Jeff Meldrum an Embarrassment to Science?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on March 31st, 2016

Dr. Jeff Meldrum shared this on Facebook yesterday:

Just got a phone message from a “Mike in Boston” who felt the compulsion to look me up and call me to tell me that I am an embarrassment to the scientific community, a hoaxer, obsessed with Bigfoot, etc. He challenged me to call him back and provide one piece of scientific evidence that sasquatch exist.

I would happily oblige, except he didn’t leave his phone number.

Anyone know a Mike in Boston??

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.


19 Responses to “Jeff Meldrum an Embarrassment to Science?”

  1. DWA responds:

    At the frontiers of science, the only people who know what’s going on are the people doing the work. The real ignoramuses are the people who “call them out” on their “lack of evidence.”

    Let me be clear here: the “evidence” the scoftics are looking for is what scientists provide to convince the ignorant. Providing that is about 0.854% of the scientific endeavor.

  2. KnuckleHead responds:

    Well for what it is worth Dr. Meldrum, you are a stand up member of the scientific community that has actually looked at the evidence and the scientific method to determine that this creature does exist. Sorry for those that feel no body no proof need to do the research themselves before striking out and spreading their hate and ignorance. I accept those who do not believe for their own reason but do not call them hateful names nor do try to push it down their throats either.

  3. RandyS responds:

    Oh, that Mike in Boston, he’s such an embarrassment, well, to everyone.

  4. hdrydr responds:

    “Mike” is probably in his late teens, lives with Mommy and Daddy in the basement, dresses up in “Star Wars” outfits when he meets up with his friends to play Foozeball at the mall arcade. Regard an idiot as an idiot. Your work is appreciated by those of us that have open minds. Thank you, Dr. Meldrum

  5. Goodfoot responds:

    Boston? That might be Mike Hunt.

    Seriously, nothing embarrassing about Dr. Meldrum’s efforts, although I’m always puzzled that someone can talk about a “North American ape” when there’s absolutely zero evidence of any apes in the New World, PERIOD.

  6. dconstrukt responds:

    no… don’t know him… but I’m Dave from Miami and I’d like to know more about the REAL evidence out there dr meldrum. πŸ™‚

    open minds are good… my mind is open (although highly skeptical as it should be) but at some point, you gotta say… hey… where IS the proof to justify this belief?

    at what point do you say, ok… maybe there ISNT any proof?

    (just playing devils advocate here)

  7. Fhqwhgads responds:

    Is Tim Tebow an embarrassment to NFL football? Not as regards his off-the-field personality, but in terms of his skills and abilities? This seems to be a very similar question, in that it really is a question in doubt, and everyone in the peanut gallery thinks he is as well-qualified to answer it as Bill Belichick.

  8. Goodfoot responds:

    dconstrukt:

    “at what point do you say, ok… maybe there ISNT any proof?”

    It sounds as if you are equating lack of proof with nonexistence. It wouldn’t be the first time.

  9. Fhqwhgads responds:

    “Absence of proof is not proof of absence.” The preceding statement is true, except in cases where an exhaustive search can be conducted. In some cases, it really is possible to conduct an exhaustive search. For instance, if I want to know if there is a rattlesnake in my microwave oven, all I have to do is open the door and look. If I don’t find it, that is in fact proof that it is not there.

    “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Here the preceding statement is false. In fact, the whole science of polling — and for all its weaknesses and abuses, it is a science — would not work if absence of evidence were not evidence of absence. So let’s say a major news organization were to conduct a poll of 10,000 likely Wisconsin voters to determine if there was a significant chance that write-ins would give the state to Jeb Bush (who of course is no longer running). A total of 14 respondents say yes, they intend to write in Bush; a mere 9,986 say they will not. Is there *some* evidence for Bush? Yeah, those 14 respondents. Is the best explanation that the pollsters were just *so* unlucky that they asked a very uncharacteristic sample of 10,000, or maybe that they have a bias against a member of the Bush family who is not even running, or maybe, just MAYBE, that the 14 respondents were some combination of jokers and crackpots? Sorry, it’s the last option.

    And by the way, you agree with me — every time you say, “I’ve never seen a human who can walk like Patty in the P-G film, so that’s evidence that the film is not a hoax!” you are appealing to the fact that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In any event, it is evidence, not rock-solid proof.

  10. dconstrukt responds:

    Goodfoot – yes, my man… a lack of proof means something isn’t there (yet). that is correct.

    you believe without proof?

    great.

    just like in a court of law… the burden is on you to justify it, not me my friend.

    if you couldn’t justify your position with facts and proof, you’d loose the case.

    heck, you’d loose EVERY case.

    so yes, proof = its real or not.

    we’re not talking about you believing in a black tiger roaming around, thats reasonable enough to assume it COULD be real, without an overwhelming amount of proof…

    but thats not what we’re talking about.

    you’re talking about some “thing” that is unknown to science and the world.

    its like you’re saying there are UFO”s and aliens… okay… show me the proof.

    if you can’t, there is nothing there.

    Nada, zilch. zip.

    and you’re just believing a fairy tale concocted in your head.

    so yes, lack of proof means there is nothing.

    You have goose eggs.

    Lack of proof gets a suspect released from being prosecuted, does it not?

    a lack of proof makes you loose a case

    so yes, a lack of proof means there is nothing there (as of now – but who knows? that could change)

    Now, goodfoot, unless you’re living on another planet where you can convict a person of something without proof, then yes… no proof = nothing there.

    but hey…

    I’m not here to sway anyones mind dude, I’m all for letting you believe whatever you want, and vis versa. No one will change my mind until I see the proof for myself.

    if they find it, i’ll gladly change my mind.

    until then, yes, no proof = nothing there.

    just like no proof gets someone out of being prosecuted.

    same goes here.

    “experts” can’t find anything and we all know some of the “experts” resort to hoaxing or twisting anything they want to being a bigfoot. Sounds in the forrest? gotta be a bigfoot. Knocks? oh, gotta be bigfoot.

    you’re telling me there’s a “bigfoot” out there.

    ok.

    what makes you believe this is true?

    show me the proof or what is your basis for believing?

    I’m GENUINELY curious otherwise I wouldn’t waste hours a week on this site… trust me I have better things to do with my time if I wasn’t interested.

  11. DWA responds:

    “at what point do you say, ok… maybe there ISNT any proof?”

    You can say that anytime you like, but it’s irrelevant. (And for the moment it’s true, there is no “proof,” not as we tend to define that term.)

    If something isn’t *proven*, that simply means we haven’t established its existence to our satisfaction yet. Which says nothing about its actual existence. We had no proof of anything we know…before we got it. That doesn’t mean the things didn’t exist prior to our getting proof.

    Science’s default position on sasquatch is “unproven.” Science can’t make a presumption that it doesn’t exist, because that in itself is a proposition for which no evidence exists. It doesn’t hurt the scientific mainstream at all to leave the question open; this precludes closing off the question…the day before the proof arrives.

    I should add that science – a process conducted upon evidence, not a group of people – supports the notion that sasquatch is a real animal.

  12. dconstrukt responds:

    @ Fhqwhgads – interesting concepts… i gotta re-read it because it was pretty deep. LOL but really interesting perspective. thanks for sharing that.

    I think the PG thing is the ONLY good piece of “proof” Ive seen.. the rest I see it, hear it or read about it and can say “BS” on… but even then PG has SO much going against it, you are left with some questions… and you wouldn’t be wrong taking the other side of the PG thing being fake….

  13. dconstrukt responds:

    yes, DWA – as of now it IS unproven.

    the facts and proof don’t support the outrageous claims.

    until they do, that will be the answer – unproven.

    you know this

    I know this.

    the evidence, as of now, doesn’t support the claims. (see that? as of now)

    who knows if it will in the future.

    I HOPE IT DOES.

    but right now, i’m realistic, it doesn’t.

    And i’m not even counting all the hoaxing going on that collectively brings this topic into the realm of comical nonsense.

    With technology now and the rapid advancements? who knows… we’ve had thermal for years and no luck… same for night vision and same for camera traps.

    “If something isn’t *proven*, that simply means we haven’t established its existence to our satisfaction yet.”

    yeah, thats why I said, as of now, but with the proof thats out there now (or lack thereof) it is not proven to be real. Perhaps that’ll change if the evidence is found.

    remember, we’re not talking about something like say the thyloseene that was alive but killed off… and MAYBE there’s still some out there in the remote wilderness…

    this is something that is previously unknown to the world. Don’t forget this “little” tidbit my friend. You need OVERWHELMING proof to justify this outlandish claim, unlike the thyloseene, where say a simple photo or video would suffice (because we know they were already living before).

    you’re basically like screaming to everyone “OJ simpson killed his wife and BF” – but you have zero proof to support your claim.

    if you went to court and presented your position, same end result – unproven. you would lose.

    badly.

    judge would throw you out of court for being a buffoon.

    we all know this.

    “I should add that science – a process conducted upon evidence, not a group of people – supports the notion that sasquatch is a real animal.”

    DWA – it doesn’t matter how you choose to twist things to support your belief, its all semantics.

    bigfoot, as of now, is unproven.

    END OF STORY.

    its irrelevant how you choose to spin this, without the facts, evidence and proof to support your claim, you’re holding nothing but a pipe dream you hope is real.

    And knowing how the human mind works with beliefs, I know someone with a strong belief in a topic like this, will naturally take things they see, hear and read and “twist” them in a way that supports their belief system.

    perhaps the proof will come out and change things…

    perhaps it won’t.

    thats the million dollar question

    but as of now, the facts and evidence don’t support the outlandish claims.

    hopefully they do in the future. πŸ™‚

  14. DWA responds:

    There’s one difference I’ve noticed between guys like Meldrum, Krantz, Mionczynski (and me) and the people who are either leaning toward “crock” or convinced. It is:

    We have an inherent interest in the subject matter, which is: animals. That’s how we evaluate the evidence: does it behave like an animal? Or does it behave like a comprehensive crock?

    Unlike most, I didn’t enter into this with preconceived notions. The first thing I read about this put forth the proposition as intriguing, even though to all appearances outlandish. I’ve maintained that balance ever since when dealing with the evidence. Unfortunately for most people, they enter with the “crock” first and foremost in their minds. And they can’t get it out. They can’t deal with their basic incredulity. I balance everything I read see and hear against what 35 years outdoors, and a lifetime of intense interest in animals, tell me about animals and people who work and recreate outside. I’ve read all the reports; and they behave like experience has shown me encounters with wild animals do.

    If one can’t bring that to the table…one is gonna have problems with this topic.

  15. dconstrukt responds:

    READ and educate yourself.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

    especially you DWA – πŸ™‚ (I gotta pick on you a bit, but its all in good friendly fun)

    this is the problem with many people who believe in bigfoot despite the absence of proof.

    (i’m not talking about someone who says they’ve seen one – for them its a totally different scenario)

    you guys can argue about the semantics till the cows come home, this is exactly how the human mind works, and when you underhand this, you’ll see why people have such a difficult time using common sense with this topic.

  16. Fhqwhgads responds:

    @dconstrukt — Cognitive dissonance is believing two obviously contradictory things at the same time or (more often) during overlapping periods, during which time which option is “believed” depends on context. It’s not really the same thing as believing something for no sufficiently good reason. I suppose you could try to make it cognitive dissonance by saying the two contradictory ideas are “Science has the final say on whether or not an organism is real” and “Bigfoot is real, science be damned,” but even so, I think you should pay more attention to the motivation, which is the gnostic thrill of secret knowledge. To the committed gnostic, the actual truth of his ideas have always been less important than the fact that most people don’t know / believe / care about them; the “secret knowledge” gives him the feeling of being a persecuted seeker after truth, rather than the crackpot his neighbors take him to be. This explains a lot about why people don’t just have an intellectual curiosity about the possible existence of Bigfoot, they have a huge emotional stake in it, and they will call down anathemas on those who resist being proselytized into the Church of the Unknown Primate, or who fail to recognize their positions as high priests in that church.

  17. DWA responds:

    Cold hard science, nothing secret about it, all the information is public, has the scientific proponents where they are on this. Anyone – like, say, the skeptics, whose stance is in no way skeptical as a scientist would recognize that – who has intense emotional investment is uninformed, and simply needs to read up. I’m kind of wondering how many years I’ve been pointing this out to the uninformed.

  18. DWA responds:

    OK, let’s play with that Wiki.

    “In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, …”

    Like, for example, talking all the time about the scientific method, but not knowing enough about the body of sasquatch evidence, to say nothing of the scientific method, to know that the only people employing it in this field are the scientific proponents. (One could handily point out here that ignorance can significantly decrease cognitive dissonance in this instance. And demonstrably does.)

    “…performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values,…”

    Like, for example, constantly peppering the people one disagrees with for evidence, when one is constantly being pointed to it; when one’s responses to the pointers show that one does not understand the term; and when one’s position is forcibly contradicted by the evidence.

    “…or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.”

    Like, for example…the evidence. πŸ˜‰

  19. dconstrukt responds:

    Fhqwhgads – sorry my man… thats not entirely accurate. πŸ™‚

    Cognitive dissonance theory is founded on the assumption that individuals seek consistency between their expectations and their reality. Because of this, people engage in a process called dissonance reduction to bring their cognitions and actions in line with one another. This creation of uniformity allows for a lessening of psychological tension and distress.

    to sum it up in “bigfoot”…

    their expectation is that bigfoot is real. Reality MIGHT dictate otherwise (unless they’ve actually clearly SEEN one and it’s not misidentified) and despite the lack of evidence to support their belief, they (unknowingly) use “dissonance reduction” to try bring their beliefs and actions in line to create uniformity. (i.e. will twist facts to support their beliefs)

    This is exactly what I see with many people who believe in bigfoot.

    You ask them what is the basis for their belief and it’s almost comical the answers.

    I think if we’re going to debate bigfoot… lets start with the most real piece of evidence we have and work backwards from there.

    PG is it, right?

    it’s been analyzed to death but what if people are missing something from the discussion?




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

Advertisers



Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement

|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.