Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[Kemo]

(Most people don't carry cameras, especially at night when they're just driving somewhere. The MD footage was got by alert campers who happened to have a camcorder and time to grab it.
In a face to face encounter with an 8' creature that supposedly doesn't exist, who would think to snap it's picture?

Why aren't deer hunters who use cameras like this http://www.basspro.com/servlet/cata...2&hvarTarget=search&cmCat=400-0-0&cmid=HFP2_1 constantly publishing photos of bigfeet?

 

[LAL]

Why do Footers continually quote the same bogus claims to bolster their case? What technicalities was Patterson questioned about that he would have to know to pull this off? How to put on a monkey suit?

Your naivety is showing, but as you said, you're new.

Here’s a good link debunking the film:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_23/ai_54600089

I suppose it's difficult for you to find a source other than CSICOP. I've already read these and one's been posted, by RayG, as I recall.


Daegling debunks nothing here. There was a reenactment and Dahinden's measurements were accurate enough for a scale model of the site to be made. Even if the figure was two feet tall, the IM index remains the same.

Here's Noll:

"Using Trig., a distance of 130 feet, +/- 5 feet, for a subject height of 6 feet gives a tolerance range of +/- 3.35inches.

This means that a subject that is 72 inches tall, and viewed at 1500 inches in distance, but calculated or compared with something at a distance of 1560 inches will be actually 68.65 inches tall... but if it were 1620 inches, then it would be 75.35.

A plus or minus 5 foot distance equals about a 3" difference in apparent height. I can almost garantee that the measurements made at the film site of the photographers position and that of the subject for any given frame is as accurate as that. 5'9" to 6'3".

The formula for finding the height comes from meauring the subject height on the actual piece of film, the focal length of the lens used and the distance to the subect. This formula was developed by the RAF during WWII for photo-recon work over Germany.

By the way... this angle, feet to observer to top of head is just a little over 3 degrees. The resolution on the film needed to see 3 inches is 0.013 degrees... quite doable for the distance and film lens combination. The limit should be around .005 degrees for that distance."

And another:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

…with this quote:

Another point…Naturalist Frank Beebe noted in 1987 after seeing the film, "From a scientific standpoint, one of the hardest facts to go against is that there is no evidence anywhere in the Western Hemisphere of primate (ape, monkey) evolution-and the creature in the film is definitely primate. So either a large primate got stranded in North America-or the film is a fake."

Since no one's claiming Sasquatches evolved in NA, that hardly seems like a hard fact. Why didn't he consider the Bering Strait? A 20 - 22 million year old primate tooth has been found at John Day since then, incidently.

Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans, the founder of the science of cryptozoology and President of the International Society of Cryptozoology, believes that the film is of a man in a suit.

He's dead, you know. Both he and Sanderson fully accepted the existance of relic hominids throught the world and wrote books on the subject.

Those quotes are from this article by Mark Chovinsky in Strange Magazine.

http://www.strangemag.com/pattersonfilm30th.html

What's his source on Heuvelmans?
How can you take someone seriously who took Ray Wallace seriously? Why don't these guys ever address any of the hard stuff, like the Powder Mountain tracks, or Wrinkle Foot?

And…despite what Bigfoot fans write in their books and articles, there are a number of negative opinions of make-up experts like Tom Burman, Dave Kindlon, John Vulich, Mike McCracken, Rick Baker, Howard Berger, and many others. These make-up artists are not impressed by the subject of the Patterson film and believe it is a man in a suit based on their expertise.

And others totally disagree based on theirs.

So...we can cherry pick our experts left and right, but the fact is that most scientists expert in anthropology, primate biology and so forth do not believe in Bigfoot. The film is not that convincing. So, as the years go by sans a Bigfoot body or a better film...support for the existence of Bigfoot will continue to dwindle.

Nope. It's growing. Schaller, Goodall, Sarmiento and Swindler have "come out". Meldrum's methodology has been praised even by a collegue who doesn't agree with the conclusions. Michael Shermer has said there's a possibilty Sasquatches exist; seems even some sceptics are wavering.
New techniques may bring in confirmation from the field (my money's on Noll), and there could be a lucky shot or a roadkill yet. I only hope John Green lives long enough to say, "I told you so".

 

[LAL]

Why aren't deer hunters who use cameras like this http://www.basspro.com/servlet/cata...2&hvarTarget=search&cmCat=400-0-0&cmid=HFP2_1 constantly publishing photos of bigfeet?

Um, because they're only out for a few weeks a year, don't go far from the roads, are out in daylight and carry 30.06's instead of cameras? Just a guess.

Camera traps do have a chance of success and this is being tried.

It's been said Sasquatches find people, people don't find Sasquatches. They tend to avoid us like the plaugue we are.

 

[bruto]

So let me get the facts straight for myself...


Pros
1. Eyewitness testimony from apparently sincere people

2. two or three film cllips of possible creature

3. Large footprints found

4. Native legends


Cons
1. The one semi-decent film is gone and unable to be scrutinised

2. No physical evidence exists besides footprints which vary widely in size and even shape

3. Evolutionary evidence is against it (no primates in N.America)

4. Associates of the film-makers now claim to have helped fake it.

5. Frankly amazing ability of 3-metre tall primates numbering several thousand to almost completely stay hidden in North America.


I have to say I am in the non-believer camp right now folks. Opinion on the one decent film of the creature is divided to say the least, and there's nothing else bar easily faked footprints and the testimony of eyewitnesses who tend to have seen the creature in less than ideal viewing circumstances. Various experts make compelling cases for the PG film creature, but just as many debunk it and to me it honestly looks like a guy in a suit.

What about modern technology? If there really are 3000 or more creatures out there, a figured mentioned by several academic BF believers as probable, then surely we can find them using modern technology. A creature that large must give off a fair amount of heat, surely they'd show up in infra-red overflight shots just as humans do in cop-show helicopter footage? What about setting up motion triggered cameras, I've seen that used to snap shots of escaped big-cats here in the UK? Buried motion detectors like those used at Area-51 and on the Mexican border for security? Have these been tried? If so, nothing can have been found and can only strengthen the case against the Sasquatch.

To say the evidence is stacked against the Sasquatch is putting it mildly.

Welcome to squatchland, Kenny. I think you've got it nicely condensed.

As for the motion triggered cameras, etc. there's a part of this thread nearer the beginning dealing with a bizarrely unfortunate attempt to strap some cameras to trees, which mysteriously fell down, and mention of some other expert attempting a blind with plastic lensed webcams or something like that. Make of it what you will, and take your pick of criticisms or excuses for the lack of better evidence.

I have consistently maintained that after this many years of searching by this many "experts," the two most likely explanations for the paucity of evidence are that bigfoot does not exist and/or that the people hunting for it are incompetent. As you may have guessed, this opinion is emphatically not shared by LAL, who believes that bigfoot is out there and that the people searching are doing a good job, but are hampered by bad luck, poor funding and lack of support from the scientific community.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

There's one from Quebec currently being hotly debated on BFF.

Yes. It's degenerated into a debate over whether it is a deliberate hoax or an accident..

 

[LAL]

Where is that 2nd reel, by the way?

What is on the film before the last ~ 2 minutes that include the well known footage ?

Green and Dahinden had it. It was just shots of scenery.

 

[Thurkon]

They're copyrighted. No downloads. There are other films as well. LMS has the MD footage, Freeman 1994 and PGF.

There's also Clarke and the inconclusive Marble Mountain footage.

There are a number of stills. My favorite was from a roll that was left and never picked up. It shows a massive dark blobby looking thing charging through the woods. The photographer had apparently had enough.

Most of the stills are inconclusive. Too much foliage, lack of substantiation.......some may just be blobsquatches. Some are out and out fakes. There's one from Quebec currently being hotly debated on BFF.

Do you know links to any of these photos? I admit I haven't seen any stills except for the Cliff Crook one that is obviously a fake.

What Clarke and Marble Mountain footage are you speaking of? The only other decent footage I recall...in which a Bigfoot type creature is clearly visible...is the Snow Walker film, which has been exposed as a hoax.

 

[bruto]

Green and Dahinden had it. It was just shots of scenery.

Un-***in' believable! These guys rented a camera to go out and hunt for a bigfoot. They presumably had a pretty good idea of where to go to find it, too, since they hit pay dirt right away. And on the way they blew 3/4 of their precious film stock on SCENERY?!?

Something wrong here. Two major possibilities. Either they're fools of a high order (and how hard is it to hoax a fool of that order, I wonder?), or the missing footage shows things they did not want others to see, such as conspicuous fakery or inconsistency.

I'm perfectly happy to accept G&P's integrity, but if true, it must reinforce my contention that the people who are hunting bigfoot and who are coming up with so-called evidence are blunderers. How many different ways can one screw up and still be considered useful?

 

[Thurkon]

And others totally disagree based on theirs.

But you seem to have been stating there was some kind of consensus among the experts. There isn't...

You may find a few make-up artists claim it couldn't have been faked in the 1960's, but that's a far cry from the BFRO claim that there's some kind of expert agreement that it was impossible to fake. Then again, it's not as if the BFRO Bigfoot Safari website has a wealth of accurate information.

2001: A Space Odyssey had ape costumes far better than Patty. Heck, some of the costumes in the original Star Trek were better...but its not as if we can really tell from Patterson's crappy film.

Regardless, making the claim that make-up artists of today could not replicate a Patty suit is asinine. Are you serious? You think a half-hearted attempt by the BBC somehow authenticates Patty??

Nope. It's growing. Schaller, Goodall, Sarmiento and Swindler have "come out". Meldrum's methodology has been praised even by a collegue who doesn't agree with the conclusions. Michael Shermer has said there's a possibilty Sasquatches exist; seems even some sceptics are wavering.
New techniques may bring in confirmation from the field (my money's on Noll), and there could be a lucky shot or a roadkill yet. I only hope John Green lives long enough to say, "I told you so".

There's always a possibility they exist...no skeptic would argue that. The evidence doesn't support your view, but there's a possibility...

...and Goodall only stated that they probably don't exist, but she would like them to.

 

[Hellbound]

Um, because they're only out for a few weeks a year, don't go far from the roads, are out in daylight and carry 30.06's instead of cameras? Just a guess.

You've never met anyone who hunts, have you?

Please back up these statements of yours. Hunting seasons are open for at least half the year, and this doesn't include any poachers that may be out (day or night). Not to mention fishermen and other outdoorsmen (hiking, camping, and other activities are very common in the PNW). And if you think hunters don't carry cameras, you're severely deluded. Every hunter I know either carries acamera, or can't afford one. How else are you going to get a shot of the 8-point buck you just shot? (or turkey, bear, whatever). And don't go far from roads? That statement alone is enough to tell me you have no clue what hunters due, and are making things up on the fly just to support your preconcieved ideas. Most hunters look for places as far away from people as possible, because, you know, that's where the most animals are (and animals that are more likely to have less fear of people).

Sorry, but this statement of yours is just pure BS. You have no evidence, no backing, and no clue. I stand by that statement.

 

[Correa Neto]

And what, in your opinion, is the whole habitat of the creature?
The cryptids I mentioned are all hominids. I have no idea if they're related or what evidence there is for them. Did you read my post where I pointed out the "Jersey Devil", as depicted in your post was a real-estate hoax? No comment?

In my opinion the animal's habitat is within the head of the people who believe it exists...
In the opinion of these people, sighting reports are reliable (a supposition I find nor satisfactory) evidence, thus providing means to access its geographic range. The sighting database (you posted a link hundreds of posts ago) has reports virtually from every USA continental state and a large part of Canada. So, assuming it exists, and that sightings are reliable, assumptions that I think are questionable, this area is the creature's geographic range, taking in to account the date of the first sighting in the database to the last one (a report from say, 1715, may be from an area where the animal -assuming it exists or existed- no longer lives). And this is what´s supposed to be the present-day range and not includes other crypto-hominids. Including other legends of wildmen and baseless suppositions on where and how the creatures (assuming they exist or existed) evolved increases dramatically the area by including Europe and tropical Asia, for example. The density of evidence also decreases dramatically.
You said I posted a link to a picture, while I have just pointed out that the Jersey Devil description I was most familiar with resembled a gray-type alien walking on all fours... Others (the oldest ones) are from chymerical flying creatures. Which one is the hoax? And do you think a story on a flying creature can be distorted, I mean, interpreted and used as reliable evidence for an ape-like creature?

"For centuries scientists long scoffed at the concept that a large primate could in fact exist in North America co-existing in the remote wilderness along side an estimated 325 million people in North America for nearly 250 years. The population of both the United States and Canada combined totals 19,602,028 square kilometers. New statistical studies have shown there could be well in excess of 2,000 of these creatures residing in the forests of North America.

...snip...

Wait, new statistical studies? You said the 2000 figure was a guess... Now it became a statistical study? Based on what?
Nothing of the above serves as excuse for the absence of reliable evidence. Smaller animals with much smaller populations are being constantly tracked, filmed, etc. And at areas much more remote, that are logistical nightmares.

The usual questions:
(a) Where is the body of the wildman shot in 1925?

I have no idea.

Thus, its just another unreliable tale that can not be verified. Not good evidence, again.

(b) Why the Minesota Iceman is just a freak show curiosity? Do you trust in something that has such a deep dark shadow of fraud hanging over it?

The original was replaced by a model. Sanderson and Heuvelmans weren't the only ones who thought the original was real. This is the most likely of Hansen's stories:

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/hansen.html

I saw the photos in Argosy (1969 was a big year for this stuff). There are things difficult to reconcile with a carny construction, such as the blood that bubbled up from the eye socket and the gas bubbles in the ice from decomposition.

I just finished a lengthy debate on this on BFF. I'll point you to the thread if you want, but I don't want to have to go through it all again.

And we are supposed to belive that someone destroyed such a valuable iten? Its just another unreliable evidence with a great shadow of hoax over it.

The site is wacko, but there's some good information on it, at least where I can read it.

So, you trust in information you take from what you label as a wacko site? Why? Because it supports your beliefs?

(d) Invoking an immaginary creature to back another one is really not a good methodology. Zero solid evidence for all these supposed hominids.
As you can see, my French is OK.

Good. Mine's pretty bad. At least there may have been a couple of corpses of non-human hominids and a Yeti finger that seems to have disappeared after it was smuggled out of Tibet in Gloria Stewart's lingerie case.

According to a wacko site, you forgot to add at the start of the paragraph.

So, all I have to do is to claim to have seen a bigfoot and try not telling I was high or making a joke?

Is that any worse than the scofftics saying it could have been a hoax, therefore it was?

LAL, I´ll write once again- any biologist or paleontologist who manages to find a bigfoot skull will get instant fame. And yes, he/she will have to prove its the real Mccoy - we are talking about science, that is based on data, and not on faith, that is based on beliefs.

How can you trust in decades-old reports, many -if not most- may as well be just urban, I mean rural, legends? Many have just been repeated by every book or article on bigfeet, no check on the orgin other than a supposed article on a newspaper...

Which is why I tend to stick to the ones I know about almost first hand. They weren't decades old when I first heard about them. Casts age really well. And there are always new reports, some with physical evidence, such as tracks.

Immagine a report back from the 60s. Do you consider it can be adequately traced back and tested?

Try debunking my "theory". It´ll be an interesting exercise. It will really help you see how weak your arguments are. To defend my "theory" you will I use the same type of "arguments" you use to defend bigfoot as a real creature and as a hominid. And they are really weak.

Okay, I'll give it a whirl.

There should be fossils of transitional forms. There should be roadkill of transitional forms. There should be "nice" pictures of transitional forms.

Yep, those are really weak. Oops! Those areyour arguments.

Hehe. You felt in to the trap. Roadkills and nice pictures of fossil animals? Can´t you do better than this?
And forgot that the purpose was to demonstrate that using what is nowdays know of bigfoot (assuming it exists) is only about EXTERNAL anatomy. Compare the reconstructions of Smilodon with Thylacosmilus. There are not enough data to make any suppositions on bigfoot´s real link with great apes, hominids, squirrels or marupials, with tha valiable data!
Look at the pictures in
http://www.avph.hpg.ig.com.br/thylacosmilus.htm
Would you be able, only by looking at the pictures, to say Thylacosmilus is not a feline?

So, how can someone based on artistic renders of sighting reports and blurry pictures identify a creature as a giant hominid based just in the external anatomy?

As for the gorilla´s fear smell, thit nothing compared to an opossum or even a skunk. Hmmmm.... Maybe bigfeet evolved from mustelids! No. My "theory" is correct.

How about a little morphology?

Flawed argument. See the above explanation.

And I suppose you know that nowdays digital cameras made things much easier... Even some years ago, conventional cameras such as the EOS series were great when it come to help people not loosing a snapshot.

Bobby Clarke's camcorder is a good example of how even "easier" can screw things up.

Suuuure. Bigfeet select the people they are going to appear to. They will never show up to experienced wildlife photographers... Even if these people spend much more time in the wilderness and know much better how to behave in order not to disturb wildlife...

As for the link...
""Well," quips one attendee, referring to the potential demise of such events like the weekly Western Bigfoot Society lunches, "at least we won't have to waste our Tuesday afternoons anymore."
His wife adds, "We'll just move on to Loch Ness."
No more comments needed.

Roy Crowe actually seems quite sane. He spends a lot of time on this. (I met him at a Harry Schumacher Bigfoot Daze in Carson, Wa. Harry was a friend, of sorts, but he was woefully uninformed. I just saw him on Sasquatch Oddessy. He didn't even get the events that led up to the ordinance correct.) Reporters seem to have a tendency to throw in something snide, perhaps so they won't be confused with the "true believers". How do you know the attendee's wife wasn't joking?

How do you know she was not saying the truth? This was just to show the caliber of some people who are involved in the business.

So, can you really trust in the results?
You know, since there are lots of experient professionals doing field research on existing species, there´s little need for such requests. The people currently studying (or making photographic stdies) of say, black bears or woves, have the skills needed for providing solide evidence. And they would not miss a 3-m high ape.

They'd have to find one first.

I'm putting my money on Richard Noll. He seems to know what he's doing.

Its your money, so its your problem. I would not put my money in any one of them. And why wouldn´t all the skilled proffessionals that work with wildlife in North America not be able to obtain a nice footage or picture from bigfoot?
Oh, and regarding your claim on how hard it wold be to even today, without CGI make a realistic monkey suit, have you seen "Congo"? Yeah, the film is a bomb. But still, no CGI was used. Oh, I know people have already wrote about it, but have you seen the hominid suits from 2001? You claim is an overstatement, at least.

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Ok, we seem to be dancing around the main issue here, arguing about this and that and whether some spurious event really happened, etc. Here's the state of play as I currently see it, cutting to the chase if you will

There is no hard evidence to support Sasquatch. None.

You can argue about people supposedly finding a Yeti finger and then it being lost in strange adventures, or about how so and so claims to have seen it, or how someone thinks that there may be lots of them around, but when it boils down to it we have a few bad movies that look like guys in hair suits and some big footprints. Thats no real evidence people, nothing but opinions and easily faked stuff that doesn't convince me one tiny bit.

Learned debate about nonsense is like multiplying by zero, not worth the time and effort as it still boils down to nothing. I think I'll be leaving this debate now until someone comes up with a dead yeti. Have fun.

 

[LAL]

Un-***in' believable! These guys rented a camera to go out and hunt for a bigfoot. They presumably had a pretty good idea of where to go to find it, too, since they hit pay dirt right away. And on the way they blew 3/4 of their precious film stock on SCENERY?!?

They were out to film a documentary, remember? There was plenty of film for the encounter they had. The story I read originally said they went to find tracks to film for the documentary, many of which had been found in that area over years.

Something wrong here. Two major possibilities. Either they're fools of a high order (and how hard is it to hoax a fool of that order, I wonder?), or the missing footage shows things they did not want others to see, such as conspicuous fakery or inconsistency.

There's no missing footage. The original reel showing the animal was examined in 1967. It was not tampered with and there are several first generation copies.

I'm perfectly happy to accept G&P's integrity, but if true, it must reinforce my contention that the people who are hunting bigfoot and who are coming up with so-called evidence are blunderers. How many different ways can one screw up and still be considered useful?

They were ranchers, not scientists.

Read Krantz.

 

[LAL]

Do you know links to any of these photos? I admit I haven't seen any stills except for the Cliff Crook one that is obviously a fake.

What Clarke and Marble Mountain footage are you speaking of? The only other decent footage I recall...in which a Bigfoot type creature is clearly visible...is the Snow Walker film, which has been exposed as a hoax.

Snow Walker was exposed by Dr. Meldrum. There's the Redwoods video, also inconclusive which can be seen here:

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/bf_video.html

I think there are stills in Green's The Apes Among Us - I haven't seen that one for awhile. I'll see what I can find online. There are some stills from Marble Mountain on the BFRO site, but remeasurement has shown the figure to be within human range. The footage can be seen on the Willow Creek Symposium 2003 DVD.

 

[LAL]

Ok, we seem to be dancing around the main issue here, arguing about this and that and whether some spurious event really happened, etc. Here's the state of play as I currently see it, cutting to the chase if you will

There is no hard evidence to support Sasquatch. None.

You can argue about people supposedly finding a Yeti finger and then it being lost in strange adventures, or about how so and so claims to have seen it, or how someone thinks that there may be lots of them around, but when it boils down to it we have a few bad movies that look like guys in hair suits and some big footprints. Thats no real evidence people, nothing but opinions and easily faked stuff that doesn't convince me one tiny bit.

Learned debate about nonsense is like multiplying by zero, not worth the time and effort as it still boils down to nothing. I think I'll be leaving this debate now until someone comes up with a dead yeti. Have fun.

I tried twice to respond to this poster on his error riddled list and twice lost the post. I've now reinstalled my AOL and hope I won't have any more errors for awhile.

Rather than going through all that again, I'll just post this:

"Existence

Arguments against

Overview

Generally, mainstream scientists and academics "discount the existence of Bigfoot because the evidence supporting belief in the survival of a prehistoric, bipedal, apelike creature of such dimensions is scant."(*) Furthermore, the issue is so muddied with dubious claims and outright hoaxes that many scientists do not give the subject serious attention.

Napier wrote that the mainstream scientific community’s disinterest stems primarily from “insufficient evidence ... it is hardly unsurprising that scientists prefer to investigate the probable rather beat their heads against the wall of the faintly possible.” (Napier, 15)

Anthropologist David Daegling echoed this idea, citing a “remarkably limited amount of Sasquatch (A collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn) data that are amenable to scientific scrutiny.” (Daegling, 61) He also suggests that mainstream skeptics should take a proactive position “to offer an alternative explanation. We have to explain why we see Bigfoot when there is no such animal.” (ibid 20)

While he does have some pointed criticism for mainstream science and academia, Krantz concedes that while ‘’The Scientific Establishment generally resists new ideas ... there is a good reason for it ... Quite simply put, new and innovative ideas in (A particular branch of scientific knowledge) science are almost always wrong.”(Krantz, 236)

Eyewitness Reports

A number of people report Bigfoot sightings, but it's been suggested such reports could easily be explained by hoaxes and confusion about what they really encountered. Similarly, Napier wrote that however accurate and sincere they might seem, “eyewitness reports must be treated with considerable caution ... Although we don’t always know what we see, we tend to see what we know.” (Napier, 19) He also adds that “without checking possible [ulterior] motivations, they [eyewitnesses] cannot be acceptable as primary data.”(ibid, 198)

Most of the areas where Bigfoot has been reported are near habitats of (Massive plantigrade carnivorous or omnivorous mammals with long shaggy coats and strong claws) bears, notably including the (Powerful brownish-yellow bear of the uplands of western North America) grizzly bear. Bears are large and furry and often stand up on their hind legs, leading to speculation that Bigfoot witnesses mistook bears for something more exotic.

Bigfoot researchers claim there are many sightings that predate the worldwide interest in the subject. It’s been suggested that such stories were either not reported until afterwards, or have little to no resemblance to typical Bigfoot sightings, suggesting that people were distorting, misinterpreting, or selectively citing these accounts to support their own conclusions.
Jerome Clark argues that the “Jacko” affair , involving an 1884 (A daily or weekly publication on folded sheets; contains news and articles and advertisements) newspaper report on an apelike creature captured in British Columbia (details below), was a hoax. Citing research by John Green, who uncovered the fact that several other contemporary British Columbia newspapers regarded the alleged capture as most dubious, Clark notes that the (Click link for more info and facts about New Westminster, British Columbia) New Westminster, British Columbia, Mainland Guardian wrote, “Absurdity is written on the face of it.” (Clark, 195)

Native American and other FolktalesBigfoot researchers frequently assert that (Any member of the peoples living in North or South America before the Europeans arrived) Native American legends have stories of Bigfoot-type creatures, arguing that these legends support Bigfoot’s actuality. Clark writes that “such beliefs are usually taken out of context and selectively cited ... Comparable monsters loom large in a number of North American Indian mythologies; they warn members of violating (A prejudice (especially in Polynesia and other South Pacific islands) that prohibits the use or mention of something because of its sacred nature) taboos and serve other, more complex functions within tribal societies.” (Clark, 28)

In “On the Cultural Track of Sasquatch”, Wayne Suttles offers a detailed examination of legends so cited from various Pacific northwest tribes, including tales from the (A member of a group of North American Indians speaking a Salishan language and living on the northwest coast of North America) Salish, (Click link for more info and facts about Lummi) Lummi, Samish and (Click link for more info and facts about Klallam) Klallam peoples. Suttles confirms the oft-repeated observation that none of the groups makes “real/mythical or natural/supernatural dichotomy”. (Sprague and Krantz, 43) Ultimately, however, Suttles concludes that rather than being inspired by a real creature, ”It seems more likely that these beliefs have grown out of several sources and have been maintained in several ways. One of the sources may have been a real man-like animal. But I must reluctantly admit that as I have presented data and organized arguments, I have found its track getting fainter and fainter.” (ibid, 71)

In (The northernmost countries of Europe) Northern Europe there was formerly a belief in ((Scandanavian folklore) a supernatural creature (either a dwarf or a giant) that is supposed to live in caves or in the mountains) trolls, which some have suggested is similar to (Large hairy humanoid creature said to live in wilderness areas of the United States and Canada) Bigfoot legends.

Daegling suggests that Sasquatch fills a basic human need for mysteries and ((medicine) a grossly malformed and usually nonviable fetus) monsters: “People don’t construct (Click link for more info and facts about website) websites devoted to the bear they saw last summer, but they do for Bigfoot.” (Daegling, 21)

Alleged Physical Evidence

The remains (or an impression) of a plant or animal that existed in a past geological age and that has been excavated from the soil) fossil record provides no support for Sasquatch. There is ample fossil evidence in (A continent (the third largest) in the western hemisphere connected to South America by the Isthmus of Panama) North America of prehistoric species of (Massive plantigrade carnivorous or omnivorous mammals with long shaggy coats and strong claws) bear, (Large American feline resembling a lion) cougar, (Large northern deer with enormous flattened antlers in the male; called elk in Europe and moose in North America) moose and (Any of numerous extinct elephants widely distributed in the Pleistocene; extremely large with hairy coats and long upcurved tusks) mammoth. Yet, aside from clearly human remains, there is no evidence of a prehistoric (A primate of the family Hominidae) hominid. No one has coproliths from a Bigfoot.

Physical evidence cited as supporting the existence of Bigfoot has been ambiguous at best, or (Something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage) hoaxes at worst. There have been no dead bodies, (Rigid connective tissue that makes up the skeleton of vertebrates) bones or artifacts. There have been reported samples of fur and (Solid excretory product evacuated from the bowels) feces, but analyses have varied widely, and none have been ruled conclusively (or by multiple authorities) as originating from any unknown animal. All reputed Bigfoot samples studied using ((biochemistry) a long linear polymer found in the nucleus of a cell and formed from nucleotides and shaped like a double helix; associated with the transmission of genetic information) DNA testing were judged to have come from common animals.

Alleged Sasquatch footprints are often cited by researchers as important evidence, but mainstream science has been generally unimpressed, citing the possibility of hoax, among other problems.

Considering how many amateur and professional researchers have been seeking Bigfoot evidence for decades, the absence of such evidence seems to some sufficient evidence that Bigfoot does not exist.

Audio and Visual EvidenceThere are (A picture of a person or scene in the form of a print or transparent slide; recorded by a camera on light-sensitive material) photos and (A form of entertainment that enacts a story by a sequence of images giving the illusion of continuous movement) motion pictures of allegedly genuine Bigfoots (as well as audiotapes of their supposed vocalizations), but critics note that these are often of poor quality, making analyses troublesome or even worthless.

At least one (Photographic material consisting of a base of celluloid covered with a photographic emulsion; used to make negatives or transparencies) film (the (Click link for more info and facts about Patterson-Gimlin film) Patterson-Gimlin film) shows something that is definitely not a bear, and this film was for a long time considered the strongest evidence for Bigfoot. Wallace claimed to have been involved in hoaxing the film, and opinions remain divided as to the film's authenticity; many experts have judged it a hoax, Napier among them. See (Click link for more info and facts about Patterson-Gimlin film) Patterson-Gimlin film for further information.

Alleged Hoaxes

Wallace claimed to have produced a substantial amount of hoaxed evidence from 1958 onward in a prank that continued beyond his expectations. Wallace's family published many of the details following his 2002 death, and critics have offered this confession as evidence against Bigfoot’s existence.

Proposed Creatures

The (A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) hypothesis that Sasquatch might be a late surviving representative of the (Click link for more info and facts about Gigantopithecus blacki) Gigantopithecus blacki is generally considered highly speculative. Rigorous studies of the existing fossilized remains seem to indicate that G. blacki is the common ancestor of two (An animal especially a mammal having four limbs specialized for walking) quadrupedal (Click link for more info and facts about genera) genera, represented by the (Fossil primates found in India) Sivapithecus and the (Large long-armed ape of Borneo and Sumatra having arboreal habits) orangutan (Pongo). Given that most scientists argue Gigatopithicus was a (An animal especially a mammal having four limbs specialized for walking) quadruped, it seems most unlikely it could be an ancestor (An animal with two feet) biped as Bigfoot is said to walk, and furthermore, it’s been argued G. blacki’s enormous mass would have made it difficult for it to adopt a bipedal gait.

Arguments for

Overview

As noted above, most mainstream experts find current evidence regarding Bigfoot unpersuasive. A number of prominent experts, however, have spoken out on the subject, offering sympathetic opinions. In a 2003 (Click link for more info and facts about Denver Post) Denver Post article, (English zoologist noted for her studies of chimpanzees in the wild (born in 1934)) Jane Goodall said, "People from very different backgrounds and different parts of the world have described very similar creatures behaving in similar ways and uttering some strikingly similar sounds ... As far as I am concerned, the existence of (A primate of the family Hominidae) hominids of this sort is a very real probability."(*)
The same article cites several other prominent scientists who have expressed at least a guarded interest in Sasquatch reports: (Click link for more info and facts about George Schaller) George Schaller, (Click link for more info and facts about Russell Mittermeier) Russell Mittermeier, (Click link for more info and facts about Daris Swindler) Daris Swindler and Esteban Sarmiento.

Coon’s “Why the Sasquatch Must Exist” was presented by the prominent anthropologist during his life, but only published after he died. He wrote that “Even before I read (Click link for more info and facts about John Green) John Green’s book ‘Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us’, [first published in 1973] I accepted Sasquatch’s existence.” (Markotic and Krantz, p46) Coon examines the question from several angles, stating he is confident only in ruling out a (Geological feature that is a remnant of a pre-existing formation after other parts have disappeared) relict (Extinct robust human of Middle Paleolithic in Europe and western Asia) Neanderthal population as a viable candidate for Sasquatch reports.

As noted above, Napier generally argued against Bigfoot’s reality. But he also argued that some “soft evidence”--eyewitnesses, footprints, hair and droppings--is compelling enough that he advises against “dismissing its reality out of hand.” (Napier, 197)

The late (Click link for more info and facts about Grover Krantz) Grover Krantz suggested that most academics who contend Bigfoot does not exist lack even a passing familiarity with the small body of serious scholarly work on the subject, and have not examined available evidence, some of which, Krantz contended, was very persuasive. Supporters have argued this constitutes a (A partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation) bias on the part of many academics who have chosen to ignore or minimize the serious efforts of many qualified experts.

Similarly, Daegling writes that “It is a fair point echoed across the board by the advocates; the scientific establishment seems to reject Bigfoot (An automatic instinctive unlearned reaction to a stimulus) reflexively without so much as feigning an interest in examining the evidence.”(Daegling, 61)

Krantz and others have argued that a (An ethical or moral code that applies more strictly to one group than to another) double standard is applied by many academics to Sasquatch studies: When a claim is made or evidence is presented alleging that Sasquatch is genuine, enormous scrutiny is applied to the claim or evidence, as well it should be. Yet when individuals claim to have hoaxed Bigfoot evidence, their claims are often quickly accepted, though they typically lack corroborative evidence.

In 2004, Henry Gee, editor of the prestigious (The complex of emotional and intellectual attributes that determine a person's characteristic actions and reactions) Nature, wrote of an unexpected discovery, that "The discovery that (Click link for more info and facts about Homo floresiensis) Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as (Large hairy humanoid creature said to live in the Himalayas) yetis are founded on grains of truth ... Now, (Click link for more info and facts about cryptozoology) cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold" (*).

Eyewitness Reports

Some cryptozoologists have argued the most persuasive (Evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute) circumstantial evidence for Bigfoot's existence is a high number—possibly thousands—of credible eyewitness reports from individuals who claim to have clearly seen creatures they describe as large, bipedal and apelike. See List of Notable Bigfoot Sightings or Reports.

The vast majority of Sasquatch reports are generated from areas that are low in human population densities. In addition, most reports are made near rivers, creeks or lakes, and from areas where annual rainfall exceeds twenty inches (500 mm). Researchers point out that these common factors among most sightings indicate patterns of a living species occupying an ((ecology) the status of an organism within its environment and community (affecting its survival as a species)) ecological niche, as opposed to hoaxed sightings.
Krantz noted these same points, and offered a detailed proposal for Sasquatch (The branch of biology concerned with the relations between organisms and their environment) ecology and social behaviour. (Krantz, 158-171)

As noted above, critics have suggested that people have mistaken bears for Bigfoot. Some Bigfoot witnesses, however, include experienced hunters and outdoorsmen who claim to be familiar with bears, and report the creature they saw was not a bear. Biologist John Bindernagel argues there are marked differences between bears and Sasquatch reports that make confusion unlikely: "In profile, the bear's prominent snout is markedly different from the Sasquatch flat face. In front view, the Sasquatch squarish shoulders contrast with the bear's tapered shoulders. The Sasquatch has relatively long legs that allow for a graceful stride, in contrast with the short-legged shuffles of a bear when it walks on its hind legs. A bear's ears are usually visible, while the Sasquatch apparently are hidden under long hair."(*) Krantz made similar arguments. (Krantz, 5)

Native American Accounts

As noted above, it’s been argued that Bigfoot researchers are distorting or misinterpreting (Any member of the peoples living in North or South America before the Europeans arrived) Native American accounts in their search for early evidence supporting Bigfoot’s reality. Researchers typically argue that such folktales should not be taken literally, but rather should serve as guideposts. In folklore, such putative Sasquatch are often attributed supernatural powers, but this does not necessarily mean the tales should be discredited, as many common animals in Native American legends are attributed supernatural powers, and furthermore, Native American legends frequently make no distinction between natural and (Supernatural forces and events and beings collectively) supernatural.

Similarly, "Some Bigfoot hunters believe that the creature's earliest history can be found in ancient Native American legends, particularly in the tales of the Witiko, or (Click link for more info and facts about Wendigo) Wendigo, a giant spirit-beast from the lore of the (A member of any of the North American Indian groups speaking an Algonquian language and originally living in the subarctic regions of eastern Canada; many Algonquian tribes migrated south into the woodlands from the Mississippi River to the Atlantic coast) Algonquin tribe." (*).

A 1924 (Click link for more info and facts about Seattle Times) Seattle Times story titled “Clue to ‘ (Largest anthropoid ape; terrestrial and vegetarian; of forests of central west Africa) Gorilla Men’ found, may be lost Race of Giants“ reports on a legend of the "Seeahtik", a (Click link for more info and facts about Clallam) Clallam word for what are described as creatures “seven to eight feet tall” with “have hairy bodies like the bear”. The Seeahtik are attributed (Supernatural forces and events and beings collectively) supernatural powers, and were presumed to have recently become (Click link for more info and facts about extinct) extinct or nearly so.(*)

Native American ArtifactsThere are various Native American artifacts cited as compelling (Evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute) circumstantial evidence for the actuality of Sasquatch.

Stone Heads

Pyle writes that “Certain artifacts suggest that some Amerindians were acquainted with ‘’something’’ having the visage of an (Any of various primates with short tails or no tail at all) ape.” Pyle cites “several carved stone heads from the (A North American river; rises in southwestern Canada and flows southward across Washington to form the border between Washington and Oregon before emptying into the Pacific; known for its salmon runs in the spring) Columbia River basin,” (Pyle, p146) Pyle also notes that prominent paleontologist (Click link for more info and facts about Othniel Charles Marsh) Othniel Charles Marsh wrote in 1877 that “Among the many stone carvings [from the Columbia] were a number of heads, which so strongly resemble those of apes that the likeness at once presents itself.” (ibid)

Furthermore, Pyle notes that the stone carvings are prehistoric (a conclusion supported by B. Robert Butler, who determined the heads dated from Wakemap Middle Period, 1500 BC to AD (Click link for more info and facts about 200) 200 (Halpin and Ames, 299) depicting “prognathous, chinless faces with heavy brow ridges and in at least one case a sagittal crest.” Pyle adds that such “relics do not prove that Bigfoot exists or that they [natives] had contact with apes, but they do raise some uncomfortable questions.”(Ibid, 146)

These artifacts are discussed at length by anthropologist (Click link for more info and facts about Roderick Sprague) Roderick Sprague in “Carved Stone Heads of the Columbia and Sasquatch”. Dozens of similar stone heads were recovered, and most depict common animals. Sprague examines seven carved heads which he argues have distinctively monkey- or ape-like features. Like Pyle, Sprague notes this does not necessarily support Bigfoot’s actuality, but Sprague sees the question of what inspired the carved stone heads as intriguing and unresolved.

Face MasksAnthropologist and ethnologist Marjorie Halpin’s paper, “The Tsimshian Monkey Masks and Sasquatch” describes two wood facemasks collected from the Niska tribe. One, obtained by Lieutenant G.T. Eammons in about 1914, and another, obtained by C.M. Barbes in 1927.

Eammons described the artifact as depicting “a mythical being found in the (The trees and other plants in a large densely wooded area) woods and called today as a (Any of various long-tailed primates (excluding the prosimians)) monkey.” (cited in Haplin and Ames, 211) Halpin reports that (Click link for more info and facts about physical anthropolgist) physical anthropolgist R.D.E. MacPhee examined the Eammes mask, and noted it had both monkey- and ape-like features, but could not match it exactly to any recognized species. (ibid, 212) Halpin details the elaborate folklore and rites related to the masks regarding a creature called “pi’kis”, which has both human and animal traits (especially connected to (Freshwater carnivorous mammal having webbed and clawed feet and dark brown fur) otters) , describing the legendary creature as occupying a “dangerously close intersection between human and animal” in native lore. (ibid, 225) As with the carved stone heads, Halpin notes these monkey-like masks alone do not prove Sasquatch is real; rather, they are curious artifacts which warrant further investigation.

Alleged Physical Evidence

Absence of

The remains (or an impression) of a plant or animal that existed in a past geological age and that has been excavated from the soil) fossilized evidence is not evidence of fossil absence. Sasquatch is not represented in the fossil record, but neither are (Largest anthropoid ape; terrestrial and vegetarian; of forests of central west Africa) gorillas and (Intelligent somewhat arboreal ape of equatorial African forests) chimpanzees. Coleman and Patrick Huyghe note that “no one will look for such fossils, if the creatures involved are not thought to exist in the first place. But even with recognized (Any placental mammal of the order Primates; has good eyesight and flexible hands and feet) primates, fossil finds are usually meager at best.”(Coleman and Huyhge, 162)

Regarding the lack of Bigfoot remains, Krantz suggested this alone is not a valid argument against the creature’s actuality. He noted that most animals hide before they die and are then quickly lost to (Any animal that feeds on refuse and other decaying organic matter) scavengers, writing that “I have yet to meet anyone who has found the remains of a (Massive plantigrade carnivorous or omnivorous mammals with long shaggy coats and strong claws) bear that was not killed by human activity.”(Krantz, 10)

Footprints

(A picture of a person or scene in the form of a print or transparent slide; recorded by a camera on light-sensitive material) Photographs or plaster casts of presumed Sasquatch footprints are often cited by cryptozoologist as important evidence.

Krantz writes that “the push-off mound in midfootprint is one of the most impressive pieces of evidence to me.” (Krantz, 36) This is a small mound of soil created “by a horizontal push of the forefoot just before it leaves the ground” present in some alleged Sasquatch tracks (Ibid) Krantz argues that neither artificial wood nor rubber Sasquatch feet can create this convincing feature.

Krantz notes that “The comfortable walking step for humans is about half the individual’s standing height, or a trace more. Sasquatch step measurements correspond, in general, to stature estimates that are reported from sightings.” (Krantz, 22) Krantz also reports that reputed Sasquatch steps are “in excess of three feet” (Krantz, 21), arguing this enormous step would be difficult or impossible for hoaxers to create artificially.

Coleman and Clark write that there are some footprint hoaxes, but argue they are often clumsy in comparison to presumably genuine prints which “show distinctive (Click link for more info and facts about forensic) forensic features that to investigators indicate they are not fakes”. (Coleman and Clark, 42) Similarly, Krantz notes that “Toe positions can and do vary from one imprint to another of the same foot. We have several clear examples of this. It is my impression that sasquatch toes are more mobile than those on civilized human feet”, and that hoaxing this detail would require detailed anatomical knowledge, making a hoax unlikely. (Krantz, 23)

Researcher Henry Franzoni writes that “A strong piece of evidence which suggests that the footprints are not a due to a hoax or hoaxers is from Dr. W. Henner Farenbach. He has studied a database 550 track cast length measurements and has made some preliminary observations ... The (Click link for more info and facts about gaussian) gaussian distribution of the 550 footprint lengths gives a curve that is very similar to the curve given by living populations of known animals without much (Click link for more info and facts about sexual dimorphism) sexual dimorphism in footprint length. The standard error is very low, so additions to the database will not affect the result very much. It is not very likely that coordinated groups of hoaxers conspiring together for 38 years (the time span covered by the database of track measurements) could provide such a ‘life-like’ distribution in footprint lengths. Groups of hoaxers who did not conspire together would almost certainly result in a non-gaussian distribution for the database of footprint lengths.“ (*)

Similarly, in “Population Clines of the North American Sasquatch as Evidenced by Track Length and Average Status, anthropologist George Gill writes that “The preliminary results of our study support the hypothesis that Sasquatch actually exists ... not only seem to exist, but confirm to ecogeographical rules.”(Halpin and Ames, 272)

A series of alleged Bigfoot tracks found near Bossburg, Washington, in 1969 appeared to show the creature's right foot was (Click link for more info and facts about crippled) crippled. The deformed footprints are consistent with genuine disfigurement, and some argue that a hoax is unlikely. (Scottish mathematician who invented logarithms; introduced the use of the decimal point in writing numbers (1550-1617)) John Napier wrote of this case that "It is very difficult to conceive of a hoaxer so subtle, so knowledgeable — and so sick — who would deliberately fake a footprint of this nature. I suppose it is possible, but it is so unlikely that I am prepared to discount it".(*) Krantz declares that “analysis of the apparent anatomy of these tracks proved to be the first convincing evidence ... that the animals were real.” (Krantz, 54)

Hand PrintsKrantz has cited as persuasive two alleged Sasquatch handprints taken from northeastern Washington in the summer of 1970. The prints were of a left hand, showing a very broad, flat palm (more than twice as broad as Krantz’ own larger-than-average hands) with stubby fingers, lacking an (Click link for more info and facts about opposable thumb) opposable thumb. Krantz writes that the prints have “many irregularities ... which cannot be identified in terms of human anatomy.”(Sprague and Krantz, 118)

Another pair of handprints were recovered in the late (The decade from 1980 to 1989) 1980s by (Click link for more info and facts about Paul Freeman) Paul Freeman and given to Krantz for analysis; for similar reasons, Krantz judged them genuine. (Krantz, 47-51)

FingerprintsKrantz has cited several Sasquatch hand and footprints containing dermal ridges ( (Biometric identification from a print made by an impression of the ridges in the skin of a finger; often used as evidence in criminal investigations) fingerprints), which are present only on humans and other primates. Krantz reports that he offered casts of these prints to "more than forty" law enforcement fingerprints specialists across Canada and the United States. Krantz describes their reactions as ranging from "'very interesting' and 'they sure look real' to 'there is no doubt these are real.' The only exception was the (A federal law enforcement agency that is the principal investigative arm of the Department of Justice) Federal Bureau of Investigation expert who said approximately, 'The implications of this are just too much; I can’t believe it’s real.'"(Krantz, 71)
Krantz offered these same casts to physical anthropologists and primatologists. Conclusions were similarly varied, with several quickly ruling them hoaxes after only a quick examination before returning the best cast to Krantz, "as though it might be (Click link for more info and facts about contagious) contagious."(ibid) Notable was Tim White of the (A univeristy in Berkeley, California) University of California at Berkeley "found no good reason to reject them."(ibid) Opinion remains divided, however, with suggestions that the man who "discovered" the prints had confessed to other hoaxes (*).

One of the casts with visible fingerprints showed (Condensation of moisture on a cold surface) sweat pores. Krantz reports that "police expert Benny Kling ... commented that anyone who could engrave ridge detail of such quantity and quality should be making (A copy that is represented as the original) counterfeit money."(Krantz, 77) This same print showed displayisa, a common minor irregularity. Krantz writes that "The late Robert Olson was particularly impressed with this irregularity, as was Ed Palma of the (A picturesque city of southern California on San Diego Bay near the Mexican border; site of an important naval base) San Diego Police Department." (ibid)

Overall, however, Krantz was disappointed by the mixed responses regarding the dermal ridges, reinforcing his conclusion that only a (The original specimen from which the description of a new species is made) holotype would persuade professionals that Bigfoot is real.

Body CastThe so-called (Click link for more info and facts about Skookum Body Cast) Skookum Body Cast was collected in the summer of 2000, and researchers argue it could be the impression of a Sasquatch. Prominent primate expert (Click link for more info and facts about Daris Swindler) Daris Swindler said that “in my opinion the impression is not made by a (Distinguished from Bovidae by the male's having solid deciduous antlers) deer, a (Massive plantigrade carnivorous or omnivorous mammals with long shaggy coats and strong claws) bear or an (Large northern deer with enormous flattened antlers in the male; called elk in Europe and moose in North America) elk nor was it made artificially. The Skookum body cast is that of an unknown (A primate of the superfamily Hominoidea) hominoid (Any placental mammal of the order Primates; has good eyesight and flexible hands and feet) primate.”(*)

Hair and FecesThere have been analyses of purported Sasquatch (Dense growth of hairs covering the body or parts of it (as on the human head); helps prevent heat loss) hair and (Solid excretory product evacuated from the bowels) feces. Some were deemed hoaxes, and more came from common animals. A few seemed more puzzling: Coon reported that Stephen Irosen of the (Click link for more info and facts about University of Maryland) University of Maryland examined alleged Sasquatch hairs recovered from Washington state, declaring the hair “as being that of an unknown primate--and he has hair on file from most living primates of the world.”(Markotic and Krantz, 48)

In “Analysis of Feces and Hair Suspected to be of Sasquatch Origin”, Anthropologist Vaughn M. Bryant Jr. and Ecologist Burleigh Trevor-Deutch report the analysis of six alleged Bigfoot hairs recovered near (Click link for more info and facts about Riggins, Idaho) Riggins, Idaho. Roy Pinker, a police science instructor at (Click link for more info and facts about California State University, Los Angeles) California State University, Los Angeles, determined that “the hairs did not match specimens from any known animal species and that they had some characteristics common to both humans and nonhumans.”(Halpin and Ames, 296)

Audio and Visual EvidenceArguments have been made that the (Click link for more info and facts about Patterson-Gimlin film) Patterson-Gimlin film depicts a genuine creature; Krantz, for one, expressed this view, and Pyle, while not endorsing the film as authentic, writes that it “has never been convincingly debunked.”(Pyle, 208) See (Click link for more info and facts about Patterson-Gimlin film) Patterson-Gimlin film for further information.

Analyses of purported Sasquatch vocalizations have been recorded and analyzed, leading (Click link for more info and facts about bioacoustics) bioacoustics expert Dr. Robert Benson of (Click link for more info and facts about Texas A&M University) Texas A&M University to report that some recordings "left him puzzled," and helped change his opinion "from being a raving (Someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs) skeptic to being curiously receptive".(*)

Alleged HoaxesSasquatch researchers have noted a difference between suggesting that something ‘’might’’ be the result of a hoax, and stating flatly that something ‘’is’’ the result of a hoax. Many mainstream skeptics frequently declare that Sasquatch reports-especially footprints--are hoaxes, but rarely do they test or demonstrate a specific method or mechanism that would produce results consistent with initially offered evidence.

Regarding supposedly hoaxed Sasquatch footprints, primatologist John Napier acknowledges that there have been some hoaxes, but also writes that hoaxing is often an inadequate explanation: "We must be prepared to accept the existence of a (A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)) conspiracy of (A crime syndicate in the United States; organized in families; believed to have important relations to the Sicilian Mafia) Mafia-like ramifications with cells in practically every major township from (A port in western California near the Golden Gate that is one of the major industrial and transportation centers; it has one of the world's finest harbors; site of the Golden Gate Bridge) San Francisco to (A port city in southwestern British Columbia on an arm of the Pacific Ocean opposite Vancouver Island; Canada's chief Pacific port and third largest city) Vancouver. Even if we accept the (A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)) conspiracy angle there is still another hurdle to be jumped. How could footprints of such realism and functional consistency have been made? Rubber-latex molds bonded to a boot or shoe might explain how the footprints are reproduced, but the mechanical problems would be immense, particularly when it is borne in mind that the hoaxer would have to walk considerable distances over difficult terrain wearing such unwieldy contraptions. There is also the problem that footprints are found in conditions where an ordinary man is too light to make any impressions in the (The substance acted upon by an enzyme or ferment) substrate. However, it is not impossible that some of the footprints were made in this way."(*)
(Pyle characterizes Napier’s argument on this more directly: Napier “concluded that a hoax sufficient to explain the facts was even more unlikely than the animal itself.”(Pyle, 186)

Similarly, Krantz argues that hoaxing does not explain the vast majority of Bigfoot prints: “The first and most obvious problem with this is the sheer number of tracks that are known to have been found, and the number of them that can be estimated to have occurred ... the supposed fakers would have to spend the vast majority of their time driving, riding and hiking from one location to another. (This also ignores the difficulty of people putting tracks in many places without leaving evidence of their own presence.) ... the skeptics must ((logic) a proposition that is accepted as true in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning) postulate a well-organized team of one-thousand people, working full-time, who are spread all over North America with their greatest concentration in Pacific Northwest.” If not a small, well-organized group, Krantz estimates “something like 100,000 casual hoaxers” would be required to explain the footprints. (Krantz, 32-34)

As noted above, Ray Wallace claimed to have begun the modern Bigfoot phenomenon in 1958 by using phony foot casts to leave “Bigfoot” prints in Humbolt County, California; Wallace’s family received major press attention in 2002 when they detailed what they said were Wallace’s claims. The family's claims have been disputed, however. One writer argues, for example, that "The wooden track stompers shown to the media by the Wallace family do not match photos of the 1958 tracks they claim their father made. They are different foot shapes." (*)"

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/B/Bi/Bigfoot.htm

 

[LAL]

Are there two patterson films?

Here is a clip from the stabilized version..

The left knee is clearly locked..

If you step through the film frame by frame, the knees lock throughout...

Pointing out this discrepancy doesn't invalidate all the obsevations, but it does show that your so called analyzation is flawed..

Lock or merely straighten? Have you seen the computer analysis? Or were you the one too busy laughing at the clip to see anything other than a man floating around in an ape suit?

 

[LAL]

Welcome to squatchland, Kenny. I think you've got it nicely condensed.

Erroneously, of course, but don't let that deter you. I would condense it even further.

The pro side has reached an acceptance that they probably exist based on the evidence.

The con side "knows" they can't exist, therefore they dismiss all the evidence.

As for the motion triggered cameras, etc. there's a part of this thread nearer the beginning dealing with a bizarrely unfortunate attempt to strap some cameras to trees, which mysteriously fell down, and mention of some other expert attempting a blind with plastic lensed webcams or something like that. Make of it what you will, and take your pick of criticisms or excuses for the lack of better evidence.

Did you miss the part about how long he's been monitoring that area? There's film of him finding some old, weathered tracks on a sandbar on A&E's Bigfoot. Some folks are out doing the research while others sit home and scoff. I'm watching that thread.

I have consistently maintained that after this many years of searching by this many "experts," the two most likely explanations for the paucity of evidence are that bigfoot does not exist and/or that the people hunting for it are incompetent. As you may have guessed, this opinion is emphatically not shared by LAL, who believes that bigfoot is out there and that the people searching are doing a good job, but are hampered by bad luck, poor funding and lack of support from the scientific community.

There's no paucity of evidence. There does seem to be a paucity of information getting to the public.

 

[LAL]

Cons

1. The one semi-decent film is gone and unable to be scrutinised

It was scrutinized in the sixties. On page 48 of Christopher Murphy's Meet the Sasquatch is a photo of a Bluff Creek footprint taken from the second roll. Seems Patterson gave about 10' of this roll to Dahinden and this was used in early documentaries. He goes on to say the rest of this roll is missing. I've read on BFF that an original roll is safe somewhere, but I'm not sure which one was being referred to.

2. No physical evidence exists besides footprints which vary widely in size and even shape.

Wrong. There's an excellent photo of the Skookum (2/3 body imprint) Cast in Murphy's book. Coyote tracks are visible, but there are clearly no elk tracks on that imprint.

Footprints of a living population should vary widely in size and shape. Ours do.

3. Evolutionary evidence is against it (no primates in N.America)

Wrong again, but no one's claiming they evolved in NA anyway.

4. Associates of the film-makers now claim to have helped fake it.

Heironimus was a neighbor, nothing more. De Atley, Roger's brother-in-law and business partner, has said he thought Roger pulled a hoax, but he didn't mind making money off it, has not given any indication of having been in on it or an explanation of how it could have been done. He believes in God, though.

5. Frankly amazing ability of 3-metre tall primates numbering several thousand to almost completely stay hidden in North America.

Keyword is "almost". If they were completely hidden, we wouldn't have thousands of credible reports and some films would we?

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Thank you for the quick education LAL, certainly food for thought in there. I'll have to install RealPlayer in order to check out the footage in the website mentioned a few posts above, and to see your good self in action too, I notice.

I do my utmost to keep an open mind and only go on the facts, the real evidence, and information such as you have provided helps to clear certain things up but also raises several more questions. There's no doubt pretty much every one of us here would dearly love to see Bigfoot proven to be real, but I dont want that to get in the way of my impartiality, and lord knows there's a real lack of that in todays society in general and the internet in particular.

Eyewitnesses
Last night, just after my last post where I decided that there wasn't much that would influence me further, I was called out to work at 1.30 in the morning due to a power failure at the refinery where I tend the computer network. Travelling down the twisting country backroads lined with woods in the middle of a moonless night I began to see Bigfoot lurking behind every tree, in every shadow, half expecting something to come lumbering into my headlights at any moment. Utter nonsense of course, only rabbits leapt out to dice with death, but it did make me see how many eyewitness testimonies and completely honest reports by people could be the work of a tired, overactive or primed mind. I think although there are potentially thousands of eyewitness reports, they have to be at the bottom of the heap when it comes to reliable evidence, rough pointers only to what might be really there.

Footprints
When I mentioned the diffrerent shapes and sizes of footprint I wasn't so much meaning that all Bigfoot must have the same size foot, but that some of the casts and prints displayed as Bigfoot tracks seem to have 3 massively elongated toes and others are basically very large human-like feet. I think if they're introducing a 3-toed variant then that's got to be something else entirely, perhaps a descendant of the giant 3-toed Sloths that once were common. It's certainly cant be a Bigfoot-bigfoot, and I feel it muddies the case somewhat. One amazing and undiscovered species is almost plausible, but several species seems to be stretching things a little.

Yeti/Alma/Sasquatch/Yerren
This is the aspect of the Bigfoot debate that keeps me wondering, keeps me questioning just how real these things might be. How is it that a creature so massive and human-like can be cropping up across the globe in similar climates and conditions, being spotted and described by a variety of cultures, and yet still no real evidence exists? On the one hand I need someone in the 'against' camp to explain to me how diverse peoples in lands around the globe are seeing and describing very similar creatures. Is it some cultural thing common to all people, like spirits and so forth? Is it that these habitats are all home to similar bears and so forth that are often mistaken for Bigfoot? Anyone got any ideas or theories on tap?

On the other hand I think the paucity of solid proof is made even more of a problem for the believer camp by the fact that this is not merely a phenomenon confined to one geographical area. If these creatures truly are so common and spread so far, why is there still no hard evidence? If they've been around for so long and in such a wide range surely we'd have something from somewhere by now? The burden of proof for Bigfoot has to lie with those who believe in it, since logically we cannot prove it's non-existance conclusively, yet with all the sightings, believers and researchers on the lookout we still have nothing more than plastercasts and blurry video.

 

[bruto]

They were out to film a documentary, remember? There was plenty of film for the encounter they had. The story I read originally said they went to find tracks to film for the documentary, many of which had been found in that area over years.

A documentary.. Oh yes, as in " But Roger was trying to make a Bigfoot documentary at that time and most such documentaries contain re-enactments by someone wearing a fur suit?" So, since we're giving old Roger the benefit of the doubt, and presuming for the moment that he either didn't rent the suit or left it home that day, did they film any tracks? Or did they, as you said before, film scenery? In an earlier post I think you said they ran out of film because they only had two minutes left at the time of the encounter, and this is one of the reasons they were unable to film the tracks after the encounter, and they or someone else came back to cast them on a following day. Is this now not the story? Did they NOT run out of film?


There's no missing footage.

So there is somewhere a seven minute, two-reel version of the film P&G took that day? Or is there not? If there is not, then it's missing, right?

The original reel showing the animal was examined in 1967. It was not tampered with and there are several first generation copies.

Examined by whom? Who saw both reels and all their contents? In what manner is it known from the first generation copies that the original was not spliced? Where are the originals now? In another post, you take critics to task for suggesting a rented monkey suit because a receipt cannot be found, and "Wouldn't you save such an important item, especially after all the publicity the film got?" But not to save the original film is presumably just normal for this sort of operation. If you trust the integrity of the people involved, so be it, but in that case to throw out the rest of the film was a bonehead move.



They were ranchers, not scientists.

Well, that's the understatement of the month.

Read Krantz. [/B]

If I ever see a copy around cheap or free I'll be sure to do so. But for now, I'm afraid, bigfoot is just not worth the price of admission. When a real one is really found for sure, I'll read it in the paper.