During the Pennsylvania Bigfoot Conference held on October 23rd in Youngwood, PA, Dr. Jeff Meldrum gave a presentation entitled "The Russian Connection" in which he described his trip to the Kemerovo region of Siberia.
You can read the article here. LINK
Points taken from the article:
1. The Russian Yeti conference was more or less a joke with what appeared to have been a staged event resulting in a publicity stunt.
2. Dr. Jeff Meldrum is a no-nonsense individual and doesn't fall for weak or fabricated evidence.
3. In the last two paragraphs the author makes some interesting points that I would like to touch on. In the author's opinion it is written that they believe Dr. Meldrum's underlying message to his audience was that of disgust, quoting the author, "disgust over “amateurs” with no training in biology, natural history and evidence collection who were seen as experts represented the “scientific” side." I believe that in context Dr. Meldrum was referring to the people associated with the Russian Yeti conference but there is something in that quote that we as non-scientists should make note of.
Those of us who search for evidence of Sasquatch like to call ourselves researchers. In most cases I think the label "researcher" is appropriate. The fact is most researchers do not have scientific credentials. The presumption by the author is that we as amateur enthusiasts should perhaps let the professionals handle the subject of Sasquatch. I obviously disagree with this sentiment.
The fact that we are not scientists does not and should not preclude us from the search for evidence. However, the point can be made that we as researchers should conduct ourselves to the highest standards possible when searching for, examining and presenting possible evidence that may be attributed to Sasquatch.
Yes, most researchers have a limited amount of time, money and resources. The normal run-of-the-mill researcher may be frowned upon by the scientific community because of this fact. This obstacle in my mind can be overcome with a willingness to strive and perform the necessary steps for proper evidence documentation.
Simple things like being careful not to contaminate possible evidence and documenting the scene of your investigation area can be achieved with simple tools that the non-scientist researcher can easily access. Most important is to be objective when analyzing evidence and being responsible when presenting it.
Those last few items along with some understanding of what a scientist would deem as acceptable protocol, can go a long way in substantiating your finds and may in fact grab the attention of someone with the proper credentials, who in turn may be willing to examine your research further.
TC @ Squatch Inc.
( TC's note: I was not in attendance at the Pennsylvania Bigfoot Conference. My comments are based solely on the article linked above.)