Meldrum is Interviewed by NPR and is criticized by Wired Magazine

Posted by: Guy Edwards on December 14th, 2011

Bigfoot Lunch Club

Radio-west-interview-jeff-meldrum by BigfootLunchClub

Above is an hour long interview with Dr. Jeff Meldrum conducted by Radio West. Radio West is broadcast on KUER public radio, a charter member of National Public Radio (NPR). Below is the critique of the interview by Wired blogger and science writer Brian Switek.

The Squid and the Ape (excerpt)

By Brian Switek December 10, 2011 | 6:14 pm |
For the November 11th show, RadioWest producer Doug Fabrizio interviewed Idaho State University anthropologist and Sasquatch devotee Jeff Meldrum. The stated point of the interview was to see how Meldrum applied scientific reasoning to the search for a creature that, at best, exists on the fringes of scientific investigation. That’s not what actually transpired.

Even though Fabrizio kept qualifying statements about the ever-elusive Bigfoot with “if”s, he was clearly sympathetic to Meldrum’s efforts to give the mythical North American forest ape an air of respectability. The show was more about how Meldrum became attracted to the cryptozoological celebrity and his feelings as someone trying to prove the existence of a creature that, as far as I am concerned, probably doesn’t exist and has been a persistent focus of interest due to cultural phenomena rather than actual evidence. (As I wrote in a story for WIRED Science, there comes a time in searches for missing or presumably extinct mammal species that returns rapidly diminish and that species is more likely absent than simply elusive. So many have searched for Bigfoot for so long without finding any unambiguous evidence that I don’t see any reason to think such an animal exists.)

Almost all of Fabrizio’s questions were uncritical. Some, such as when Fabrizio asked when the search for Sasquatch supposedly became academically taboo, were even sympathetic to Meldrum’s exceptional claims. When Meldrum retells the story of how he saw tracks that convinced him that Bigfoot was real, Fabrizio doesn’t ask about how Meldrum could tell that the tracks were from a real animal and could not have been hoaxed. When Meldrum goes off about how he has brought Bigfoot into the scientific mainstream through papers, talks at conferences, and the like, Fabrizio doesn’t ask “Well, which journals and conferences? What did you say? How was your work received by your colleagues?” Likewise, Fabrizio lets Meldrum state that there is a lot of photo evidence – albeit poor quality – of Bigfoot as well as hair and scat without digging into the details of those assertions and why those lines of evidence have not done more to confirm the supposed ape’s existence. I didn’t want Fabrizio to be actively hostile to Meldrum’s ideas, but the radio host did not seem prepared to challenge his guest on any point.

The interview was mostly about feelings. What Meldrum felt about this or that aspect of Bigfoot arcana was more important than the veracity of what he was actually saying. I don’t take issue with RadioWest having cryptozoologists or other people who make exceptional claims on the show, but, for FSM’s sake, hold them to account and push them to explain why they believe what they do. If someone keeps saying there’s really good evidence for Bigfoot, Triassic Krakens, ancient aliens, or whatever, we shouldn’t be afraid of pressing them on how good that evidence actually is. To say that evidence is good is one thing. To demonstrate the same is not as easy.

Guy Edwards About Guy Edwards
Psychology reduces to biology, all biology to chemistry, chemistry to physics, and finally physics to mathematical logic. Guy Edwards is host of the Portland, OR event

68 Responses to “Meldrum is Interviewed by NPR and is criticized by Wired Magazine”

  1. norman-uk responds:


    I wonder if you could explain what appears to be a contradiction in your blogs.

    you state:

    (1) But no, no one has found one and I’m pretty certain it is because there isn’t one there at all.

    (2) You seem to be in the throes of a delusion. Namely—you think that “I” think that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. That’s not true. I have seen what I would say WAS a Bigfoot on three different occasions in my life.

    I am also interested in what you mean by the following, and what was W saying in your opinion?

    (3) William of Ockham was very clear. Feel free to read up on it somewhere OTHER than wikipedia.

  2. DWA responds:


    Aw, what’s a little nastiness among friends?

    I hope nobody thinks that I believe science is a neat little tea party where everyone agrees. The worst tiffs I’ve seen on Cryptomundo don’t compare to the nastiness the “hard” sciences (maybe that’s why they’re called that!) can muster when otherwise reasonable people violently disagree. If I ruffled feathers, I apologize.

    That said: The evidence needs no apologies. There is much testable evidence for the sasquatch. (Sightings count, big time. They say: LOOK HERE. And when you read them, they don’t say bear.) But until the scientific mainstream is ready to test it – and there are protocols in place for doing precisely that – we won’t have proof. That’s the block, not a lack of evidence.

    Cass: If you’ve seen a bigfoot on three occasions, then you have PROOF. It might not suffice for science, nor for me (I couldn’t accept it as proof if it came from the single person I trusted most; secondhand is secondhand), but if I’d had those sightings personally, I wouldn’t care what science thought. I’d know, and the rest of the world could go hang. I’d have to seriously think about whether I’d tell anybody. But I wouldn’t doubt it any longer.

    In other words, there’s societal proof, i.e., the provisional truths accepted as scientific fact, and personal proof, i.e., good enough for me if I’m that person.

    I do find it interesting that so many people feel that The World Must Know! after their sightings. They risk major ridicule, as I’m sure you know all too well. But we should feel grateful for that impulse. I know I do. There’d be no squatchery without it.

    I may not know enough about your “street cred.” But I do know something about evidence. And if science decided to go confirm the sasquatch tomorrow, I could tell them exactly how to go about it. Actually, they could do that themselves. They practically have the manual, if they’d look at the evidence.

  3. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    1. @Norman of UK Had you clicked the link “the word wikipedia” it would not have taken you to wikipedia but instead to the Principia Cybernetica Web where “Occam’s Razor” is clearly explained. And it does NOT mean “The Simplest Solution is the Correct One.”

    2. I have never said “there isn’t one there.” What I have said (on more than ONE occasion) is “As for Bigfoot being REAL. Never said he wasn’t. But it is odd that we’ve been chasing these things since 1884 (remember the story of Jacko?) and at NO time in the last 127 years has anyone produced one Bigfoot dead or alive. DWA complains that that is what you can expect from “Weekend Explorers” but there’s more to it than that. There have been plenty of expeditions that have gone out and spent WEEKS running around the woods of the Pacific Northwest and al they ever come back with are some blurry photos and a footprint or so.

    Now, there has to be a reason for that.

    A. The creature doesn’t actually exist.
    B. It does exist but for SOME reason is able to elude capture and never leaves a corpse where it can be found. No body. No bones. No NOTHING.

    Over a hundred years of photos, footprints, and the occasional recording of what is SUPPOSED to be the cry of the Bigfoot (there has yet to be a case of an audio recording that proves out to be anything OTHER than a known animal or an out and out fraud).

    See link above to my Mothman video where I manipulated the cries of three different kinds of owls (Barn Owl, Screech Owl, and Great Horned Owl) in order to produce the “cry” of the Mothman. One can take the screech owl and the peacock, mix them together, slow down the audio in parts, reverse it in parts and produce a very satisfactory “Bigfoot” cry. (And, all to often, that IS what people are hearing when they hear “recordings” of Bigfoot on some of the shows.

    3. What do I mean by saying that I “saw” what I think was Bigfoot. I mean I saw something I would call Bigfoot. But, even though another member of our group got photos of those sightings they are worth nothing without solid physical evidence. And, no…you don’t need a body (dead or alive) to prove they exist. But you DO need DNA. Now, these creatures lope through the forests and over rocky hillsides and so on and MUST leave hair samples (among other things) behind. Samples that could be tested for DNA. Much as the portion of the Pangboche Hand (said to belong to the Yeti) WAS tested on two different occasions with VERY interesting results.

    Those test results constitute scientific evidence that that hand belonged to a manlike creature (possibly Neanderthal) but you’ll have to go to my earlier post in this thread for that.
    And, finaly, Craig…I am TRYING to be civil but when the guy hasn’t even read Loren’s biography of Tom Slick, the whole NINTH chapter of which is devoted to the Pacific Northwest Bigfoot Expedition…I mean…a guy who claims to be the MOST scientific and experienced poster HERE (what are you and Loren? Chopped liver???) I mean…sheesh. But I’ll play nice…I promise.

  4. DWA responds:

    Cass: I didn’t say there isn’t stuff we can argue about.

    “It does exist but for SOME reason is able to elude capture and never leaves a corpse where it can be found. No body. No bones. No NOTHING.”

    Hunters have examined bodies of the sasquatch they shot. Bones have been found, as have hair, feces, and blood, all under compelling circumstances. That none of these have survived the chain of custody to conclusive scientific examination – in numerous cases, they weren’t even brought in by the person who found them – is a minor quibble against the volume and consistency of the other evidence.

    (And I have to smile when I hear Bigfooters pooh-pooh these allegations, while continuing to search for an animal that, well, must not be real. Not every American wants to be famous; not every American cares whether anyone other than he knows. Not every American thinks the world will be convinced by anything he brings back after the disgusting process of so doing. I sure don’t; good luck getting anything out of me if I ever see one, at least with my real name attached.)

    There are two things that I consider absurdities in the context of this animal:

    1. That all of this consistent evidence has been created by either an organized conspiracy dating from earliest European occupation of the continent, or by a totally unorganized, unrelated series of hoaxes, misidentifications and hallucinations. (The lack of proof is the only thing that forces one to consider this total absurdity.)

    2. That any animal like this could have persisted on the North American continent for this long and left for examination no corpse, no body, no bones, NOTHING. (Fortunately, the evidence says we can ignore this one. To say that those who have found remains are lying is to say the animal isn’t real, period. Or else, Loren, Champ CAN live for 400 years. ;-D )

    “There has yet to be a case of an audio recording that proves out to be anything OTHER than a known animal or an out and out fraud.” This is patently untrue. Many people have reported hearing vocalizations that duplicated purported bigfoot sounds they heard later either on TV or on websites, the provenance of the latter of which remains unknown. Bioacoustics experts have vouched for a number of recorded vocalizations matching those of no known animal and indicating a vocal tract much larger than that of humans. (Read Meldrum.) I’ve heard more than one that I can tell you are not likely of any known animal.

    Once again, the results of the Northwest Bigfoot Expedition are irrelevant. Or, actually, they are…to my argument. That got the same scientific reception P/G got. Until the scientific mainstream is on board, forget proof. Because we hold science responsible for proof.

  5. Mahalo X responds:

    Always pleasing to see a thoughtful discussion. I just checked in on this chat to find it gettin’ hot in here LOL!

    Peace and love to everyone, and happy holidays.

    Remember; no room for bad vibes in good science!

  6. Oggar responds:

    DWA you do make some great points but your claims of tested/confirm DNA seem little more than anecdotal- I, nor anyone else here seems to have heard of these cases. Also the idea that eyewitness testimony is reliable simply because it is consistent and persistent on the creatures form is more than suspect- mythological creatures such as mermaids and unicorns spring to mind. Those creatures were also reported consistently for centuries with details on where and how to find them. If there were a bipedal, ape-like, creature who ranged across the whole of North America, Asia, and Australia. Maintaining populations large enough to support breeding, most likely in groups, evidence of their existence should be more prevalent. As an omnivore native to the Pacific Northwest you would certainly expect to see them along the riversides during the salmon runs- After all a family of 800lbs gorillas needs to eat. But bigfoot seem to be ecologically invisible, if anything the colonization of the Americas by Europeans should have been a great boon to their numbers as they slaughtered many of the large predators such as bears and wolves. As well as planting great fields of foodstuffs. It is more than curious that bigfoot seems immune to biological pressures that have forced animals like the bear into conflict with humans.

  7. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    DWA…we have nothing to argue about. If you’re gullible enough to believe any jerk that claims to have had a carcass of one of these creatures that’s fine.

    As for Jeff Meldrum…he’s a guy I respect one hell of a lot. But he’s an expert on primate anatomy. Not on audio manipulation. Nor does it require any special expensive software to turn the cry of a known animal into something unrecognizable. ALL you need is a computer, a couple of wav files of known creatures and the free Windows Sound Recorder Utility where you can speed up or slow down portions of the audio…REVERSE portions of the audio add echo effects…and MIX the audio of different creatures together in a flawless way. Flawless enough for the human ear anyway.

    Naturally, then, once you have done all that an expert is “animal audio” will say “That’s of no KNOWN creature.”

    Actually it IS but you’d have to dissect the audio to find that out.

    This is not a subject for argument either. MOST (if not ALL) of these audios circulating around are FRAUDULENT.

    There may be somewhere a bigfoot call that is authentic but I have yet to hear it. Oh, you do get claims from people who say “Yes, I know that SOUNDS LIKE the cry of a peacock (or fox or screech owl) but Bigfoot is IMITATING those creatures.”

    I don’t waste my time arguing with crazy people.

    You can download thousands of animal calls from the internet for FREE and manipulate them with sound recorder (or more advanced audio software for even MORE convincing effects) just by visiting one of the many websites out there that offer them.

    The page I used for “Mothman” is here.

  8. DWA responds:

    Cass: you are determined not to get it. Moving on.

    Proof and evidence are different things, even though the only difference is science’s opinion of the evidence. Kind of a critical point to get. Evidence isn’t invalid, even if it’s not yet proof. If I believed anyone, flat out, I’d call it proof, wouldn’t I? All I’m saying is: if he was there, and you weren’t, and there’s lots of reason to think he might be right, I’m not calling him wrong if I wasn’t there. That apparently isn’t a problem for you. I’d say you’re the gullible one, if you’re chasing something for which there is absolutely no evidence that means anything.

    Proof and evidence are different things. Keep referring to that sentence when in doubt. If you think you get it, I’m just saying that I’m not reading that you do.

    Craig’s right. We actually don’t differ much at all. But I see that. You don’t.

    But hey, you’re entitled. Both the proponent and the skeptic fringes tend to talk themselves in circles. Nothing I can do about that.

    And I’ll take Meldrum’s opinion over anybody’s I’ve ever read here. And definitely a bioacoustics expert over yours. You guys can be funny. What exactly are you looking for again?

    Oggar: Never said anything about anything being proven. In fact, one of my most consistent points on this site is that there is nothing one can do with DNA until there is a type specimen, which requires a clearly identified body. If there were evidence for mermaids and unicorns with anything close to the consistency of the sasquatch data, we’d be talking about them the same way we do bigfoot. We aren’t, are we?

    Guys, pay attention to scientists who are paying attention to the data. (And know more than you.) It’s just hilarious not to. Particularly when one styles oneself a proponent. Get in the game.

  9. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    DWA We differ one hell of a lot.

    You say “DNA wouldn’t be evidence until we have something to test it against.”

    But we do. We have apes and we have humans. We can test any DNA found against those looking for similarities. It is possible that the best we could get would be along the lines of what UNSOLVED MYSTERIES got when they tested the fragments of the Pangboche Hand (YETI hand) which Peter Byrne smuggled back (with the aid of James Stewart—again read Loren’s book on Tom Slick if you are unfamiliar with that incident). The conclusion…human-like but not human. (Earlier testing suggested Neanderthal). But THAT would at least be PROOF that there is a REAL (so far unidentified) CREATURE to search for in the Pacific Northwest. PROOF that ANY scientist could test.

    Yes, TEST. For as long as the specimens of hair or feces or whatever lasts. Well, where ARE these specimens? This thing lives in the woods. It must leave clumps of hair on trees and so on at least SOME of the time. And if one follows its “footprints” (or the line they were on) one should certainly be able to locate its droppings.

    But no has. Not once. Except for the sort of hear-say stories you seem to prefer to reality.

    As for the experts. They answer the question they’re paid to answer. “Does this sound like the cry of a known animal.” Answer “No.” They don’t say “My God! You’ve recorded the Call of the Sasquatch!”

    There’s a difference there which you seem unable to grasp.

    Claims to have shot Squatches, or run across their corpses, etc.

    Yeah, I’ll call the people making those claims liars.


    Because they are.

    This is the last time I am going to respond to you because your argument doesn’t make sense.

    Your argument is “If you believe in these things why don’t you believe all the stuff you read about them?”

    But I don’t “believe” in these things. I have seen creatures on three occasions that MIGHT be Bigfoot…but might not have been. The sightings were brief and the photos my friend took…unclear. A Polaroid of a creature standing off in the distance is not very useful for identification. You can only blow it up so much before it becomes completely useless.

    Jeff Meldrum. I am quite familiar with Jeff’s work (having followed it for the last 20 years or so). Yeah, I take his word for a lot. But again…he isn’t a sound effects expert. Neither are the guys who usually get asked about these recordings. Mike Dees and so on.

    When someone brings back a specimen that can be tested THEN we can begin to PROVE the existence of Bigfoot.

    We do NOT need a live Bigfoot or even a dead one. All we need are some hair samples. Understand that, please. ANY source of viable DNA that can be compared to what already exists in the mammalian DNA database which all DNA testing labs use for comparison tests.

    DWA if you “want to believe” that’s fine.

    Personally, I want to KNOW. And to know we need proof. Not stories, not personal encounters, not photographs of questionable authenticity, not audio recordings (that can be faked even more easily than photographs, films, and footprints. PROOF.

    And no…it is not up to the scientists to provide that. It is up to those who claim this creature exists to provide it.

  10. DWA responds:

    Just checking back to see if Cass has figured out how to think about this.

    Apparently, other than conceding that Occcam points to the reality of the sasquatch, he hasn’t.

    “Occam’s Razor isn’t about “the simplest solution” it is about the solution that contains the fewest ASSUMPTIONS.”

    Assumptions required to say “the evidence points to the existence of an unknown animal”: none. That would be zero. Just a big – and consistent – pile of evidence. All that’s required. Compare to any other cryptid. None compare. It’s the biological profile of a species unknown to science.

    (A scientist – I’m taking “scientist” over “Cass” every time – says – wrote a whole book on this – that this pile of evidence is a scientific discovery that we just haven’t acknowledged we’ve made yet.)

    Assumptions required to say “it’s all fake”? At least three. (That would be three.)

    1. North America is no place for apes, so we can discount this huge pile, which is of course wrong;

    2. A vast and directed continent-wide conspiracy;

    3. a vast and random continent-wide mass neurosis.

    Plus, whoops, 4. some almost-impossible mix of 2. and 3. Or, in my preferred phrasing: “lies behaving like biodata.”

    “Evidence points to reality of sasquatch” wins. So he’s contributed to science. Go Cass!

    And he still hasn’t figured out how close we are on this. I know everyone else here knows that “belief” is not part of this discussion. He’s using belief a lot; particularly when he “concludes” acoustic evidence is all faked and “concludes” that people he’s never met are all lying. And he’s still searching anyway.

    (Welcome to the fringe. I don’t look for anything for which evidence doesn’t exist.)

    Most here probably know that DNA is nothing unless there is a type specimen. Numerous pieces of evidence have tested “unknown primate.” If one read up one would know that. Guess where that leaves us. In terms of proof, nowhere, says science.

    Now I really am done. New worlds to explore. Anything anyone doesn’t get, read again, right up there. (Or search Cryptomundo for DWA.) Got you covered.

    We will know crypto is a science (i.e., zoology) when folks who don’t know how to look at the evidence come on here talking like experts.

    (UNSOLVED MYSTERIES? Mothman? Wha? Circus. Focus on the science, not the tabloid jungle.)

  11. DWA responds:

    OK, had to add this.

    Cass says: “And no…it is not up to the scientists to provide that. It is up to those who claim this creature exists to provide it.”

    They’ve been “providing that” for over a half-century. The pile is HUGE. And we haven’t moved toward proof yet. Why?

    THAT’S WRONG. It is on the mainstream of science to prove the existence of new species. Period. Inability to understand this is, well, just plain un-scientific. Bigfooters can do all they want. But it’s clear they lack the money and the time. We know where those things are…don’t we?

  12. DWA responds:

    I could wait for Cass to catch this. But that hasn’t been working too good. I said

    “We will know crypto is a science (i.e., zoology) when folks who don’t know how to look at the evidence come on here talking like experts.”

    Clearly that’s a mistake. It should be:

    “We will know crypto is a science (i.e., zoology) when folks who don’t know how to look at the evidence STOP COMING on here talking like experts.”

    There you go.

  13. Jonathan Poulsen responds:

    You’re never going to prove anything with films and footprints, you can get a close-up full facial film with HD quality and you take it to the skeptics and they will say “fake”. They said that to Roger Patterson and they are going to keep on saying it to any other film that comes out. Although I think that Roger Patterson’s film is authentic and that a handful of footprint casts are legitimate, what you need is a body. It could be a carcass or a live specimen, but nothing else will do but a body. There is an awful lot of evidence for the existence of a hominid form of primate living in the forests in the Pacific Northest, but to the skeptics there is nothing. Us Sasquatch researchers have evidence, but we don’t have proof.

  14. norman-uk responds:


    Potential bigfoot samples have been tested for DNA for many years. Mainly by Todd Disotell of New York labs (16 years) with no results that indicate bigfoot. Only results like no DNA or bear or human (contamination) The New York labs have been the respected leader in this field with a reputation built on NOT finding any bigfoot DNA ! Now this could be because there was no bigfoot DNA in the samples or it was missed by the lab. or the technology used was dated. In my opinion because of all the evidence there is for Bigfoot there should have been Bigfoot DNA in some of the samples. I would suggest the bigfoot DNA had little chance of being identified because of the extreme sceptical outlook of the lab towards bigfoot. This sceptical outlook can be shown by listening to a broadcast on Monster quest involving Todd Disotell which is still on the net. Where he showed his penchant for jeering and sneering at bigfooters in general (excluding Meldrum for some reason)

    I think there was some kind of consensus at that time based on the sceptics mantra that bigfoot DNA if found would be a waste of time without a body, which seemed to me clearly wrong. I think when the realisation of this possible situation was appreciated other labs were asked to do the analysis and results started to come in. Culminating in Dr Melba Ketchums work which has and is producing results. One interesting possibility is that Denesova man might turn out to be one of the extent relic hominds or has made a DNA contribution. We’ll likely know when Dr Ketchum goes public. Whatever, the cat seems to be out of the bag on the subject of bigfoot DNA and even professor Bryan Sykes has asked for possible bigfoot samples. All this does demonstrate that thinking that bigfoot is there is no longer a matter of eccentricity.

    Eyewitness testimony is a valuable resource despite hoaxes and inaccuracies and an opportunity for scientists to glean valuable information from them. A reasonable view can be reached and along with all the supporting evidence is a very strong indication for the reality of bigfoot. Mermaids and unicorns both have arguably some reality in fact in that the mermaid could be dugongs or seals and the unicorn something like an oryx. As is often the case if observations are reported there is generally something real at the bottom of it. Feral humans don’t fit the bill as bigfoot is concerned but something much more exciting!

    I think bigfoot is smarter than a bear and has learned the hard way not to tangle with humans. There are records of humans and relic hominds being at war in earlier times, guess who won. An apparent failure to thrive at its simplest could be because bigfoot is at least near human and very vulnerable to human diseases and lucky to survive to date.

  15. DWA responds:

    Jonathan Poulsen:

    One thing I can say about both you and me: we understand the difference between evidence and proof. In this search, that is considerably more than half the battle.

  16. norman-uk responds:

    Erratum on my last log in first para, MonsterQuest should have been monster talk, apologies!

  17. Jonathan Poulsen responds:

    MonsterQuest is for entertainment only. Skeptics watch shows like Destination Truth and Monster Quest and think to themselves “What a bunch of hogwash”. A breakthrough in the field of sasquatch research would be a documentary film or a television special that presents all the evidence without interviewing random sighting eyewitnesses. But two sightings that I think should be noted in every documentary are Albert Ostman’s kidnapping, and William Roe’s encounter because both men signed affidavits under the Canadian government swearing to the legitimacy of their stories. Ostman was even interrogated by A.M. Naismith who found no contradictions or falsifications in the story. More pieces of evidence that should be noted are the Bossburg Cripple, the Skookum Cast, the Greys Harbour Casts, The Walla Walla Casts and the Minnesota Iceman. Also, it should be noted that there have been several times they have been killed, their bones have been found or they have been captured alive.

    I want every skeptic to think twice about saying “No sasquatch has ever been killed”.

  18. norman-uk responds:

    I think you are pointing to an ideal in today’s terms, that is a body WITH DNA but the ideal is not essential. A fossil is usually without DNA which may only indicate the genus or less but can be provisionally accepted by science. DNA without a body may be seen as more difficult, but in the case of Sasquatch there would be lots of supporting evidence some current some historic and to get DNA there is usually associated physical material such as hair or bone. It would be quite reasonable therefore if reliable DNA results were obtained and they were unique to accept they were of a new species. Especially if there were multiple similar results. I think this is what Melba Ketchum is attempting and quite possibly achieved.

    The evidence for Sasquatch is actually quite rich and quite broad in nature which at least should make it a subject for official study. In some cases, such as done by Jeff Meldrum this endeavor is insufficient as the whole public case seems to rest on his shoulders. More official bodies should enter the fray to research Sasquatch in an effort to further knowledge and widen its research to make the whole subject less publicly vulnerable. This is apart from the admirable non-official research which goes on.

    The is no doubt in my mind that much of the different kinds of evidence for Sasquatch is good evidence and confidence in that is what should define the actions and expression of those who appreciate that and are interested in establishing the fact of sasquatch for good reasons. What should not define their actions are sceptics specially those who are not going to accept anything other than a body however unreasonable that may be and insist on body as essential not ideal when it clearly is not. By demanding a body sceptics are in effect denying the reality of sasquatch!. Where were they when densova man got its ticket on a few bits of unremarkable bone?

    Those who believe in sasquatch, on the evidence, should not do the sceptics job for them by rolling over and accepting their often specious arguments. The valid case needs to be put on its merits and not to pander to sceptics where their case is not meritorious or without balance.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.