Scientists Weigh in on Bigfoot!: Meldrum Responds

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on March 24th, 2016

Dr. Jeff Meldrum had quite a bit to say regarding Thinker Thunker’s video from yesterday, Scientists Weigh in on Bigfoot!

Some good points raised. Seemed overly critical , or perhaps merely naive about how these productions come about. Dr. Rose agreed to one single objective — to determine whether or not an actor could be trained to approximate the joint angles evident in the P-G film subject. She had already taken considerable flak from colleagues for even agreeing to participate in this documentary, and so was rather cautious about what she would say on the record. At one point, as she and I were looking on, while off-camera, she said of the actor “That’s obviously a man-in-a-fursuit.” Then she turned to look again at the looping clip of the PGF projected on the wall and said, “That’s not a man-in-a fursuit.” I said, “Dr. Rose, I agree. Won’t you say that on camera?” She would not. Dr. Gamble was similarly impressed, and we had long discussions over lunch about various aspects of the film and its implications — off-camera. On camera he was open and intrigued, but much more circumspect in his remarks. I can understand their conservatism.

You also have to realize that hours and hours of filming and interviewing are edited down into the brief show you watch on television. The composite graphics were produced by the studio, after the fact. They aren’t always the ones the voice-overs have us appear to be commenting upon. Those who say that I “caved” don’t know me well. I acknowledged that with considerable coaching and effort, an actor could roughly approximate the walk to a greater degree than I would have expected, but that failed to address the issues of limb proportions, shoulder and hip breadths, head proportions, foot anatomy, etc. Not to mention the short comings of the suit itself, which although was a fairly expensive suit, that had appeared on TV commercials, was ridiculously inadequate. Most of that discussion was not included.

The participation by Drs. Rose and Gamble was indeed a significant development, appropriately taking place at Stanford where Edward Muybridge pioneered studies of animal locomotion. But it was a cable TV documentary, with a shoestring budget and tight time schedule, shot in less than one day, and edited down to show length according to the director’s story telling. It was not an in depth analysis carried out for publication in a scientific journal. If you can’t appreciate the significance of that, while acknowledging the caveats of those circumstances, then you don’t understand the position academics find themselves in, endeavoring to further serious consideration by mainstream science, since that’s what we do. If that is of no interest to you, then those of you who “know” can sit around the campfire, or computer screen, and share your testimonials, but to what end criticize and disparage the “PhDs”, whose professional objectives and strictures may be a bit different than yours?

~ Dr. Jeff Meldrum

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.

12 Responses to “Scientists Weigh in on Bigfoot!: Meldrum Responds”

  1. SirWilhelm responds:

    “but to what end criticize and disparage the “PhDs”, whose professional objectives and strictures may be a bit different than yours?” Because, Dr Meldrum, it is their “PhDs” which give them the “expertise” that gives their opinions weight. When they choose to be “circumspect” to the point that they with hold opinions like ““That’s not a man-in-a fursuit.” I said, “Dr. Rose, I agree. Won’t you say that on camera?” She would not.”, then they are contributing to the perception that “science” is NOT objective, as it claims, in fields like cryptozoology.

  2. DWA responds:

    Well, I can get Meldrum’s final question; one is asking them, essentially, to risk their careers to advance something that might not be worth that to them. The evidence has convinced me beyond reasonable doubt. And you will never hear me say that or see it in writing anywhere other than a forum like this one. The game simply is not worth that candle to me. I know and that is enough for me.

    (I’d be interested, though: hasn’t Meldrum essentially “outed” them here?)

    They are indeed contributing to the CORRECT perception that scientists (not science, the process, which is by definition objective) are NOT objective, as they claim, in fields like cryptozoology. That can’t be helped. Personally I wouldn’t want to be crucified for the truth while the ignorant skated. It is enough for me, as it likely is for them, that the people from whom Rose had taken considerable flak are, in point of direct fact, wrong.

  3. PhotoExpert responds:

    Let’s do a litmus test. Who do I consider more credible and whose opinion would I dismiss, based on their reputations? Dr. Jeff Meldrum or ThinkerThunker?

    Hmmm, very difficult decision, not!

    It’s a knockout! ThinkerThunker loses again! ‘Nuf said!

  4. SirWilhelm responds:


    Why do you pit Meldrum against ThinkerThunker? They’e supposed to be on the same side, just with different points of view. It’s usually scientists and debunkers questioning their credibility, not those on Cryptomundo. Unless, as your handle suggests, you are a self proclaimed expert?

  5. Goodfoot responds:


    So it wasn’t really a question to us, but to yourself, answering for everyone. Because you have “expert” in your name. PFFFFT.
    You have exposed your fundamental intellectual dishonesty.

    From now on, I am known as “BoozeExpert” and hold equal standing with you, and above everyone else here.

  6. dconstrukt responds:

    sorry… “risking careers” ???

    hang on while I laugh my rear end off…

    ok.. I’m back.

    she can’t say it? lol

    so worried about what everyone else will think they refuse to speak? “risking” her career? that sounds absurd.

    I said bigfoot might be real. there. is my career in jeopardy?

    F no.

    these guys are so full of shit its mind boggling… and people just accept the stupid answers.

    honestly, in 3 years no one will even remember her or a word she said.

    people are too caught up in their own heads.

  7. springheeledjack responds:

    The point, ladies and gentlemen is that they had to spend a lot of money and a huge amount of time to mimic the P/G film and in the end, they got close. And our tech is almost 40 years ahead of what they had back in the 60’s.

    And to Meldrum’s mind (and apparently Dr. Rose) they still weren’t able to anything better than approximate it–the other details like longer arms and what not weren’t sufficient to accurately represent what was shot on the P/G Film.

    Argue semantics all you want. The bottom line is you either buy the P/G film or you don’t, and it’s been dissected, examined, poured over and scrutinized ad nauseam. From now until there is physical proof of the “forest people” the P/G film will be the most hotly contested piece of evidence because it has stood the test of time sufficiently that it’s still at the top of the heap for discussion.

    Besides that–me personally I take Dr. Meldrum’s input seriously because he appears methodical, rational and logical in his thinking and his theories.

    As for Meldrum and thinker/thunker and pitting them against one another, Meldrum is the one calling them out for being “naive” and “over critical.” I think he’s right. People watch these “reality” shows that brandish themselves as documentaries and ASSume it’s real and legitimate (ever watched any of that Discovery Channel “documentary” horse manure?). Meldrum was just pointing out how much goes on behind the scenes to create a half hour to hour long show that will appeal to enough people to get ratings which equals dollars.

    We (and I include me in that) watch these shows because they feature our favorite cryptids, but it’s easy to forget that the bottom line for these shows is the George Washington (and lots of them), not exploration and investigation for its own sake. And the more controversial the better.

    That’s what I take away from Meldrum’s comments.

  8. PhotoExpert responds:

    Sir Wilhelm–Let me correct your assumptions here first.

    Yes, I am an expert in photographic analysis. So that is all I can claim. It is what it is. Although it is not self proclaimed, as you question. That is the title that I receive in court on the witness stand and judges accept as undeniable truth. So I have no idea where your questioning was going with your remarks.

    So let me answer your initial question, “Why do you pit Meldrum against ThinkerThunker?”

    Answer: I do not pit Dr. Meldrum against ThinkerThunker. ThinkerThunker did that in his own video. He kind of called out Dr. Meldrum. They are not even in the same league! Did you even watch ThinkerThunker’s video?

    So let me spell it out for you and make it clear to you and everyone. ThinkerThunker is not concerned about the question of the existence of BF. I have pointed that out in post after post here. I have proven the junk science of ThinkerThunker and how damaging it is to real scientists and newbies to cryptozology. Perhaps you missed those dozens of posts. All ThinkerThunker wants is attention, negative or positive, it makes no difference. All ThinkerThunker cares about is making BF videos and applying neophyte junk science to it. (Which as an expert in optical physices, I have proved incorrect in many previous posts). All ThinkerThunker cares about is the driving traffic to his website to sell T-shirts which I have also proven here numerous times. Last but not least, all StinkerStunker cares about is the number of hits he gets on YouTube, no matter what the cost to serious cryptozoologists. He states that in almost every one of his videos to “suscribe”.

    So Sir Wilhelm, when a huckster like ThinkerThunker, less than a minor league player, questions Dr. Meldrum who has put his professional status on the line, contributed greatly to cryptozoology, and has to post something in defense to allegations to a junk science video poster like ThinkerThunker–you might say I take issue with that. ThinkerThunker pitted himself against Dr. Meldrum when he questioned Dr. Meldrum’s expertise. ThinkerThunker is not intelligent enough to figure out the story or what transpired. Dr. Meldrum corrected him before I even posted here. So even Dr. Meldrum felt pitted against this amature, prior to me posting. I just pointed out the elephant in the room!

    And Sir Wilhelm, if you have been here for any amount of time, which you have, It is not scientists and debunkers questioning ThinkerThunker’s position and videos. Anyone in their right mind and who takes cryptozoology seriously will question ThinkerThunker.

    Believe me my friend, they are not on the same side, as you suggest. Dr. Meldrum is concerned with real science as a real scientist.

    ThinkerThunker makes up junk science which has been harmful to real cryptozoological studies. Dr. Meldrum has put his reputation on the line as a scientist, trying to find the truth. ThinkerThunker takes any BF video, even false ones and promotes them to promote himself. He promotes lies! Dr. Meldrum sells books he has written as a means of income. ThinkerThunker hawks T shirts at his website. Dr. Meldrum has taken many hits by coming out suggesting BF is a real flesh and blood creature. The only hits that concern ThinkerThunker are those for his videos on YouTube.

    No Sir, or should I say, No Sir Wilhelm? They are not on the same team. ThinkerThunker is the antagonist to every thing that Dr. Meldrum has tried to achieve. Get it straight. Both might proclaim to be in the same camp but one elevates the camp, the other demeans it!

  9. PhotoExpert responds:

    Goodfoot–What side of the bed did you wake up on this morning? Your aggressive post is totally out of character for you. You of all people know of my expertise in solving photos here, all the way back to the Loren Coleman days. I am quite surprised at your post.

    Yes, it was a question to myself. That is known as a rhetorical question with an obvious answer. My, my, you not only woke up on the wrong side of the bed, but you are reading way too much into my posts. Where did I say anything in that first post about being an “expert”? Yet you feel so defensive you bring it up. My screen name has been the same for years. After analyzing numerous photographs here and proving or disproving them, as an expert in photographical analysis, now you take issue with my screen name? LOL A little defensive are we? Sorry you are not an expert and you have become defensive. Well maybe not defensive. There might be a reason for your questionable behavior as you imply. You bring up the term “BoozeExpert”. Hmm, I think you may have answered a question for me. I agree, you are certainly a BoozeExpert as can be derived by your unusual posting. That explains a lot!

    So where is my intellectual dishonesty? Where?

    But you did get one thing correct, you are on the same standing with me and everyone else here at Cryptomundo. We all have the right to post. I am only an expert when it comes to optical physics and photographic analysis. You are not! So my expertise does hold more water when a post is concerning that. This one is not. Any one is my equal here as we read Dr. Meldrum’s defense to the stab the huckster StinkerStunker tried to throw Dr. Meldrum’s way. Dr. Meldrum felt the need to defend himself from such ridiculous allegations that ThinkerThunker came up with.

    You are wrong about one thing. You are not above anyone else here. You may think you are but you are not. Proclaiming that you are does not make it so. But you are right, the BoozeExpert was probably analyzing some alcohol when he made his post. Think, don’t drink, the next time you feel the need to get aggressive. Your posting was out of character for you. I will keep you in my thoughts and prayers and hope the old Goodfoot has found his senses when he returns.

    See you around Cryptomundo Goodfoot!

  10. Raiderpithicusblaci responds:

    @PhotoExpert: Very, Very Well Put. As For Me, I Will Defer To Dr. Meldrum. As To Whether Or Not The Big Guy Exists, I Can Only Say, Unequivocally, Yes He Does. I’ll Never Forget Him.

  11. SirWilhelm responds:

    I have to admit, I have not seen any of your work. I have viewed several of Thinker Thunkers videos. I find them plausible, if not conclusive, although I believe they add to the growing mountain of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. In the meantime, you seem more concerned with attacking the credibility of Thinker Thunker than his evidence, And, in most cases, I find what you call “junk science”, more credible than main stream science, which has become dogmatic to the point of becoming a religion, worshiping Einstein and Darwin as “godlike”.

    If he is a “huckster”, I have not fallen for his huckstering, although I find it reasonable to seek financing online, if one needs it. I find it more seemly than how mainstream science rips off the taxpayer to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars for questionable, to me, projects, like the Hadron Collider and LIGO, for example. The evidence they have found for the Higgs Bosun and gravity waves is weak, at best, and seems to have been invented to justify the vast expenditures, and the “need” for more funding.

    Do you get paid for testifying as an “expert” in court? Just wondering?

  12. PhotoExpert responds:

    springheeledjack–Spot on as always. my friend! You are absolutely one of my favorite posters at this site! For a moment, I was thinking to myself, “What are Sir Wilhelm and Goodfoot not getting?” I asked myself, am I the only one seeing that StinkerStunker is firing a shot across the bow of Dr. Meldrum? But you had the intelligence to see it and post exactly what I saw! Simply brilliant springheeledjack! And my reply to Sir Wilhelm and Goodfoot went up at the same time your post did. So there is no way you could have known what I was thinking. We both arrived at the same conclusion, independently of one another. Please continue to post regularly! It brings me much enjoyment as you explain the truth!

    Raiderpithicusblaci–I have not seen you post in a while! Glad you did! Your comments are always refreshing! The thing I love about your posts is that they always take objectivity into account, although your personal experiences and frame of reference are subjective! Simply awesome! I say that because you put things in perspective from both points of view! Keep on being you! Love it!

    Sir Wilhelm–Yes, that makes sense when you said you have not seen any of my work. I knew that by your initial post. And that is exactly why I called you out on it. What I urge you to do is to actually go back and read some of my comments and analysis on cryptozoological photos here. You will see several cases where I have solved the questionable photos. And since you seem to be a fan of ThinkerThunker, I would suggest perhaps going back and looking at some of his videos and then reading my comments about them. There are plenty of them here. I explained the junk science in layman’s term, so everyone would understand how bad it really is.

    Yes, you are correct. I do go after ThinkerThunker. I have explained that in previous posts. But I will give you a quick overview why I do that in case you do not take the time to do the research and read my previous posts here. I do that for two reasons. The first is for selfless reasons. Pure altruism! There are a lot of newbies, younger people and cryptozoological fans that visit this site. Some are very serious about it. At least that is what I take out of it when a younger posters state that they want to be a cryptozoologists when they get older. Others are just seeking the truth. But one can not seek truth when they are using junk science and misinformation. If they did, suddenly, a guy in a suit becomes BF when he is not. But using ThinkerThunker’s junk science, he concludes that a guy in a suit is BF! These types of lies and false information are damaging to cryptozoology and make a mockery of the real scientists and those taking cryptozoology seriously! See how that this?

    Furthermore, when I see that one of the reasons that ThinkerThunker is doing this is to promote himself and to make money and the expense of degrading real cryptozoological studies, I take issue with that! I explained this rather clearly in one of my posts when a ThinkerThunker video was posted here. I did that twice and it opened the eyes of a lot of people, judging from their responses. They saw it, after I explained it. So I will urge you to go back and read some of my posts. I think you will see it also and have a totally different outlook on ThinkerThunker the person. And that is why I not only go after his deceptive and false scientific methods but him personally. He is trying to sell cryptozoology down the road for his personal benefit. It is about ethics my friend and to do what ThinkerThunker is doing is unethical. To not speak up as I do would be unethical for me! It is in my DNA.

    Sir Wilhelm–I am glad you have not fallen for his huckstering entirely. But some people have bought in, hook, line and sinker. I am happy that you did not. And I do agree with you. I have no problem when people are seeking funding and financial gain online or through social media. Not a problem in our capitalistic society. As long as they are upfront about it and as long as it is not unethical by using people to do so. There is where I draw the line with ThinkerThunker doing what he does. Proven false science and hidden agendas are not ethical in my estimation. They are in ThinkerThunker’s book.

    Sir Wilhelm. this may surprise you, but I definitely agree with you on you comments about the Hadron Collider. I believe as you that scientists are milking the taxpayers out of millions of dollars. I agree, at best, it seems to have been invented to justify the vast expenditures, and the “need” for more funding. And this is exactly what ThinkerThunker is doing on a much smaller level. You have made my point for me. Think about it, read some of my prior posts and the point you make about the Hadron Collider is the same point I am making with ThinkerThunker. I actually think we might be on the same page, you just did not know it because you were at a disadvantage of not reading my prior posts which spells it all out.

    Sir Wilhelm, you asked: Do you get paid for testifying as an “expert” in court? Just wondering?

    Kind of a personal question, isn’t it? LOL But I will answer it nonetheless. I have many different sources of income. I have more than a comfortable living and feel blessed at this point in my life. As long as my living expenses are met, I have a lot of residual income that I can utilize any way I see fit. I contribute to many 501(c)3 organizations. I sit on several 501(c)3 boards as a Member of the Board or Officer on those Boards. I donate my valuable time and money to those organizations. And I have never even sat on a Board where it was a paid position. Although some would sit on Boards and only sit on Boards as paid members, I do not. Just part of my ethical makeup. So why would I take money to appear as an expert witness? I don’t need it. But more than that, for me, that means the witness is paid and receiving money to testify. I find that to be subjective, not objective. So I have never appeared in court as a paid witness. If I took payment for my expert analysis, it would make my opinion subjective rather than objective, wouldn’t you agree? I don’t need the money but more than that, it would be a discredit to my testimony and also to my ethical nature.

    Oh, by the way, I have contributed hundreds of dollars to many cryptozoological causes. But I know those monies and contributory gifts are going to educational endeavors for those serious about cryptozoology. I know my contributions go to worthy causes because I have vetted those organizations or persons receiving said funds.

    I have also looked into ThinkerThunker and what he does. I used the same vetting process as I do for the charities that I contribute to. And ThinkerThunker does not pass the vetting nor the litmus test for ethical endeavors that need a helping hand.

    See you around Cryptomundo!

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|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.