Bigfoot Makes the List
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on January 24th, 2007
On Monday, LiveScience published their Top 10 List of Unexplained Phenomena.
Bigfoot made the list at #2.
Bigfoot #2
For decades, large, hairy, manlike beasts called Bigfoot have occasionally been reported by eyewitnesses across America. Despite the thousands of Bigfoot that must exist for a breeding population, not a single body has been found. Not one has been killed by a hunter, struck dead by a speeding car, or even died of natural causes. In the absence of hard evidence like teeth or bones, support comes down to eyewitness sightings and ambiguous photos and films. Since it is logically impossible to prove a universal negative, science will never be able to prove that creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster do not exist, and it is possible that these mysterious beasts lurk far from prying eyes.LiveScience
And what photo was used for the article? Why that photo of the Bigfoot charging Tom Biscardi’s old buddy, Ivan Marx.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
That list is completely worthless anyway. The Taos hum over ghosts, how dumb.
And who says that:
“… . Not one has been killed by a hunter, struck dead by a speeding car, or even died of natural causes. …”
We just know of none. Maybe a hunter or two has shot one and only then come to terms with the price of fame and wound up shoveling (or not) and shutting up. Maybe there have been some collisions that didn’t get reported. (“Yeah, I know, pretty bad, but when you hit a Bigfoot, this is what happens…”) And I think I can do without yet another paranormal assertion. They don’t die, eh?
It’s become a stock line of mine that if you tell me the animal doesn’t exist, your reasoning will include at least four basic errors of ignorance in the first 30 seconds. I won’t go into detail, but I see three here, and that could be said in far less than 30 seconds. And no, my paragraph above is not the dismissal argument. It’s just clarifying — as one frequently needs to do with skeptics — that our not happening across it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
But I will say this. Other than the P/G film, that photo is one of the best ones out there. And yes, that’s a comment on what’s out there.
“In the absence of hard evidence like teeth or bones…”
And yeah, it gets frustrating what happens to all this hair and bone (and now tooth) that people find. What DOES happen to that stuff!? Another thread here discusses the poor tooth finder who got exploited by a tabloid. He exploited the tabloid if that tooth isn’t what he says it is. And that should be easy to determine. “Unknown primate” is as close as one can get with any evidence before confirmation of a species. Why can’t we consistently get there? Folks ARE finding stuff. The disappearance of that stuff is Just Plain Weird.
Let’s give ’em credit, though. They didn’t dismiss it. And many people say just what they said, and then dismiss it.
Wow! If that is the best photo they could find, no wonder they don’t believe it exists. That is the first time I have seen this photo, and it looks like someone in a bad suit wearing a ten gallon hat.
DWA, I knew this one would get you worked up the second I read it! lol! I was goint to write something like pretty much everything you said and then I read your post. Another thing, lets remember that a lot of known animals were known by only sightings and had a lack of evidence at first as well. Some of the big ones were the orangutan, the gorilla, and the okapi to name just a few. I am not convinced Bigfoot is real, but neither am I convinced that the lack of a body or clear photos means that they are not real. This article flatly states that not one has been killed or has even died of natural causes. If they exist, then of course they have died of natural causes, but perhaps we just have not found where the corpses are. And DWA is right to say that there have been none killed by a hunter or hit by a car that we know of but that doesn’t mean that there is no way it could ever have happened. As has been said before, absence of evidence does not neccesarily equate to evidence of absence. I think just the amount of eyewitness sightings alone make it worth at least looking into Bigfoot to see what is going on. And another thing, although photographic evidence is inconsistent, I think this particular photo is not one of the better ones out there.
DWA: Ah, yes. This attitude always brings to my mind the famous quote from William Cowper: “Absence of proof is not proof of absence”.
mystery_man:
why don’t you just LIBEL ME! I NEVER GET WORKED UP!!!!!!! ABOUT ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[takes moment to chew tree]
OK [burp], back.
But, yeah. (Oh. I hope no one thinks that I believe the photo above is a sasquatch. The proportions give it away before anything else does. Ape suit. Or the guy needs a full-body shave. But at least the clarity is right up there with other ape suit photos.)
But if there’s a point mystery_man emphasizes that’s so important it can’t be overemphasized….WORKED UP coming here….it’s that we’ve spent too long analyzing the wrong things in the sas hunt. And that’s why we still are where we still are. I’ve read a ton of sighting reports (stop me if I’ve said that before). And mm is right that all by themselves, the sighting reports are evidence demanding scientific attention. (The P/G film alone should have been.) The tracks have been analyzed enough to show the one essential point: an unknown animal is a plausible explanation. Here’s all else I need to know: the scientific pronouncement, which has been made, that despite the lack of definitive proof, the sheer volume of trackways defies a reasonable hoax scenario. Sure, they could be faked. But WERE they is the question. Show me how they all — or even a substantial portion — WERE.
If you can’t do that, welcome aboard! The sighting reports are compelling. The consistency among them is remarkable; their clarity riveting; and the overall picture of an animal not at all like the lumbering, knuckle-dragging, mass-media Bigfoot.
WHAT IS THAT ANIMAL, and where is it? That is what we should be focusing on. Of the top 10 mysteries listed, this one is both the most amenable to a scientific exploration and the one with the most consistent experiences, given the evidence, to the widest range of people.
Let’s find out. Prints are great. Now, look for the animal.
I thought it was a pretty fair assessment of Bigfoot, given the brevity of the piece.
I should, however, correct the faulty logic noted here:
“DWA is right to say that there have been none killed by a hunter or hit by a car that we know of but that doesn’t mean that there is no way it could ever have happened.”
Of course it COULD have happened…but that has nothing to do with anything and is a logical red herring. It’s also POSSIBLE that Beckjord is right and Bigfoot is an extradimensional being. But there’s no good evidence that’s true, just as there’s no good evidence that any Bigfoot have been killed by a hunter or a car. This quoted statement is irrelevant to the piece above, which is 100% correct.
“As has been said before, absence of evidence does not neccesarily equate to evidence of absence.”
True enough, but this has nothing to do with the comment above; the writer very clearly did NOT write that the fact that no Bigfoot bodies have been found was proof that they did not exist.
DWA is confusing the issue with a logical fallacy of what is called a “straw man argument,” falsely suggesting that the writer claimed something he did not.
I never actually asserted that the writer said anything but that there’s an unsolved mystery.
I did point out the logical errors the writer made. (Not sure you can say, for example, that an animal of whose existence you have no knowledge has never diied of natural causes, just that there is not any evidence of one.) Those logical errors are critical to the mystery getting as little attention as it should be getting. They’re certainly not irrelevant. If, that is, the point is solving the mystery.
“I did point out the logical errors the writer made. (Not sure you can say, for example, that an animal of whose existence you have no knowledge has never diied of natural causes, just that there is not any evidence of one.)”
The logical error is yours, not the writer’s. Of course statements are limited by knowledge, this is common sense, not a logical error. If one says, “There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” or “My mother is in Oklahoma,” that means that all the evidence shows that those statements are true.
It does not assume omniscience (knowing everything); it is POSSIBLE that somewhere in Iraq WMDs do exist that haven’t been found, and it’s POSSIBLE that at this exact moment my mother is not in Oklahoma (she may be on a trip somewhere), but all the available evidence suggests that the original statements are true.
This is pretty basic stuff, but apparently needs explaining.
Oh, I see what needs explaining. Here it is:
“Not one has been killed by a hunter, struck dead by a speeding car, or even died of natural causes.”
That’s a simple declarative sentence. So someone knows this. It would be good to know who knows this. Because if this is known, then Bigfoot’s not a real animal (unless somehow every one that’s died has gone from other than ‘natural causes’).
But of course, no one knows this. Sounds like a logical error to me.
I could get into the factual ignorance these so-called arguments against display, but it should be self-evident. They might convince your typical suburban potluck, but they’re full of holes to anyone who’s spent a lot of time outside.
Anyway, a long-term expedition could come up with proof. Which is better than what the current approach is coming up with.
And let’s remember what mystery_man said:
“Another thing, lets remember that a lot of known animals were known by only sightings and had a lack of evidence at first as well. Some of the big ones were the orangutan, the gorilla, and the okapi to name just a few.”
True. The coelacanth didn’t even have a sighting, unless one counts fossils. Many species had NOTHING in the way of evidence in ANYONE’s hands before discovery. That kind of discovery is still happening; the past year’s news was full of them.
Sighting reports are where science needs to focus now. The truth lies in that direction. Unless one is satisfied with a final conclusion of “possible unknown primate, possible hoax.” Or thinks that praying to hit the lottery is the essence of science.
A few more points:
1. Saying that the sasquatch “probably” doesn’t exist is jumping to a conclusion, something a true skeptic never does. What is that probability, and how in the name of The Great I Am did you calculate it? I have it at the correct probability: 50-50. Either it does, or it doesn’t. There is no rational way to pronounce one way or another. (Remember, class, DWA’s First Rule of Existence: it exists — or not — INDEPENDENT OF WHAT YOU THINK.)
1a. Meaning of the above, if you missed it: the “skeptical” take on the sas is an IRRATIONAL position, not supported by the evidence. In other words, it’s a belief, like that in the Easter Bunny.
2. Proponents are following evidence to a conclusion down the road. “Skeptics” — which we have just seen are not — are taking enormous swathes of evidence, including some of the most compelling evidence, visual encounters, thousands of them, by reliable witnesses with no earthly reason to make this up, and simply canning them. (They’re not? Then what are they doing with them? Not debunking them, and not investigating them. They say something like, we do NOT dismiss sightings! …and then the sightings are never mentioned again.)
3. It is totally reasonable to presume that sas sighting reports represent the tip of a very large iceberg. Remember, this is an animal that, if you’ve seen it, you’re a NUT. Given the number of sighting reports, it’s reasonable to believe that more people are seeing the sasquatch than are seeing many — even most — wild North American animals science has confirmed. Exclusive of those inured to humans. (YOU seen a cougar lately? How about a wolverine? An aplodontia? A shrew-mole?) But I’m a skeptic, and I can’t presume that. So I’m still at 50-50.
4. Who’s looking like true believers now? Just asking.
Hey “skeptics.” Stop using our name; it might be libel. Besides, what fun is believing in nothing for no rational reason? Come join us. Cryptos just wanna have fun. Look at this site! REAL skepticism — abundant here — is FUN.
Well, actually I should take the blame for saying the things that Ben talked to DWA about. It was my post after all. And I think it has a lot to do with the piece. Not everyone who reads this is going to be an eminent researcher on the matter or someone of with such a vast knowledge of these matters. The average person reading this is going to clearly see that the things written in the article point to the general conclusion that Bigfoot does not exist despite the disclaimer at the end saying they could be out there. Not everyone reading this is going to philosophically dissect it and that is what my concern is with this piece.
I didn’t like the flat out claim that none have ever died of natural causes. I did not mean to imply that what I said was relevant to the article as a whole, as Mr. Radford assumed. I went off on something the article mentioned and I said, in my opinion, the lack of evidence does not equate to the impossibility of the creature and I gave specific examples of how this has happened before. Forget extradimensional beings, I am approaching this from a zoological angle. Bigfoot fits into what could be considered a feasible biological entity, a creature that has comparisons in the natural world and in fossil records. I won’t state that it is not something else but if it proves not to be a zoological phenomena then I will move on. That is my opinion and I made no grand assertion that this is the universal truth of the matter. I got off what the author said a little and stated some of my thoughts on the matter which is what I think this forum is kind of for, to promote discussion. I did not mean for my logic or intellect to be attacked or be exposed to arrogant dismissal. I made no declarative statements or assumptions but was just saying my opinion.
As for the “My mother lives in Oklahoma” thing, that is a good observation but think about this. Imagine there was no evidence she was there. If there were a lot of people claiming to see your mother there and there were some footprints that were possibly hers, would you not think that there might be something to it, even in absence of actual hard evidence such as an address? If there was circumnstantial evidence to point to WMDs in a country, would you not at least take that somewhat seriously? This kind of stuff makes me wonder. I have never assumed Bigfoot to be real, but there are things that I find compelling that suggest the possibility of it.
Isn’t that a fake pic?! The “creature” to me doesn’t even look like a real animal but a flat, two dimensional cardboard cut out or simply photo-shopped into the background. Doesn’t look real at all!
As mentioned above, the pic is indeed a fake. I believe it’s been determined that it’s the photographer’s wife in the costume, no?
mystery_man: funny you mention WMD again.
The WMD evidence on which we built the case for invading Iraq was– clearly, we now know in retrospect — far, far skimpier than the evidence so far collected for the sasquatch.
But I could have told you that back in fall 2002.
Not to discuss politics here, sorry.
But it was skimpy, and we acted on it. There might be sufficient evidence to act in the case of the sas, as well. (Not to draw too close a parallel. I don’t take “target species” literally. 😉 )
If people are seeing my ma in OK, I don’t care what else is on the table. I want to know what people are seeing.
What about the guy in Georgia (I think) that claimed to have hit a large sasquatch after dark while traveling through some low lying area? It was on one of those investigation shows last year, but I am sure it has been shown again. Does anyone know what I am talking about? Details: the police were called out from the guys cell phone I think, and they saw that his truck had definitely been damaged by some sort of animal. The guy claimed that he thought at first it was a large man in a fur coat, but in the summertime in Georgia? He was traveling about 55 mph, and it was struck by the front right side of the hood and bumper. The animal was knocked down, but got up and walked into the swampy woods and disappeared.
Nothing was found and I have never heard any more about this incident. Can anyone clarify what I wrote? Off the top of my head, this is the only incident I heard about involving a vehicle and a sasquatch.
Back when the Boggy Creek incidents were happening in the early 70’s, one of the Crabtree boys alledgedly shot and hit a creature. Blood and hair was supposed to have been found, but amongst all the excitement, no one thought to collect any evidence at the time. I don’t know how much of this is true.
One more thing, what about the skeleton that is supposedly hidden somewhere around Fouke, AR (again Boggy Creek incidents), as told by longtime researcher and writer, Smokey Crabtree?
Oh, well, thought I’d throw in some things to talk about.
The hog hunter’s report from Panola County that DWA references above is probably the most incredible credible report that we have gotten.
Another of the more interesting reports that we have received at the TBRC is the following report that took place in 1976 in Virginia.
One of his comments made me chuckle:
You can read the report in its entirety at the TBRC website here.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!
He waits until the end…and then sticks the UFO thing in there!
WHY DO THEY DO THAT!!??!!?!?!?
Funny little line at the end there about his car. Suprised he didn’t try to sell it and raise his asking price due to being “touched by Bigfoot.” Funny.
I think I hear a new TV show in the making- “Touched By A Bigfoot.”
Seriously, some people have all the luck. It never fails to amaze me that people like, well, most of us here on Cryptomundo read and hope and dream of strange things happening to them, and never see a bloody thing, while some goober from backwoods Virginia is seeing UFO’s and slamming his truck into Bigfoot.
You know, some ultra skeptic once calculated that your average person witnesses something like 60 miraculous, unexplainable things in their lifetime. An interesting statistic, even if he then failed to fully incorporate exactly what that might mean. I guess for some, the odds have them rolling snake eyes more often than normal, so they get Bigfoot and UFO’s, while others are rolling nothing but 6’s, so we get things we can rationally explain away, even if maybe we shouldn’t.
As for his assumption that his 2 sightings are connected, well DWA, the human brain excels at making connections when none are visible, so you sort of have to expect this a little. Sometimes that ability separates us from the apes, and at other times, it makes us look like them.
One of the better posts I’ve read on the site, Mnynames.
Particularly that last line. You might want to toss off the veil long enough to get your name in Bartlett’s!
Here’s to apes. May we always be them.
I’ve seen a UFO, it was one of those Black Triangle types and was witnessed by at least one other person. I’m not sure if they are really Alien or some sort of secret Government craft. I guess the latter option is much more likely. Now I want to see a Bigfoot! Not much chance of that where I live so I guess I will have to settle for proof of his discovery. I just hope it’s THIS year that this event will finally occur and we are not here in 12 months time STILL waiting! 😀