Bigfoot Skeptic Speaks Out

Posted by: Loren Coleman on January 15th, 2009

Eugenie C. Scott is the interviewee who infamously stated “There’s no there, there” during televised questioning about whether she thought there are any Yetis out there. Now she takes on Bigfoot.

Ask a Scientist: Sorry, Bigfoot Probably Doesn’t Exist. But If He Did, He Would Be Taller Than a Bear
By Andy Wright

Axis cafe was packed Tuesday night [January 13, 2009], with attendees of this month’s Ask a Scientist lecture jockeying for spaces to crouch between plastic seats and late-late-comers peering over the shoulders of the simply late comers. One woman, an out of towner who had wondered into the cafe simply to wait for her daughter to get off of work nearby, asked what the reason was for the crowd. That can be summed up in one word: Bigfoot

Interest in the mythical beast, who first crept into a generation’s  subconscious when he upstaged John Lithgow in Harry and the Hendersons, has been running high ever since a trio of hoaxsters froze a lumpen Halloween suit in a freezer and declared it to be the carcass of Sasquatch last summer.

The crowd ran the gamut of young hipsters, the older socks-in-clogs crowd, and the truly eccentric. One man with a long white beard who was waiting in the food and drink line that snaked out of the building opened his jacket to the women in front of him and proclaimed (one assumes in correlation to whatever conversation they were having without him) “Yes, but wouldn’t it be cool if they made hats out of these?” Due to the women’s polite giggles and smiles, it’s safe to assume that nothing illegal had transgressed.

The presenter was Berkeley-based Eugenie C. Scott, a physical anthropologist and executive director of the National Center for Science Education. For the uninitiated, Scott helpfully told the crowd that the NCSE dealt with the teaching of evolution in public schools. Pause: “We’re for it!” She quipped.

Thank you folks, tip your waitresses!

Scott has spent her life campaigning for creationism to be removed from school curiculum, and is on the Board of Directors of the Bay Area Skeptics Society. Audience members who were hoping to see a loony tossing about poorly rendered plaster casts of Bigfoot tracks would be sorely disappointed.

Scott deftly plowed through a laundry list of reasons it is unlikely the Sasquatch exists. It’s been sighted in too many locations, there isn’t enough for a creature that large to eat, it conveniently covers its tracks, disposes of its dead, and hides really, really well. And while she allowed that some accounts of Bigfoot sightings were genuinely unexplained, this didn’t mean that one should rush to the conclusion that the creature existed. The appropriate answer, she insisted, was a scholarly, “We don’t know.”

Then came the questions.

One man stood and proclaimed, in an ominous nod to conservationism and cryptozoology, “We’re gonna change the earth so much — it’s gonna have no where to hide.”

Scott seemed understandably unsure how to respond to this statement.

A second man asked Scott “what percentage” she thought Bigfoot existed. To drive the point home he repeated, with meaning, “Percentage-wise.”

“Less then five percent,” Scott returned, and then added, “But that’s because I’m an optimist.”

Yet another man, who identified himself as as Bigfoot Field Researcher with the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, wanted to know if the anthropologist thought that everyone who had ever spotted a Bigfoot was participating in a mass delusion.

The answer, again, was “No, but that doesn’t mean the Bigfoot exists.”

By the time Scott had clicked through a series of slides, including UFOs, Marvin the Martian, this very funny chart illustrating exactly what Bigfoot might be taller than, cast doubt upon the Patterson Video (the Zapruder Film of Bigfoot believers) and gathered up her papers for the evening, any budding Mulders in the audience should have felt a bit deflated.

Brandon Kiel, the man who had identified himself as a Bigfoot Field Researcher, however, remained convinced of the animal’s existence.

He said that he liked Scott’s presentation, but that “…some of her facts were not factual.”

Such as?

“To say that people spot 12-foot-tall things running around is dismissive,” He said “We’ve never had anybody say they were 12-feet-tall. We know that females are in the range of six feet, eight feet tall and that males maybe top out at nine-feet-tall.”

Kiel grew up listening to stories of his relatives spotting strange creatures in rural Oklahoma and professes to have seen Bigfoot on two different occasions, once during the day and once with infrared technology. He also said he had worked with famous primatologist, Jane Goodall.

“She came to my college in Oklahoma to help students put together the primatology habitat. I worked with her on that. Very vaguely. I was the one that shuttled her around campus and around town.”

There were undoubtedly audience members who, in spite of themselves, wanted to believe in Bigfoot just like Kiel. Isn’t a world with a Bigfoot in it more exciting than one without it? In the end, Scott made the better case. But should another team of flim-flam artists stuff a bear suit in a hollow tree and proclaim it to be the definitive evidence that the creature exists, a lot of very smart people will push aside their understanding of the scientific method just so they can maybe, sort of believe in it, just for a few days or hours. And word to the wise: Keep the height at a believable nine feet, please.

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.


43 Responses to “Bigfoot Skeptic Speaks Out”

  1. raisinsofwrath responds:

    I likely would have asked her how much time she had spent trudging thru the deep ranges of the Northwest?

    I’m not claiming she’s never been in the woods but I’ve noticed a common denominator of individuals that dismiss the chance of BF existing and that is most have never set foot beyond the berm of the road.

    Lets put it this way: Imagine if you will that humans were living in very small family groups scattered into different regions. Now imagine that they don’t want to be detected.

    Would they bury their dead or dispose of them in such a manner as to not be detected?

    Would they migrate to follow food sources?

    Would they try to stay as far off the beaten path as possible?

    Would we be occasionally sighted by accident?

    I submit that if BF does exist he is at least intelligent enough to do all of the above.

  2. hudgeliberal responds:

    While I agree with her totally on her idea that “creationism” should not be taught in our schools, she sounds rather misinformed on the subject of Sasquatch, so while she has loads of credentials when it comes to other areas, she obviously has not spent much time reading up on Sasquatch. I will stick with those who have taken the time to at least read up on the subject, like maybe Meldrum or Bindernagel.

  3. raisinsofwrath responds:

    What does creationism have to do with cryptozoology? Just because you agree with her on one subject it does not give her credibility.

    Another thought I had was regarding the elephant population. Based on some of her assertions, Asian Elephants should not exist either.

  4. Viergacht responds:

    Well, she certainly has some points but the whole dead-burying, poop-hiding, no-tracks thing shouldn’t be a big problem for a smart primate. Even chimps have been documented covering their tracks.

  5. Loren Coleman responds:

    Needless to say, Dr. Scott’s tired old arguments have been addressed for years. But as a quick summary, here goes:

    (1) “It’s been sighted in too many locations,”

    What does this even mean, really? Do debunkers feel this kind of shotgun criticism is even worthy of them? Reports of sightings do not necessarily translate into Bigfoot actually existing in all of the locations they are reportedly seen. Some discrimination and screening needs to occur, and most logical and sensible Bigfoot researchers understand that the best concentration of accounts in the Pacific Northwest produces the foundation locations for Bigfoot’s possible existence.

    Bigfoot are not seen as often as bear, birds, and squirrels, and to seem to indicate that they are “everywhere” is merely an attempt to throw up red herrings.

    (2) “there isn’t enough for a creature that large to eat,”

    This is just silly. The amount of biomass that is around and about in North America, from crickets to berries, from roadkill to birds’ eggs, from salmon to garbage, is more than enough to support a few thousand undiscovered primates (not to mention black bears, rats, mice, and homeless people).

    (3) “it conveniently covers its tracks,”

    This is another skeptically unworthy criticism.

    First of all, the tracks haven’t been hidden or there won’t be all the casts we have. Furthermore, most humans couldn’t see a track if it was left right in front of them, which a few of these have been. If anything, Bigfoot tracks are “hiding in plain sight” most of the time, when found. Or left deep in wilderness areas where no humans are around to find them anyway.

    (4) “disposes of its dead,” and

    This is another debunker’s myth for only the fringe elements consider a belief in “the Bigfoot are eating their dead” or the “Bigfoot are burying their loved ones” even open for consideration. Those options are right up there with the “spaceships are teleporting up all the dead Sasquatch, that’s why no bodies are found.”

    No, no, no. As most sane Bigfooters who know anything about the woods understand, it is the natural environment that is “disposing” of the bodies. Ravens, bald eagles, vultures, crows, Virginia opossum, raccoons, black bears, mice, voles, lizards, and a wide variety of carrion-eaters finish off carcasses in rural areas and forests, quickly. Other carrion-eaters, or scavengers, include invertebrates, such as flies, worms and carrion beetles (family Silphidae) that play an important role in recycling animal remains. Porcupines are well-known for eating large bones for the calcium.

    (5) “hides really, really well.”

    Bigfoot probably only “hide” from “skeptics” like Dr. Eugenie Scott, because those folks with closed minds seem to never really go looking for Sasquatch. Once again, the psychological projection of intent and feelings on Bigfoot by debunkers is truly amazing.

  6. jrobojock responds:

    This is actually the first time I have posted a comment on this site. Further, I am a college educator, in the economics and computer sciences field and absolutely love cryptozoology. I have been truly enchanted by the topic since a small boy.

    To get to the point, “scientists”, like Scott, are riduculous and should be exposed for the frauds that they are.

    My first problem with Scott is her endeavors to exclusively teach evolution. Frankly, evolution is still a much debated topic, as it is “turned on its ear” every year, by new discoveries (and this is not saying that I am a creationist, as there is much evidence for intelligent design, including work completed in Europe discrediting the Darwin dogma that organisms undergo small changes).

    Further, such “scientists”, like Scott, believe that “global warming” hysteria is concrete science despite the fact that the US is colder than comparisons to recorded temperatures in the 1800’s (on a continental scale), while they state that “bigfoot is a myth”, despite the fact that much more physical evidence supporting the existance of bigfoot exists, as opposed to the miniscule “fudged” NASA numbers of “global warming”.

    Finally, true scientists are open to all possibilities, but make great efforts to secure evidence for or against those possibilties, while not pushing social agendas.

    Indoctrination creates ignorance, and it is telling that much more grant money exists for evolution and “global warming” research than for cryptozoologic studies.

  7. tropicalwolf responds:

    I have to admit that I find it amusing whenever someone claims that a large North American primate CANNOT exist simply because one hasn’t been conclusively “found”.

    I am reminded of the story of Cincy Freedom. Follow me on this if you can. Cincy Freedom was a COW that escaped a slaughterhouse in URBAN Cincinnati by getting OVER a 6 foot fence. This COW then went on to elude slaughterhouse searchers, police, and the community for 11 days. To reiterate that last point, this COW eluded all the officials who were collectively and actively searching for the animal for 11 days in a sprawling URBAN setting. “After eluding the traps and tranquilizer darts of SPCA officials and police officers for 11 days” it was later located in Clifton (a community in central Cincinnati and home of the LARGE University of Cincinnati). Funny thing, the COW was found just after midnight. No telling what this crafty critter was doing during the daytime. Please keep in mind little (maybe a couple acres total) of this area is wooded. You can read more about the late Cincy Freedom at your leisure.

    Cow = four legs, obvious tracks, not very fast, not known for fear of humans, ground-bound (i.e. can’t climb trees), several hundred pounds, I could go on…

    My point should be obvious by now. If a COW, admittedly not the most cunning of creatures, can elude all these “active searchers” for almost two weeks in an URBAN setting, is it such a stretch to believe that a more intelligent creature could elude searchers in a dense forested area for the weekend or two they actually spend in the field? As one of the other posters already remarked, most of these “researchers” never leave their ivory towers before expounding their “enlightened” theories. I say we keep looking.

    I’m sure the following quote is a favorite of others who frequent this site: “Absence of proof is not proof of absence.”

  8. cryptidsrus responds:

    Jrobojock:

    I’m a believer in ID and “Global Cooling,” too, so I understand where you’re coming from. And I also greatly understand your disapproval of “evolution-only” curriculums in schools.

    One thing, though:
    I wouldn’t call her a “fraud”—let’s “assume” she genuinely believes in her vision of the world-and that’s her right, of course . I would prefer the more complex, esoteric terms “dubious and wrong.” 🙂 Ultimately she is not so much “projecting” as she is engaging in A Priori thinking galore. There is some evidence that doesn’t fit her preconceived notion of the world, so she throws out the evidence and keeps the theory, instead of throwing out the theory and forming a new one that fits the evidence. I’m not saying that ALL the evidence supports the theory of Sasquatch/Whatever Else—but there’s ENOUGH of it to warrant the possibility at least of looking further into the matter—i.e., there’s “something out there.” And one can’t wish it away.

    Anyway, if push comes to shove, it’s better to say her research methods and beliefs are fraudulent, not her personally. We don’t know her personally, after all. She’s still pushing bad science, though. And her “bad science” view of the world is abetted by the writer of the article, Mr. Wright, who I suspect has a “social agenda” of his own.

    Ultimately, what will happen will happen and some sort of “truth” will come out about what’s going on. I may not live to see it, but I remain hopeful. I’m just amused by the bickering back-and-forth on this. Both sides need to calm down a tad. But I agree with you, Jroborock, the woman is not truly “scientific.”

  9. springheeledjack responds:

    From what I read from the excerpts up there, Ms. Scott definitely didn’t have all the bases covered…sheesh. Loren coined it…they are the same tired old arguments and they have been covered.

    I think it was Monster Quest that set out a deer carcass to see how long it would take to render it to bones (the DNR people estimated a month), and in fact it only took a week. So finding a dead body that wasn’t a suit is about slim and none.

    At least she acknowledged that there are cases that are unexplained. However, the stunning conclusion of “I don’t know” leaves a little to waffle, but with the albatross that goes around scientific necks the minute they openly support something like BF, I’m not surprised.

    BF is not my number one cryptid, and I’m hardly knowledgable on all fronts there, and I can knock down the debunker arguments–It’s high time they came up with some new ammunition (that is factual and relevent) instead of just trying to talk louder with the same ‘full of holes’ nonsense.

  10. sschaper responds:

    Eugenie Scott is an unethical bigoted atheist zelot. She has zero credibility. I wouldn’t buy a used car from her.

  11. cryptidsrus responds:

    Hey Sschaper:

    Don’t hedge—come out and tell us what you REALLY think!!!

    Wouldn’t go so far as to call her of all of that, but I DO understand where you’re coming from.
    🙂 🙂 🙂

  12. mystery_man responds:

    Social agendas?

    I live in Japan (and can talk to Japanese scientists, well scientists from anywhere really, about the process of evolution and its applications), but I find it hard to see a curriculum teaching Christian creationism here. Even within the realm of creationism, I feel there can be a lack of respect demonstrated towards creation beliefs that differ from those one’s own religion. So we should teach creationist ideas in schools, eh? In America only or all over the world? Ok, so we’re teaching, say, the Ainu creation myth of the world created from a primordial swamp resting upon the back of a giant trout too? No? What about the countless other origin beliefs around the world? No? Why not? Is there something that rules them out?

    Oh I see, it’s only the Christian creation beliefs that should be taught in schools. Yeah, let’s not push a social agenda or anything now. As a person living in a largely non-Christian country, I find that premise to be a tad odd.

    I won’t say too much more about this sort of curriculum in schools but suffice it to say that as an actual scientist and educator myself, you can probably guess my position on the matter. I will say that I do find that many criticisms of evolution often come from people who have a tenuous grasp of science at best, or a poor understanding of how evolution actually works.

    Anyway, back to cryptozoology. Loren pretty much hit on all of the points I wanted to mention. I will say in Ms. Scott’s defense that at least she said “We don’t know,” concerning the existence of sasquatch. With a complete unknown, this is at least demonstrates a scientific mindset. That’s a good sign, I suppose. I’m not sure of what sort of data or process she used to come up with “5%,” though.

  13. ukulelemike responds:

    I saw this lady on the movie, “Expelled”-she didn’t impress me there, either.
    I also don’t know much about the big-footed one, and I AM a Christians and creationist, but I still allow for the possibility that there are some critters out there smart enough not to be noticed often, even big’uns. and unless I miss my guess, isn’t the overall size and weight of a mature bigfoot assumed to be about the same as a grizzly? But the BF can’t exist since there’s not enough food. Huh. The bears must’ve eaten it all. A typical city-folk who discards what doesn’t fit into their paradigm.

  14. icanhazsasquatch responds:

    I attended. I have about a page of notes. The lecture was recorded and is to be hosted on fora.tv, eventually, as a streaming video. (It’s not up right now, though.)

    I think we can do without using terms like “fraud”, “zealot’, “bigotry”, etc. Scott is, from what I can tell, a rather sweet person and doesn’t deserve comments like that. They’re inappropriate and say more about the person saying them than her. Besides, every time you say things like that, a skeptic laughs.

    I would suggest everyone watch the video first.

  15. sasquatch responds:

    Kent Hovind swept the floor with her long ago…I don’t think she’s been in the field much lately anyway…Too busy re-reading discredited Darwinian mind melt to know if bigfoot were raiding her trash.

  16. springheeledjack responds:

    icanhazsasquatch–no offense intended your way here, but I have a point that needs to be addressed…thanks for bringing it up:)

    Skeptic is not a term that can be used to describe a debunker…there is a distinct difference–namely that just aboooooooooooooooooooooooout everyone who attends this site is a skeptic…

    A skeptic is “A person who habitually doubts, qeustions, or suspends judgement upon matters generally accepted,” according to Websters. Doesn’t sound like debunkers at all to me, considering BF and other cryptids are not generally accepted as real…so get off it.

    A non-believer/debunker/scoftic is no more a skeptic in this arena than the person who believes without question.

    As explorers in the field of cryptozoology we are all skeptics. Have to be–there’s too much fakery, hoaxing and tom foolery going on not to look at every sighting with a skeptical eye. Any debunker who says they are the only skeptics are just deluding themselves, or just trying to give themselves some sort of credibility over everyone else.

    Okay, done soap boxing for now, but it’s high time we (cryptozoologists, amateurs and professionals) took back the word skeptic and put it on our badges…it’s what we do every day…skepticism is as useful a tool in this business as any footprint kit or camera.

    SHJ

  17. sasquatch responds:

    Hey hudgeliberal, what’s liberal about not allowing another view of something?
    You people crack me up.

  18. jrobojock responds:

    Here is an interesting thought. Tell children the truth! State such facts like “We frankly don’t know how life started and thrives.” , or, “Evolution is one of many theories, here is the facts- for and against.” The problem? Scientists have degraded their trade into a religion, a religion that wishes to be the only religion!

  19. DavidFredSneakers responds:

    I have nothing but the greatest respect for Scott. Her organization has repeatedly pushed for the need for science curriculum to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory in our public schools.

    Just because she questions the existence of sasquatch doesn’t mean we should discredit her intellect, just that we need to politely present counter arguments, as Loren did above.

    Also, we need to remember that temperate coasts are great places for a large mammal to thrive. Not only does the brown bear find enough food to sustain itself along the PNW coast, but from what I understand, the indigenous people in that region created sessile communities without agriculture due to the abundant coastal food sources at their disposal.

  20. mystery_man responds:

    I really wouldn’t like to see this whole thread turn into a drawn out flame war on creationism versus evolution. That would be disappointing to me as there are a lot of creationists on this site who I feel actually make a great contribution and post very good, intelligent comments. Look, I’m in a scientific field, my goal is to try and understand how the world works and find the truth. I’m not interested in being right or wrong, I just want to know how things are.

    Seriously, what would one have me or any other scientist do? Try to look at it from a research perspective. When scientists explore how things work, what is most conducive to helping my understanding of the natural world and furthering our knowledge? Would you have me take every piece of data or finding and subject it to the criteria of a list of countless possible creation and ID ideas, all of which are largely subjective? That’s the way it would have to be if I am to take into account all possible viewpoints in an unbiased manner. Is that really the best way?

    Or perhaps a better way would be to use the scientific foundation of evolution, which is regarded throughout the scientific world as a solid working model for life on Earth, and use that as a guide? It is true that there is debate as to timelines and rates for the process or the why and when of the evolution of some species, but the basic concept, that living organisms adapt to survive in response to their environment or biological niche, remains unchanged.

    This is not a “theory,” at least not in the layman’s sense of the term (and those who claim it is show a remarkable lack of knowledge about science and its terminology). A “theory” in science is a much different animal. A theory is a solid, well supported model that has been researched from all angles, built upon through evidence and peer review, and so now has gained general scientific consensus from all over the world as a realistic model for how things work. It can be built upon, amended, or changed in response to new evidence, but it is an accepted guideline. A theory is NOT A GUESS in science. I wish that people who throw out the fallacious statement that evolution is “just a theory,” would wrap their head around the real definition of the word. Concerning how life developed to be the way it is, evolution is a theory, which is to say that it is generally accepted by scientists as a very real process.

    There are a lot of mysteries of life on Earth, I won’t deny that for a minute. We may never fully understand this planet of ours and all of its workings. I won’t at all say that Intelligent design is absolutely impossible. At this point it is an unprovable thing. Heck, for all I know, evolution itself is an intelligently designed process. I won’t even claim we know all there is to know about evolution and its intricacies. All I know is that right now, the core concept of evolution is the most solid, reliable and objective way scientists have for trying to understand how life developed on this planet. Point out all of the claimed “holes” in evolution all you want (none of which debunk the basic premise), but it remains that a lot of very good findings have been made upon its foundation.

    Should this foundation and all of the work built upon it be thrown out to entertain the myriad subjective views of how the world came to be? Seriously, what would you have a scientist do? Surely you cannot expect them to throw everything we have learned out the window and go back to cross reference our findings with all known creation beliefs simply because one of them could be true?

    Like I said, I value a good deal of input from people on this site who I know believe in intelligent design. The last thing I want to do is to alienate these smart people. But please try to look at this realistically from the perspective of a person trying to do research on animal life and why it is what it is.

    Science is not a religion for me, it is a tool for trying to understand this world of ours and amend our knowledge of it through evidence and building upon concrete, widely accepted laws and principles. As much as many would like to have you believe otherwise, I think that generally there is no ulterior motive or social agenda involved. Most scientists (the good ones anyway) are not particularly against religion or people’s beliefs. They are just trying to find the truth in the best way they know how.

    I really wish the focus here would remain on cryptozoology, something I feel all of us, creationist and scientist alike, can come together and discuss.

  21. icanhazsasquatch responds:

    This talk of creationism here really has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

    The lecture was as bad as it sounds, and it wasn’t. The audience definitely was not Bigfoot-hostile, and indeed was rather open-minded. I didn’t get a vibe that was hostile to the idea of Bigfoot at all.

    Scott claimed to be open minded, but there were always tells that indicated something else. All of her arguments against BF rather left out certain facts that would have weakened her argument. She tossed out the 10′ figure and then failed to mention that BF in the South (like Texas) seem to be shorter than the “ten feet” she kept mentioning, and that would mean a creature would need much less food. She mentioned that tracks could be faked, but she never mentioned dermal ridges. She mentioned the possibility that the Patterson film creature was a man in a suit, but didn’t mention that ape suit technology was not sophisticated enough at the time to create such an alleged effect. She mentioned Ray Wallace, but she didn’t mention that Ray in general had some pretty huge credibility problems.

    I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt–she’s a physical anthropologist and doesn’t spend all of her time boning up on Bigfoot. But this bias crept in again and again, and it always pointed in one direction.

    When asked who was the best pro-Bigfoot advocate who can speak from a scientific background, she mentioned Meldrum. She also seemed to indicate that she knew Krantz.

  22. Harry_Mann responds:

    If cryptozoology requires becoming a radical anti-empiricist, anti-reason, bitter Bible thumper I think y’all can have it. Darwinism works, creationism and intelligent design are cop-outs that say more about the proponent’s lack of creativity and vision than they do about evolution. Any time you run into some problem and decide to quit studying it and declare it the work of an invisible sky god, you have wussed out in the quest for truth. I see this as a symptom of peoples’ inability to accept that a truly godlike being would actually encompass the universe, creating the entire universe to operate according to its rules. Not some old Jewish grampa with a beard and chemistry set building everything from scratch in a week, but the universe itself. Check out Bill Hicks to get pointed in the right direction, or get ripped off by evangelist con men and ID pitchmen who have to lie about what they are proposing to get that Microsoft money.
    that said I don’t think that Sasquatch is a phenomenon that really lends itself to empirical study in the sense that I don’t think it lives in our space/time all the time, I think they just visit. Native witnesses I have interviewed lump them in with other creatures, such as little people and giants and ghosts. The Athapaskans consider seeing one very bad luck and a harbinger of death in the community, the Eskimos consider them unlucky to see. I lean toward Vallee’s position about these phenomena, simply because so many cultures share the same suite of creatures.
    The shortcoming of scientists is that some reject the possibility of some things because they simply don’t want to deal with the truth of controversial subjects. Sadly that includes research into human sexuality, reproductive freedom, stem cells and the like these days. Like the Condon Report, Project Blue Book, etc. it is easier to say X can’t exist therefore studying X is pointless, the tautology of the inconvenient study subject.

  23. raisinsofwrath responds:

    “(4) “disposes of its dead,” and

    This is another debunker’s myth for only the fringe elements consider a belief in “the Bigfoot are eating their dead” or the “Bigfoot are burying their loved ones” even open for consideration. Those options are right up there with the “spaceships are teleporting up all the dead Sasquatch, that’s why no bodies are found.”

    No, no, no. As most sane Bigfooters who know anything about the woods understand, it is the natural environment that is “disposing” of the bodies. Ravens, bald eagles, vultures, crows, Virginia opossum, raccoons, black bears, mice, voles, lizards, and a wide variety of carrion-eaters finish off carcasses in rural areas and forests, quickly. Other carrion-eaters, or scavengers, include invertebrates, such as flies, worms and carrion beetles (family Silphidae) that play an important role in recycling animal remains. Porcupines are well-known for eating large bones for the calcium.

    Loren,

    Although I have no idea if BF buries or disposes of their dead I must respectfully disagree with you. I do think it possible for them to dispose of their dead. I wouldn’t go so far out on a limb to make claim to that but with what we know I can assume we both agree that BF does harbor a certain degree of intelligence. How intelligent they happen to be is up for debate but if they were able to think and reason they would then in my estimation be capable of disposing of their dead. Furthermore, the breakdown or consumption of bone does not happen as quickly as some may think. While nature is in most cases going to dispose of bones I just don’t think we can dismiss an intelligent animals ability to do things the majority of species can’t, all be it on a primitive level.

  24. Viergacht responds:

    Jrobojock is an educator and an evolution denier? That’s the scariest thing I’ve read all day.

  25. jrobojock responds:

    What I find to be the scariest, is that science has become so close minded that people, particularly scientists, cannot accept alternate views, on Sasquatch, on evolution…..on everything. Look at the Flores hobbits. Look at how the scientists were attacked for their findings. Look at how they were attacked by one scientist, who, frankly, was proven to be a criminal and a fraud. Honestly, what would have happened if we said “The giant squid is a myth.”, or, “Hey everybody knows the world is flat, why bother trying to reach India.”, of, “That coelacanth fish is extinct, so what we have in our nets is just a sea bass, dump it overboard.” True science is not accepting dogma, but questioning everything, with a basis in fact.

  26. korollocke responds:

    I have never found a skeleton of anything large or small complete out in the woods ever, so a bigfoot skeleton not being fond is reasonable, but one wonders there has to something somewhere, we have fossils of ancient animals and life forms, there has to be bigfoot bones some where naturally perserved right?

  27. Loren Coleman responds:

    “one wonders there has to something somewhere, we have fossils of ancient animals and life forms, there has to be bigfoot bones some where naturally perserved right?”

    Who is to say we don’t? That discussions do occur as to whether Bigfoot might be Gigantopithecus vs Paranthropus – based upon fossil evidence that does exist – has everything to do with the fact there are “preserved” fossils of possible candidates.

  28. Daryl Colyer responds:

    I thought this discussion was supposed to be about a scientist who claims to have authority when speaking on the subject of bigfoot, and not about creationism vs. evolution.

    Back to the subject of the blogs, to me, it’s clear she doesn’t know what she is talking about.

    Loren has effectively rebutted most of her points.

    However, one thing that has not been addressed which I will address here is that this woman incorrectly cited data collected by the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy.

    She apparently made several references to most encounters represented in the TBRC data base as having originated in the western portions of Texas; for the record, this is a gross inaccuracy. Either the woman’s reading comprehension is severely lacking, or she knowingly cited the data incorrectly. I suspect the latter, since it’s difficult for me to come to terms with such poor reading comprehension from someone who is supposedly so educated.

    As has been stated numerous times at conferences and as is displayed and commented on prominently on the TBRC website, most alleged encounters represented on the TBRC public data base clearly originate in the eastern region of Texas, generally where there are woods, high annual rainfall totals and numerous bodies of water. I don’t know how we can demonstrate the pattern any clearer than we already have. The few credible alleged encounters that are indicated on the TBRC site as having originated in the western portion of the region generally are near bodies of water along riparian wooded areas.

    The same pattern holds true in virtually all states where there are divergent rainfall and vegetation patterns in different parts of the respective states (Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, etc.). In eastern states where encounters are alleged (Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, etc.), the pattern is not evident, since rainfall totals and forestation are less divergent and more evenly distributed in these eastern states.

    For example, in Oregon (or Washington), the pattern is opposite of that in Texas; most alleged encounters in Oregon occur in the western portion of that state. There, woods, rainfall and bodies of water dominate, as opposed to the eastern portion of the state, which is dry and much less forested.

    It’s evident to me that such patterns would seem to indicate a living species, not fabrications. I just find it incredible that someone seemingly so educated would seem so grossly ignorant and/or mistaken. I can’t help but think she knowingly cited the data incorrectly in an attempt to fortify her position that it’s unlikely the sasquatch exists at all.

    Having said that, it seems all of the points that she made were distortions or simply statements made out of ignorance, which Loren has nicely refuted here. So, I guess I am actually not surprised.

    Actually I am not surprised anymore by anything some people say regarding this subject, and it’s pointless to try to convince people of the prospect of the sasquatch’s existence by anything other than getting hard evidence.

  29. Craig Woolheater responds:

    I wanted to clarify a few things that Daryl mentions above.

    Eugenie C. Scott’s use of the TBRC data is not referenced in the article.

    It is referenced by BFRO member Brandon Kiel, who is also referenced in the article above, on the BFRO message forum.

    His quote is Ms. Scott said “that the TBRC has sighting all over west Texas (she repeated this several times despite the fact that most of the TBRC’s sightings are in the forested parts of *east* Texas).

    As Daryl has pointed out, the few West Texas sightings on the TBRC website are “generally are near bodies of water along riparian wooded areas. ”

    Another tidbit about Ms. Clark I haven’t seen anyone mention anywhere. She was a board member of the defunct International Society of Cryptozoology.

  30. bccryptid responds:

    Just once I’d like to see a competent researcher rip one of these skeptics to pieces in print or on camera. Why is it this never happens? Is it not worth our time, is nobody up for the challenge?

    There have been plenty of good questions on here already, such as, what part of your qualifications qualifies you to even speak on this subject, which, although answerable, is a good ground rule to get things going, next, what amount of research have you put into this before making this claim? Next, explain why hundreds of eyewitness reports all describe the same physical characteristics? ect ect…

    Good responses, Loren, although I must say I am tenatively in the ‘bury their dead in many cases’ camp. I have found numerous animal skeletons of large animals in the bush, one would think just one good unpetrified sasquatch skull would solve the whole mystery, yet it alludes us. Either the hunters have them all mounted quietly above their fireplaces, or their bones are not as available as most animals, for whatever reason. Perhaps they have a ‘Sasquatch’s Graveyard’? (jk, sort of..)

  31. proriter responds:

    Yeah, yeah, right. Same old argument from the BFers: the lack of evidence is somehow, in itself, evidence. Dr. Scott has it right.

  32. DWA responds:

    Another “scientist” (Homo ignoramus) checks in.

    “Scott deftly plowed through a laundry list of reasons it is unlikely the Sasquatch exists. It’s been sighted in too many locations, there isn’t enough for a creature that large to eat, it conveniently covers its tracks, disposes of its dead, and hides really, really well. And while she allowed that some accounts of Bigfoot sightings were genuinely unexplained, this didn’t mean that one should rush to the conclusion that the creature existed. The appropriate answer, she insisted, was a scholarly, “We don’t know.”

    There is one thing in that paragraph worthy of a scientist: the last sentence.

    The rest is laughable. And it’s an indictment of science that scientists continue to make themselves look so silly.

    There is nothing “deft” about what this latest ignoramus did except this: she conveniently, don’t they all? failed to list ONE piece of evidence supporting her viewpoint. Which any scientist, any scientist honoring science that is, which they all seem to fail to do when this is the topic, knows you HAVE to do.

    The proponents have a mountain of evidence – more, in fact, as I have said here many times, than has been amassed for any species in the era of modern science prior to official confirmation. If – as some here – you don’t know that, you are ignorant and you need to read up. I will NOT educate you further; I have done quite enough. Do some on your own, and you know where to go. (Your own brain would be convenient. Try to stop by there, and use it.)

  33. DWA responds:

    proriter says:

    “Yeah, yeah, right. Same old argument from the BFers: the lack of evidence is somehow, in itself, evidence. Dr. Scott has it right.”

    To say there is a lack of evidence for the sasquatch is to say there is a lack of evidence for the moon. It conclusively disqualifies you from participating in the debate, sorry.

    If you want to participate in a scientific debate, kindly acquaint yourself with basic terminology. Like, OK, example.

    Evidence: anecdotal and other information pointing to the possibility of something existing or being true.

    Proof: Evidence accepted by the culture (usually as arbited by the hard sciences) as conclusively establishing existence or truth.

    Every scientist I have ever read who has actually bothered to apply his science to the sasquatch has had to suspend his disbelief in the face of the wall of evidence, has had to acknowledge for the record, in fact, that disbelief in the face of that wall is as credulous as belief in the tooth fairy.

    Every scientist I have read like the one under discussion here strikes me as a buffoon. When you act like the evidence doesn’t exist, and then pronounce conclusively upon it, you have freed me from any obligation to take anything you say on this particular topic as anything more than blather. I can tell you – based only upon what this woman says – that she is as a child to me when it comes to comprehension of this topic, that she knows less than nothing, and that she is a walking insult to her science when it comes to this facet of it. I pronounce this with impunity, with disdain, and WITHOUT a science degree.

    I just know empty-headed smoke-blowing when I read it. Empty-headed smoke blowers have science degrees, lots of them. They just sound as if the degrees don’t get used much in the act of, you know, thinking.

    Tell me what that evidence is. All of it. Debunk it piece by piece. Tell me what it points to, and tell me, exactly, as I have told you, why you think that. For me to take you seriously, and not laugh at you, you HAVE to.

    You, child, have blundered into a scientific debate.

    And you, lady, I don’t care how old you look in the above photo – and let’s just say considerably – you have to, scientifically speaking, GROW UP.

    And to point to my lack of a qualifying degree – when you so obviously show a lack of anything approaching qualifications on this topic – is to behave as a priest waving incense, not a scientist dispensing knowledge.

    I make wind in your general direction.

  34. DWA responds:

    And as to all this talk of disposing of dead bodies through burial, let’s do a small inventory of folks what do.

    1. Carrion and burying beetles.
    2. Bobcats and lynx.
    3. Mountain lions.
    4. Coyotes.
    5. Bears.
    6. Wolverines.
    7. Wolves.
    8. Shrews.

    Ok, partial list. Good enough. (There’s a bird that hangs them up in its pantry. Whoo. Fancy.)

    Why wouldn’t an ape be intelligent enough to recognize that departed conspecifics might come in handy on a rainy day?

    (Note that this hasn’t touched the sasquatch carcasses that you know have been found in the wilderness and not reported. My guess: more than a few.)

    We gotta stop underestimating primates, what we gotta do. They’ve given us about 90% of all the surprising things we know about them in the past ten years.

  35. DWA responds:

    bccryptid asks:

    “Just once I’d like to see a competent researcher rip one of these skeptics to pieces in print or on camera. Why is it this never happens? Is it not worth our time, is nobody up for the challenge?”

    Actually, it does happen, occasionally. “On camera,” usually not, because the media don’t want to look like wild-eyed believers and so take the exact opposite tack. In today’s 90-second-sound-bite atmosphere, I’d never take somebody like Scoffer Scottie on in front of a camera: the cards would be stacked against me before either of us said a word. You’d almost have to set it up like a Presidential debate to give common sense a chance. The braying donkeys have the floor in the forum of public opinion, unfortunately, on this topic. They play to the peanut gallery rather than dealing with facts and data, the way they were trained to do way back when they had to earn degrees to be taken seriously.

    The places it happens most frequently are in the “pages” – cyber and otherwise – of the crypto-press, where all sides are usually given free play. Right here on Cryptomundo, in fact, counts, in my opinion. This site gets web awards and lots of hits.

    I think that what needs to happen is for the critical mass to emerge among thinking scientists for the topic to be given a serious place at the table. That’s a gradual process. It’s happening, but slowly. Right now, the mainstream simply doesn’t have the grounding in the topic to fairly moderate the discussion.

    I will say this, though: whenever I see cryptos vs. “skeptics,” as the mainstream misunderstands that term, it’s a massacre. And it’s never the former getting massacred. The proponents, quite simply, have both the data and common sense on their side – an unbeatable combination.

    (And I’m a *skeptic*, a REAL one, so that is an utterly fair and totally unbiased opinion.)

  36. DWA responds:

    OK, one thing we know from this blog is that Scoffin’ Scotttie isn’t going to help us with her supposed specialty – science education.

    So once again, as so often happens with topics like this, a non-scientist like Dr. DWA (I would never play one on TV! Not one like Scoffin’ Scottie, anyway) will just have to show you folks – and the scientists, apparently – how scientists SHOULD think. Here goes. As our first example, class, this paragraph from Scoffin’ Scottie’s presentation.

    —————————————————-

    One thing, consider a large-bodied primate like a gorilla. Now gorillas live in a tropical environment. Yeah, some of the bigfoot, you know, some of the “Big Guys” live in tropical environments, but most of them are reported from temperate environments, and western Texas is not a tropical environment. Okay? Gorillas live in tropical environments, they have to take in, given their body size, they have to take in something like eight or nine thousand calories a day. They tend not to eat very calorie-rich food. A gorilla eats mostly leaves and shoots, the fruits when they can get it, nuts if they can get it, but they’re mostly folivores, they’re mostly leaf eaters, and a gorilla will spend something like half of his waking hours eating.

    —————————————————

    Now, Dr. DWA’s response.

    First, it’s cool that Scottie uses a Big Word in this paragraph (folivore)! Hey, must be a scientist, right? Well, sorta! What she’s really trying to do is show an amateur audience that she is An Expert, so she won’t get them thinking that maybe she’s full of it. After all, nobody thinks scientists are full of it, right? The gist of that paragraph is this: gorillas live in tropical environments, and sasquatch, apparently, don’t. OK. Then why, ferpetesake, does she think that the food habits of a folivore (big word there!) living in a tropical environment must necessarily be superimposed on an animal that doesn’t live in one? Would it not occur to a scientist that gorillas eat the things they do, and the way they do, because THEY CAN AFFORD TO, because in a tropical environment, a big animal like a gorilla CAN be a folivore? Is a grizzly a folivore? Nope! And why not? Well, how many leaves are there in griz country? Much of the year, none; and in the best of times, not quite as many as a gorilla gets, right? So, bears generalize. They eat other things. OH. Here’s the cool part. Scottie has telegraphed, to the perceptive, her ignorance of the sasquatch evidence, which is rife with indicators that this species does exactly what one would expect of a big animal in a temperate environment. Which is, generalize to take advantage of what is there, as bears (and omigod! humans, which once did big-time foraging in sas habitat) do. Oh. Scottster. A bear spends half his waking hours – or more – searching for food. Not as much actually eating, because leaves aren’t all over the place in bear country. So bears go for high-calorie scores like fish, deer, elk and moose – on the fin, on the hoof or lying around dead – whenever they can. Would you maybe think an ape might too? Are we surprised that the evidence is very, very strong that the sasquatch does? Lastly: are we surprised that yet another Expert doesn’t see any need to acquaint herself with the evidence before running off her mouth? (Class: shake heads. Good.)

    —————————————————–

    Now there’s an expert talking, eh? No science degree required. Just reading, thinking, and going around outdoors with one’s head up. See how easy this is? One would think a scientist might do it! After all: THEY GET PAID TO.

    And always remember, Scottster, the sage words of the good Doctor:

    RSR!

  37. DWA responds:

    Part 2: this’ll be quicker.

    This passage from Scottie’s presentation:

    ——————————————————

    Now you go to, you see the movies on National Geographic and so forth of gorillas, they’ve got these big guts? Reason for that. Because they have to keep eating constantly, almost constantly, in order to get enough calories to keep that big bulk going. And the kind of food they tend to eat, leaves tend to be not very high calorie foods, and because that’s the major component of their diet, they tend to really have to eat a whole lot.

    Okay, what is there to eat in western Texas that would be comparable, that, to keep alive a really big mammal like that? Those are the kinds of questions you need to ask if you’re going to look scientifically at bigfoot. Because, the first question you want to ask is, “How do these observations fit with everything else we know from science?” Okay. If we know from science that big-bodied primates have to eat a lot of food, then what does that tell you about the carrying capacity of the environment?

    ————————————

    And now for Your Man On the Science of the Sasquatch.

    ————————————

    Here’s Scottie’s gist: science tells us that apes are gorillas.

    No, really. Read what she says. Gorillas can live in the tropics; but they can’t live in West Texas.

    Do-waaaay-oh. Really.

    Never mind that – as Daryl has pointed out – Scottie’s got the map upside down and backwards, and it’s EAST Tejas she should be talking about. She says that, since science tells us what gorillas do where they live, that science also tells us that no ape could exist that could hack it in West (EAST, Scottie! EAST!) Texas.

    And we are supposed to, what, just swallow this? In the face of an ape known to exist, that lives everywhere, and eats everything, including fresh Chilean sea bass with arugula and Belgian endive?

    HUH?

    —————————————————–

    What in the name of science education will Our Scottie do next? Go to an international physics convention and demand evidence for the reality of all those quarky things and Battlestar Galactica?

    Sure seems where she’s headed, based just on evidence presented, and we all know scientists should look at the evidence.

    Thanks for your time. P.S. You know where the sas fits on the primate spectrum between us and the gorilla, don’t you? Right smack dab in the middle.

    Not so outlandish now, eh? Ain’t nature wonderful?

  38. DWA responds:

    bccryptid: did a bit more thinking about your question

    “Just once I’d like to see a competent researcher rip one of these skeptics to pieces in print or on camera. Why is it this never happens? Is it not worth our time, is nobody up for the challenge?”

    And I’d add to what I said above: incredulity is why.

    Everyone seems incredulous about the possible existence of the sasquatch. Even the proponents. Which is why they offer so many out-there ‘explanations’ for its not being confirmed yet that Bigfoot is a paranormal, rather than zoological, topic. Those explanations are all most of the public “know” about the sasquatch, unless they themselves have seen one.

    What you then have is an expert like our expert here being asked: as an expert, what do you think about the sasquatch? And the expert replies as an expert should: immediately and decisively! Given all the crazy proponent ‘explanations,’ to which the mainstream media give 99% of the attention, experts don’t need to order their thinking, do their research or get their ducks in a row. All they have to do is give the answer they’ve been coached to give when they aren’t being taken seriously. What do you mean, what do I think about that nonsense?

    The Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy gave an outstanding response to Scott’s presentation. (It’s on their website.) TBRC would never have been able to do that kind of job on, say, “Nightline” or CNN or whatever. The “moderator” (not!) would ask the goading questions, not understand the responses, and give the Skeptic (the representative of Us the Innocent Public, on guard against this nonsense!) the floor and all the best lines. After all, how could CNN be seen as raving Bigfoot believers? How could they be taken seriously then on all the other stuff they get wrong?

    So, proponents are trapped. They know they don’t have a sound-bite answer; you can’t (I’ve tried) come up with a rapid response to the public’s basic misunderstanding of this topic. That education takes time, and TV and newspapers and radio don’t have that. Even TBRC hurts its own cause; and again, incredulity is the culprit. Read, in their response to Scott, how they dismiss reports from New Jersey. Now I have read reports from NJ, Iowa and Illinois as compelling as anything from any state west of them. Without the proof, how can anyone tell where this animal lives? But folks JUST CAN’T BELIEVE it could be in a non-apey state like New Jersey, where everything has been found!

    Then how do we explain what folks are seeing? And how can we be upset when skeptics go in one little easy leap from NJ-people-aren’t-seeing-this to nobody-is-seeing-this?

    New Jersey aside, the TBRC’s response would sway many a scientist to a different stance, if they could be persuaded to read it. But until scientists start recognizing that it is never right to draw conclusions without evidence – NO MATTER WHAT – it will be very hard for the proponent case to get time of day, even though it is the most rational and compelling case imaginable, to wit:

    1. No one has ever come up with a shred of evidence that points away from an uncatalogued species to any other conceivable explanation; and

    2. It is virtually inconceivable that lies, hoaxes and misidentifications by random individuals could add up to read like biodata, which makes the sasquatch either real, or the greatest deception ever perpetrated by, or on, humans.

    Really.

  39. Alton Higgins responds:

    DWA wrote: “TBRC hurts its own cause; and again, incredulity is the culprit. Read, in their response to Scott, how they dismiss reports from New Jersey.”

    In the spirit of evenhandedness, we were willing to, trying to, concede some points to Scott. To an objective outsider, the prospect of so many sasquatch sightings in a place like New Jersey must appear to be “inconceivable” (to quote Vizzini). We were not questioning specific reports from NJ, per se.

    Frankly, speaking personally, the proposed geographical range is perhaps the most difficult issue to fathom. Still, as indicated in the response, Scott’s conclusion (“they live all over the place”) obfuscates the reality of the distribution of sightings.

  40. DWA responds:

    Alton:

    Maybe that’s the issue: our differing feelings about the need to offer olive branches to Bigfoot skeptics. 😀

    I would say that, in the spirit of evenhandedness, people like Scott do more homework before pronouncing sentence. (Like, um…look at the distribution map, ferpetesake!) As to considering the number of sightings in a place like NJ “inconceivable” to an “objective outsider,” I personally consider the number of black bears in NJ hard to conceive; yet there they are. If, as we often hear, most organic produce of temperate forests is composted uneaten, and the sasquatch appears to frequent climes as cold if not colder than NJ, well, there’s enough to go ’round there.

    Maybe I should say something here about my attitiude toward sighting reports, individually and collectively. Each individual report is EQUALLY VALID to me, GIVEN FREQUENCY AND COHERENCE. A report from Hawaii, or Luxembourg, is getting a raised eyebrow. How many reports, of a consistent phenomenon, are we getting from those places? Somebody could have cribbed a TBRC report and sent it in. But, when a state has 44 of them, and many of them appear to be as valid on their face as any from anywhere else, I can’t be quick to dismiss. Particularly if follow-up, as in a number of NJ cases, shows no fewer cracks in the story than any others I read.

    And I guess that’s one more thing. I try (it’s hard) not to put too much stress on followup, either. The witness had the experience, if we trust his story. Is followup, or lack of same, the witness’s fault?

    I can see why you’d just like to get proof as soon as you can, believe me there. Nobody’s saying this is easy. It’s just, in the course of thinking about Bigfoot, I’ve figured out how to respond to people who allege they had dinner with Lincoln’s ghost last night. The answer is: you were there. Are you asking me to judge? But if you’re asking me to buy it, I’d like to see proof.

    Isn’t a scientist, by training, supposed to have that attitude?

  41. Alton Higgins responds:

    DWA,

    The intent wasn’t so much to offer an olive branch to a skeptic as to honestly assess the validity of her comments. I think it’s fair to say that most people listening to Dr. Scott’s presentation are unaware of the availability in many states of suitable habitat to support large populations of animals such as black bears. Her argument has a superficial appearance of reasonableness, which is all we were saying. An honest, or at least a properly researched, evaluation would have addressed the fact that many sightings are correlated with forest, which runs counter to Dr. Scott’s presumption that sasquatches live in all kinds of environments.

    I can’t agree with your idea that all sighting reports are equally valid, but I appreciate your support for the efforts of the TBRC.

  42. DWA responds:

    Alton,

    I should probably clarify my statement about individual sighting reports further.

    Given that I have no proof that the sasquatch exists – only one could-be piece of firsthand evidence that is no more than could-be to me – I’m saying that I have no way of judging whether one report is “better” than another. As I frequently say, any SINGLE report, even with TBRC-quality followup, could possibly be a well-concocted fake. It’s when you have lots of them, and they paint a reasonable biological picture, that I start questioning whether even a significant minority of them could possibly be fakes. I’m way past that point with the sasquatch. I’d bet money that it’s real, without hesitation, if I had to go up or down, on the table, right now.

    Many reports that look like a laugh to me just reading the witness’s account take on new life when I read the follow-up investigation. Some people are testing the waters; they don’t want to go Shakespearean when they don’t even know what will be done with their account, and you have to go to them directly and show them you’re for real to open them up. Some people are just plain not good writers, and you have to talk to those.

    What I mean is, if the account passes basic muster in my mind, and it’s easier to feel that than to explain it, I won’t downgrade it because of where it happened. Maryland is as good as Washington to me, if the account has the proper shadings of detail and description to make an impression on me that the person had this experience, and it sounds like an individual rendition of a similar experience to the many others I’ve read. AND if the place (right now Hawaii doesn’t qualify) seems reasonable in terms of both the animal’s ability to be, or to get, there, and available habitat for analogous species. I’d agree with you folks that if black bear can live there, sasquatch can too, probably better. Not plugging or anything, but Maryland now has a LOT of black bear, and some hair-raising encounter reports, some of the most compelling of which don’t even involve a direct sighting, and could not, from my read, have been an animal, including ourselves, that we know about.

    But for the reason I gave above, I won’t deny at all that I get a big question mark in my mind when I *don’t* see a followup investigation for a published report. Not to mention that I am frequently frustrated by the questions an account raises in my mind that the follow-up investigator didn’t ask.

    If frequency, coherence, and available habitat are all there, I’m listening. I’d never disagree that followup is essential; I’ve read too many reports where all the meat was in the followup.

  43. CryptidHuntr responds:

    she knida proved herself wrong.”it exists in so many places” that is true.It has been spotted all over the world. The Himilayen Yeti,the Indian Orang Pendek,The Japanese Hibagon,the Native American Sasquatch,and the current North Ameican Bigfoot.It’s so wide spread it can’t possibly be a hoax that the whole world is making up could it? In Jeff Meldrum’s book,it is proven that we have found hair samples and it is proven that no one could identify them.They appear in so meny different cultures it is just impossible for it to be a scandel.So many responsible and trustworthy prople have seen it. President Theodore Roosevelt saw it and wrote about it. You can’t deny that Roosevelt was an honest man.And the President of the United States of America didn’t lie.Are u calling him a liar????!!!

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers



Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement

|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.