There is a lot of misrepresentation floating around about this exchange of emails between me and a professor at Idaho State University named Jeff Meldrum. We wrote about Meldrum the other day in the Bigfoot update. The story is here. Look under Details on the trip to the Sierra Kills to find the bodies in July 2011.
Meldrum took extreme umbrage to much of what was written about that event and the events that followed under that heading. He wrote me an email with “junk” highlighted in bold and demanded that I take it out. He also demanded to know my sources and accused me of threatening him.
It’s really hard to say what set him off about this, although the source that I quoted had a negative opinion of Meldrum, it is true. I didn’t have a negative opinion, but the source did, so in the interest of fairness, I quoted the source.
We are standing by the gist of our story. At the moment, I have two sources with one view of the events of that day and Meldrum with another view of those events. Their stories are at complete opposites, and frankly both sides are accusing the other of being less than truthful, to put it charitably. We have had some long discussions about this with our sources, and to be honest, they say that Meldrum is lying. So for the moment, we are going to stick by our story as it is written in the link.
Meldrum’s extremely angry reaction was odd to say the least. We think we know what might be behind it, but we are not going to go into that right now.
However, Meldrum is highlighting a paragraph from one of my emails, and by the way, he is violating netiquette and also an implicit agreement he has with me by reading my emails. My emails state that when you read them, you are not to post them on the Net. You enter into this implicit agreement simply by the act of reading one of my emails to you:
The contents of this email are just between me, the author, and you, the recipient. They are not to be posted on the Internet or published elsewhere without my permission. Doing so is a netiquette violation, an immoral act and a violation of privacy. If you wish to quote me in print, please ask my permission.
Well, Meldrum violated this agreement, which is very sleazy of him to say the least. I never quote private emails unless they contain violence or threats. It’s simply not done at all.
Here is my email that Meldrum quoted:
Finally, this just received from Mr. Lindsay at the close of a brief email exchange:
“You have developed an unfriendly tone in this exchange, and that makes it hard to work with you now and certainly in the future. If you develop a positive relationship with me, you receive special consideration in our reporting about you. Just a heads up.”
You be the judge…
People are making a big fuss over this and accusing me of threatening Meldrum, trying to blackmail him, saying that I will libel and misrepresent anyone who doesn’t agree to be one of my sources, and all sorts of nonsense.
What I wrote above is simply the way that this rather nasty field of journalism works. It’s important to cultivate good relationships with reporters. Politicians, movie stars, all sorts of people do this. The pen is mightier than the sword.
Of course I don’t libel or misrepresent anyone. I have a journalism degree, and I am an ethical journalist.
But this is how this game works: If we don’t know who you are, and we have no relationship with you at all, we have the right to just write whatever comes down the pike about you, the good, the bad and the ugly. We just write it all. We don’t know you from Adam, so there’s no reason to filter the news in any particular way, and believe me, the news is always filtered.
This is why intelligent public figures develop good terms with reporters: favorable reporting. If we know you and like you, then we tend to slant our stories about you in a more positive direction.
Let’s say we are talking about Mr. A, who is big in his field. I get all sorts of information about him all the time, the good, the bad and the ugly. Well, Mr. A has made friends with me. What’s going to happen now is that I am going to ignore a lot of stories that put Mr. A in an unfavorable light and highlight the stories that make him look good. It sounds sleazy, but that’s how this game works, eh?
On the other hand, let’s say that Mr. B has gone out of his way to adopt a completely hostile attitude towards me for this or that reason. I get lots of news about Mr. B. – the good, the bad and the ugly. Well, I might just accidentally “forget” to write up a lot of those positive stories, and I might write up every single nasty factoid that comes down the pike about Mr. B. No libel or misrepresentation required, all facts, nothing but the facts.
So you see, there is good, bad and indifferent about everyone. And how reporters write about you depends a lot on the personal relationship you develop with them. We can make you look good, bad or fair to middling, all by reporting the facts.
This is called slanting the news, yes. But the news is always slanted. If you’re in the public eye, you cultivate journalists to get the news slanted in a favorable direction. That’s simply the way this game works. I’m stunned that Meldrum doesn’t realize that.
Isn’t it a two way street, Robert? Don’t journalists also try to get on good terms with prized sources? They are trying to gain access. (I have journalist relatives) As a reader of yours, I wish you were on good terms with Meldrum so you could go to him to verify information before you publish it.
It’s always nice to have sources. It’s always nice to have access. Of course. Not so easy to cultivate good sources though. The dumbest thing you can do is to make an enemy out of a journalist. Our pens are deadly.
I am not too impressed with Dr. Meldrum right now, and I have a whole bunch of people who are flat out calling him a liar about the episode above. I think I know why he’s doing this, but I don’t want to talk about it too much. Mostly he is trying to save face.
Fact is he is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG about that BF steak being a piece of coyote. Yeah, we are calling him out on that, and if people can’t handle it, too bad.
I certainly agree with you on pen power. A relative was fed all kinds of stories about a politician beating his wife, but kept demanding the police reports, which were never delivered. The power is in silence as well.
Well of course. If we like you, we ignore the bad stories about you.
Being an ethical journalist means that it is YOUR responsibility to validate what your sources say. The fact that you did not call Dr. Meldrum to talk to him before running the story casts huge doubt on your claim of being ethical. That is what investigational journalism is about NOT as you claim “about making people mad”.
Thanks for showing us your hand.
We don’t have to fact check anything with anyone. We now have multiple people, not just two, who are all flat out calling Meldrum a liar as far as the content of his latest Facebook post. So it’s Meldrum versus a number of our sources here. We are standing by our story and we are not printing any kind of retraction.
We had already put in a phone call to Meldrum previously and an email to him also. He did not respond to either. Based on that, we figured that he did not respond to emails or phone calls, so we did not contact him. We would have run with the story anyway even if we did because we now have multiple sources who are flat out calling him a liar as far as a number of points in his rejoinder.
BTW, you are banned kiddo.
Cheers Robert! As silly a thing it may sound . . . try not to take Meldrum’s body blows too seriously. He has an agenda and like most people with an agenda he gives short shrift to anyone who disagrees with him. It is important to recognise and acknowledge the tremendous effort and dedication he has shown in his pursuit of bigfoot, but that does not elevate him into some sanctum sanctorum where-in he is immune to critical scrutiny and criticism. What’s the saying, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, sad(and contradictory, yes?), then, that this particular field of enquery attracts so many thin-skinned, sanctimonious gits who threaten first reflect second . . . Cheers!
That’s about it. Apparently he is doing some sort of face saving thing here. I am not sure I want to get into a big fight with the guy.
@Maurice and Robert: Dr. Meldrum has a professional stake in the Bigfoot creatures. That explains his anger. Book sales, at least, since he probably has tenure and is bulletproof. And his well known hypothesis that the creature is an ape.
From reading the comments here, I’m willing to hazard this guess: I’m not the only person reading this blog who A. has a personal stake, and B. appreciates the level of professionalism in the inquiry.
My personal stake is rooted in a 1974 event when persons/creature unknown tried to drag one of my daughters out of her bunk and through an open window. At the time, neither my husband or I had even heard of Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Skunk Ape, what-the-hell. But the psychic trauma was real. Over the decades I have read everything I could find, and have swung from being willing to be a missionary to the “hairy people” to wanting to exterminate the whole damned species. When I find a column (blog) to read, my opinion of the blog is formed in the context of screaming children and thunderous footsteps at 2 a.m. My ‘stake’ in the results from Dr. Ketchum’s lab is very personal. I have no reason to think that Dr. Meldrum has such nightmares behind him. It’s just his professional pride.
Please continue with this charmingly written blog. Maybe someone here will supply the answer to my question: What do these creatures want with our children?
If a significant source of what is termed “Bigfoot” in North America is migrations across the Bering Land Bridge with mammoths, etc. of the Ape-like creature in closest proximity from point “A” to “B” migration-wise, namely the various Yetis between India & Siberia – which not only allegedly excell at bipedalism due to vast mountain terrain foraging, having shaggy coats between that of gorillas & more like orangutans.. but by nature of their glacial/alpine native climate would have underfur or underhair as a coyote?
Thanks Robert for telling it how it is. Next thing he’ll do is threaten you with legal action, What a laugh. You should look into whether the citizens of Idaho pay for his trips around the country to “give lectures,” which are little more than bookselling stops, and he puts the money in his own pocket. I’d guess those are public records. (his book will be obsolete if the Sierra kills prove to be a human sasquatch; anyone wonder why he’s upset?)
Meldrum says no primates have underhair. He should google “underhair Japanese monkey,” a species that lives in a temperate-near frigid climate. The professor oughtn’t to be so cocksure.
Keep up the good work.
Gertrude
‘Morphological characteristics of the hair of Japanese monkeys (Macaca fuscata fuscata): Length, diameter and shape in cross-section, and arrangement of the medulla’
author:Haruhisa Inagaki
‘The hairs of the Japanese monkey could be divided broadly into two types: medullated hair and non-medullated hair. The medullated hairs could be regarded as guard hair-like hairs since they were thick and long, and the non-medullated hairs as underhair-like hairs since they were thin and short.’
Well, TECHNICALLY Dr Meldrum is correct I suppose- primates have ‘guard hair-like’ hairs & ‘underhair-like’ hair but NOT true guard hairs or underhair as found in other animals.
I’ve seen macaques at 11,000 feet here in Nepal- they are quite HAIRY with an extremely long, dense shaggy coat compared to their ‘low land’ relatives at about 3,000 ft to 4,000 ft. Looks like a completely different species, male macaques will even sport a lion-like ‘ruff’ of fur about a foot long in length at high elevations. Depending on the seasonalso the length, density & color of Himalayan macaques can vary quite widely also- from a stubbly fine light golden brown to a shaggy dense ashy gray.
Langurs also have a very different coat at high elevations than at low elevations too.
Interestingly, macaques & langurs seem to have a different ‘social system’ at higher elevations. At high elevations you’ll see more individuals & small troops roaming around enjoying what looks to be a more ‘egalitarian’ social group versus the same species at elevations closer to sea level in very aggressive teeming hordes constantly fighting among themselves in some sort of ‘pecking order’.
Well, things are heating up I guess. I went to another site and read those comments. Seems some are very upset and the accolades or disparaging comments do seem a bit extreme given this:
In all of this Dr. Meldrum did go to the site, correct? That seems like the real news to me, he went because he thought he would find something. Kind of validates the Sierra story at some level.
I do know your blog title speaks clearly to your ownership of your blog and your right to state your opinions in a fashion to illicit responses, even “mad” ones. So, you are spot on there! Reading that you did try to contact Meldrum makes me feel better, because something like that is an easy email. And, I am not surprised he didn’t respond, so that’s how it goes I guess.
Until all the data is out, and the stories, seems the stakes are high…and the jockeying pretty fierce. The Sierra Kills story seems to have been one you broke, as well as the fall out between EP and Ketchum, et al, which means you had sources for that and have not revealed them.
But, the other news, almost all of it is generated by public posts or radio talks, etc from the players themselves. Or false start parked websites, etc. Or copyright applications.
How could one not report on this?
Except, see the fate you are dealt?
Bigfootery is more about relationships than data is seems.
@grammy97, cheers! My first response upon reading your post was relief that your daughter was, apparently, unharmed, at least physically. Then your closing question set me to wondering . . . Is it not the young of so many diverse species that are so interesting and charming? There is an enchantment, an innocence to youth that progressive aging diminishes, so much so that we must constantly consciously strive to retain it as we grow older. That sasquatch would find our children more interesting(and far less threatening) than our grown selves seems quite logical to me, and there are first-hand reports aplenty that seem to support this. On a mildly related thread — is not genetic imprinting a marvellous and magical thing? How the newly born/hatched of some species are equipped to fend for themselves utterly, their relationship with their environment in situ while the new born of others require a learning period of varying periods of time. Where the young of sasquatch fit in this phenomenon is one of the questions that intrigue me most. Cheers!
@Maurice, salude! Yes, the young. . . . aren’t they all adorable little shits? The enchantment, at about 14, is shape shifting toward the LUST point. I had to leave out a lot of grungy details, like the age of the daughter who had a hand wrapped around her ankle. The three-year old who was in the bottom bunk that night still remembers that event: just a few months ago she described to me “the fear, and the stench”.
My Cherokee ancestors called this creature ‘Old Stone Coat’ because their spears and arrows couldn’t penetrate the chests of their attackers. I had a colleague who was raised Seminole: he told me that the bone structure of the Skunk Ape is different from ours. (If you have to shoot one, aim for the head.) Real information is hard to find.
There’s a world of information that we need. Not just what is the DNA of these creatures. What is their language? When they sing, how do they sing? To what do they sing? There are First Nations peoples out west who say that these ‘peoples’ are cannibals: that they kidnap our little ones to eat them. There are tribes in the middle north american states who say that they’re like satyrs, only interested in fornication, and that’s why they steal young women. Most days, I think I could be kind to a baby sasquatch if it showed up in my yard. But I’m still hoping for more information about these creatures so I can resolve the nightmares. So far, this blog is a reasonable-looking source of information. Cheers, Robert!
Granny a really moving story and although I don’t have direct answers I am willing to share some of my experience that might be relevant…although I would like to so so in private if that is OK? apehuman@yahoo.com
If not, the public part, known discussions of child abduction do exist, and generally if there is resistance on the part of any guardian the BF relinquishes, so they aren’t fond of confrontation..sneaky eh?
I can give a comparison in an African hunter-gather tribe that “kidnapping” a future spouse was a cultural norm accompanied by ceremony and specific cues by the intended wife that would either ensure the successful kidnap or not …just one example.
Children are our most precious resource, in every way. Valued since ancient times, and laws developing with our increasing compassion to protect them from being bought and sold or given for debts.
It isn’t clear the age of your daughter. but if somewhat self reliant she probably looked like a good addition to the tribe? A child of 8 or 9 could be assimilated successfully I would think.
On cannibalism, sad fact and a taboo subject under reported by Archeologists and Anthropologists. However, cannibalism in BF’s seems to be attached to extreme stress, like starvation/old age, rather than systematic toward modern humans, or I would think we would know more about them. Infants though, that I hold in a different category, it doesn’t sound like the child is an infant, but it is fairly common in tribal type societies to view any other tribe as non-people, especially the very young…and given what we know of even the Chimps and infant cannabilism..well who knows on that. It is conceivable. I read the Old Testiment and wonder how anyone could “dash babies against rocks” even for God….but it is true, up until a certain age not all people value infants the same.
Now all that from reading. As a woman and 50+ I can say my personal expereince was not threatening, but really in the end fairly comfortable given certain boundaries.
I agree totally about the DNA is just a part, the real information we seek is who are they? And I agree we have little reliable on that. I don’t see how we shall gather that information without their permission to study..any ideas?
BTW I alwasy loved that description..”stone”
or grammy97…
You know the whole idea of assimilation with a modern kid today is just too far fetched…even thought the BF might desire such… the accounts i have read that reported successful assimilation were of people already familiar with the landscape and ecosystem. A modern kid, that sounds really rough in terms of hypothermia if nothing else. But, I guess I do accept a great deal of that reported through the oral traditions of so very many tribes. Where there’s smoke there’s fire…
Congratulations on looking like a complete moron. Derek Randles just handed you your ass on a silver platter.
Banned. Didn’t I just ban you, Prince Charming.
We have people talking to us who were there and others who spoke to people who were there. They are telling us something completely the opposite, and it’s not just a couple of people either. Honestly, they are flat out calling Meldrum a liar.
a very uncool reaction by Meldrum to say the least. I am not saying Robert did everything right, but Meldrum does not seem to understand the difference between a “private” blog and the official website of the LA or NY Times . And yes: we are all primates, of course. The decisive question is if BF is closer to the great apes OR (at least a little bit more) to Homo sapiens sapiens. We all know what Meldrum thinks about this one – and most of us “feel” what the real answer will be sometime in the near future.
That’s how this game works. If we like you, well, we tend to give you a break, so to speak. If we don’t like, well, sorry, all gloves are off. If we don’t know you from Adam, we just write whatever comes down the pike. We have the ability to make people look good or bad based solely on facts due to among other things, whether we like them or not. This is why politicians, entertainers and other public figures go to great lengths to cultivate journalists and stay on good terms with them. Writers are very powerful. Alienating us is always a bad idea. The pen is mightier than the sword and we use it to good advantage.
I honestly do not know what this guy thinks he is doing.
That’s a very curious use of “we” in your first few paragraphs. Rather like the British monarch’s “Royal we”. Putting that alongside your admission of not having recorded or taken contemporaneous notes during your interview with Smedja, which would be the standard journalistic practice, and an overt quasi-blackmail attempt on an academic, I suggest that your claim to be a journalist is tenuous, to say the least.
You are a nothing but a well linked blogger with too much time on your hands, and whose idea of his own importance is rather greater than the actuality. Whist we’re at it, you’re obsession with race, and your gross generalisations anout India in particular, are odious.
Banned kiddo.
What you wrote does seem a bit sharp, with some fairly precarious undertones. Although I don’t know what led to the net altercation. I did write him an email, or a couple and he never returned any communication. Regardless, the real understandings we seek are 7’4″ and waiting for us in the forest, having little to do with our human misconceptions or interpretations of one another.
Meldrum basically butt fucked you on national TV. Good luck staying relevant now.
You’re banned sweetheart. We’ll always be relevant. Unlike you that is, who just got banned from the site.
This seems like National Enquirer stuff to me. I think Robert is having fun will all of the people who believe in this crap. He even says that he is trying to offend people, so there you go. Why does everyone get so butt hurt over this. The story is so unbelievable that it’s actually entertaining to see all the twists and turns and that is why people read it. If you job is to rake muck and cloud the waters, then why is anyone surprised what is going on here. If you believe that a sasquatch was shot, then you should probably get your heads examined. The story itself isn’t believable.
My only comments are these.
The only relevant thing, the only important thing, from my point of view, is whether or not this alleged Ketchum paper actually appears in print, in a refereed journal.
If that happens–and right now, that is an if–then maybe some sense can be made of the whole substystem of sasquatchery, etc.
As for personal sniping and accusations of lying, or fabricating, or hyping being thrown back and forth, not relevant in my view. It does show, I think, that like the dinosaur discoveies of the late nineteenth century, the desire to be first to describe a completely new and unknown creature trumps good behavior, and civilized approaches to disagreements.
That’s my two cents.
As a laymen I would agree that the only relevant point is whether or not this evidence appears in an accredited refereed journal. I have read quite a bit on both sides of the story and up until now the skeptics seem to win the arguments from a scientific approach and with available evidence. A published paper based on physical evidence would certainly change that.
Yes, this is not the late 19th century in terms of exploration, land use, size of human population, knowledge of zoology and related sciences, scientific procedures, scientific journals, sharing of knowledge, DNA technology, imaging technology, etc, etc. To have such a prolonged, bizarre circus in this day and age says pretty convincingly, in my opinion, that the present episode is just another side show, not a scientific discovery. Too bad.
On this issue, your critics are simply retarded. These frenzied Bigfoot big shots need to take a step back and see the forest for the trees.
I think Dr. Meldrum is becoming a PROBLEM. The despotic associate professor of Bigfootery.
Justin,you make big claims.This makes big questions? Stay in the public loop. We really want to know.And thanx for adding on!….
Robert,you are a bad little boy.You have ruffled the feathers of the BFRO and angered Lord Meldrum. How dare you even think you could approach their acumen or question their intent. You my little unclean sniffer of other people’s bottoms have shaken the BFRO tree, and sadly the fruit that fell from it landed very near the trunk….Please keep stirring this pot, I want to see who else is the Overlords of this domain………
Who the Hell is this guy anyway? Just another arrogant douchebag with a PhD. Pfft.
Destroy all Gods!
No No No! I’m harmless. I love you! Keep these monkeys on edge because they keep coming back at you which to me says they are all holding information and truths that should be shared. And by the way,check out Bigfoot Evidence ’cause Bart Cutino just vented on you! Keep it up! Keep stirring and see what falls out…..thanx
Who the Hell is this guy anyway? Just another arrogant douchebag with a PhD. Pfft.
Destroy all Gods!
That was a reference to Lord Meldrum, King of Kings.
Yes I saw that little performance by Mr. Cutino. What a charade. Attacking my interview with Smeja. That was a cooperative interview, and I understand that Justin says it is accurate, so the argument is over. I never knew this Cutino guy from Adam. Why is he taking me on?
The reason they are going nuts about all this is Meldrum going to the Kills site was supposed to be a big secret. And I broke the story and messed up everything. I am getting tired of these idiots and all of their secrecy, their crappy NDA’s, their threats, bla bla bla.
What’s with all these guys anyway? Have they all just got their heads so far up Meldrum’s ass that they can’t pull out anymore?
All this mess of the past two days should not deter you from publishing more BF news…it is wonderful entertainment and a great preparation for things (hopefully) to come…apart from that: your “clash” with “Lord Meldrum” will go down in BF history, I am sure..:-)
Meldrum has become a tool. All BFRO movie stars are tools. The BFRO is at a stage they may toolout also.Stand and deliver bitches! At this point in my small imagination all the” DNA proof and videos” are bogus. NDA? About what? WHAT?
I am sick and tired of all of these Goddamned NDA’s and all this weird secrecy. What is this, the CIA? Who are these people, spies? Lame.
Maybe Dr. Ketchum has seen this kind of irrational behavior before? Maybe this was her chosen method of barricading the screamers away from her results?
She’s a paranoid and secretive person. That is simply the way that this woman operates.
I am pretty much leaving her alone for now because I don’t want to jeopardize her study.
But she called up Smeja the other day and threatened to sue both me and him.
I’ve never seen anything quite like this..well, except in other Bigfoot arguments. And I agree with poster above, the frustration seems to be you are independant and say what you think. That kind of candor, as the supporters of Dr. Meldrum point out in their prolific comments on the “BFRO” response, has never been rewarded by him. In fact many comments point out that your very willingness to contradict him spells certain death for you in the Bigfoot Research Field. I find that threatening, even if you don’t, for all the wrong reasons. Apparently one must agree otherwise you’re out? Explains a lot about why the “more human Bigfoot” propnents complain so I imagine, that they haven’t been able to get traction for the time he has controlled the field… I didn’t beleive them. Now I wonder. I have never met or corresponded with Dr. Meldrum, although I tried. I do imagine given his fame in Monster Quest and the increase in mail he may ignore a great deal now, and can, given the data amateurs are producin. It sounds like he works closely still with the BFRO.
Oh well Robert, don’t lose any sleep over this. Start drafting the book…hoax or not? There is a story here for sure…!
Yep, and right after I took on Meldrum, I got death threats, threats of violence, and threats of lawsuits. And just today, someone hacked into my MySpace account. And the attack dog named Steve Kulls was apparently sicked on me again. These people are extremely unhinged.
You are correct. Meldrum and his Bigfoot as Ape Theory crowd have monopolized the debate and have totally marginalized the Bigfoot as Human Theory crowd. Meldrum is going to go down with his nutty theory like the sinking Titanic, yelling all the way.
I do see an evolution in his writing/speaking in just the time I read his book in 2008.
I might be wrong, because his Book “Science meets Legend,” was one of the first books on the subject I read. I haven’t returned to it in some time. I also read Krantz’s original and Robert Morgan;’s “Field Guide” (simply b/c I am a reference book type it was one of the most useful to me, along with Goodall’s and others in that vien of methodology) at that time.
It seemed to me Dr. Meldrum picked up where Dr. Krantz left off and the focus seemed to be on the difference in either morphology or behavior of Bigfoots to us. That seemed a bias, but I felt because of his particular expertise, paleontology and primate locomotion (a lay person translation of those credentials!) and he is not in a position to stray too far from what he knows and researches. Lets face it, his book ends up in the paranormal section. I was thrilled to see a Phd writing on this.
However, the apparent lack of promotion of the vast network of “Bigfoot is Human Amateur Investigators” and a seeming alliance with the BFRO then and now ( according to the BFRO website and his book’s preface) and still (apparently is, given now the knowledge he met members at the “Kills Site”) speaks to a de facto bias.
If you saw Bigfoot: The definitive Guide, a recent documentary featuring Meldrum’s view he does at the end seem to ,almost sheepishly (lol sorry, it just looks that way – the turn of head, blinking and almost smile) consider the idea of a type of “feral Human” population (again within constraints of a ‘lay’ use of feral) and seems to find it a bit more fantastic than a giant extinct ape surviving line. Why? From this newbie view, because he has been surrounded by people who have suggested and reinforced a view of a much more primitive, brutal, even aggressive Animal?
I do agree with him that the discussion of human or ape is silly on so many levels, but perhaps not because I am not in a position to contribute to any taxonomic designation (Homo indomitus ,if I did ) but, because I personally focus on behavioral traits that we do share,in spades with apes! I am interested more in how we are alike, and so that leads me to investigate “human” likenesses! My bias. But, if one applies scientific method, bias should dissolve with the data, and if he has any bias it will mold to the data ultimately, whatever it is. And, that is the way we do it, all of us grow. So, I don’t think any change of tune shall harm his reputation (except snide remarks at water coolers which he already endures I am sure).
But, I also think that the evolution or refinement of what is “human,” or “ape” behavior is fascinating and I look to anthropologists for that information. Jane Goodall’s popular books were invaluable to me in the field. Unfortunately, not many anthropologists are public on this (boy did I try to interest a few), for obvious reasons.
Dr. Meldrum is one of the few whose investigations into the Bigfoot phenomenon matches, to a good extent his professional expertise, he has an apparent infinite supply of Bf Tracks to study and they are tangible evidence. So, I accept his statement at face value, for what it’s worth, that I can’t conclude what he thinks now on the meaning of how we use “ape” and “human.” I am sure we will find out and I will pay attention regardless of the difficulties he may face with amateurs or they with them!
whew…lol obviously procrastinating on the things I should be doing..thx for enduring
What a great development! I was already enjoying the bits of genuine information that show up on this blog, and now I see that the bizarre person calling himself S.Kulls is prowling again. (He tried very hard to take down the blog of a pleasant lady in Oregon)
Being well past 70 now, I’ve seen a lot. The frenzy over the Bigfoot is ugly, but I’ve seen just as much crazy behavior over a proposed family recipe book, from one of my brothers. If the DNA proves that the Bigfoot species is 90% human, we might be in real trouble!
Stay safe, Robert. I’m enjoying your blog and don’t want any harm to come to you. grammy
Why did he go after that nice lady from Oregon? He calls her a hoaxer. She’s a lot of things, but she’s not a hoaxer. She’s mostly just a gullible person at worst.
Why? Just a guess: because he came from the factory that way?
At the time he cut loose on her, she had an opening to publish the results of what looked like some terrific field work done in Oregon. By amateur, unknown people of course. It wouldn’t have been as powerful, scientifically speaking, as Ketchum’s DNA paper; but it could well have undermined the prevailing theorem about Bigfoot = apes. I can’t imagine why the field work threatened a blogger from New York, but he was rabid.
Well done Robert. Putting all the bigfoot thuggery on display is a stroke of genius. The longer this drags on the worse all the clowns claiming to be “experts” come off. You are becoming a personal hero of mine. Keep on keepin’ on !
YW my friend!
Interesting reporting. I’m sadly not surprised. I first started reading about Bigfoot decades ago as result of my fascination with humanity’s origins and my intuition that the discovery of a living hairy hominid would teach us so much more about our own past than a bunch of dusty, dry bones ever would.
Unfortunately I’ve also learned a great deal about human nature by observing all the drama, backstabbing, politicking and chest-beating that has occurred between Bigfoot researchers since the very beginning. Keep shining an objective light on this topic – the last thing this field needs is more secrecy.
Oh my goodness, folks!
In the entries above, we have an initial entry date of Jan. 26th 2012 (today), and no less than 50-plus responses with no helpful substance in terms of “the discovery of sasquatch” whatsoever, all in the time-space of a partial 24-hour day! If we get this kind of response thread and get it this quickly on an objective scientific issue, wow — we’d all probably be “home free” by now.
Well, I do not know Dr. Meldrum well, but I have spoken to him by telephone from time to time. Here is my take, for what it’s worth:
1) He is a serious researcher and he has written an excellent book on the subject. It is this very book that got me started on the DNA aspects of the Discovery of Sasquatch.
2) I realize he has biases, and so do I, and so do the rest of us. I do not think that should be held against him until THE DATA ARE IN.
3) His biases are based on anatomical considerations; mine are based on mitochondrial DNA results, which I strongly believe were not bogus or hoaxed.
4) When Jeff and I discussed this very issue, BOTH of us had to admit that we didn’t really have the “final” answer as to the position of sasquatch on the Tree of Life yet. Accordingly, we both agreed to keep our biases open-ended until sufficient data are in–especially the nuclear DNA data.
5) One gene (MC1R) on the nuclear side does not tell us much, if anything, with regard to the positioning of sasquatch on the Tree of Life — a bushy one at that as Dr. Meldrum once pointed out to me.
6) Even on the mitochondrial side, three out of three samples showing “within human ranges” is not 20 out of 20 or 100 out of 100. Accordingly, it is possible that there may be some “original” archaic sasquatch (pl.) out there that will reveal even more about their etiology than the possible hybrids of sorts we SEEM to be dealing with to-date.
7) No. 6) above has been pointed out to me by other Ph.D.’s than only Dr. Meldrum. These folks may well be correct — time will tell.
8) I NEVER found Dr. Meldrum to be arrogant or unapproachable on the subject matter at-hand. We ALL have to recall that he is an anthropologist, not a geneticist or human evolutionary expert. Of course, then, he will come at the subject from an anthropological angle: size; mid-tarsal break; different body proportions including leg, arm, and foot length vs. width, not to speak of “excessive” body hair to say the least.
9) And finally, for what it’s worth, we are working on a parallel DNA study as we speak, and Dr. Meldrum and several others as well as I, myself, have agreed to WAIT AND SEE about the nuclear DNA — along with more mito sequences — before passing further judgement.
I am sorry about the use of the nebulous “we”, above, with regard to the parallel DNA study, but this “we” actually does include more than just the undersigned.
CALM DOWN EVERYONE, PLEASE !!!
Richard Stubstad
Are you shouting Richard ?
simmer down! Good to hear your thoughts.
Well, I look forward to what you produce, but is sounds like maybe you are holding off on full genome testing of your samples? I really haven’t tried to keep track, imagining that lab procurement, and analysis curve to be very long as well?
Oh, no! Not shouting at all. I’m just trying to get everyone to settle down & let us (including Meldrum) do our work, in each our own ways.
Re. the parallel study, in spite of setbacks etc. due to (frankly) skepticism that isn’t all that unusual considering the bigfoot field of “research”, we are still trying to get the job done — yes, including BOTH genomes.
This is a tricky business; “we” are working on it diligently.
Later, and let’s give one-another a well-deserved break in spite of our biases.
Richard
.
Good to hear. there is a bit of resistance out there, more than I could imagine really. Anything credible at this stage will be news. I think you are correct about the spread of the story within the Bigfoot attentive, I am not sure how far beyond, expect that will change, for good or bad.
.
Sorry; the thread started two days ago; not today.
Richard
For the life of me, are mito DNA sequences describing maternal immediate parentage that can be comprehensively & economically determined. While in contrast nuclear DNA sequences are describing paternal immediate parentage solely (or paternal + maternal parentage, with adjustments subtracting the maternal constituency) is so vast & cost prohibitive in mapping the Squatch specimen genome, that only a handful of those places that differentiate most markedly (& clearly) between existing Gorrila, Chimp, Orang, Homo Sapiens & Neanderthal genomes databases are targeted? So does this boil down to either an Ape “hit”, a Homo “hit”, or UNDETERMINED/UNKNOWN “hit”?
So a few early samples suggest immediate maternal parentage is more or less post Neanderthal Cro-Magnon/Homo Sapiens, while presumeably the nuclear DNA is as said fully corrected for any maternal component & not 74% of immediate paternal parentage toward chimp, but as reported 37% of the way toward chimp. While at the same time looking for human ancestral ethnic family markers. which I presume do not neccasarily indicate when hybridization actually took place… so the immediate male parentage may have been a hybrid itself from some generations prior.
I would think all this confirms is that the male parentage is close to a great ape, while confirming all “reports” of “Bigfoots” capturing human women of all ethnicities from centuries past until know 7 mating with them & producing fertile viale offspring with them… as “kidnapped” human male would be far less prones as a matter of course to rape or have sex with female Squatch – females being a larger & massively more powerful creature than human males, while human females would be helpless against rape by male Squatch
I believe the “hit” is Homo. If these things were the apes the Ape Theory folks say they are, the DNA should look like an orangutan or something like that. Very far away.
No, the mito is ONLY the maternal origins; two mito “Eves” were from sub-glacial Europe from some 15,000 or more years ago. These two Eves could well be the same female, in fact.
The third mito sequence originated from a female Eve around 50,000 years ago, in FAR sub-equatorial Africa.
None of the three mito sequences say for sure exactly WHAT these “Eves” looked like, or even if they were “modern” humans at the time, but they were definitely “within human ranges” which are VERY broad to say the least.
The current “sasquatch’s” make-up and genetics can ONLY be determined via nuclear DNA, with no adjustments for the mito. The mito is definitely “Homo” (or archaic) sapiens plus this-or-that (for example Homo sapiens sesqueqiensis), while the immediate parentage on the nuclear side for BOTH the mother and father are virtually unknown to-date.
I know that Lindsay has bandied about “1/3 of the way towards chimp from modern humans” but I have seen no data to either support or refute that claim. The only data from the nuclear side I HAVE seen is basically 5 percent of the way between modern humans and (say) chimps, since there is only a single polymorphism that differentiates the MC1R gene from modern humans (most often plus another single polymorphism within modern humans). By contrast, chimps differ within this gene by about 17 polymorphisms.
Neanderthal also differs by a single polymorphism, but not the same ones identified by the three MC1R samples we have for sasquatch.
In summary, we don’t know shit about the distance between modern humans and sasquatch until we test the nuclear DNA genome. The mito is simply too close to us to be of much use.
Still, this “inter-species” hanky-panky so far (based on a meager three samples) between sasquatch and relatively modern humans has only popped up twice: In one case, about 50,000 years ago; in the other case some 15,000 or more years ago.
This is not exactly indicative of a veritable orgy.
Richard Stubstad
3 out of 3 sounds like a menage a trois to me (grin)..
close enough!
Andrew:
I don’t speak bloody French. Deutsch vielleicht? Hvad med Norsk?
Richard
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/08/science/08ORIG.html
Decade old research, but it seems a wider swath of Africans may have more or less the same haplotype… and ? as to how many even current tribes across Africa have had their genome mapped(?). The Islamic/Holy Roman Empire/Spanish-Portuguese conquest slave trade of the Near East, and partucularly North & South America & the Carribean involved millions upon millions of African slaves wherever they could be obtained thru maritime or land warfare, barter, or kidnapping for a thousand years & millions were imported to the Carribean, South America & even some into Southern USA by 1650 A.D.
But I’d like to posit a question, if anyone can take a stab at it…
If an advanced Ape with “Ape-man” physiology/genetics mated in Africa with that sample 50K African Eve haplotype and produced viable offspring, then migrated up thru a temperate North African climate at the end of the Ice Age (Hapgood Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings/Hatcher-Childess submerged coastal Megalithic Bronze Age cities) when sea level was 300 feet lower to more readily migrate trans continental, then that hybrid proto-Squatch in 15K mates with that European haplotype women, then migrates over the Bering Land Bridge & mates with Amerindian females in later generations in 5K, then mates with a Appalachian Hillbilly woman in 1800,
How would the mito DNA read? or even any subtracted component of maternal data out of the nuclear DNA?
That’s about as good a guess as any. But it’s just a guess until we get the nuclear data.
There are several permutation of the “roads to Rome”. Sasquatch has fooled us before; it may well do so again. Until then, I’m just awaitin’ the nuclear DNA — from several samples.
And more mito too.
Richard
I do not know the answer to your question.
Richard wrote:
“No, the mito is ONLY the maternal origins; two mito “Eves” were from sub-glacial Europe from some 15,000 or more years ago. These two Eves could well be the same female, in fact.
The third mito sequence originated from a female Eve around 50,000 years ago, in FAR sub-equatorial Africa. …”
What I was driving at in some of my previous comments was if the mito data is limited to pinning down haplotypes/genetic ethnic tribe markers with an interpretation as to initial appearance (in human tribe history) of that haplotype, could the above quoted data be just as easily explained as either 1) archaic Homo Sapiens mating untold millenia ago with whatever (more gorrila like than Australopithecus Afarensis (?)) producing the infamous European Wildman reported for millenia which eventually bumbled its way into North America via the Bering Land Bridge with megafaunal migrations…
or 2) more or less purebred Indo-Siberian “Abominable Snowmen” Yeti
crossing the Bering Land Bridge and a later generation in 1800 A.D. encountering a higher population density of Black Equatorial African female slaves and WASP Hillbilly female Pioneers exposed in the field, or in a shack at the edge of the woodline?
Could that be equally interpreted from the data?
Or possibly even a Yeti-Amerindian Paternal hybrid eventaully migrating down to the lower 48 & encountering Pre-Columbian Diffusionist migrants in 1500 B.C.?
The Black MtDNA is from Bushmen in SW Africa 50,000 YBP. There is no way that any Khoisan people were in the Americas as slaves and there are none in the US today. The mating occurred long ago in Africa, apparently.
No’s. 1 and 3, yes, could be. If No. 3, though, had to be earlier (at least 10,000 years ago)–when the lad
No. 2, no, the particular clan or tribe associated with that mito sequence (the Vasikela Kung) were not involved in the slave trade in any way. This particular version of the Bushman is not likely to reside here in North America in any significant numbers.
Richard Stubstad
As the distilled preliminary data suggests that is the main drive of Squatch interaction with humans (sex with females), beyond even “cannabalism” of humans for food… perhaps the best way to obtains evidence is to use a modification of the old barbaric trick of Roman Arena execution/rape of female condemned captives – namely staking out stuffed or inflatable gorrila costumes or human female blow-up sex dolls – all with liberal application of the urine of chimps & gorrilas in “estrus” such as it may be obtained from private animal preserves, research labs, zoos etc.., along with “pheromone” sprays from PUA/erotic websites & set out the trail cameras & trip cameras & ballistic nets.
Not good news for the “Out of Africa” theory (or even attempting to pigeonhole that particular Squatch mito sample interpreted by certain as an African “Eve” circa 50K C.E)….
“…The indigenous people of Southern Africa, whose territory spans most areas of South Africa, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Mozambique, Swaziland, Botswana, Namibia, and Angola, are variously referred to as Bushmen, San, Sho, Barwa, Kung, or Khwe. Biaka Pygmies of Central Africa, share with the Vasikela Kung DNA of mitochondria in mtDNA studies, indicate that they are among the most ancient human populations.”
http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.php/Category:Settlement_In_The_Near_East
Also note the map of the “Middle Passage” of the African slave trade and how far down to the South of Africa it went:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triangular_trade.svgnt:
Khoisan (previously, San) Genetic evidence that tribal people of southern Africa, the principal speakers of click language, belong to the most ancient of all human lineages, based on the earliest mutations of the Y chromosome tree
Indo-Siberian Yeti with North American imported African female slaves is looking better all the time… (aside from Amerindian maidens & the occasional Caucasian rural female caught out in the woods.
Andrew:
I cannot find the second of your links, above. Please retry, because I’m very interested. My own research has revealed that the Kung — in particular the Vasikela Kung clan — did not get “slave traded” since they were so far inland and were also still nomadic hunter-gatherers at the time. In fact, it is likely that this particular tribe or clan no longer exists, but rather that they have “integrated” into other inland Bushmen clans, though with some of their mito DNA still floating around.
Thanks,
Richard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_passage
I have looked through the article from Wikipedia “The Middle Passage” and I still do not see any evidence for any of the Kung clans or even the other Bushmen clans being involved in any significant ways.
The map does not overlap the areas that the Kunk tribes lived.
This means that either:
1) Sample 3 from http://www.ScienceAliveNews.com DOES plac4e its likely mitochondrial Eve in the Kalihari region of Southern Africa some 50,000 years ago or so.
or
2) The Meldrum theory of “convergence” has merit and the creature called sasquatch just happened to repeat roughly this haplotype on the maternal side of its DNA profile.
The latter I don’t understand; I’m merely stating it here in case Meldrum is smarter than I am on this topic, at least.
What are you actually insinuating with the origins of Sample 3, exactly Andrew?
Richard Stubstad
Yes, but that is not Meldrum’s convergence theory.
Meldrum’s convergence theory states that Gigantopithecus, a giant orangutan, via converge or parallel evolution with hominins, evolved bipedalism so it appears at first glance to be a hominin, but really, it’s just a bipedal ape.
Richard… trying to deal with observerved facts reported in the past several centuries & not neccasarily have the potential sticking of racist ramifications that invariably clings hand in hand with “Out of Africa” theories.
ABONESI (N. TOGO)
AGOGWE (E.AFR)
BILUNGI (DEM. REP. OF CONGO)
DODU (CAMEROON)
DOKO (KENYA)
ENGBE (W. AFR.)
ENGTOT (GABON)
FATING’HO (W. AFR.)
GERIT (KENYA)
KAKUNDAKARI (C. AFR.)
KALANORO (MADAG.)
KENKOB (W. AFR.)
KIDOKY (MADAG.)
KIKOMBA (SENEGAL)
MALA-GILAGE (CHAD)
MAU (E. AFR.)
MOHIN-GOUE (W. AFR.)
MULAHU (DEM. REP. OF CONGO)
NDESU (REP. OF CONGO)
NGOLOKO (E. AFR.)
SEHITE (COTE D’IVOIRE)
SEME (GABON)
WATU WA MITI (MOZAM.)
WOADD-EL-UMA (SUDAN)
The above cryptozoological hominids of Africa, unlike many of the in particular cryptozoological reptiles & arachnids of Africa, are almost always reported as smaller than gorrilas – including the bipedal hominids. When a mammalian species does interbreed with another – Tiger & Lion to produce a Ligon, the offspring is often 50% to double the weight of the parents tops. If Australopithecene (species) in Africa was the hybrid result mating between archaic Homo & the next step down from Australopithecene… or if archaic Homo mated with Australopithecene (assuming it was not a hybrid to begin with) to produce fertile viable offspring – we have a problem. Australopithecenes were only 4′ to 4′-7″ tall. African Homo are anywhere from less to 6′ range. A 9′ to 16′ male Bigfoot(s) plural families, genus, species does not make. Not with often longer lower & upper fang-like canines, high saggital crest/fat soft body parts pad/cone heads. Australopithecene had small tiny fangs or usually flat teeth. There is not much evidence at all for any giant 7′ to 12′ African recent hominid contemporary with Cro-Magnon man, outside of a Weismuller Tarzan the Ape Man flick or Hollywood. Bigfoot reports are usually gigantic cone headed bipedal “gorrilla men, or round, semi-round headed furry StarWars “Wookies” with much more Nordic facial features, or in the Deep South with African Features with minor body hair length.
This suggests recent inbreeding.
Anyhow is it more likely in just 30 to 40K a 5′ or 6′ tall 1st generation hybrid migrated (& it subsequent generations) from the bottom of South central Africa, up to Europe, then thru the Caucuses, then thru China/Siberia, then over the Bering Land Bridge before it disappeared, then thru Alaska, Canada until the Southern USA?
The minority of Bigfoots with standout human-like features suggest recent interbreeding… As much validity as some of Ivan van Sertimas & other diffusionists work have.
Andrew:
Since I’ve only seen a single sample that APPEARS to be closest to the Visekila Kung clan (only a single sample in Genbank indicating this), you may well be correct. I’m only looking at the data; I just don’t know.
To support your “not-out-of-Africa” theory, the other two mito samples were indeed from sub-glacial Europe some 15,000 to maybe 30,000 years ago, max. In short, a single sample does not necessarily tell the whole story, let alone part of it.
Have you however checked out the possibility (however remote) that Homo Rhodesiansis was actually a sasquatch “in disguise” and, accordingly, may have been genetially related to the Visekila Kung ON THE FEMALE SIDE ONLY ? I understand (but do not know) that Homo Rhodesiansis was quite tall & massive; still, 50,000 years is a hell of a long time to “select” the largest and strongest offspring once the sasquatch, yeti, etc., migrated into colder climates.
I’m just rambling; I have no “axe to grind”; I’m merely reading the data. I really don’t know for sure, and I respectfully submit that neither do you.
Richard
Cheers Richard(and long time . . .)! Menage a trois literally translated is “a household for(of) three”, but over time it has come to assume a slightly more, erm, fleshly influence, referring to a trio, or threesome, intent on achieving sexual congress together, regardless of who owns the house . . . Cheers!
I guess I spoiled the poor chaps shot at a good joke!
Or maybe that was the intent–the jokes on me.
Richard