legend under scrutiny and my conclusion is, absolutely, Bigfoot exists.”. (emphasis mine)

IMO, that's not "very cautiously worded", especially for someone in his position.
That was not a statement written by Meldrum, that was a quote attributed to Meldrum by the author. The author of the article included factual errors and misrepresentations, so I wouldn't get too excited over anything he/she wrote. If you want to see what Meldrum really thinks, reference a source such as his book that can be accurately attributed to him.
LAL
He mentions in the book about being misquoted during the Wallace story proliferation.

This wouldn't be the first time..............even in the same article.
Volsquatch
QUOTE(peregrine @ Nov 7 2006, 12:34 PM) *
QUOTE(Volsquatch @ Nov 7 2006, 10:48 AM) *
Maybe so, but he also writes, “I’m not out to proselytize that Bigfoot exists. I place legend under scrutiny and my conclusion is, absolutely, Bigfoot exists.”. (emphasis mine)

IMO, that's not "very cautiously worded", especially for someone in his position.
That was not a statement written by Meldrum, that was a quote attributed to Meldrum by the author. The author of the article included factual errors and misrepresentations, so I wouldn't get too excited over anything he/she wrote. If you want to see what Meldrum really thinks, reference a source such as his book that can be accurately attributed to him.



Ah, I see. So you're saying that Dr. Meldrum may not have even made that particular statement.

Interesting, on many levels.
LAL
Do you think he said Sasquatches have a narrow arch?
Volsquatch
You know, now that I think about it, this entire article could all be just a big farce made-up to discredit Dr. Meldrum. He probably isn't even aware of this article. Someone might want to fill him in on what's going on.
Yetifan
Saskeptic wrote:

QUOTE
I would like to see his work get a fair review as much as anyone here, but I'm also open to the likelihood that there just plain isn't as much there as some would like to think. If that's the case, it's not necessarily an anti-bigfoot conspiracy that keeps bigfoot papers out of mainstream journals. It could be that the work just can't stand up to honest, critical scrutiny.




Has Meldrum ever said why he hasn't submitted his work for peer review? Or has he (submitted, that is)?
peregrine
QUOTE(Yetifan @ Nov 7 2006, 12:34 PM) *
Has Meldrum ever said why he hasn't submitted his work for peer review? Or has he (submitted, that is)?
According to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education (4 August 2006, Volume LII, Number 48, page A44), "The American Association of Physical Anthropologists has accepted two posters on Mr. Meldrum’s work for display at its annual meetings. But its reviewers have rejected two others, saying they would be of questionable interest to academics and inferred too much from too little evidence."
LAL
And he and Dr. Swindler wrote a paper for publication on the Skookum Cast that was rejected. If Swindler's name doesn't get it into the journals, what does?

The AAPA accepted a paper of Meldrum's for presentation at the 2003 meeting.

It's not like he hasn't tried.
LAL
QUOTE(sojourner @ Nov 6 2006, 01:18 AM) *
Meldrum is discussing this on Coast-To-Coast right now..


What did he say?


Also, Jeff was asked to write the companion volume to LMS. It's not as if he tried to skip peer review and go directly to the public, a la Velikovsky and von Danekin.

He did a fine job, too.
Yetifan
LAL wrote (about Meldrum's position on Bigfoot):


QUOTE
He says that's his conclusion, not that he has proof.



Do peer review boards generally accept papers that the creator of which is still scientifically uncertain of the subject of his or hers arguments? Would love to here from Apeman, Saskeptic or any other PhDs on this. Interested in knowing how often, if at all, "probability" arguments, when it comes to taxonomic identification or, at least, consideration of a new species, are accepted for publication.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.