Wicket in a sticky situation

I never said anything like that, I distinguished folks selling merchandise verses casts, merchandise being cofee mugs, tee shirts, all I said was everyone seems to do it.



A few months back the rumor mill coughed up a story of copies being sold in exchange for alledged real ones. Just the rumor mill, but there was a hint of deceptive practice in it. I consider that iffy. I'm not accusing Meldrum of anything, but cast tracks are a different category than coffee mugs.



Spelling aside sticky wicket is a valid saying.




Thanks LT, you worded it better than I did.

I think Meldrum certainly has every right to supplement his income by selling casts. If people want to buy them..why not? He has done enough for the bigfoot community and his name alone lends credibility to any event. Until we can find a way to be like Peter Byrne and get funding from some billionaire,our scientists,researchers and the like will have to do what is necessary to make a buck here and there. Peace fellas.

I think that Ebay has proven that people will buy just about anything.

I have no problem with anyone selling items at the conferences, symposiums, etc. If they have something I want I buy it, if not I pass them by. One of the reasons I go to the conference in Texas is to buy stuff. Where's the problem?

I doubt it will make any difference, but Dr. Meldrum's casts were, I believe, sold by way of a silent auction, just to clarify. And raising money for your research is not a problem for me. All this evidence is speculative to begin with, casts, posters of Patty, sound files on cd. Let the buyer make his own assessment on the validity and the relative worth to him. None of us can say yet that any piece of evidence is authentic. At one time, in a former organization, we sold cast copies within the group to help a little with funding and to provide members with visual aids in presentations and the like.

Edited to add commentary.

You are right Peregrine - this is an utterly ridiculous argument, which in my opinion has been started for no reason other than to take a pop at Meldrum.

Ganglian, if you had ever been to a conference that Meldrum has attended, you would understand just how much work he puts into them - you would probably find that he sells copies of casts because people like me kept asking him for copies. He charges very little for these copies - I seriously doubt he makes much profit from them.

It wasn't a pop at Meldrum at all, LT's comments about Copycat artifacts was more what I meant.

But you said a few posts back that being a Phd could be seen as 'something different', by which you were referring directly to Meldrum, since I don't see any other PHds selling casts or copies of casts at conferences.

So, you singled out Meldrum when you said it could be seen as 'something different' - what exactly did you mean?

Post #102, I clearly stated I was accusing Meldrum of nothing. Period, I singled out noone and you in my opinion are looking for things that aren't there. I'm frankly having understanding a few things.

A track cast could easily have a question of authenticity or ownership, i think it was LT who used the term copycat artifacts. A person with a PHD, NOT JUST MELDRUM has credentials and so is a different situation than someone hawking a coffee cup.

Secondly, all I did was agree with pywacket who first made the distinction, and rightly so. LT led credence to the concept. Why just me? I wasnt even the one who made the original point. If a sale is potentially shady, how does that reflect on said credentials.

While I'm not trying to villify anything persay, I'm not putting PHD's on a pedestal in one turn and saying it doesn't matter how they make a buck. I dont see myself as the one trying to have it both ways or trying to single someone out.

I see gang's point ( and i share it to a large degree) but I dont think any of us stated what we mean very well. So speaking for me ( and maybe Py and Gang) let me try again.

Forgetting the direct works ( authors books, artists paintings etc) and the standard "stuff" sold ( Tee's, mugs etc) Those are the norms and done everywhere.

If a scientist ( any field) invented/discovered "X" ( whatever X is- but X is a product of his/her work,research, "whatever") then selling a scale model ( copy,imitation whatever) would be appropriate. ( since it directly relates to his creation)

I can also put selling BF casts in the above. ( they arent "his" per se but he is the BF "foot" guy and that makes sense. Its his field, he is the forerunner and all that)

From the financing standpoint as i stated earlier- if he makes a dollar and it contributes to his work or life or whatever- God bless him and more power to him. ( hell, if i thought I could sell old oil samples or copies of failed parts at maintenance conferences- I would set up a table myself)

But, when you consider the flak he gets and the BF view in general- I would suggest he "modify" his method of selling. ( it does cast a certain "look" thats unfavorable to his credibility)

Now let me qualify the above. Referring to the act of selling- I'll be the first to tell the world I wouldnt give a tinker's damn what anyone thought of how I make money. I give him that same respect.

The BF world is trying to gain scientific legitimacy and respect. ( as are the rest of us in our fields) Having one of the forerunners and flag bearers doing such doesnt help the "image" factor ( which is important but an intangible)

The above is my opinion and is worth exactly nothing.

However, at the end of the day. It was a BF conference. The casts are certainly a hallmark of BF-dom, Meldrum is without question or debate the BF "foot" man and he has every RIGHT to conduct his business any way he sees fit and if it helps finance his research- go for it! ( and i still would buy one but he would have to autograph it and pose for a picture- its no secret what I think of his science and conclusions but at the end of the day, he is still Dr. Meldrum, a celebrity in the BF world, published author, media guy and that alone would make a cast of his worth having)

( thank you hairy- your post really made me rethink my original position- I stand corrected [ thats 3 for those who are counting])

All we're talking about is perception.

Because of the Georgia Boyz recent nonsense it may be prudent for those in the bigfoot research community to avoid any activities that may look like someone is trying to make money on a hoax, even if those activities are perfectly legitimate.
This is the internet world and someone who has no clue who Jeff Meldrum is could see him, or hear about him, selling bigfoot footprint casts and whoa Nellie we've got another GB scenario spread all over the world. Yes, that is an exaggeration but I hope you get my point.

Having the right to do something and seeing the wisdom in not doing it are two different things.

Remember - Patience and wisdom are the key

LOL What a great picture for that saying!

Whoa. Always feel free to call me Kathy...

I think part of the issue here is that some folks are thinking that Meldrum is taking casts sent to him for verification, and the next thing you know, it's for sell. That is not at all what is happening. The only casts I have seen him offer are "historic" casts made by Patterson, Titmus, Freeman, and Summerlin (and maybe a few others I have forgotten). In fact, I have asked him for some very recent casts and he has politely turned me down, citing confidentiality or his lack of permission to do so. I'm not sure what else the man can do, but in my mind at least, he's always been nothing but professional.

I believe I deserve the blame for kicking off the "Castgate" Scandal several weeks ago in this thread. My beef is that Jeff Meldrum is supposed to be this paragon of science for the bigfoot community. He also stands as a symbol for academic freedom issues outside of that community. Recall the national media attention a few years ago when faculty at ISU reamed him as a quack when he was up for promotion. That issue spurred some weighty discussions on college campuses about the role of science in academia, even among people who pay no attention to the bigfoot phenomenon.

So when Jeff Meldrum publicly does things that call his objectivity into question, his ability to be that science-based authority on the topic is eroded. In my opinion these things include appearing on cheesy documentaries, choosing to publish his best work in popular books instead of the peer-reviewed literature, traveling around to bigfoot conferences (even if it's just his travel, he's likely being paid for each of these appearances), and selling footprint casts at these conferences. The latter to me really does have a carnival huckster connotation. It doesn't matter if he's selling replicas or "real" casts - there's just something about it that is unseemly for a PhD.

You can write what you want about what an arrogant stuffed shirt I am, but this is how I feel about the subject. A serious academic analyzing this phenomenon should be writing grants, collecting data, and publishing papers - this is how the rest of the scientists in the world study everything else. If anything, Jeff Meldrum should be distancing himself from the bigfoot community rather than basking in its glory. Instead, he demonstrates to the scientific community again and again that he is not an objective investigator of this phenomenon. The result is that even his most scholarly work is accessed with this nagging voice that whispers "Yeah, but this is the guy who sells footprint casts at the conferences." I'd feel worse about my attitude toward him except that he brings it all upon himself. If he wants to be a hero to the bigfoot community, then he's doing everything right. If he wants more respect for his science, then he's shooting himself in the foot with things like this.

Well stated.

I think Meldrum gets so much attention from his support of bigfoot that he is hooked. If he didn't have bigfoot he'd be just another professor in a small state college. No bigfoot no worship.

One way of looking at the same situation is, everyone needs to make a living. If someone offered you decent money to speak at a bigfoot conference or asked you to appear on a show (paid appearance) would you turn it down? I think instead of calling his integrity into question because hes making a bit of cash off of speaking appearances, or selling casts why not try to appreciate that he is a person just like anyone else and needs to support a family. Does it matter if hes selling casts as oppossed to peanuts? If so why?

Sounds like more a personal dislike, than a real reason to question someones motives. In my opinion, Jeff Meldrum is one of the FEW well balanced researchers out there taking on this subject matter. Instead of bashing the gold, lets go after the charlatans who make claims unfounded, or without substantial evidence. A few names come to mind, but Meldrum's isn't one of them.

More skeptical than I but not a stuff shirt. you just hit the nail on the head. If a PHD is getting put on a pedastal, he doesnt get a free pass, he gets held to a higher standard.

I agree!
But then again - you use the term "real world".
The simple fact is that the vast majority of people involved in the study/research/investigation of this phenomenon are detached from real world standards.
Therefore your points - although valid in the real world - are going to fall on not only deaf ears - but angry ears on this board. IMHO, of course.

Everyone is always entitled to their opinion, but as for writing grants, you are aware the he just received a $130,000 grant from the Mayfield Foundation for the North American Ape Project (2008), right? And he doesn't just talk to bigfoot groupies either...in August he gave a presentation, “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science,” for the Royal Alberta Museum in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

And as far as I know, like myself, Jeff isn't paid to appear on any tv show or documentary...cheesy as they be...

Call.

Okay, just curious, and very serious,
since you are so definitive, as always,
let's have just a few specific examples of your vast majority of deaf-eared angry people here on this board,
in your humble opinion of course...


http://www2.isu.edu/headlines/?p=1345
I wonder if any of this is publically declared and accountable from the NAAP?

I'm not going to start pulling specific quotes to embarrass and further anger people on this board.

Why not start with this thread?... http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...ything&st=0
I think it is the most recent of such type threads.

There are all sorts of real science and real scientist bashing posts on this board. You have either read them yourself - or you have not enough interest to read all the new posts in the pertinent threads. That's your choice and I'm going to do your reading for you.

There are all sorts of posts where people will NOT bother to listen to the facts of science and critical thinking and get angry when you bring up such considerations. To attempt to deny such a thing happens on this board is outrageous. Just read the threads about "unknown DNA" or "unknown hair".

People will not bother to listen to the scientific fact that your data has to support your conclusions in science and argue the fact that Meldrum is not working with scientifically sound data. They get angry when you point out that Meldrum is using junk science in his book.
Lots of those posts on this board too.

Just pointing out how Bindernagel and Meldrum and Fahrenbach fall far, far short of real scientific process and standards gets angry replies and the fact that their work is scientifically unsound falls on deaf ears.
How do I know that such facts fall on deaf ears? Because people still refer to their work as something that is valid when it is absolutely not if one uses any sort of valid scientific standard that scientists - especially PhD's - are normally held to.

edited for spelling

I thought this was a discussion about Meldrum selling casts at conventions, not about his scientific process in general.

Please get back to the discussion of conventions soon.

>>>One way of looking at the same situation is, everyone needs to make a living. If someone offered you decent money to speak at a bigfoot conference or asked you to appear on a show (paid appearance) would you turn it down?

absolutely not

>>>I think instead of calling his integrity into question because hes making a bit of cash off of speaking appearances, or selling casts why not try to appreciate that he is a person just like anyone else and needs to support a family. Does it matter if hes selling casts as oppossed to peanuts? If so why?

Speaking for me, its not his "integrity" ( I've never seen anything indicating his integrity/ethics or whatever are questionable in any way)- its more of his "professional judgement", heres why.

He has a "questionable" standing with many of his peers ( both at his University as well as in various fields) and his efforts can easily be cut to pieces. So, as i stated earlier- theres certainly nothing "wrong" ( define wrong anyway you wish) with it but looking at the whole ball of wax, i just dont think it was the "wisest" thing to do. I would make the suggestion that he continue selling the casts ( which I certainly see the value of and can see where many people would want one) but do it in a more "indirect" way such as maybe thru the TBRC proper or from a direct contact method ( or maybe from general auction).

>>>In my opinion, Jeff Meldrum is one of the [b]FEW well balanced researchers out there taking on this subject matter. [/b]

Thats part of the reason I have concerns about the "image factor"- that "balance" is at best questionable

>>>Instead of bashing the gold, lets go after the charlatans who make claims unfounded, or without substantial evidence. A few names come to mind, but Meldrum's isn't one of them.

I do NOT view Meldrum as a "charlatan" by any proper usage of the word but his claims are also wholly unfounded and without any valid evidenciary support along with all the rest. Its that radioactivity and that fact that makes me suggest he might attempt to use alternative methods to get his casts out to people who would want them.

Sas summed up one statement very well

>>>Instead, he demonstrates to the scientific community again and again that he is not an objective investigator of this phenomenon. The result is that even his most scholarly work is accessed with this nagging voice that whispers "Yeah, but this is the guy who sells footprint casts at the conferences."

Nobody in the BF community will hold that view but the majority of peers of his do. ( its been stated time and time again) They are the ones who can affect him professionally. He doesnt need to pour gas on the fire.

1) I would turn down the offer if I felt that taking money from the conference organizers in any way affected my objectivity.

2) Last time I checked, Dr. Meldrum was a tenured professor at a major research university. We don't get rich doing this professor gig (most of us at least), but our kids don't starve either.

3) Look at it this way, taking Meldrum out of the equation. Let's say the Saskeptic writes an awesome book on birdwatching, and birders all over the country are gobbling it up. He's making a tidy sum off this book - a nice addition to his solid, middle-class income as a college professor. Next, he gets invited to attend birding festivals all over the place, and the conference organizers pay his travel costs. While at the conferences, he takes the opportunity to sell a bunch more books, of course, and even sets up at a table to sell his original watercolors of sparrows, warblers, and owls.

So he's being paid to travel to places to meet his adoring fans, and while there, he sells more of his books as well as other stuff that people are only buying because he's the one selling them.

Legal? Of course.

Smarmy? I think so.

Now let's sweeten the pot a bit. Let's say that the Saskeptic rarely publishes in the scholarly literature. Instead, he represents a fringe group of bird enthusiasts who hold some ideas founded on the shakiest of evidence, and these ideas are roundly discredited by mainstream science. The Saskeptic's "expert" opinion as a real, live scientist in large part contributes to the beliefs of the throngs who believe those weird ideas. The fact that so many hold him in such great esteem is the reason that his book is flying off the shelves and he keeps getting invited to appear at these festivals.

So here's the Saskeptic. [It's so much fun writing about yourself in the 3rd person.] He's fancies himself as this (nearly) lone voice of scientific reason in a highly controversial area. He knows darn well that the way to advance the science in this area is to study it as one would any other natural phenomenon and lay it all out there in the scientific literature. He knows that his work is discredited by mainstream scientists as pseudoscientific, and he must battle that prejudice against him for the good of the cause for which those throngs at the conferences feel so passionately. But his actions don't mesh with that desire. Instead, he continually calls his objectivity into question by crowd surfing among his legions of fans, and making more money the more popular he becomes. . .

Now do you see the problem?

4) I have no dislike for Jeff Meldrum. From many things I've read about him, he sounds like just an absolutely wonderful, giving, talented guy. I'm sure if I knew him I'd really like him. So I know I'm walking a fine line here that some may construe as an ad hominem attack. That's not my intent. I'm simply trying to communicate that, as an outside observer, some of Dr. Meldrum's activities make it difficult for me to consider him an objective voice in the bigfoot phenomenon.

You nailed it Saskeptic!

Well… I find it refreshing to see someone with stones large enough to stick their neck out to make their point… and I respect Dr. Meldrum for that…

The casts I’ve seen auctioned off to fund research are excellent examples of the variations of tracks reported to be found in the wilds… and I for one am grateful for the opportunity to see them… and to perhaps obtain one… and even if I couldn’t afford one, I still get to see them all… and form my own opinion on them…

RB thanks Dr. Meldrum for that opportunity… and hopes he continues…

But RB wonders how much heat Dr. Meldrum would take if he were to offer the casts for sale on… say a website perhaps? RB for one hopes it happens…

The world ain’t perfect… we can only do what we can to follow this search to the end… well, those of us who actually do anything that is…

RB’s namesake told him long ago… “There are two types of people in this world… talkers, and doers…” and he was so right… wise man that RB…

Talk is not only cheap… it’s obviously free… actions usually require some sort of funding… a fact often lost to talkers…

What’s that? Yeah, yeah… I know… blah blah blah…

Fortunately - in this thread - a lot of the talkers are also doers.

Just because you are not specifically looking for sasquatch does not mean that you are not looking for any sign of any large animal that you come across in the bush. The fact is - a lot of us have the knowledge and experience and rationality to easily dismiss the many claims of sasquatch "signs" that are so easily bandied about by those wishful thinkers with a huge imagination and/or lack of experience in the bush.

We also have enough knowledge to know when scientists are taking huge leaps of faith without any sort of evidence to back their claims.

The simple fact of the matter is that the old "armchair researcher" argument that you are making - albeit couched in a different prose - is still not useful in any debate.
Funding is the old excuse that has no basis in fact. There has been ample time and effort spent in the bush by hundreds of thousands of people who have not brought back any useful pictures or hair or droppings or recording to prove squat - much less a body or part thereof.

Since you do not have any evidence to show that anybody has been more successful than anybody else in this field - call them talker or doer - your talk is pretty cheap too.

By the way, I think something my father told me once is much more appropriate: "The measure of a man is not what he will do for money - it is what he will NOT do for money".

Of course. We all value folks who go against the grain on principle. (Some might say it takes some stones to be publicly critical of Jeff Meldrum on a bigfoot website. . . ) For the people out there who have already been convinced by the evidence, Jeff Meldrum is lionized as the most prominent scientist giving believers the time of day, and the one making the most strides in terms of getting mainstream science more involved in the search.

But for the rest of us - those of us who have not been convinced by the evidence brought forth by Jeff Meldrum or anyone else - we don't see a guy sticking his neck out. To us, "sticking his neck out" would be submitting papers to Science and Nature, thereby giving those mainstream scientists the opportunity to provide serious, critical feedback. It would mean publicly lambasting the abundant and obvious crap on the BFRO, regardless of how that might negatively affect sales of a book. Instead, we see a guy with a steady job (it's really kind of difficult to fire a tenured professor) who has used television, websites, and print media to gain an enormous following among a sociological niche who provide him with a really nice supplement to his income. (In fact, I'd wager his book sales brought in at least as much as his salary this year.) Adulation and money are powerful motivators, and Dr. Meldrum gets plenty of both through his involvement in the bigfoot community.



This thread developed in response to a sensationalist writer's perceptions of the goings on at a bigfoot conference. Most the keystrokes here have been devoted to criticism and defense of the reported actions of two paragons of science in bigfootery. There's a similar spate of comments about a 3rd respected scientist and bigfoot believer in another thread under this topic (media). What's the lesson? If you're a believer, ask yourself what Meldrum or Fahrenbach or Bindernagle or any of them have really done to unravel the mystery of the bigfoot phenomenon. Nothing. For all their work and no matter how you judge it, we're no closer to the bottom of this thanks to their efforts. So don't be distracted by the statistical hand waving, fancy technology, or the storied careers of the people who are the "leaders" in this field. Until one of these guys lifts up the tarp and says "There's your sasquatch" they've got nothing more to offer on this topic than you do.

Not trying to stir the pot here, I'm just honestly having a hard time figuring out where I sit on this issue. I don't think I have a problem with cast selling, but I'm struggling a little.


Wouldn't a better analogy be that you were selling some ....'blobpecker' (he writes carefully) photo? Something a bit shaky scientifically but that you could argue you were selling to promote your stance that IBWPs are thriving in East LA?

A

I don't think any of us have any dislike of Dr. Meldrum, but he is subject to the same scrutiny as anyone else doing research. He is a known name in the research, and generally considered reputable and even a celebrity, but it doesn't get his own pedestal to be put on though. He still has all the frailties the rest of us normal folks have.

Sorry if I missed it in this thread, but how much does Meldrum charge for copies of casts?

In my opinion, I don't see anything at all wrong with Dr. Meldrum, or any other scientist, or anyone else selling items at these conventions. I enjoy browsing the wares and meeting the people behind them almost as much as I enjoy the conferences. A certain T-shirt purchase of mine got me a peek at a very special nipple last year... The money raised for most of these sales is put right back into research and I can't for the life of me see a problem with that.

The casts are there, if you don't want one or don't agree with Dr. Meldrum selling them, walk on by the table. Saskeptic posted that this "calls his objectivity into question by crowd surfing among his legions of fans". IMO that doesn't give much credit to the people that attend these conferences, and is completely unfair. It also seems to make Dr. Meldrum come off as a carnival hacker that is doing something less than ethical with is total BS, IMO of course.

Yes, this is a better analogy. It occurred to me (with audible forehead slap) shortly after I made that post . . .

So who is the "Jeff Meldrum" of Ivorybill controversy? The closest approximation is probably John Fitzpatrick at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Fitzpatrick attends scientific meetings, birding festivals, etc. (I had breakfast with him at one of these meetings last year.) He writes books - if you have the National Geo bird guide, then you have one of those books.

Fitzpatrick has endured an enormous backlash from many of his peers for sticking his neck out on the weight of extant Ivorybill evidence - which he did in the journal Science for all the world to see. That's how it's done. You collect, analyze, and publish. Then you get raked over the coals if your analysis is found to be flawed. But you can also rebut the criticisms, and Fitzpatrick has done that too, also in the primary literature.

There are passionate Ivorybill believers and deniers. Fitzpatrick certainly tried to tap into the elation among the believers to raise money for further field research efforts in the months after the discovery was announced. But now he's distancing himself from the Ivorybill fervor, and the Cornell team is about to spend their last season in Arkansas (with a much-reduced crew) unless something dramatic happens.

He could choose to go "crypto" - there are people out there who will buy anything about Ivorybills, and anything with his name attached. But from what I can tell, Fitzpatrick is resigned to let the evidence guide him to the bird, instead of the other way around.

JayleeD, what you, or I, or anyone else on this board thinks about Meldrum selling casts doesn't matter. Doesn't make one little diddly-squat either way.

The point is that it may give his critics, and bigfoot critics, more ammunition to use against him if they so choose. If we want the subject of bigfoot to be taken seriously among the general public we need to watch for any activities that may look less-than-professional to them. For example our friend who talks about bigfoot orgies, and other nonsense.

IMO if word gets out to the scientific community, or the general public, that the most credible bigfoot-believing scientist is sellings casts flea market style at conferences such information may drive another nail into bigfoot's casket. Now I said, "May". I think it certainly depends on how he goes about it so if he insists on selling the casts he should go about it in an extremely professional manner. Perception, perception, perception. How the public perceives things is how they believe them.

Meldrum has made a name for himself in the general public so he needs to be held to an extremely high standard of conduct. Is it fair? Maybe not, but he made his bed so he gets to sleep in it.

And you may be entirely and objectively correct about that. Maybe my analysis of this event is entirely unfair. But the point is the perception. It's one of those "awesome power, awesome responsibility" things. Bigfootery's most esteemed scientist should be presenting his scholarly work at the annual meetings of the American Society of Mammalogists or The Wildlife Society or any number of other international professional meetings at which the gravitas of his conclusion that there are real, live bigfoots out there can be mainstreamed. He's not doing the cause any favors by selling plaster casts at bigfoot conventions.

I must've skipped this thread for a while. I'd like to ask the skeptics about Meldrum selling casts their position in a few simple questions.


Show me the difference of Meldrum selling foot print casts, or a peanut farmer selling peanuts? So he works in a field that is sometimes questionable, this is true. (meaning, not his credentials being questionable, but the field of study in general) However... He's been able to withstand the heat so to speak. Whats the difference between Meldrum selling these casts, and an artist selling a sculpture?


Lets take it one step further and a closer analogy. How about if Jane Goodall were to start selling t-shirts online with a big gorilla print on it? Or perhaps selling casts of gorilla foot casts, or hand casts? Would it be any different? Would it call into question any of her previous work? Would it do absolutely anything except maybe put a little more food on her table? So what? It does NOT effect the quality of work they have presented (either Meldrum or Goodall)


In my mind, there is no difference. I only see a guy trying to share his findings, and make a living. A very honest guy at that.

Right now his book is selling for $10.85. Meldrum's book company sells the book to Amazon (or Barnes and Nobels, etc.) at a 40-50% discount. Meldrum and his agent get 10% of what the book company sells the book for (not what the retailer sells it for). So unless he sold 200,000 books this year, I don't think you'd win that wager.

Archaeology has it's own version of Meldrum and Fitzpatrick...his name is Brian Fagan.

I'd also like to note that Dr. Henner Fahrenbach will be the guest on "Let's Talk Bigfoot" on Dec. 3 to discuss the Vanity Fair article and all things bigfoot related.

Where is the contraversy in this. If you are in fact a credentialed scientist, those credentials come with the responsibility to be true to your credibility. It something calls that credibility into question then you haven't helped yourself or your field. the opposing extreme of attacking one is perhaps hero worship to some extent.




Where is the contraversy in this. If you are in fact a credentialed scientist, those credentials come with the responsibility to be true to your credibility. It something calls that credibility into question then you haven't helped yourself or your field. the opposing extreme of attacking one is perhaps hero worship to some extent.

>>>I'd like to ask the skeptics about Meldrum selling casts their position in a few simple questions.

It doesnt have anything to do with skepticism- it has to do with professional appearances

>>>Show me the difference of Meldrum selling foot print casts, or a peanut farmer selling peanuts?

Farming is a business, peanuts are known to exist and we have the technology to authenticate a peanut versus a pecan and tell the difference between a hoaxed peanut versus a real one

>>>So he works in a field that is sometimes questionable, this is true. (meaning, not his credentials being questionable, but the field of study in general)

when has it ever not been questionable? Also, any "question" regarding his own judgement et al is a product of his own hand.

>>>Whats the difference between Meldrum selling these casts, and an artist selling a sculpture?

The sculpture is a direct product of the work of the artist and selling their work is how they make their money in their business. A copy of a cast that may or may not be authentic in the first place is hardly a good comparison.

>>>How about if Jane Goodall were to start selling t-shirts online with a big gorilla print on it? Or perhaps selling casts of gorilla foot casts, or hand casts?

see the peanut example

>>>It does NOT effect the quality of work they have presented

Well the "quality" of said work effects itself

>>>I only see a guy trying to share his findings, and make a living

I cannot dispute that nor do i disagree with it. It "is" a product of his work and my inner capitalist says make that money. My only concern is in that managing perceptions realm.

Peanuts, T shirts and Coffee mugs are not potentially authentic or not, don't bring up questions of ownership or motive. And I'm not attacking Meldrum, but tracks cast are something some of us see in a different light than normal merchandising.

Thanks for keeping me honest Hairy Man. You seem to have a surprisingly detailed grasp of Dr. Meldrum's finances, but I'll concede that my estimate of his book earnings is too high. Let's agree that it's a "tidy sum" that he'll put to good use, and that a handful of "mainstream" scientists reading this thread now have a more realistic perception of the money Dr. Meldrum is earning from his book.

Well, I do have my own book that was just published - I simply asked him what his deal was so I could compare it with my own. I also know that he splits the "tidy sum" with his agent. I don't know what a "tidy sum" is - can you define it?

Five grand?

I'd take it! Even half of that would buy a lot of cervasas on the beaches of Cabo....

http://commerce.janegoodall.org/store/cust.../home.php?cat=3 She actually does.... nice stuff too!

Hi

Sorry if i missed this any wear in the thread,

Is Dr Meldrum selling the casts as authentic and able to use as evidence, ( Like having useful dermal ridges and measurements Etc ) Or just selling them as novelty ? I think that in it's self makes a big difference

Peace
Tim

True, but it's still in the details

For those that think Dr. Meldrum is being somewhat unethical in selling copies of footprint casts, how do you feel about this?

http://www.boneclones.com/catalog_fossil_hominids.htm

Clarifying for myself, again, this is NOT about attacking Meldrum. If he goes around to conventions selling novelty tracks casts, I personally don't care, although it matter to some as he is a credentialed individual. If on the the hand the casts are supposed to be authentic bits of research there arise matters of proof of authenticity as well as potentially ownership and then their sale becomes a more slippery slope.

I find myself focused on the actual sale aspect not meldrum himself whom the other side of this thread seems to be defending. But I'll ask this. Mk Davis has been questioned in his activities, Bindernagle has been questioned, so why should Meldrum not be looked at in fairness? Or any other PHD for that matter. If one can be scrutinized, why not all?

A recreation, I have no issue with personally