Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum - America's "Bigfoot Professor" - Page 5

DennyT · 5th May 2010, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

He's gone off the deep end...

Why does anyone take him seriously?

In the end, you have to understand that he is a true believer, because only a true believer or a pathological liar can be that convincing. [I used to think that Meldrum's patter was typical of a Mormon trying to convince non-believers...but really Mormons are not that much different from any true believers...its just that the LDS religion evolved 1800 or so years after all the dominant religions in the US, so Mormonism seems weirdly historical and falsifiable. ]

Meldrum is a true believer, and he is usually smooth, and he has done some mainstream stuff. He really does have some credibility in his field. I couldn't believe it, but he has a position in the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

William Parcher · 5th May 2010, 12:38 PM

Dear Dr. Meldrum,

Over 90% of our oceans remain unexplored. Yet, each day we inform our students and people in general that trilobites are extinct. Do you think that it is time for science and education to fully acknowledge that we do not really know about the natural world?

Sincerely,
William Parcher

Spektator · 5th May 2010, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

So you think Cohrs is dishonest because she says she saw a Bigfoot climb a tree????????? Come on. What is the whole bigfoot movement based on? The answer, for those who don't know, is people seeing Bigfoot walk around, throw pigs, lift cars, eat deer, run across roads at superhuman speeds, swim, and for all I know sink a hole in one at Pebble Beach. (snip)

Walk a little walk,
Smack a little tree,
Bigfoot tonight!
Throw a little pig,
Eat a little deer,
Bigfoot tonight!

Skeptical Greg · 5th May 2010, 01:52 PM

Sung to the tune of " Get Down Tonight "

For those who may not be musically edumacated...

CORed · 5th May 2010, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Just got through watching SIERRA SASQUATCH- MONSTERQUEST.

These locals 'investigators' are finding all these human sized, human-like, barefoot prints, and they bring Meldrum in to analyze them, and he says, that they could be juvenile sasquatch whose feet haven't morphed into the adult sasquatch foot-characteristics.

I hear hoofbeats. It must be a herd of unicorns.

RayG · 5th May 2010, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Go to 5:10 and watch as he describes the morphing of a young BF's foot into an adult bigfoot's foot, with MTB and all.

How is he able to tell an authentic young squatch print from a regular human print, especially if it has an arch?

RayG

DennyT · 10th May 2010, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by RayG

How is he able to tell an authentic young squatch print from a regular human print, especially if it has an arch?

RayG

because there are no regular humans, and there are squatches.

seriously, he said that their anatomy may change as they mature. Squatch puberty, you know.

WGBH · 10th May 2010, 03:15 PM

Here is the guy on the Sierra Bigfoot episode of Monsterquest with Dr. Meldrum.

Jaime Avalos AKA "Ninja-Footer".

http://www.youtube.com/user/4jaimeav...42/DfoRaNcITNA

wolftrax · 10th May 2010, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

So you think Cohrs is dishonest because she says she saw a Bigfoot climb a tree?????????

No, you quoted what I had said but ignored half of it. She claimed to have seen the feet and toes as it was climbing the tree through a thermal imager. Have you ever seen that level of detail in a thermal image? I haven't. Is that level of resolution possible? I haven't seen it. Show me a thermal with that kind of detail.

Quote:

Come on. What is the whole bigfoot movement based on? The answer, for those who don't know, is people seeing Bigfoot walk around, throw pigs, lift cars, eat deer, run across roads at superhuman speeds, swim, and for all I know sink a hole in one at Pebble Beach. Are you saying eyewitnesses lie????ooooooooooo.....the old 'footer canard comes back to bite....

Yeah, people lie. I don't know who you think it's biting, but I've long said that people lie all of the time, which is one good reason why the amount of reports isn't convincing.

Quote:

Cohrs was being brutally honest, intellectually, when she said words to the effect that Meldrum doesn't know what a bigfoot foot looks like. Meldrum almost swallowed his modem when she said that, because IT IS TRUE. He stammered and backfilled, but the cat was out of the bag.

Did we listen to the same interview? It was apparent all Cohrs cared about was placing sasquatch closer to humans than apes, and was opposed to Meldrum's theories because in HER MIND, Meldrum's theories placed sasquatch closer to apes than humans.

My thought on this? Who the hell cares?!

Does anybody really care how closely sasquatch is related to apes or humans? Well yeah, if we had a body, then it would be something to invest in. But with the "Evidence" we have now? Only someone who was emotionally invested in a debate that can go NOWHERE would waste their time arguing about it, and that's exactly what this interview was, a waste of time, because really that was what Cohrs was doing.

Meldrum tried to explain what his theories were based on, and though he doesn't have a squatch foot, he does have the casts, as well as casts from the 3.5 million year old Laetoli tracks that as far as we know were from Australopithecus afarensis, a human ancestor.

So does that make Meldrum right? No. But all Cohrs had to combat that was that sasquatch feet look like human feet, not ape feet, it's so simple for her, but apparently she lacks ANY knowledge of hominid feet. When Meldrum tried to press her on it, it had to do with the position of the hallux. Meldrum tries to explain to her that although hominids such as afarensis had a hallux that was not opposable, they still exhibited a midtarsal break in the Laetoli tracks. Cohrs constantly interrupts him, ignores this, and circularly argues again that sasquatch feet look like human feet, not ape feet.

Now, if that was me in there, I'd talk about how Tim White, one of only a handful of people who actually studied the Laetoli tracks in situ states that they did not exhibit a midtarsal break, and that others who claimed so like Meldrum were basing this off of the casts and misinterpreted chisel marks from Mary Leakey. I'd talk about what we know about the morphology of the afarensis foot bones, as well as other hominids. The fact that Meldrum believes that the arch didn't develop in humans until 200,000 years ago could be challenged, and BACKED UP by research done in paleoanthropology. This is the crux of Meldrum's theories, this is how they need to be debated. Not just saying that ape feet and human feet are different and sasquatch feet look a lot more like human feet, like any first grader could argue.

Cohrs just wasn't qualified for the job, and anybody with an ounce of knowledge on hominids knows this. Instead, she constantly interrupted him to make her lame point, and when she had NOTHING substantial to offer in a way to really debate Meldrum, and he knew this, she couldn't take him telling her so.

It was an embarrasment.

HarryHenderson · 11th May 2010, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by WGBH

Here is the guy on the Sierra Bigfoot episode of Monsterquest with Dr. Meldrum.

Jaime Avalos AKA "Ninja-Footer".

http://www.youtube.com/user/4jaimeav...42/DfoRaNcITNA

That guy is totally ******* NUTS! So whilst out looking for Bigfoot, and in addition to at least 6 or 7 other knives and various sharp instruments that he carries on his person, he also carries a samurai sword on him? Oh wait, that's only on overnights. Whew, I thought he was sniffin glue there for a minute.

It's possible he might be a little over prepared 'cause he's already dialed in how good of penetration he'll get if/when he has to stab a skull. The one thing I too always wanted to do if I ever was out looking for Bigfoot was stab a skull. Skull stabbin' is so hardcore man!

Sadly, this guy isn't destined to find Bigfoot near as much as he is destined to be found in a shallow grave somewhere. Once again, just wow!

WGBH · 11th May 2010, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

That guy is totally ******* NUTS! So whilst out looking for Bigfoot, and in addition to at least 6 or 7 other knives and various sharp instruments that he carries on his person, he also carries a samurai sword on him? Oh wait, that's only on overnights. Whew, I thought he was sniffin glue there for a minute.

It's possible he might be a little over prepared 'cause he's already dialed in how good of penetration he'll get if/when he has to stab a skull. The one thing I too always wanted to do if I ever was out looking for Bigfoot was stab a skull. Skull stabbin' is so hardcore man!

Sadly, this guy isn't destined to find Bigfoot near as much as he is destined to be found in a shallow grave somewhere. Once again, just wow!

Do you think Dr. Meldrum dressed as Stormshadow and they had slap fights?

That video cracks me up.

Bitter Monk · 11th May 2010, 09:50 AM

Somewhere a village is missing their ninja.

William Parcher · 11th May 2010, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by LuvGodzilla

Donna Cohrs has looked at a lot of footprints and casts of tracks so she has enough knowledge to debate an expert.

I'd love to know where there are lots of Sasquatch footprints to examine

She honestly sounds like someone trying desperately to push her beliefs (and expertise) in Bigfootery.

She is the sister of Diane Stocking. They are Bigfoot believers and Donna seems to accept junk as evidence for Bigfoot. Have a look at her pictures of footprints and a Bigfoot hiding in a hollow tree.

IMO, the interview with Meldrum was wasted and of no consequence because Cohrs is a believer (not a Bigfoot skeptic). But then Minnesota Bigfoot Research Team is probably not going to put a capable Bigfoot skeptic up against Meldrum for a podcast. The debate is not about MTB vs. no MTB, and it's not about ape vs. human. It's about Bigfoot existing in the first place. No matter how poorly she deals with Meldrum... Bigfoot is still there at the end of the show.

Cohrs: Is Bigfoot an ape or human?
Meldrum: Well, the null hypothesis is that it is an ape.

WTF? No Jeff. Bigfoot doesn't exist, so your null hypothesis is pure fantasy.

HarryHenderson · 11th May 2010, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by WGBH

Do you think Dr. Meldrum dressed as Stormshadow and they had slap fights?

That video cracks me up.

Actually, YES, I do.

And that video is comedy gold. He's serious!

Only recently saw the Sierra Sasquatch episode and I see the transformation is now complete, Meldrum's gone Hollywood™. I did blink a few times so maybe I missed it, did he perform any 'science' at all in, say, his attributions of the footprints being...<cough>...juvenile Sasquatch? When exactly does his 'scientific credibility' finally take the deserved public 'hit' it already has here? Whether nice Mormon guy or not, he can't possibly be doing anyone (besides himself) any favors.

DennyT · 12th May 2010, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

And again the limitations of the 'written word', especially when written in haste on an internet discussion forum, fails to properly convey my actual meaning. Ironically, developing and practicing proper writing skills is my one true reason for posting on internet forums at all.

Anyway, apparently I was being a little insincere myself in not properly qualifying my meaning regarding Meldrum. It's not that I think he's totally FOS - I do believe he has some amount of integrity. It's that I've come to believe he 'knows', and has known for a long time, that Bigfoot is simply and solely a myth and legend and any real hope he had for its existence went out with his baby's bathwater years ago. But since he's already out on a limb, and just in case there is a Bigfoot, he surely wants to be the man on the scene. Given the notion Bigfoot won't (and couldn't) ever be wholly disproved, he's really got little to lose (at this point) to just hang on and 'act' like the day might come one them-there-dead Bigfoot bodies goes 10-97.

And I think until the day he died, Krantz always and truly believed there is a Bigfoot.

Fair enough?

sure, I can't read his mind, and it is just hard to believe anyone with his training would be totally in love with this stuff. I think he has an irrational side and a rational side. Sort of like Charlie Brown.

DennyT · 12th May 2010, 12:51 PM

wolftrax: No, you quoted what I had said but ignored half of it. She claimed to have seen the feet and toes as it was climbing the tree through a thermal imager. Have you ever seen that level of detail in a thermal image? I haven't. Is that level of resolution possible? I haven't seen it. Show me a thermal with that kind of detail.

Sorry, I didn't catch the thermal imaging part.

Did we listen to the same interview?

yes, I thought all of Meldrum's stuff was baloney, because his data is likely fraudulent. That is NO WAY TO CONDUCT SCIENCE. The Laetoli tracks, on the other hand, are not fraudulent, guaranteed. Apples and oranges. So it was all nonsense, the blind leading the dishonest, or something, until she said what is the overwhelming truth, and the only thing in the entire interview that could be considered a take home message. And that was that Meldrum had no feet. So to speak.

Now, if that was me in there, I'd talk about how Tim White, ...

see, I disagree. I'm not qualified to debate Meldrum on the state of agreement on the Laetoli tracks. But I am qualified to debate him on how he does "scientific research" with data that is likely to be fraudulent. Engaging Meldrum on the fine points of anthropology is conceding that he has a legitimate argument. Which he doesn't. No more than Cohrs does. Why is her faked thermal data less acceptable than his fake footprints? How does he even get into the auditorium to compare his plaster with Laetoli?
[/quote]

DennyT · 12th May 2010, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by WGBH

Do you think Dr. Meldrum dressed as Stormshadow and they had slap fights?

That video cracks me up.

he just kept pulling out knives. It was like a dozen clowns getting out of a tiny clown car. And then he did his dramademo of the sword. Twice. I hope he doesn't run with all this stuff......

The Shrike · 12th May 2010, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Meldrum: Well, the null hypothesis is that it is an ape.

WTF? No Jeff. Bigfoot doesn't exist, so your null hypothesis is pure fantasy.

Indeed. Meldrum has the cart impeding the progress of the horse. Where in the primary literature has he been able to firmly establish that the footprint casts with which he's working were made from impressions left by a living, non Homo sapiens foot?

wolftrax · 12th May 2010, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

wolftrax: No, you quoted what I had said but ignored half of it. She claimed to have seen the feet and toes as it was climbing the tree through a thermal imager. Have you ever seen that level of detail in a thermal image? I haven't. Is that level of resolution possible? I haven't seen it. Show me a thermal with that kind of detail.

Sorry, I didn't catch the thermal imaging part.

Did we listen to the same interview?

yes, I thought all of Meldrum's stuff was baloney, because his data is likely fraudulent. That is NO WAY TO CONDUCT SCIENCE. The Laetoli tracks, on the other hand, are not fraudulent, guaranteed. Apples and oranges. So it was all nonsense, the blind leading the dishonest, or something, until she said what is the overwhelming truth, and the only thing in the entire interview that could be considered a take home message. And that was that Meldrum had no feet. So to speak.

Now, if that was me in there, I'd talk about how Tim White, ...

see, I disagree. I'm not qualified to debate Meldrum on the state of agreement on the Laetoli tracks. But I am qualified to debate him on how he does "scientific research" with data that is likely to be fraudulent. Engaging Meldrum on the fine points of anthropology is conceding that he has a legitimate argument. Which he doesn't. No more than Cohrs does. Why is her faked thermal data less acceptable than his fake footprints? How does he even get into the auditorium to compare his plaster with Laetoli?

Well, it's been my experience that if you really want to have a decent debate with people with expertise in their fields you need to address the evidence itself specifically and the support that the proponent puts forward, in it's context.

Repeating basic generalized statements over and over again make for a very long hour and a half radio show, like we see here with Cohrs. If all a person has to say to Meldrum is "Sasquatch has not been proven to exist, therefore the casts are fake" it doesn't matter how many times they say it, it's the same thing from ten minutes in to the full hour and a half. People tune out, they leave. I have to tell you, I wrote the first paragraph of my review of this interview after listening to the first ten minutes. I was going to turn it off and leave it, because I knew it was going nowhere and would have been just a repeat for the next hour and twenty minutes, but decided to listen anyways to make sure my review was accurate. True to form, it really was the same argument recycled over, and over, and over again.

Corhs is basically arguing "Sasquatch is closer to human, the feet look more like human than ape, therefore it is closer to human, and I oppose your midtarsal break theory because it indicates sasquatch is closer to ape." Same with saying "Sasquatch has not been proven to exist, therefore the casts are fake". He's going to tell you that the midtarsal break would be difficult to fake, if not impossible, and who would have thought about it before Meldrum came along? It's a natural feature supported by the footprints of bipedal hominids from the past, therefore it supports the casts validity. He's going to say that the tracks show a natural and consistent morphology, with toe movement and anatomical features beyond the knowledge and capabilities of a hoaxer. This kind of argument is going to require a response that deals with these kinds of details, if you just repeat "Sasquatch has not been proven to exist, therefore the casts are fake" the debate will go nowhere.

I'm not saying he's right, are that these arguments are valid, but these are the kinds of arguments he would put forward. I've just heard this kind of thing over and over again to know how it would play out.

William Parcher · 12th May 2010, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by wolftrax

This kind of argument is going to require a response that deals with these kinds of details, if you just repeat "Sasquatch has not been proven to exist, therefore the casts are fake" the debate will go nowhere.

It's not simply that Bigfoot has not been proven to exist. It's that there have been hundreds of years and unquestionable opportunity to do such. This has got to be shoved into his face with no blinking when he mentions the MTB or anything. Meldrum is incredibly naive to think that such a creatre could go without biological confirmation. His failure to grasp the reality of the situation is the only argument to entertain. It's not about foot morphology.

Quote:

I've just heard this kind of thing over and over again to know how it would play out.

It plays out with Meldrum going on and on because there is no capable skeptic getting in his face. It's not about foot morphology. It's about millions of unfulfilled opportunities in the span of hundreds of years. Think about the grand total number of human-hours spent in Bigfoot country over the course of human history in North America. We have no physical evidence of Bigfoot. This creature is not out there. There is no mystery involving a rare or elusive giant primate. Meldrum exists only because Bigfooters exist.

wolftrax · 12th May 2010, 02:52 PM

You're not the first one to bring that up. He's heard all of that before, and he'll have reasoning to get around it. He's going to tell you of the various animals that were not known to exist that were discovered over the last hundred years to modern times. That will take at most 5 minutes. you have another hour and 25 min. What next, repeat "Sasquatch has not been proven to exist, therefore the casts are fake" ?

The Shrike · 12th May 2010, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by wolftrax

He's going to tell you of the various animals that were not known to exist that were discovered over the last hundred years to modern times.

Such as? I don't know of a single example - and I've asked for them with no serious reply - that comes close to being a reasonable analogy for "bigfoot." What's more, why should Meldrum's opinion on the matter carry any more weight than any other schmo's on the BFF? His training is in anatomy, not distribution, population viability, and biogeography of rare vertebrates. I am trained in that stuff, and I agree with Parcher's position: it defies reason that in 2010 we haven't a scrap of physical evidence that can be tied to "bigfoot."

HarryHenderson · 12th May 2010, 04:28 PM

There's a vast chasm between Meldrum making 'an argument' and his making 'an intelligent & compelling argument'. I don't think he's ever made the latter and I'm now convinced he's incapable of it - scientifically speaking of course <eyeroll>. As I've asked rhetorically before, yesterday included, when exactly does the 'science' part begin? Seems he's become convinced all he has to do is say something that sounds 'scientific' - and since he's a 'scientist' everything he says is 'scientific' - and all is good, or all is forgiven if it's not good. Afterall, he's a 'scientist'.

Now it seems to me Meldrum's actual Bigfoot Fascination™ is really just about his surprisingly-less-than-astute Bigfoot opinions which then feed his real Hollywood dreams of Bigfoot fame and fortune. What the hell was he thinking when he was young, the discipline called Science™ is sooo last century.

Seriously, he's proving to be just another well paid idiot!

WGBH · 12th May 2010, 04:44 PM

Not all Bigfooters care about these stupid theories from pseudo scientists involved for profit. I want proof also. I am tired of camp fire stories and plaster casts.

wolftrax · 12th May 2010, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Such as? I don't know of a single example - and I've asked for them with no serious reply - that comes close to being a reasonable analogy for "bigfoot." What's more, why should Meldrum's opinion on the matter carry any more weight than any other schmo's on the BFF? His training is in anatomy, not distribution, population viability, and biogeography of rare vertebrates. I am trained in that stuff, and I agree with Parcher's position: it defies reason that in 2010 we haven't a scrap of physical evidence that can be tied to "bigfoot."

Well, you know he'd use the old chestnuts like the Mountain Gorilla discovered in 1902, just over 100 years ago, and the Coelacanth, discovered in 1938.

A subspecies of monkey discovered in 2009
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0707121417.htm

Another in 2003-2004
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1219180900.htm

Another in 2008
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ew-monkey.html

2005
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=768103&page=1

I believe this is the same monkey but DNA tests show it deserves it's own genus
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0511-wcs.html

Bonobos in 1929, and the various subspecies of chimps, going by memory the Billi ape was thought to be one of these, anyways...

And of course he's going to bring it home with the Ivory Billed Woodpecker.

Now granted, these are for the most part a species or subspecies of previously known animals or animals that were known but thought to be extinct, so until their discovery were thought not to contemporarily exist. You know if you argue that sasquatch is unknown and has always been, he's going to rely on Gigantopithecus or any of the other hominids, but Giganto is an old stand by.

I agree that evidence for sasquatch is poor at best or points to a hoax. I agree that you would think a discovery after all of this time would have been made. I agree that a lack of fossils from North America lends doubt to outright dismissal. These species having been discovered are not my arguments, they are just ones that I know he would have ready when confronted with the "Why no discovery?" question, and the "No scrap of physical evidence", again will be circularly argued back into the tracks and the film.

Again, 5 minutes, maybe 10 tops. What about the next hour and 20 minutes?

RayG · 12th May 2010, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by wolftrax

He's heard all of that before, and he'll have reasoning to get around it.

Lots of excuses but no reasoning.

Quote:

He's going to tell you of the various animals that were not known to exist that were discovered over the last hundred years to modern times.

And all of his analogies will be false.

RayG

The Shrike · 12th May 2010, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by wolftrax

Well, you know he'd use the old chestnuts . . .

What Ray said. He can attempt to make such arguments, but every one is an epic fail, and that's patently obvious to people who wildlife populations and the habitat that sustains them.

So why does Meldrum get a pass? The more I learn about him, the more I suspect he's a deluded dreamer, a cunning schemer, or just a guy who went too deep down the bigfoot rabbit hole and figure out how to save face and find his way out.

wolftrax · 12th May 2010, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by RayG

And all of his analogies will be false.

RayG

Those weren't discoveries over the last 100 years of animals not known to exist at that time?

Originally Posted by The Shrike

So why does Meldrum get a pass? <snip>

I didn't give him a free pass. I'm not saying these arguments that would come from him are valid or good ones to use. I've just heard them before and see them coming up again with the same results, and put forward how I would debate Meldrum.

And no, I don't think discussing the morphology of the tracks compared to what we know about hominid morphology, or even comparing the tracks to each other, somehow legitimizes Meldrum's theories. Did discussing and comparing the morphology of Piltdown Man legitimize it?

RayG · 12th May 2010, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by wolftrax

Those weren't discoveries over the last 100 years of animals not known to exist at that time?

Sure they were. New species are discovered every year. How are they specifically analogous to bigfoot? Are mountain gorilla footprints being found in forests all over North America? How about those subspecies of monkey, Bonobos, or Billi apes? Any of them sighted scampering around in the woods from New Brunswick to the Queen Charlotte Islands?

How about Panda Bears, Komodo Dragons, Hoan Kiem Turtles, or the Okapi?

Any of them are prancing around North American forests stealing garlic, snatching pancakes, leaving butt prints, or lobbing pine cones?

No, Dr. Meldrum has no sound analogy. His logic fails, plain and simple.

RayG

River · 13th May 2010, 12:34 AM

My opinion on Meldrum is: He does it for the money and/or the continued specialty group support. (in other forms than monetary, as well as money)

Do I think he believes in the animal? I think hed answer along the lines of " We cant be certain either way if its out there, but the evidence points to there being a possiblity" or along a similar non commited statement that is just enough to make the bigfoot crowd rally behind him. How much do you think Meldrum makes per year, and/or paid travel and accommodations, grants/gifts that he may have received in order to further this "reasearch".

Uhh. yeah.

Hes obviously playing the fiddle... Hes not dumb, hes benefitting from this... not the other way around. Everyone keeps saying that he should suffer some how because of his support for this, yet hes managed to use it to gain resources and profit from it. Genius.

Do I think hes being academically/scientifically honest? No.

WGBH · 13th May 2010, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

She is the sister of Diane Stocking. They are Bigfoot believers and Donna seems to accept junk as evidence for Bigfoot.

Actually, Donna Cohrs is the twin sister of Diane Stocking and a polar opposite of her sister on the gullibility meter. Diane will believe it when she sees it, Donna believes she sees it everywhere. Both buy more into Dr. Richard Eisner's theories of Bigfoot foot morphology, as do I. But, no one really knows anything. Dr Eisner would have been my choice for this debate. He has talked to Dr. Meldrum and come to the conclusion most of you have been saying here. It would have been a waste of his time to debate with Meldrum on the MTB subject.

The Shrike · 13th May 2010, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by River

Do I think he believes in the animal? I think hed answer along the lines of " We cant be certain either way if its out there, but the evidence points to there being a possiblity" or along a similar non commited statement that is just enough to make the bigfoot crowd rally behind him.

Well he's published a paper in which he tries to establish a scientific name for the animal, so his professional opinion is yes, that it definitely exists. I can't see how he could waiver in his opinion about the reality of the creature without a formal retraction of that paper.

Now whether or not he really believes what he's published is a whole other ball of wax.

LTC8K6 · 13th May 2010, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by WGBH

Here is the guy on the Sierra Bigfoot episode of Monsterquest with Dr. Meldrum.

Jaime Avalos AKA "Ninja-Footer".

http://www.youtube.com/user/4jaimeav...42/DfoRaNcITNA

Now that, I did not expect...

Does he expect to get within sword range of sasquatch and survive?

River · 13th May 2010, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Well he's published a paper in which he tries to establish a scientific name for the animal, so his professional opinion is yes, that it definitely exists. I can't see how he could waiver in his opinion about the reality of the creature without a formal retraction of that paper.

Now whether or not he really believes what he's published is a whole other ball of wax.

He may have formally published something trying to establish a name, but with shady evidence and also not in a very well frequented (by his peers) journal. I dont see any formal retractions forthcoming :-P

I also dont see any valid evidence to back up his theory if it "definitely exists". I would also expect him to answer that question more like I mentioned, leaving the possibility open of existence despite his previous claims. I've seen him say some completely ******* stuff, but I've never heard him outright say hes positive these animals exist. (for instance I've heard him refer to the subject of the PGF film as a real sasquatch)

Personally, I dont think hes established anything towards the existence of the animal other than showing himself to be less than thorough and scientific in his theories. Its embarassing frankly. He doesnt seem to mind though... I'm sure the dollars help pad the stupid he keeps getting slapped with.

wolftrax · 13th May 2010, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by WGBH

Actually, Donna Cohrs is the twin sister of Diane Stocking and a polar opposite of her sister on the gullibility meter. Diane will believe it when she sees it, Donna believes she sees it everywhere. Both buy more into Dr. Richard Eisner's theories of Bigfoot foot morphology, as do I. But, no one really knows anything. Dr Eisner would have been my choice for this debate. He has talked to Dr. Meldrum and come to the conclusion most of you have been saying here. It would have been a waste of his time to debate with Meldrum on the MTB subject.

That's amazing, Eisner's disagreements with Meldrum are based entirely on foot morphology. So you are saying if he had a debate with Meldrum he would completely toss out his argument and expertise?

DennyT · 13th May 2010, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by wolftrax

.... you need to address the evidence itself specifically and the support that the proponent puts forward, in it's context.

I agree completely, and the data is the evidence. And the data just shouts fake, it comes from hoaxers.

Originally Posted by wolftrax

Repeating basic generalized statements over and over again make for a very long hour and a half radio show, like we see here with Cohrs.

see, you are putting words in my mouth.
If it were me instead of Cohrs, it wouldn't be dull at all, and I would not be "repeating basic generalized statements over and over."

Originally Posted by wolftrax

If all a person has to say to Meldrum is "Sasquatch has not been proven to exist, therefore the casts are fake"

Here is the heart of the matter, imho. The issue is not whether Sasquatch has been proven to exist. Science investigates all sorts of speculative issues. That is what science does. The issue is not so much that Meldrum doesn't have a foot, but that he has a bunch of fake data. If his plaster casts were reliable data , then I say let him do his thing, whether Sasquatch has been proven to exist or not. But the casts come from a motley and unknown collection that includes numerous proven hoaxers. They are useless, deceptive and scientifically unsound, except as material for those who investigate hoaxers.

If you concede that the data are authentic, well, then you concede his legitimacy, and he will never lose that debate with you. He has his opinion, you have yours, which (forgive me, I'm speculating) is really just a weak echo of someone elses, and frankly Meldrum's opinion matters more than yours... you can't win that debate with him.

Originally Posted by wolftrax

People tune out, they leave.

Well, some may have, I found it fascinating. it was like reality tv. you may have missed the most significant parts of what makes Meldrum tick.

But that isn't the point. If you tried to debate him on his terms, you would be shown up in the first five minutes. You would try to uphold somebody else's research, in a field that (I'm guessing) you really are pretty unsophisticated... I think you either grossly underestimate Meldrum or overestimate yourself....You have a quote or two...within a minute he would come up all sorts of stuff you weren't aware of....he'll say he talked to White on the phone last week and White now agrees with him. or something. I promise you. He has the high ground on you. He's not some hick off in the weeds on this stuff... and you would be like Cohrs for the next hour and a half. It would be boring, imho.

I wouldn't be that easy, because he would not have the high ground on me.

JcR · 13th May 2010, 11:29 AM

Dr. Meldrum can go on and on with his academic argument. That is exactly what it all is. He could tie up his argument and make it a little more neat and tidy with some strong field data. That being said he feels that he has strong field data. Is it rational to add this data to his argument. He must know the casts are a bit of a weak link.
He can point to the PGF and believe all day.

DennyT · 13th May 2010, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by JcR

Dr. Meldrum can go on and on with his academic argument. That is exactly what it all is. He could tie up his argument and make it a little more neat and tidy with some strong field data. That being said he feels that he has strong field data. Is it rational to add this data to his argument. He must know the casts are a bit of a weak link.
He can point to the PGF and believe all day.

There isn't any science in the PGF, he knows that now. Another hoaxer-produced item. That would be a good debate.

DennyT · 13th May 2010, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by wolftrax

That's amazing, Eisner's disagreements with Meldrum are based entirely on foot morphology. So you are saying if he had a debate with Meldrum he would completely toss out his argument and expertise?

Eisner would say: human feet can't work this way.
Meldrum: not a human foot.
rinse and repeat for 1 hour and 30 minutes.

DennyT · 13th May 2010, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Well he's published a paper in which he tries to establish a scientific name for the animal, so his professional opinion is yes, that it definitely exists. I can't see how he could waiver in his opinion about the reality of the creature without a formal retraction of that paper.

Now whether or not he really believes what he's published is a whole other ball of wax.

His paper "gave" a scientific name to the tracks of the animal, not to the animal. Krantz had tried and failed to give a name to the animal. Last time I checked Meldrum's suggestion had not been officially accepted, but sometimes this process takes a long time.

5th May 2010, 10:45 AM	#161
DennyT Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,178	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 He's gone off the deep end... Why does anyone take him seriously? In the end, you have to understand that he is a true believer, because only a true believer or a pathological liar can be that convincing. [I used to think that Meldrum's patter was typical of a Mormon trying to convince non-believers...but really Mormons are not that much different from any true believers...its just that the LDS religion evolved 1800 or so years after all the dominant religions in the US, so Mormonism seems weirdly historical and falsifiable. ] Meldrum is a true believer, and he is usually smooth, and he has done some mainstream stuff. He really does have some credibility in his field. I couldn't believe it, but he has a position in the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
	__________________ "Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

5th May 2010, 12:38 PM	#162
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20,846	Dear Dr. Meldrum, Over 90% of our oceans remain unexplored. Yet, each day we inform our students and people in general that trilobites are extinct. Do you think that it is time for science and education to fully acknowledge that we do not really know about the natural world? Sincerely, William Parcher
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

5th May 2010, 01:52 PM	#164
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' . Posts: 15,223	Sung to the tune of " Get Down Tonight " For those who may not be musically edumacated...
	__________________ " The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "

5th May 2010, 05:43 PM	#166
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,660	Originally Posted by Drewbot Go to 5:10 and watch as he describes the morphing of a young BF's foot into an adult bigfoot's foot, with MTB and all. How is he able to tell an authentic young squatch print from a regular human print, especially if it has an arch? RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

10th May 2010, 09:55 AM	#167
DennyT Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,178	Originally Posted by RayG How is he able to tell an authentic young squatch print from a regular human print, especially if it has an arch? RayG because there are no regular humans, and there are squatches. seriously, he said that their anatomy may change as they mature. Squatch puberty, you know.
	__________________ "Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot Last edited by DennyT; 10th May 2010 at 09:57 AM.

5th May 2010, 12:54 PM	#163
Spektator Watching . . . always watching. Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Southeastern USA Posts: 1,634	Originally Posted by parnassus So you think Cohrs is dishonest because she says she saw a Bigfoot climb a tree????????? Come on. What is the whole bigfoot movement based on? The answer, for those who don't know, is people seeing Bigfoot walk around, throw pigs, lift cars, eat deer, run across roads at superhuman speeds, swim, and for all I know sink a hole in one at Pebble Beach. (snip) Walk a little walk, Smack a little tree, Bigfoot tonight! Throw a little pig, Eat a little deer, Bigfoot tonight!

5th May 2010, 03:34 PM	#165
CORed Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Central City, Colorado, USA Posts: 8,330	Originally Posted by Drewbot Just got through watching SIERRA SASQUATCH- MONSTERQUEST. These locals 'investigators' are finding all these human sized, human-like, barefoot prints, and they bring Meldrum in to analyze them, and he says, that they could be juvenile sasquatch whose feet haven't morphed into the adult sasquatch foot-characteristics. I hear hoofbeats. It must be a herd of unicorns.

10th May 2010, 03:15 PM	#168
WGBH Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,141	Here is the guy on the Sierra Bigfoot episode of Monsterquest with Dr. Meldrum. Jaime Avalos AKA "Ninja-Footer". http://www.youtube.com/user/4jaimeav...42/DfoRaNcITNA
WGBH Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,141	__________________ "Get the proof, then deal with the protectionist angles later. 40 something years of beating the bush is enough. Put up or shut up."~Graz

10th May 2010, 06:20 PM	#169
wolftrax Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 182	Originally Posted by parnassus So you think Cohrs is dishonest because she says she saw a Bigfoot climb a tree????????? No, you quoted what I had said but ignored half of it. She claimed to have seen the feet and toes as it was climbing the tree through a thermal imager. Have you ever seen that level of detail in a thermal image? I haven't. Is that level of resolution possible? I haven't seen it. Show me a thermal with that kind of detail. Quote: Come on. What is the whole bigfoot movement based on? The answer, for those who don't know, is people seeing Bigfoot walk around, throw pigs, lift cars, eat deer, run across roads at superhuman speeds, swim, and for all I know sink a hole in one at Pebble Beach. Are you saying eyewitnesses lie????ooooooooooo.....the old 'footer canard comes back to bite.... Yeah, people lie. I don't know who you think it's biting, but I've long said that people lie all of the time, which is one good reason why the amount of reports isn't convincing. Quote: Cohrs was being brutally honest, intellectually, when she said words to the effect that Meldrum doesn't know what a bigfoot foot looks like. Meldrum almost swallowed his modem when she said that, because IT IS TRUE. He stammered and backfilled, but the cat was out of the bag. Did we listen to the same interview? It was apparent all Cohrs cared about was placing sasquatch closer to humans than apes, and was opposed to Meldrum's theories because in HER MIND, Meldrum's theories placed sasquatch closer to apes than humans. My thought on this? Who the hell cares?! Does anybody really care how closely sasquatch is related to apes or humans? Well yeah, if we had a body, then it would be something to invest in. But with the "Evidence" we have now? Only someone who was emotionally invested in a debate that can go NOWHERE would waste their time arguing about it, and that's exactly what this interview was, a waste of time, because really that was what Cohrs was doing. Meldrum tried to explain what his theories were based on, and though he doesn't have a squatch foot, he does have the casts, as well as casts from the 3.5 million year old Laetoli tracks that as far as we know were from Australopithecus afarensis, a human ancestor. So does that make Meldrum right? No. But all Cohrs had to combat that was that sasquatch feet look like human feet, not ape feet, it's so simple for her, but apparently she lacks ANY knowledge of hominid feet. When Meldrum tried to press her on it, it had to do with the position of the hallux. Meldrum tries to explain to her that although hominids such as afarensis had a hallux that was not opposable, they still exhibited a midtarsal break in the Laetoli tracks. Cohrs constantly interrupts him, ignores this, and circularly argues again that sasquatch feet look like human feet, not ape feet. Now, if that was me in there, I'd talk about how Tim White, one of only a handful of people who actually studied the Laetoli tracks in situ states that they did not exhibit a midtarsal break, and that others who claimed so like Meldrum were basing this off of the casts and misinterpreted chisel marks from Mary Leakey. I'd talk about what we know about the morphology of the afarensis foot bones, as well as other hominids. The fact that Meldrum believes that the arch didn't develop in humans until 200,000 years ago could be challenged, and BACKED UP by research done in paleoanthropology. This is the crux of Meldrum's theories, this is how they need to be debated. Not just saying that ape feet and human feet are different and sasquatch feet look a lot more like human feet, like any first grader could argue. Cohrs just wasn't qualified for the job, and anybody with an ounce of knowledge on hominids knows this. Instead, she constantly interrupted him to make her lame point, and when she had NOTHING substantial to offer in a way to really debate Meldrum, and he knew this, she couldn't take him telling her so. It was an embarrasment.
wolftrax Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 182	Last edited by wolftrax; 10th May 2010 at 08:19 PM.

11th May 2010, 01:39 AM	#170
HarryHenderson Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business! Posts: 1,832	Originally Posted by WGBH Here is the guy on the Sierra Bigfoot episode of Monsterquest with Dr. Meldrum. Jaime Avalos AKA "Ninja-Footer". http://www.youtube.com/user/4jaimeav...42/DfoRaNcITNA That guy is totally ******* NUTS! So whilst out looking for Bigfoot, and in addition to at least 6 or 7 other knives and various sharp instruments that he carries on his person, he also carries a samurai sword on him? Oh wait, that's only on overnights. Whew, I thought he was sniffin glue there for a minute. It's possible he might be a little over prepared 'cause he's already dialed in how good of penetration he'll get if/when he has to stab a skull. The one thing I too always wanted to do if I ever was out looking for Bigfoot was stab a skull. Skull stabbin' is so hardcore man! Sadly, this guy isn't destined to find Bigfoot near as much as he is destined to be found in a shallow grave somewhere. Once again, just wow!
	__________________ "If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro

11th May 2010, 07:36 AM	#171
WGBH Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,141	Originally Posted by HarryHenderson That guy is totally ******* NUTS! So whilst out looking for Bigfoot, and in addition to at least 6 or 7 other knives and various sharp instruments that he carries on his person, he also carries a samurai sword on him? Oh wait, that's only on overnights. Whew, I thought he was sniffin glue there for a minute. It's possible he might be a little over prepared 'cause he's already dialed in how good of penetration he'll get if/when he has to stab a skull. The one thing I too always wanted to do if I ever was out looking for Bigfoot was stab a skull. Skull stabbin' is so hardcore man! Sadly, this guy isn't destined to find Bigfoot near as much as he is destined to be found in a shallow grave somewhere. Once again, just wow! Do you think Dr. Meldrum dressed as Stormshadow and they had slap fights? That video cracks me up.
WGBH Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,141	__________________ "Get the proof, then deal with the protectionist angles later. 40 something years of beating the bush is enough. Put up or shut up."~Graz

11th May 2010, 09:50 AM	#172
Bitter Monk Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 208	Somewhere a village is missing their ninja.
Bitter Monk Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 208	__________________ "But why doesn't Bigfoot get habituated? Everything can be habituated. Give me a crate of Oreos and I could habituate you."-kitakaze ThePonderingPossum.com

11th May 2010, 10:46 AM	#173
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20,846	Originally Posted by LuvGodzilla Donna Cohrs has looked at a lot of footprints and casts of tracks so she has enough knowledge to debate an expert. I'd love to know where there are lots of Sasquatch footprints to examine She honestly sounds like someone trying *desperately* to push her beliefs (and expertise) in Bigfootery. She is the sister of Diane Stocking. They are Bigfoot believers and Donna seems to accept junk as evidence for Bigfoot. Have a look at her pictures of footprints and a Bigfoot hiding in a hollow tree. IMO, the interview with Meldrum was wasted and of no consequence because Cohrs is a believer (not a Bigfoot skeptic). But then Minnesota Bigfoot Research Team is probably not going to put a capable Bigfoot skeptic up against Meldrum for a podcast. The debate is not about MTB vs. no MTB, and it's not about ape vs. human. It's about Bigfoot existing in the first place. No matter how poorly she deals with Meldrum... Bigfoot is still there at the end of the show. Cohrs: Is Bigfoot an ape or human? Meldrum: Well, the null hypothesis is that it is an ape. WTF? No Jeff. Bigfoot doesn't exist, so your null hypothesis is pure fantasy.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

11th May 2010, 05:09 PM	#174
HarryHenderson Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business! Posts: 1,832	Originally Posted by WGBH Do you think Dr. Meldrum dressed as Stormshadow and they had slap fights? That video cracks me up. Actually, YES, I do. And that video is comedy gold. He's serious! Only recently saw the Sierra Sasquatch episode and I see the transformation is now complete, Meldrum's gone Hollywood™. I did blink a few times so maybe I missed it, did he perform any 'science' at all in, say, his attributions of the footprints being...<cough>...juvenile Sasquatch? When exactly does his 'scientific credibility' finally take the deserved public 'hit' it already has here? Whether nice Mormon guy or not, he can't possibly be doing anyone (besides himself) any favors.
	__________________ "If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro

12th May 2010, 12:34 PM	#175
DennyT Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,178	Originally Posted by HarryHenderson And again the limitations of the 'written word', especially when written in haste on an internet discussion forum, fails to properly convey my actual meaning. Ironically, developing and practicing proper writing skills is my one true reason for posting on internet forums at all. Anyway, apparently I was being a little insincere myself in not properly qualifying my meaning regarding Meldrum. It's not that I think he's totally FOS - I do believe he has some amount of integrity. It's that I've come to believe he 'knows', and has known for a long time, that Bigfoot is simply and solely a myth and legend and any real hope he had for its existence went out with his baby's bathwater years ago. But since he's already out on a limb, and just in case there is a Bigfoot, he surely wants to be the man on the scene. Given the notion Bigfoot won't (and couldn't) ever be wholly disproved, he's really got little to lose (at this point) to just hang on and 'act' like the day might come one them-there-dead Bigfoot bodies goes 10-97. And I think until the day he died, Krantz always and truly believed there is a Bigfoot. Fair enough? sure, I can't read his mind, and it is just hard to believe anyone with his training would be totally in love with this stuff. I think he has an irrational side and a rational side. Sort of like Charlie Brown.
	__________________ "Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

12th May 2010, 12:51 PM	#176
DennyT Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,178	wolftrax: No, you quoted what I had said but ignored half of it. She claimed to have seen the feet and toes as it was climbing the tree through a thermal imager. Have you ever seen that level of detail in a thermal image? I haven't. Is that level of resolution possible? I haven't seen it. Show me a thermal with that kind of detail. Sorry, I didn't catch the thermal imaging part. Did we listen to the same interview? yes, I thought all of Meldrum's stuff was baloney, because his data is likely fraudulent. That is NO WAY TO CONDUCT SCIENCE. The Laetoli tracks, on the other hand, are not fraudulent, guaranteed. Apples and oranges. So it was all nonsense, the blind leading the dishonest, or something, until she said what is the overwhelming truth, and the only thing in the entire interview that could be considered a take home message. And that was that Meldrum had no feet. So to speak. Now, if that was me in there, I'd talk about how Tim White, ... see, I disagree. I'm not qualified to debate Meldrum on the state of agreement on the Laetoli tracks. But I am qualified to debate him on how he does "scientific research" with data that is likely to be fraudulent. Engaging Meldrum on the fine points of anthropology is conceding that he has a legitimate argument. Which he doesn't. No more than Cohrs does. Why is her faked thermal data less acceptable than his fake footprints? How does he even get into the auditorium to compare his plaster with Laetoli? [/quote]
	__________________ "Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

12th May 2010, 12:54 PM	#177
DennyT Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,178	Originally Posted by WGBH Do you think Dr. Meldrum dressed as Stormshadow and they had slap fights? That video cracks me up. he just kept pulling out knives. It was like a dozen clowns getting out of a tiny clown car. And then he did his dramademo of the sword. Twice. I hope he doesn't run with all this stuff......
	__________________ "Take the children, but LEAVE ME MY MONKEY!" --Dewey Cox, in "Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story." "The main skill of bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious." --DFoot

12th May 2010, 01:20 PM	#178
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,694	Originally Posted by William Parcher Meldrum: Well, the null hypothesis is that it is an ape. WTF? No Jeff. Bigfoot doesn't exist, so your null hypothesis is pure fantasy. Indeed. Meldrum has the cart impeding the progress of the horse. Where in the primary literature has he been able to firmly establish that the footprint casts with which he's working were made from impressions left by a living, non Homo sapiens foot?
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,694

12th May 2010, 02:16 PM	#179
wolftrax Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 182	Originally Posted by parnassus wolftrax: No, you quoted what I had said but ignored half of it. She claimed to have seen the feet and toes as it was climbing the tree through a thermal imager. Have you ever seen that level of detail in a thermal image? I haven't. Is that level of resolution possible? I haven't seen it. Show me a thermal with that kind of detail. Sorry, I didn't catch the thermal imaging part. Did we listen to the same interview? yes, I thought all of Meldrum's stuff was baloney, because his data is likely fraudulent. That is NO WAY TO CONDUCT SCIENCE. The Laetoli tracks, on the other hand, are not fraudulent, guaranteed. Apples and oranges. So it was all nonsense, the blind leading the dishonest, or something, until she said what is the overwhelming truth, and the only thing in the entire interview that could be considered a take home message. And that was that Meldrum had no feet. So to speak. Now, if that was me in there, I'd talk about how Tim White, ... see, I disagree. I'm not qualified to debate Meldrum on the state of agreement on the Laetoli tracks. But I am qualified to debate him on how he does "scientific research" with data that is likely to be fraudulent. Engaging Meldrum on the fine points of anthropology is conceding that he has a legitimate argument. Which he doesn't. No more than Cohrs does. Why is her faked thermal data less acceptable than his fake footprints? How does he even get into the auditorium to compare his plaster with Laetoli? Well, it's been my experience that if you really want to have a decent debate with people with expertise in their fields you need to address the evidence itself specifically and the support that the proponent puts forward, in it's context. Repeating basic generalized statements over and over again make for a very long hour and a half radio show, like we see here with Cohrs. If all a person has to say to Meldrum is "Sasquatch has not been proven to exist, therefore the casts are fake" it doesn't matter how many times they say it, it's the same thing from ten minutes in to the full hour and a half. People tune out, they leave. I have to tell you, I wrote the first paragraph of my review of this interview after listening to the first ten minutes. I was going to turn it off and leave it, because I knew it was going nowhere and would have been just a repeat for the next hour and twenty minutes, but decided to listen anyways to make sure my review was accurate. True to form, it really was the same argument recycled over, and over, and over again. Corhs is basically arguing "Sasquatch is closer to human, the feet look more like human than ape, therefore it is closer to human, and I oppose your midtarsal break theory because it indicates sasquatch is closer to ape." Same with saying "Sasquatch has not been proven to exist, therefore the casts are fake". He's going to tell you that the midtarsal break would be difficult to fake, if not impossible, and who would have thought about it before Meldrum came along? It's a natural feature supported by the footprints of bipedal hominids from the past, therefore it supports the casts validity. He's going to say that the tracks show a natural and consistent morphology, with toe movement and anatomical features beyond the knowledge and capabilities of a hoaxer. This kind of argument is going to require a response that deals with these kinds of details, if you just repeat "Sasquatch has not been proven to exist, therefore the casts are fake" the debate will go nowhere. I'm not saying he's right, are that these arguments are valid, but these are the kinds of arguments he would put forward. I've just heard this kind of thing over and over again to know how it would play out.
wolftrax Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 182	Last edited by wolftrax; 12th May 2010 at 02:18 PM.

12th May 2010, 02:33 PM	#180
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 20,846	Originally Posted by wolftrax This kind of argument is going to require a response that deals with these kinds of details, if you just repeat "Sasquatch has not been proven to exist, therefore the casts are fake" the debate will go nowhere. It's not simply that Bigfoot has not been proven to exist. It's that there have been hundreds of years and unquestionable opportunity to do such. This has got to be shoved into his face with no blinking when he mentions the MTB or anything. Meldrum is incredibly naive to think that such a creatre could go without biological confirmation. His failure to grasp the reality of the situation is the only argument to entertain. It's not about foot morphology. Quote: I've just heard this kind of thing over and over again to know how it would play out. It plays out with Meldrum going on and on because there is no capable skeptic getting in his face. It's not about foot morphology. It's about millions of unfulfilled opportunities in the span of hundreds of years. Think about the grand total number of human-hours spent in Bigfoot country over the course of human history in North America. We have no physical evidence of Bigfoot. This creature is not out there. There is no mystery involving a rare or elusive giant primate. Meldrum exists only because Bigfooters exist.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

12th May 2010, 02:52 PM	#181
wolftrax Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 182	You're not the first one to bring that up. He's heard all of that before, and he'll have reasoning to get around it. He's going to tell you of the various animals that were not known to exist that were discovered over the last hundred years to modern times. That will take at most 5 minutes. you have another hour and 25 min. What next, repeat "Sasquatch has not been proven to exist, therefore the casts are fake" ?
wolftrax Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 182

12th May 2010, 03:16 PM	#182
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,694	Originally Posted by wolftrax He's going to tell you of the various animals that were not known to exist that were discovered over the last hundred years to modern times. Such as? I don't know of a single example - and I've asked for them with no serious reply - that comes close to being a reasonable analogy for "bigfoot." What's more, why should Meldrum's opinion on the matter carry any more weight than any other schmo's on the BFF? His training is in anatomy, not distribution, population viability, and biogeography of rare vertebrates. I am trained in that stuff, and I agree with Parcher's position: it defies reason that in 2010 we haven't a scrap of physical evidence that can be tied to "bigfoot."
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,694

12th May 2010, 04:28 PM	#183
HarryHenderson Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business! Posts: 1,832	There's a vast chasm between Meldrum making 'an argument' and his making 'an intelligent & compelling argument'. I don't think he's ever made the latter and I'm now convinced he's incapable of it - scientifically speaking of course <eyeroll>. As I've asked rhetorically before, yesterday included, when exactly does the 'science' part begin? Seems he's become convinced all he has to do is say something that sounds 'scientific' - and since he's a 'scientist' everything he says is 'scientific' - and all is good, or all is forgiven if it's not good. Afterall, he's a 'scientist'. Now it seems to me Meldrum's actual Bigfoot Fascination™ is really just about his surprisingly-less-than-astute Bigfoot opinions which then feed his real Hollywood dreams of Bigfoot fame and fortune. What the hell was he thinking when he was young, the discipline called Science™ is sooo last century. Seriously, he's proving to be just another well paid idiot!
	__________________ "If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro

12th May 2010, 04:44 PM	#184
WGBH Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,141	Not all Bigfooters care about these stupid theories from pseudo scientists involved for profit. I want proof also. I am tired of camp fire stories and plaster casts.
WGBH Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,141	__________________ "Get the proof, then deal with the protectionist angles later. 40 something years of beating the bush is enough. Put up or shut up."~Graz

12th May 2010, 05:02 PM	#185
wolftrax Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 182	Quote: Such as? I don't know of a single example - and I've asked for them with no serious reply - that comes close to being a reasonable analogy for "bigfoot." What's more, why should Meldrum's opinion on the matter carry any more weight than any other schmo's on the BFF? His training is in anatomy, not distribution, population viability, and biogeography of rare vertebrates. I am trained in that stuff, and I agree with Parcher's position: it defies reason that in 2010 we haven't a scrap of physical evidence that can be tied to "bigfoot." Well, you know he'd use the old chestnuts like the Mountain Gorilla discovered in 1902, just over 100 years ago, and the Coelacanth, discovered in 1938. A subspecies of monkey discovered in 2009 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0707121417.htm Another in 2003-2004 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1219180900.htm Another in 2008 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ew-monkey.html 2005 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=768103&page=1 I believe this is the same monkey but DNA tests show it deserves it's own genus http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0511-wcs.html Bonobos in 1929, and the various subspecies of chimps, going by memory the Billi ape was thought to be one of these, anyways... And of course he's going to bring it home with the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. Now granted, these are for the most part a species or subspecies of previously known animals or animals that were known but thought to be extinct, so until their discovery were thought not to contemporarily exist. You know if you argue that sasquatch is unknown and has always been, he's going to rely on Gigantopithecus or any of the other hominids, but Giganto is an old stand by. I agree that evidence for sasquatch is poor at best or points to a hoax. I agree that you would think a discovery after all of this time would have been made. I agree that a lack of fossils from North America lends doubt to outright dismissal. These species having been discovered are not my arguments, they are just ones that I know he would have ready when confronted with the "Why no discovery?" question, and the "No scrap of physical evidence", again will be circularly argued back into the tracks and the film. Again, 5 minutes, maybe 10 tops. What about the next hour and 20 minutes?
wolftrax Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 182	Last edited by wolftrax; 12th May 2010 at 05:04 PM.

12th May 2010, 06:13 PM	#186
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,660	Originally Posted by wolftrax He's heard all of that before, and he'll have reasoning to get around it. Lots of excuses but no reasoning. Quote: He's going to tell you of the various animals that were not known to exist that were discovered over the last hundred years to modern times. And all of his analogies will be false. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

12th May 2010, 06:24 PM	#187
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,694	Originally Posted by wolftrax Well, you know he'd use the old chestnuts . . . What Ray said. He can attempt to make such arguments, but every one is an epic fail, and that's patently obvious to people who wildlife populations and the habitat that sustains them. So why does Meldrum get a pass? The more I learn about him, the more I suspect he's a deluded dreamer, a cunning schemer, or just a guy who went too deep down the bigfoot rabbit hole and figure out how to save face and find his way out.
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,694

12th May 2010, 07:18 PM	#188
wolftrax Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 182	Originally Posted by RayG And all of his analogies will be false. RayG Those weren't discoveries over the last 100 years of animals not known to exist at that time? Originally Posted by The Shrike So why does Meldrum get a pass? <snip> I didn't give him a free pass. I'm not saying these arguments that would come from him are valid or good ones to use. I've just heard them before and see them coming up again with the same results, and put forward how I would debate Meldrum. And no, I don't think discussing the morphology of the tracks compared to what we know about hominid morphology, or even comparing the tracks to each other, somehow legitimizes Meldrum's theories. Did discussing and comparing the morphology of Piltdown Man legitimize it?
wolftrax Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 182	Last edited by wolftrax; 12th May 2010 at 07:56 PM.

12th May 2010, 08:27 PM	#189
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,660	Originally Posted by wolftrax Those weren't discoveries over the last 100 years of animals not known to exist at that time? Sure they were. New species are discovered every year. How are they specifically analogous to bigfoot? Are mountain gorilla footprints being found in forests all over North America? How about those subspecies of monkey, Bonobos, or Billi apes? Any of them sighted scampering around in the woods from New Brunswick to the Queen Charlotte Islands? How about Panda Bears, Komodo Dragons, Hoan Kiem Turtles, or the Okapi? Any of them are prancing around North American forests stealing garlic, snatching pancakes, leaving butt prints, or lobbing pine cones? No, Dr. Meldrum has no sound analogy. His logic fails, plain and simple. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

13th May 2010, 12:34 AM	#190
River Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,962	My opinion on Meldrum is: He does it for the money and/or the continued specialty group support. (in other forms than monetary, as well as money) Do I think he believes in the animal? I think hed answer along the lines of " We cant be certain either way if its out there, but the evidence points to there being a possiblity" or along a similar non commited statement that is just enough to make the bigfoot crowd rally behind him. How much do you think Meldrum makes per year, and/or paid travel and accommodations, grants/gifts that he may have received in order to further this "reasearch". Uhh. yeah. Hes obviously playing the fiddle... Hes not dumb, hes benefitting from this... not the other way around. Everyone keeps saying that he should suffer some how because of his support for this, yet hes managed to use it to gain resources and profit from it. Genius. Do I think hes being academically/scientifically honest? No.
River Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,962

13th May 2010, 04:32 AM	#191
WGBH Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,141	Originally Posted by William Parcher She is the sister of Diane Stocking. They are Bigfoot believers and Donna seems to accept junk as evidence for Bigfoot. Actually, Donna Cohrs is the twin sister of Diane Stocking and a polar opposite of her sister on the gullibility meter. Diane will believe it when she sees it, Donna believes she sees it everywhere. Both buy more into Dr. Richard Eisner's theories of Bigfoot foot morphology, as do I. But, no one really knows anything. Dr Eisner would have been my choice for this debate. He has talked to Dr. Meldrum and come to the conclusion most of you have been saying here. It would have been a waste of his time to debate with Meldrum on the MTB subject.
WGBH Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 1,141	__________________ "Get the proof, then deal with the protectionist angles later. 40 something years of beating the bush is enough. Put up or shut up."~Graz

13th May 2010, 06:57 AM	#192
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,694	Originally Posted by River Do I think he believes in the animal? I think hed answer along the lines of " We cant be certain either way if its out there, but the evidence points to there being a possiblity" or along a similar non commited statement that is just enough to make the bigfoot crowd rally behind him. Well he's published a paper in which he tries to establish a scientific name for the animal, so his professional opinion is yes, that it definitely exists. I can't see how he could waiver in his opinion about the reality of the creature without a formal retraction of that paper. Now whether or not he really believes what he's published is a whole other ball of wax.
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,694

13th May 2010, 07:33 AM	#193
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 20,425	Originally Posted by WGBH Here is the guy on the Sierra Bigfoot episode of Monsterquest with Dr. Meldrum. Jaime Avalos AKA "Ninja-Footer". http://www.youtube.com/user/4jaimeav...42/DfoRaNcITNA Now that, I did not expect... Does he expect to get within sword range of sasquatch and survive?
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

13th May 2010, 09:46 AM	#194
River Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,962	Originally Posted by The Shrike Well he's published a paper in which he tries to establish a scientific name for the animal, so his professional opinion is yes, that it definitely exists. I can't see how he could waiver in his opinion about the reality of the creature without a formal retraction of that paper. Now whether or not he really believes what he's published is a whole other ball of wax. He may have formally published something trying to establish a name, but with shady evidence and also not in a very well frequented (by his peers) journal. I dont see any formal retractions forthcoming :-P I also dont see any valid evidence to back up his theory if it "definitely exists". I would also expect him to answer that question more like I mentioned, leaving the possibility open of existence despite his previous claims. I've seen him say some completely ******* stuff, but I've never heard him outright say hes positive these animals exist. (for instance I've heard him refer to the subject of the PGF film as a real sasquatch) Personally, I dont think hes established anything towards the existence of the animal other than showing himself to be less than thorough and scientific in his theories. Its embarassing frankly. He doesnt seem to mind though... I'm sure the dollars help pad the stupid he keeps getting slapped with.
River Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 4,962

13th May 2010, 09:57 AM	#195
wolftrax Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 182	Originally Posted by WGBH Actually, Donna Cohrs is the twin sister of Diane Stocking and a polar opposite of her sister on the gullibility meter. Diane will believe it when she sees it, Donna believes she sees it everywhere. Both buy more into Dr. Richard Eisner's theories of Bigfoot foot morphology, as do I. But, no one really knows anything. Dr Eisner would have been my choice for this debate. He has talked to Dr. Meldrum and come to the conclusion most of you have been saying here. It would have been a waste of his time to debate with Meldrum on the MTB subject. That's amazing, Eisner's disagreements with Meldrum are based entirely on foot morphology. So you are saying if he had a debate with Meldrum he would completely toss out his argument and expertise?
wolftrax Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 182