 |
BFRO
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bossburg
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1970
|
 Posted: January 10th, 2009 02:46 PM |
     |
|
Statement from Matthew Moneymaker, President of the BFRO:
With all due respect, Dr. Jeff Meldrum is wrong about the Jacobs photos. He has no scientific basis for his position, if it is his position that the figure is a black bear. He is not being scientific.
We've all made mistakes before in our interpretations of images, and it wouldn't be the first time for him either. Unfortunately he is mistaken in this case, and I predict his opinion will revert back to his original, correct impression about the Jacobs images.
Meldrum's initial statements, on record, given to reporter Linda Moulton Howe, indicated that he felt it was a primate. His subsequent wavering about his initial perspective came after receiving flack from an anonymous person who sent him doctored images with doctored overlays of a bear skeleton on the Jacobs figure (which Meldrum did not realize were doctored). The anonymous image-doctorer also implied that he represented the consensus opinion of the amateur "bigfoot research community." He did not, but that deception apparently influenced Meldrum's opinion. It appeared as though Meldrum feared a backlash from his perceived support base among amateur researchers, and this formed the motivation for his subsequent opinion, rather than any kind of reasoned, measured analysis of the evidence.
The mathematical measurements of the figure in the photos, which Meldrum fails to consider, as well as the other images taken by that camera that night, showing a full grown bear along with the cubs (shown on the BFRO site), which looks so anatomically different than the Jacobs figure, clearly shows that the Jacobs figure is not a bear.
Meldrum has to deal with the limb ratios, rather than doctored bear skeleton overlays, before he can claim to be making a scientific statement about the Jacobs photos.
To many of us, it is plainly obvious that the figure is not a bear. A bear simply does not look like that when it bends down to smell the ground. Perhaps Meldrum needs to observe both bears and apes a bit more in order to see what should be obvious to an otherwise professional, scientific primate anatomist.
_____________________________________________
Below posted with permission from RobDay.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:11 PM, wrote:
Hello Dr. Meldrum-
My name is Robert Day, of Los Angeles, California. I am writing to you for verification of a quote that was recently attributed to you. Please forgive me for taking up your time on this issue, but it has apparently stirred up some debate and there is a lot of heresay being tossed around. It would be greatly appreciated if you could help, but I also understand that this subject is "touchy", and I will certainly respect any desire you have to comment/not comment on the topic.
The quote in question came from the 2007 Texas Bigfoot Symposium. The subject matter at the time was "the Jacob's Photos". According to one claimant, you were quoted as saying that the animal in the Jacob's photos was "most likely a Black Bear".
I don't want to seem biased in any way. Any information you can give me will be greatly appreciated, but a simple "yes or no" as to the validity of this quote will be more than helpful.
If you can elaborate further it would mean a great deal, but again, I understand the nature of this subject and do not wish to take up your time with something that is speculative at best.
Thank you very much for your time,
Robert Day
-----------------------------------
Very little speculation involved... the image is almost certainly a black bear, yet the photos continue to receive unwarranted attention.
Jeff Meldrum
--
Jeff Meldrum, PhD
Dept. of Biological Sciences
Idaho State University
921 S. 8th Ave., Stop 8007
Pocatello, ID 83209-8007
(Edited by PBYodeler)
Bossburg |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hound
Unregistered
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 334
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 05:17 PM |
|
|
Different opinions I guess. Who determined what he looked at was doctored and how?
evidence ... it's all about evidence. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Racoon
Approved
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 05:35 PM |
|
|
When the Primatologists know the size and still can’t tell us what it is, then it has to be something that has never been examined by humans. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil
Approved
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 06:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hound wrote:
Different opinions I guess. Who determined what he looked at was doctored and how?
|
Quote:
Bucker wrote:
Everyone knows where the head is on J2 and with scaled skeletons, the best fit I found is a gorilla.
|
Even this gorilla skeleton is too long to fit properly in the torso. Note the hip joint that is down too low. I'd like to see the bear skeleton they crammed in without altering.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hound
Unregistered
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 334
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 06:33 PM |
|
|
I see what you're showing. I'd love to see the bear pix too.
I've seen so much done to these pictures it's getting real hard to know
the real deal. right leg, left leg even dancing on youtube.
Thanks.
evidence ... it's all about evidence. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BenR
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 52
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 09:14 PM |
|
|
Could we see the images that are being claimed as doctored images? Also, why are we to assume that these "doctored images" are what influenced his decision on the photos?
His reply was pretty basic, and to the point. I would think Dr Meldrum would make his opinion based on the original images, and not doctored images of any kind. I've found him to be extremely objective and open minded. One of the few in this field of study.
Can you quote any known/credible scientists or phd that are willing to say these images show a juvenille sasquatch? I'd be very interested in seeing any evidence showing this.
Is this like any sasquatch you've seen personally? I'm curious as to why the position of Mr Moneymaker is so certain this is a juvenille sasquatch when most of the evidence I've seen points to quite the opposite.
Thanks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thesaint
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 09:36 PM |
|
|
Surely all us here are all just guessing..Meldrum and MM included...lets agree to disagree and move on...Jacobs Creature is another 'inconclusive' photo'.
No one can claim to know for a fact based on a couple of grainy black and white photos what it is.
Anyone who does is deluded.
As I said, lets just agree to disagree.
my little girl believes in bigfoot... |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carman1
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 10:14 PM |
|
|
If it’s true he might have been duped by the same guy that draws the bear skull on the root.
Did you hear this?
http://www.earthfiles333.com/earthf...isode27mp3.html
Dr. Meldrum says he didn’t think the limb proportions in the photo could be a bear.
That’s basic and to the point. He was being open minded Meldrum at his best.
There was only two pictures for him to look at I don’t believe he would have made a 360 without some kind of outside influence.
The evidence points strong toward a primate now with some of the best just coming out recently.
Out of My Mind – Will Be Back Shortly |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1867
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 10:19 PM |
|
|
Could you please check that link? I tried it and it couldn't be found. I'd really like to listen to it.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carman1
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 10:22 PM |
|
|
Try it now I fixed it.
Out of My Mind – Will Be Back Shortly |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1867
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 10:26 PM |
|
|
Thanks. I've got it now>
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1867
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 10:47 PM |
|
|
Thank you Carman. We have two different opinions from Dr. Meldrum now. I don't think we can really form any conclusions from what he has said other than that the photos aren't clear and definite enough to say with 100% certainty either way.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carman1
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 11:04 PM |
|
|
Are you 100% sure this letter is real? Do you personally know RobDay? Can someone from the BFRO verify with Dr. Meldrum this was actually sent and if so why 2 opinions? Something definatley isn't right here.
Out of My Mind – Will Be Back Shortly |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bossburg
Administrator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1970
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 11:06 PM |
|
|
Carman1: RobDay is a poster to this forum and decided to 'get to the bottom of this' by sending the letter to Dr. Meldrum. He had nothing to gain by sharing the exchange.
Probably would be a 180, but I think we just need to realize that there can be a variety of opinions. Many posters to this board have spent hours showing limb lengths, ratios, animations to disprove the bear theory. For some reason there are people who won't accept what has been presented.
Bossburg |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carman1
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 11:21 PM |
|
|
I read the whole thing it just seems strange the way that played out, and why Dr. Meldrum would have two opinions on the same picture he already commented publicly on. Usually when a professional of his caliber is interviewed for something like this they prepare for it with a good review of the evidence.
Out of My Mind – Will Be Back Shortly |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FitzDunn
Unregistered
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: January 10th, 2009 11:47 PM |
|
|
I wonder if there will come a point when the majority align to the stance this is going to be a hugeley divisive set of photos until the day BF is proven.
There is a destructive tendancy for people of differing opinions to obliquely try and discredit eachother, as opposed to simply putting forward a contrary argument or combatting points they disagree with.
To some it may be 'plainly obvious' it's not a black bear, but quite clearly to others it is not. Unless someone can say: it cannot be a black bear for X, Y and Z reasons - here is the evidence for these reasons, and here is the validation - then it can't be a black bear. And exactly the same for a squatch.
It strikes me as odd that a discipline which extols the virtue of seeking proof of every explainable variable BEFORE arriving at the 'Squatch' conclusion should see so many considered minds so easily side-stepping their own standards.
We have a saying over here: Dummy out of pram (infant reaction to a differing view) academics have their own version. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2gunner
Approved
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 08:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Valleydude wrote:
According to records the bait used was C’mere Deer I found it at http://www.cmeredeer.com/ according to the manufacturer it is made to attract deer only not bear. It’s to be applied to the base of a tree as clearly seen here in an earlier photo. The bears seem to be more interested in the salt lick. The deer bait is clearly on the root.
The creature comes in at a later time and is only interested in the C’mere Deer bait he reaches out and touches it.
He moves forward for a closer look, he clearly is looking directly at the white bait line on the root. Then he disappears forever. According to some records this was the last photo taken from this camera. A few days later it was picked up by the owner.
None of these images have been altered. I carefully only darkened the creatures body for demonstration reasons. The Sagittal Crest shaped head can be seen clearly even before darkening.
|
Quote:
Squatchgirl wrote:
I used the measurements from the top of page 1 to see how they compare to this anatomy picture of a flat sided black bear.
The top photo I marked with an H is where the head of the baby bigfoot would be if their legs were to be the same size.
The bottom photo I marked where the wrist and ankle would be if their bodies were to be the same size.
|
I spent some time on reviewing everything including the skeptics drawings. These are the two that convinced me before I had to double check, I didn't change my mind I still say squatch.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil
Approved
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 08:38 AM |
|
|
According to the information I have this hunter’s camera was picked up several days after the creature photo. The two photos of the creature were at the end of the series of pictures in his camera. What kind of animal would scare the deer and bear away when there’s a salt lick and deer bait to return to?
The PGC sensed an urgency to respond quickly to the startled hunter along with the pressure of steady phone calls and mass hysteria from the public in that area. They were quick to bail out with an escape goat. They used the unidentifiable shape below the creature to support their theory.
Bushnell had a panel of wildlife photography experts review the creature photos along with the recruited help of a Zoologist and a Biologist. Days later when the smoke cleared they were still undecided on what the creature was and then the final word “The jury was out.” If it was a bear they would have known.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ravellette
Approved
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 09:04 AM |
|
|
How do we know the goverment didn't get to Dr. Meldrum and convinced him to change his opinion?
They know it's out there and don't want the public to know because of mass hesteria.
Just my thoughts.
If you build it, they will come! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
robday
Approved
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 788
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 02:40 PM |
|
|
Hi folks-
Yes, I'm a real guy. Not affiliated with any organization, either.
The messages posted at the top of this thread are copied from my personal email exchange with Dr. Meldrum.
I'm moving today (sitting among a sea of boxes right now), but I do have some opinions to add. When I get a minute I'll come back and fill everybody in on the background of this whole exchange.
Robert (Rob) Day
Los Angeles |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carman1
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 04:21 PM |
|
|
The problem I have Rob is that Dr. Meldrum has already studied the pictures and didn’t believe the proportions are of a bear, and then he recorded this in a public statement.
I tend to believe that when you told him it has stirred up a debate and that the pictures are speculative at best it turned into well, kind of a canned question.
I believe he is giving you the answer he thought you wanted to hear. He might have done this to be kind and calm things down. Nobody wants a drawn out exchange of email arguments.
Out of My Mind – Will Be Back Shortly |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PBYodeler
Administrator
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1867
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 05:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
ravellette wrote:
How do we know the goverment didn't get to Dr. Meldrum and convinced him to change his opinion?
They know it's out there and don't want the public to know because of mass hesteria.
Just my thoughts.
|
How do we know they did? That's what you're suggesting here.
PBYodeler |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ravellette
Approved
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 05:21 PM |
|
|
Just speculation on my part, why would Dr. Meldrum change his view?
I guess he is the only one to know. I am not knocking the Dr. just speculating.
As for the goverment, according to many sightings at the Edwards Air Force Base in California, the officers refuse to give their names because they were told to keep quiet about their sightings.
If you build it, they will come! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FEKLAAR
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 05:33 PM |
|
|
| guys.... Its a bear |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carman1
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 05:42 PM |
|
|
No it wasn't. I just found the pictures that they duped Dr. Meldrum with. Damn skeptics, I knew something was up with this whole thing. They were bad photoshops that didn't match when you compare to real photos! I'm going to have to do some work on this one I can't let this go by.
Out of My Mind – Will Be Back Shortly |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
robday
Approved
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 788
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 05:42 PM |
|
|
Hello again folks.
I have some time to post, and want to take advantage of it and try to explain the sequence of events along with my own opinions.
When I first saw the Jacob's pics sometime last year, I was immediately of the opinion that this was no bear. The image that jumped into my head was that of a chimpanzee or something similar. I saw this same reaction from several of my coworkers. In one case (this person being a BF skeptic) his reaction was, "That's not a Sasquatch, it's obviously a chimp!" This was the typical reaction I got when showing these pics to others, and this was some time before I became active in these forums. It was at the beginning of my exploration into this field, which I am very new to.
I began looking for answers after an experience I had that left me with questions I could not easily answer. I actually found the BFRO completely by mistake about a year ago when playing around in Google Earth. I never knew this type of organization existed, and I was amazed to find so many reports that also had aspects similar to my experience.
In the case of the Jacob's photos, I was also surprised to find opinions that the creature in the photos was a bear. It did not feel right to me, I thought the physical characteristics of the animal were difficult to attribute to a bear. And I do have some experience with bears. As a matter of fact, I was able to witness a thin, young bear at close range for almost ten minutes last year. This particular bear was appx. 100-150 lbs in my best estimation, and I got within 10 feet of it several times (from the safety of my vehicle).
This was only the second time I have seen a bear of this apparent age (not a cub, but not an adult either). The first time was early one morning on the deck of a cabin I once lived in, and I initially mistook it for a large dog until I put my glasses on. In this case I was close enough to swat it on the butt if I had wanted to. This bear also appeared young and somewhat thin, but a little larger than the other one I saw last year.
So, having a couple of direct experiences with younger bears, my opinion of the Jacob's pics was (and still is) that this animal is not a bear.
So, when BenR quoted Dr. Meldrum as believing it to be a bear, I was in disbelief. And I want to take this opportunity to apologize to BenR for my initial reaction. To me, it was highly unlikely that someone like Dr. Meldrum would hold this opinion. But I should have found out before opening my mouth about it. Ben, I'm a very reasonable person and it is unlike me to call anyone's character or opinions into question, and I apologize for doubting the veracity of your quote.
In my eagerness to find the truth, I contacted Dr. Meldrum directly (along with others who I felt could verify the quote). The posted exchange at the top of this thread is that exchange taken verbatim from my personal email address and posted here. The only change that has been made was to remove my personal information from the message (thank you Admins).
As far as Dr. Meldrum's opinion is concerned, I do not share it. I feel terribly arrogant in saying that I disagree with the opinion of an experienced and educated man like Dr. Meldrum. I feel that he is a man of great character and I would be terribly disappointed if the members of this forum began to lose faith in him because of his opinion on these photos. There have been posts that say we have "two different opinions" from Dr. Meldrum, but I think it would be more accurate to say that Dr. Meldrum's opinion has changed on the matter. Since we are not speaking directly to/with him today, it would not be fair to put words into his mouth. If I were to guess, I would say that he may have changed his mind based on new information. Again, this is just a guess. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, which should be considered as a very qualified one. He is certainly allowed to change his opinion (as are we), and since I have no idea what experience, evidence or information he has worked with to formulate his opinion, I am not going to question it. The bottom line is that he undoubtedly knows more than I do on the subject. He may have some very good reasons for thinking this creature is likely to be a bear, and I am not going to argue his wisdom.
I still disagree with the bear theory. I just can't get my brain to see a bear in those pics, and I have tried. That's ok, that certainly does not mean that I hold a lesser opinion of Dr. Meldrum as an academic devoted to the same search for answers as we all are. In my opinion, he is one of the foremost authorities on this topic. My opinion of him and his work is not going to change because I disagree with him on this one detail.
My recent involvement on this subject has ruffled some feathers, to say the least. That was not my intent. I have had several other lengthy and sometimes unpleasant email exchanges as a result, and I feel that the matter has spun out of control.
The most important points I want to leave in this message are these:
1. No person should be criticized for having an opinion. Meaning me, Dr. Meldrum, or anyone else.
2. I need to do my due diligence before calling someone else's words into question. Sorry Ben.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FEKLAAR
Approved
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 05:47 PM |
|
|
| I'm dropping out of this one, other than to say, its a bear |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ravellette
Approved
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 05:49 PM |
|
|
Well said Robday.
I second your opinion
If you build it, they will come! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carman1
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 05:58 PM |
|
|
Hang on to your hats I'm about to UnDupe the good Doctor. It is going to be easier than I thought. I found someone has already done the photoshop work I just have to copy and put it together!
Out of My Mind – Will Be Back Shortly |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carman1
Unregistered
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: January 11th, 2009 06:58 PM |
|
|
Man I hate Sasquatch skeptics that lie and use tricks. According to a part skeptic part Bigfoot web site Dr. Meldrum stated that features on the creature are rather unusual, even ape like, e.g. the limb proportions. He thought these two images may confirm the bear theory without knowing they were altered.
This photo made the bear look as if its legs were the size of the creature.
In reality they are very far from a close match.
This photo shows the position of the creature (This is one I did) it takes it even farther away from a match.
This photo used bones exploded to a point where they purposely left out the spine. If you use the actual dimensions of a bear skeleton it would be extremely obvious this wasn’t a bear from its misalignment.
This is what happens when you try it with a complete bear skeleton.
A little adjustment and this gorilla would be pretty close.
(Edited by Carman1)
Out of My Mind – Will Be Back Shortly |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
