Rampage explains how outer space is a hoax

[Andy Capp]

You put forth this work as serious criticism of his actual positions and I haven't seen any serious criticism yet. But even if you find some, it won't matter because that won't prove he's wrong. It'll just prove there's disagreements in his field which there would be....

And keep in mind that many people from his university and elsewhere have come forward to defend his work and that Idaho State University has not chosen to stop letting him be the head of his entire department.


My position is just that his work has not been debunked and that was the claim made by the poster in question. It would be very difficult to find any scholar that didn't have his or her detractors wouldn't it?

Also calling Jeff Meldrum believer is something he himself disputes. What he says is that he is convinced by the evidence that it is there. That's not the same thing as a believer.

And once again, let's keep in mind that I don't even agree with Jeff meldrum's position on bigfoot. I'm not defending his position. I think he's wrong. What I'm defending is that he is a real scientist doing real work and pretending he's a hack is dishonest.

Here's proof you didn't read any of the articles I posted. It's a thorough debunking, in fact, and also repeats the solid claim that a lot of the "evidence" was drummed up to sell a TV show,

"DNA and eDNA, Bigfoot’s Tale and Nessie’s Too. On the subject of the community’s approach to technical studies on bigfoot-related data, I want to note in passing that the claim – made often in the bigfoot community (albeit not necessarily in the relevant interview) – that the infamous Ketchum et al. (2013) study was repeatedly rejected by journals through sheer cowardice and disinterest is utterly incorrect. I can state this with confidence because I was a reviewer of the paper at two different top-tier journals. The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues.

And having mentioned DNA, also covered in the interview was some discussion of the Sykes et al. (2014) study. As is now well known, the point regarded by journalists and the public as the main takehome from this study – that the yeti was shown to be a bear, ostensibly a ‘new’ bear representing a hitherto unrecognised polar x brown bear hybrid – was fatally flawed, as demonstrated by two follow-up studies (Edwards & Barnett 2015, Gutiérrez & Pine 2015). The Sykes et al. (2014) team apparently made the mistake they did because they misrecorded the labelling of a genetic sample obtained from genbank – a schoolboy error! I think that Miles and Trey, and Dr Meldrum, all aimed to make this point in the interview but they got sidetracked once or twice and hence failed to emphasise it.

Incidentally, I met Brian Sykes during the data-collection phase of that project and have my own take on what happened. I’m not entirely convinced that it was an honest effort to investigate the crypto-hominid phenomenon. Instead, it was an effort to publish a technical paper linked to a TV series."

You're a hypocrite. Plain and simple. You dismissed what I said without reviewing any of the sources I provided, and lo and behold they address your complaints, wadda ya know?

 

[Blayt7hh]

Jeff Meldrym is the head of his department at Idaho State University and holds a PhD in the exact area of expertise required to analyze bipedal footprints. He also has tenure in his position obviously.

Don't we often argue against the right rejecting experts out of hand because we have to have some trust in our institutions? Don't we count arguments as false when all they do is say I just don't believe the experts? Don't we rightly tell the right that they must examine the evidence when it goes against something they believe?

But also he has tracks he didn't find himself that have been sent in from all over the country.


So I think it's disingenuous to pretend that the head of his department and PHD with expertise in the exact area of footprints and trackways should not be listened to and taken seriously.

Do we only trust heads of our institutions when they say things we agree with? Implying that you don't need to even examine his evidence suggest you think he's a hack or a fraud and I don't think that position is warranted.

I didn’t poopoo his ability to analyze the evidence. I’m casting doubt on the evidence being real. I’m being asked to give merit to some pretty out there claims by people in this thread, but we should overlook that the footprint and locomotion expert and his friend are the ones who’s found these bulletproof footprints? You don’t find that suspicious?

 

[BearGrounds]

• Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department, called Meldrum’s research a “joke.” “Do I cringe when I see the Discovery Channel and I see Idaho State University, Jeff Meldrum? Yes, I do,” Hackworth said. “He believes he’s taken up the cause of people who have been shut out by the scientific community. He’s lionized there. He’s worshipped. He walks on water. It’s embarrassing.”

HACKworth, aye?

You ain't kidding LMAO.

Fucking golden.

 

[HereticBD]

Petty spicy Bigfoot thread.

 

[kflo]

HACKworth, aye?

You ain't kidding LMAO.

Fucking golden.

"It’s embarrassing"......

 

[Deleted member 577981]

The goal has always been in every single discussion I've had and in the post you quoted whether or not Jeff Meldrum has been debunked. He has not been debunked.

Why do you insist on lying instead of just being honest?

I didn’t poopoo his ability to analyze the evidence. I’m casting doubt on the evidence being real. I’m being asked to give merit to some pretty out there claims by people in this thread, but we should overlook that the footprint and locomotion expert and his friend are the ones who’s found these bulletproof footprints? You don’t find that suspicious?

But the claims and the evidence do have merit as they were gathered by a PhD with 10 year in his field and specific expertise to the trackways.

Also, please keep in mind that many of the prints he has that he says are unfakeable come from all over the country. It's not just him that's finding them and you would know that if you had ever examined any of the evidence with an open mind.

We keep going around in circles but it always circles back to you having not looked into the subject at all.

 

[Blayt7hh]

The goal has always been in every single discussion I've had and in the post you quoted whether or not Jeff Meldrum has been debunked. He has not been debunked.

Why do you insist on lying instead of just being honest?

But the claims and the evidence do have merit as they were gathered by a PhD with 10 year in his field and specific expertise to the trackways.

Also, please keep in mind that many of the prints he has that he says are unfakeable come from all over the country. It's not just him that's finding them and you would know that if you had ever examined any of the evidence with an open mind.

We keep going around in circles but it always circles back to you having not looked into the subject at all.

It was me bothering to google him how a stumbled across that nugget of information that he was the one who discovered them. So yeah I did look into it some only to Realize my time was probably just being wasted again. You weren’t exactly forthcoming with that information about who discovered the, were you?

I don’t deny for a second that I can’t debunk his claim of the actual footprints being real since I haven’t spent my life studying ape patterns. Which also makes him the perfect person to hoax them.

 

[HereticBD]

Also, please keep in mind that many of the prints he has that he says are unfakeable come from all over the country.

I'd say it's a pretty big red flag for someone to say that a simple footprint is "unfakeable". What exactly makes them unfakeable?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Here's proof you didn't read any of the articles I posted. It's a thorough debunking, in fact, and also repeats the solid claim that a lot of the "evidence" was drummed up to sell a TV show,

"DNA and eDNA, Bigfoot’s Tale and Nessie’s Too. On the subject of the community’s approach to technical studies on bigfoot-related data, I want to note in passing that the claim – made often in the bigfoot community (albeit not necessarily in the relevant interview) – that the infamous Ketchum et al. (2013) study was repeatedly rejected by journals through sheer cowardice and disinterest is utterly incorrect. I can state this with confidence because I was a reviewer of the paper at two different top-tier journals. The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues.

And having mentioned DNA, also covered in the interview was some discussion of the Sykes et al. (2014) study. As is now well known, the point regarded by journalists and the public as the main takehome from this study – that the yeti was shown to be a bear, ostensibly a ‘new’ bear representing a hitherto unrecognised polar x brown bear hybrid – was fatally flawed, as demonstrated by two follow-up studies (Edwards & Barnett 2015, Gutiérrez & Pine 2015). The Sykes et al. (2014) team apparently made the mistake they did because they misrecorded the labelling of a genetic sample obtained from genbank – a schoolboy error! I think that Miles and Trey, and Dr Meldrum, all aimed to make this point in the interview but they got sidetracked once or twice and hence failed to emphasise it.

Incidentally, I met Brian Sykes during the data-collection phase of that project and have my own take on what happened. I’m not entirely convinced that it was an honest effort to investigate the crypto-hominid phenomenon. Instead, it was an effort to publish a technical paper linked to a TV series."

You're a hypocrite. Plain and simple. You dismissed what I said without reviewing any of the sources I provided, and lo and behold they address your complaints, wadda ya know?

I have read all of this before you ever posted it. But you said you were going to provide evidence of a debunking. That's not what this is. This is just somebody disagreeing with some of the points Jeff Meldrum has made. There's a difference between scholars disagreeing and a debunking. I never claimed theres no scholars who disagree with him I have claimed there's never been a debunking.

A debunking means somebody's stance has been proven false and nothing like that has taken place here or even remotely close to that.

At most what you have here is one scholar disagreeing with Jeff Meldrums work which we would expect to find in any scholarly pursuit on any subject, wouldn't we? Do you think the first time anyone disagrees with anyone else? It's proof that the first person is correct in the second is false? Did you find any analysis of the prints in there to show why they're necessarily a fake too?

 

[Andy Capp]

The goal has always been in every single discussion I've had and in the post you quoted whether or not Jeff Meldrum has been debunked. He has not been debunked.

Why do you insist on lying instead of just being honest?

But the claims and the evidence do have merit as they were gathered by a PhD with 10 year in his field and specific expertise to the trackways.

Also, please keep in mind that many of the prints he has that he says are unfakeable come from all over the country. It's not just him that's finding them and you would know that if you had ever examined any of the evidence with an open mind.

We keep going around in circles but it always circles back to you having not looked into the subject at all.

Here's proof you didn't read any of the articles I posted. It's a thorough debunking, in fact, and also repeats the solid claim that a lot of the "evidence" was drummed up to sell a TV show,

"DNA and eDNA, Bigfoot’s Tale and Nessie’s Too. On the subject of the community’s approach to technical studies on bigfoot-related data, I want to note in passing that the claim – made often in the bigfoot community (albeit not necessarily in the relevant interview) – that the infamous Ketchum et al. (2013) study was repeatedly rejected by journals through sheer cowardice and disinterest is utterly incorrect. I can state this with confidence because I was a reviewer of the paper at two different top-tier journals. The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues.

And having mentioned DNA, also covered in the interview was some discussion of the Sykes et al. (2014) study. As is now well known, the point regarded by journalists and the public as the main takehome from this study – that the yeti was shown to be a bear, ostensibly a ‘new’ bear representing a hitherto unrecognised polar x brown bear hybrid – was fatally flawed, as demonstrated by two follow-up studies (Edwards & Barnett 2015, Gutiérrez & Pine 2015). The Sykes et al. (2014) team apparently made the mistake they did because they misrecorded the labelling of a genetic sample obtained from genbank – a schoolboy error! I think that Miles and Trey, and Dr Meldrum, all aimed to make this point in the interview but they got sidetracked once or twice and hence failed to emphasise it.

Incidentally, I met Brian Sykes during the data-collection phase of that project and have my own take on what happened. I’m not entirely convinced that it was an honest effort to investigate the crypto-hominid phenomenon. Instead, it was an effort to publish a technical paper linked to a TV series."

You're a hypocrite. Plain and simple. You dismissed what I said without reviewing any of the sources I provided, and lo and behold they address your complaints, wadda ya know?

There you go calling ma a liar again for no reason. Good on ya. Words have meaning. A person who evaluated his work saying it was no good is debunking it no matter what you want to pretend it is instead. Give it up.

 

[lsa]

I'd say it's a pretty big red flag for someone to say that a simple footprint is "unfakeable". What exactly makes them unfakeable?

Yeah..
Of all the things that might be unfakeable..
footprints in the woods its not even in my top 10 list.

 

[BearGrounds]

"It’s embarrassing"......

For you.

 

[Spounman]

Check out this website, if you're really interested. He may have gotten somewhere with figuring that out.

Leedskalnin.com

Leedskalnin.com © 2025, by Matt Emery. Leedskalnin's Double Helix and Coral Castle The Complete Writings of Edward Leedskalnin Perpetual Motion Holder

leedskalnin.com

I've watched shows on him, it's facinating.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

I'd say it's a pretty big red flag for someone to say that a simple footprint is "unfakeable". What exactly makes them unfakeable?

You really ought to listen to some of the interviews he has given as to why because I won't be able to do it as much justice, but here's my best stab at it.

First of all, Jeff meldrum is an expert in that exact field, so we would expect him to know more than other people. He said one print can be somewhat convincing, but what is really convincing are multiple prints across varying substrate. The reason for this is because the movement of feet with muscles, bones, ligaments, tendons and fascia across varying substrate changes the print widely. Also the action the foot is carrying out when it hits the ground or pushes away from the ground changes the print. Just think of all the varying terrain you find in the woods as an example in your mind.

None of those prints are going to look like if someone stuck their foot in soft mud gently and then pulled their foot out gently. That kind of print could be faked by a high quality mold.

So multiple tracks along a trackway in varying substrate, some of which is as smooth as silt is very very difficult or actually impossible to fake. You certainly couldn't get anything remotely close to fakeable with a Hollywood mold, for instance.

But then some of the feet show patterns of having bones been broken and then very unusual and also unknown to the public patterns of healing where the bone heals wrongly. And it's a common thing that experts know about but that no lay people know about. So some of the prints have broken feet that have healed incorrectly and it affects the gate and the print itself. You can even see the effect of a broken right foot in the way the left foot manages terrain due to compensation, for instance.

And also some of the prints at least the ones found in silt have dermal ridges that that look like a cross between human and ape.

Last thing is how were the prints made if they're faked? Where are all the human prints around the faked prints for instance? How did they get the prints to go so deep in the ground? How can the action of a living foot navigating various substrates be left in the impressions of the print if it was just a mold with weights?

So all of those factors together is how Jeff meldrum can confidently say that no one went up in the woods and faked those before they arrived to find them.

I think it would take an expert in the field of bipedal locomotion and a sculptor to do so. But they would be up there faking prints in the middle of nowhere that are only going to last a couple of days half the time just for some hunter to come up and find accidentally.

For a new species to be recognized there must be a specimen. So nobody is saying this is proof that Bigfoot is real. Jeff meldrum is not saying that either. Jeff meldrum says there is a really good compelling evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

I argue that there's compelling enough evidence that mocking is unwarranted and that it can be reasoned and reasonable to think that Bigfoot exists.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

There you calling ma a liar again for no reason. Good on ya. Words have meaning. A person who evaluated his work saying it was no good is debunking it no matter what you want to pretend it is instead. Give it up.

No, that's just a scholar disagreeing with the work and we can disagree on what debunking means, but in the context the original poster who brought it up? That context was that Jeff meldrum had been proven to be a pseudoscientist. And that is an outright to lie.

It is the claim that Jeff Meldrum had been debunked and proven to be a pseudoscientist that i have taken issue with and nothing you have presented changes that in any way.

Keep in mind that I have never once said it is unreasonable to disbelieve Bigfoot exists. I've even said the opposite myself in this very thread where someone said in a reasonable way that they don't believe it. And i said well I won't dispute that people can come to different conclusions. I have only said it is unreasonable to mock people who've come to a different conclusion from examining the evidence.

It is the certainty of the so-called Bigfoot skeptics that I am calling into question not their position.

Can you say the same?

 

[Andy Capp]

I've watched shows on him, it's facinating.

If he proposed a perpetual motion machine he's a moron or a snake oil salesman.

 

[Andy Capp]

No, that's just a scholar disagreeing with the work and we can disagree on what debunking means, but in the context the original poster who brought it up? That context was that Jeff meldrum had been proven to be a pseudoscientist. And that is an outright to lie.

It is the claim that Jeff Meldrum had been debunked and proven to be a pseudoscientist that i have taken issue with and nothing you have presented changes that in any way.

Keep in mind that I have never once said it is unreasonable to disbelieve Bigfoot exists. I've even said the opposite myself in this very thread where someone said in a reasonable way that they don't believe it. And i said well I won't dispute that people can come to different conclusions. I have only said it is unreasonable to mock people who've come to a different conclusion from examining the evidence.

It is the certainty of the so-called Bigfoot skeptics that I am calling into question not their position.

Can you say the same?

"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."
"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."
"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."
"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."

"Incidentally, I met Brian Sykes during the data-collection phase of that project and have my own take on what happened. I’m not entirely convinced that it was an honest effort to investigate the crypto-hominid phenomenon. Instead, it was an effort to publish a technical paper linked to a TV series."

Point out to me the certainty in this comment, will you?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."
"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."
"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."
"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."

"Incidentally, I met Brian Sykes during the data-collection phase of that project and have my own take on what happened. I’m not entirely convinced that it was an honest effort to investigate the crypto-hominid phenomenon. Instead, it was an effort to publish a technical paper linked to a TV series."

Point out to me the certainty in this comment, will you?

Jeff meldrum has a scientific paper with information about Bigfoot in it he that is published in a legit scientific journal though.

You are, I guess pretending this proves he's a pseudoscientist which it doesn't obviously.

Also, I could do what you do and fail to reply to any of your points and just post new points of my own, but I'm not a dishonest poster like you are being.


@Andy Capp but also I want you to know that I'm going to read every single thing you posted and all of the related material sometime this evening or the next day.

I am genuinely interested.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I'd say it's a pretty big red flag for someone to say that a simple footprint is "unfakeable". What exactly makes them unfakeable?

I found this and it has a picture of him holding a footprint mold.

eDNA, Footprints and the Biological Bigfoot: Comments on an Interview With Jeff Meldrum — Tetrapod Zoology

Oh bigfoot… I want to believe…

tetzoo.com

I'm no expert but it looks more like a posed print than something left behind while in the process of moving around.

 

[lsa]

I found this and it has a picture of him holding a footprint mold.

eDNA, Footprints and the Biological Bigfoot: Comments on an Interview With Jeff Meldrum — Tetrapod Zoology

Oh bigfoot… I want to believe…

tetzoo.com

I'm no expert but it looks more like a posed print than something left behind while in the process of moving around.

Yeah.. that right there is unfakeable.
You can take my word for it.