Sasquatch Coffee

Meldrum is Interviewed by NPR and is criticized by Wired Magazine

Posted by: Guy Edwards on December 14th, 2011

Bigfoot Lunch Club

Radio-west-interview-jeff-meldrum by BigfootLunchClub

Above is an hour long interview with Dr. Jeff Meldrum conducted by Radio West. Radio West is broadcast on KUER public radio, a charter member of National Public Radio (NPR). Below is the critique of the interview by Wired blogger and science writer Brian Switek.

The Squid and the Ape (excerpt)

By Brian Switek December 10, 2011 | 6:14 pm |
For the November 11th show, RadioWest producer Doug Fabrizio interviewed Idaho State University anthropologist and Sasquatch devotee Jeff Meldrum. The stated point of the interview was to see how Meldrum applied scientific reasoning to the search for a creature that, at best, exists on the fringes of scientific investigation. That’s not what actually transpired.

Even though Fabrizio kept qualifying statements about the ever-elusive Bigfoot with “if”s, he was clearly sympathetic to Meldrum’s efforts to give the mythical North American forest ape an air of respectability. The show was more about how Meldrum became attracted to the cryptozoological celebrity and his feelings as someone trying to prove the existence of a creature that, as far as I am concerned, probably doesn’t exist and has been a persistent focus of interest due to cultural phenomena rather than actual evidence. (As I wrote in a story for WIRED Science, there comes a time in searches for missing or presumably extinct mammal species that returns rapidly diminish and that species is more likely absent than simply elusive. So many have searched for Bigfoot for so long without finding any unambiguous evidence that I don’t see any reason to think such an animal exists.)

Almost all of Fabrizio’s questions were uncritical. Some, such as when Fabrizio asked when the search for Sasquatch supposedly became academically taboo, were even sympathetic to Meldrum’s exceptional claims. When Meldrum retells the story of how he saw tracks that convinced him that Bigfoot was real, Fabrizio doesn’t ask about how Meldrum could tell that the tracks were from a real animal and could not have been hoaxed. When Meldrum goes off about how he has brought Bigfoot into the scientific mainstream through papers, talks at conferences, and the like, Fabrizio doesn’t ask “Well, which journals and conferences? What did you say? How was your work received by your colleagues?” Likewise, Fabrizio lets Meldrum state that there is a lot of photo evidence – albeit poor quality – of Bigfoot as well as hair and scat without digging into the details of those assertions and why those lines of evidence have not done more to confirm the supposed ape’s existence. I didn’t want Fabrizio to be actively hostile to Meldrum’s ideas, but the radio host did not seem prepared to challenge his guest on any point.

The interview was mostly about feelings. What Meldrum felt about this or that aspect of Bigfoot arcana was more important than the veracity of what he was actually saying. I don’t take issue with RadioWest having cryptozoologists or other people who make exceptional claims on the show, but, for FSM’s sake, hold them to account and push them to explain why they believe what they do. If someone keeps saying there’s really good evidence for Bigfoot, Triassic Krakens, ancient aliens, or whatever, we shouldn’t be afraid of pressing them on how good that evidence actually is. To say that evidence is good is one thing. To demonstrate the same is not as easy.

Guy Edwards About Guy Edwards
Psychology reduces to biology, all biology to chemistry, chemistry to physics, and finally physics to mathematical logic. Guy Edwards is host of the Portland, OR event HopsSquatch.com.


68 Responses to “Meldrum is Interviewed by NPR and is criticized by Wired Magazine”

  1. mandors responds:

    “So many have searched for Bigfoot for so long without finding any unambiguous evidence that I don’t see any reason to think such an animal exists.”

    How many trained biologists or anthropologists are included in that number? There is a difference between healthy skepticism and nihilism. The author is clearly in the camp of the latter.

  2. William responds:

    Well there are just as many counter arguments to this as well. For example, the classic can anyone prove Bigfoot does not exist? No, they cannot and if that is so – Bigfoot simply does not exist, there sure are a lot of witnesses who are simply seeing creatures that would indicate the opposite, including law enforcement officers, forest rangers, hikers, motorists, campers, attorneys, hunters, cowboys, prospectors, loggers, and even at least one pyschologist. It only makes sense that just like all UFOs are not weather balloons or satellites, all Bigfoot sightings are not mistaken bears or guys in suits!

  3. DWA responds:

    And yet another pseudo-scientist whose grasp of this topic wouldn’t fill a bushbaby’s hat.

    And I’m not talking about Meldrum.

    So much of the “analysis” of proponents’ stances by the ignorant presumes as a prerequisite some kind of Star Chamber third-degree, as if Fabrizio should start every question with: given that we all think you’re a total nut…? Stuff like “Bigfoot devotee” and “he was clearly sympathetic to Meldrum’s efforts to give the mythical North American forest ape an air of respectability,” to list only two, shows the exact a priori bias scientists consider themselves constantly on guard against.

    As to

    “When Meldrum retells the story of how he saw tracks that convinced him that Bigfoot was real, Fabrizio doesn’t ask about how Meldrum could tell that the tracks were from a real animal and could not have been hoaxed.”

    First, Meldrum isn’t “convinced” by anything, just intrigued by markers that he lays out very clearly, speaking as a specialist in just the area in question. Second, Switek didn’t bother to read Meldrum’s book. You don’t do your homework, no thinking person is required to pay any attention to anything you say.

    And as to this:

    “So many have searched for Bigfoot for so long without finding any unambiguous evidence (that’s called proof, dodo) that I don’t see any reason to think such an animal exists.”

    There have been two, count them, two, Bigfoot expeditions in history. Both have produced evidence so compelling that if either search had entered the field with the benefit of mainstream credibility, we’d have proof by now.

    (Footprints are “unambiguous evidence,” dodo.)

    If the animal is real, of course. (There, Switek. Did I qualify my statement appropriately?)

    A lot of people are going to look really stupid if (there, Switek!) this critter is confirmed. Add one more to the list.

  4. bobhelferstay responds:

    In science, you can not prove a negative. So it’s impossible to prove something does not exist.

    And I tend to disagree that people have really looked that hard for Sasquatch. There are parts of the United States so remote that no human has ever set foot there. There’s no reason a creature, even one of size, could not remain hidden. Especially when most people do not believe in them.

  5. maslo63 responds:

    Sasquatch is one of the few cryptids I put stock in. I used to believe in ‘em all when I was a kid but as I age more and more, cyptids vanish from my list. Sasquatch has remained even if only barely do in part to the evidence that exists for it.

    Some of the evidence is really good like the Patty footage and tracks but lets face the truth here. If we’re to believe all the evidence and eyewitness accounts are accurate and Bigfoot exists than what we have in an animal who’s population spans the entire North American continent and beyond and has so far eluded all who have pursued it. I really can’t buy into that. I can believe in an undiscovered ape living in the Pacific Northwest or the dense forests of Canada but not in places like Ohio, New York and Florida. We would have found it by now and if it doesn’t live in places like Ohio, New York and Florida than what hope is there that it lives elsewhere? We would have to discount all the evidence from the majority of the continent and in doing so discount the evidence from the few places such an animal could actually live.

    I have a lot of respect for Meldrum, he in part keeps me optimistic, but in the end I know in my heart that the likelihood of such an animal existing is slim at best. I’m a long time reader of Brian Switek’s blog and I gotta side with him on this. Honestly we need to stop looking for something that *takes deep breath*…does not exist and start focusing our time and attention on the many fantastic animals that do exist. I have a feeling that a lot of members here know this but just don’t want to face the facts.

  6. airgunner responds:

    I think the preponderance of evidence is that Sasquatch exists. Maybe not everywhere they are reported, but certainly in the Pacific Northwest.

    People who go looking for them are wanting to find them, or at least evidence of them, and are apt to interpret their findings through that filter. This is why someone like Dr. Meldrum who can apply science to the search lends a lot of credibility to it.

    Another thing to consider is the mindset of the witness. If you believe in ghosts, and spend a lot of time in supposedly haunted places, you are apt believe you see one. Same for UFO hunters.

    But what about the many Bigfoot witnesses who had no interest or “belief” in Bigfoot prior to their encounters? What about people who encounter Bigfoot, but wish they hadn’t?

    There just have been too many people who profess no interest in Bigfoot yet report seeing them to ascribe the episodes to wishful thinking.

  7. DNS responds:

    Generally speaking, I rate Wired somewhere between the National Enquirer and Fox News in the credibility department. I’ve run across so much crap in their magazine and on their site that I seldom pay any attention to anything they publish. That’s a shame, because of course it’s not all nonsense and shoddy journalism so some good stuff gets ignored along with the junk. Oh well. Not my problem.

  8. springheeledjack responds:

    The attack on the interview was more directed at Fabrizio than Meldrum, however…

    I still hear the same old arguments from people who don’t really know what they’re talking about–Bigfoot, water cryptids, it’s all the same. If I had a nickel for every time I heard the line, “So many have searched for Bigfoot for so long without finding any unambiguous evidence that I don’t see any reason to think such an animal exists.”

    It’s that kind of ignorance that keeps Bigfoot in the shadows. As DWA said, the real searches have been few and far between. Sure you’ve got Animal Planet walking the forests with a half zillion camera men following the FB crew, but that hardly constitutes a “Scientific search.” no offense.

    The fact is, aside from the weekend warriors in the brush, and the odd person who accidentally catches sight of Bigfoot and takes a crappy video–and your guess is as good as mine when it comes to blobsquatches. They could be legit, and they could be hoaxes or just plain old nothing, but we’ll never know from those pics and vids. Again, we’re not talking about organized scientific searches getting this stuff, but families, hikers and amateurs in the woods taking pictures with inferior equipment and inferior skills at using said equipment.

    If we put some solid money into research and exploration, we’re going to get the proof we need of the big guy…after that, I’ve got a couple of lakes in this hemisphere alone we can throw money at…

  9. DWA responds:

    ERRATUM.

    One makes mistakes when one gets angry, and I tend to get angrier than I should at ignorance.

    In my post above, I equate unambiguous evidence with proof. (“unambiguous evidence (that’s called proof, dodo)” is followed by (“(Footprints are “unambiguous evidence,” dodo.)”)

    Well, if footprints were proof, the sasquatch would be in field guides. Right?

    They are intriguing – to an extent the ignorant simply don’t care to try to understand (hint: some reading would help) – but they are certainly not proof. But, like eyewitness reports – which the ignorant do not understand big-time count – they ARE “unambiguous evidence.” As in: the case for the sasquatch’s existence has all THIS on the pile.

    (The case against: not a shard. But that’s another thread.)

    Wow. A teachable moment. Gotta do those on yourself sometimes.

  10. DWA responds:

    airgunner:

    When you read as many sighting reports as I have – and I consider them the solid backbone of the evidence, as compelling as anything else – you realize one thing.

    People who see the sasquatch knew it wasn’t real.

    Until they saw one.

  11. sonofthedestroyer responds:

    I remember Jeff Meldrum explain the difference between a hoaxed footprint and a real one. I think it was from a monsterquest episode.

    There is really no way to prove sasquatch exists. Unless a live one is caught and thrown into a cage in a zoo.

    Everything else is called a hoax these days. Photos and videos no longer good enough.

    Sasquatch is from a parallel world. It comes into our dimension and leaves.

  12. DWA responds:

    bobhelferstay:

    “In science, you can not prove a negative. So it’s impossible to prove something does not exist. ”

    Actually, scoftics have been using that as a crutch, and I don’t think cryptos should allow it. It’s unscientific, just for starters.

    (Clarification of term: a scoftic is a true believer, just as a woowoo proponent is a true believer. The scoftic is just a true believer in the mundane. You can always tell someone is NOT a skeptic when he takes a position in the discussion which is not backed by evidence. I cannot call the ‘skeptical’ fringe in this disucssion “skeptics.” Meldrum? THAT’S the definition of a skeptic: someone who allows no assumption to go unquestioned and is always careful in his discussion of the evidence.)

    The scoftical position in this discussion – frequently very thinly veiled, as we see here and with Ben Radford – is: all the evidence for the sasquatch amounts to a concatenation of false positives.

    That is a proposition that CAN be tested and proven. (The Patterson-Gimlin film is not a sasquatch. It is THIS; and here is the proof.) To consider oneself under no obligation to do the heavy lifting required to back one’s position – especially when one requires it of the proponents – is to say one of the following three things:

    1. I am lazy;

    2. It simply cannot be done; therefore we need to press science to an intensive effort to find the source of all this evidence, because solving our universe’s mysteries is science’s job (not to mention which I might just want to shut all these proponents up once and for all);

    3. I am ignorant of how this ‘science’ stuff works.

  13. RandyS responds:

    Switek’s main complaint seems to be that the interview either wasn’t what he thought it would be, or was not conducted the way he would have done.

    To begin with, the “stated point” of the interview was not “to see how Meldrum applied scientific reasoning to the search for a creature that, at best, exists on the fringes of scientific investigation,” as Switek maintains. If you listen to the introduction, the host clearly states that he is going to talk with Meldrum about “what it’s like to study a creature we’re not even sure exists.”

    Switek sets up a false premise, and the proceeds to explain how the interview failed to prove it. It’s a common technique (you see it all the time on message boards, blogs, etc.), but it doesn’t work so well when the thing that you’re railing against is right there next to your comments for anyone to listen to or read.

  14. Mahalo X responds:

    In a court of law there would be enough physical evidence to support the Bigfoot hypothesis. As DWA points out there is a preconceived bias on the part of the interviewer, and IMO, media in general. Unlike so many enthusiasts, Meldrum has remained scientific with his observations of supporting evidence. As I have stated before science seldom “proves” anything, the unbiased evaluation of evidence, whether or not it supports the hypothesis is key to good science. Meldrum has always stayed the scientific course; kudos to him.

  15. Lack of Evidence responds:

    You can’t fault skeptics in the field of bigfoot research. How many times have huge claims been made only to be outed as hoaxes? Footprints aren’t proof, video is not proof, a witness isn’t proof, a tuft of hair isn’t proof. We need a body, and the reality of it is, nobody has even come close to providing one.

    Oh wait, I guess someone shot a couple of them recently and if you want to buy the steak, you can. It’s funny how you can feel another hoax about ready to hit. It’s a shame for people in the bigfoot community, because what little credibility they had will be gone.

  16. maslo63 responds:

    So if eyewitness accounts are the backbone of our evidence that Sasquatch exists than that means the creature spans the entire North American continent and beyond. We know that cannot be true.

    That would mean Sasquatch has one of the largest ranges of any North American mammal and in the time since Europeans first arrived has not been shot, hit by a car, found dead, caught alive, photographed on a camera trap…that is one Hell of an elusive animal. In remote places like the Pacific Northwest, I can see something like Bigfoot going undetected, but not across the entire Northern Hemisphere.

    To accept that Sasquatch cannot possibly have a range so large would require us to discount all the eyewitness evidence that exists for those places where it is unlikely to exist and than how credible is the evidence for those places where it could exist.

    I find it far more likely that Sasquatch sightings are actually sightings of animals we already know about than an giant ape that spans half the globe and has yet to be properly described.

  17. bobhelferstay responds:

    DWA:

    Agreed. And the PG film has been looked at with technology that no one had even dreamt of back in 1967. If it’s a hoax, it would have been found out by now. There’s no way that the creature on that video is a person in a fur suit. I’ve seen attempted replications, and none even come close.

  18. red_pill_junkie responds:

    The guy obviously resents Fabrizio for being gracious with his guest, and not interrupting him every 30 seconds asking “and how do you know that?”.

    Like when Meldrum retells the first time he encountered a track in the field, and the emotional thrill he felt when he realized this had been done by something animate. How would Fabrizio have looked if he had asked “do you know the difference between a real footprint and a fake one?”.

    Um, hello? This is what Meldrum DOES for a living; it would be like having a doctor as guest for a show that discusses cancer, and asking him if he knows the difference between a malignant tumor and a lipid lump —it would be downright insulting, but I guess no such niceties apply with Woo woo guys who claim Bigfoot deserves to be studied by Science, which comes into the ears of a skeptic as “Yak yak Bigfoot’s real! yak yak” anyway.

  19. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    It IS interesting to reflect, however, on the number of people who have died on electric chairs and in gas chambers on evidence no better that “eyewitness testimony” and a few footprints….

  20. springheeledjack responds:

    I’m extrapolating on DWA’s comments–

    namely, the scoftics (my favorites, of course). There was a time when they called themselves skeptics and they took ownership of that word, deciding that they were “skeptical” because they debunked everything that came across the table (whether their arguments were valid or not). Scoftic and skeptic are not the same thing in the least.

    We as cryptozoologists (amateur and professional) are skeptics–not because of our lofty views and determination, but out of sheer survival. At this site, you have to put your skeptic goggles on because every possible sighting, picture and video is possibly a hoax or a fake. You have to wade through evidence looking to see if it can be explained by something mundane or normal like a hoax, photoshop, misidentification or just plain old skull duggery. When you’ve applied everything you’ve got against a sighting, and you still can’t figure it out (and probably like 3-5% of what comes through here given a lot of the blobsquatches lately), then that’s what gets relegated to the cryptid level.

    That’s being a skeptic.

    Now, to SonoftheDestroyer–yeah. That’s been a hot topic lately, because with the advance of technology and computers it is really easy to create a sasquatch (or Nessie) video or photo…now of course it’s often easy to figure it out if you scrutinize it enough, but the tech keeps getting better and better, hence the discussion that only a body will do (unless they’re multi-dimensional, in which case we’re going to need a few other things).

    Maslo63–I don’t entirely buy into your reasoning. There have been plenty of human populations that have been nomadic and covered quite extensive distances in a year’s time. I don’t find it impossible or even improbable that we’re looking at a relatively small population that does just that–roams across large distances covering many states. I live in Iowa and according to the BFRO (which I know is not complete because I have a brother who saw one and never reported it, but that’s another story), there have been around 40 sightings over the last 30 years. That’s 40 sightings that have been sifted through and what’s left after other sightings were thrown out because of misidentifications, hoaxes, etc. Personally, I don’t think we have a population of BF’s living in Iowa, but I believe that every now and again they cross through, either following a food source, a path, or maybe even just good old fashioned “checking out new possibilities”.

    As for happenstance, that’s been a maddening topic for a long time. Sure we think we “should have” gotten one by now. However, there have been accounts of people having BF’s in their rifle sights and not firing because they were afraid it was human because what they saw seemed more human than animal. As has been discussed ad nauseum, things that die in the wilderness do not lay around for much time at all before decomposition and scavengers take care of the evidence. It happens a whole lot faster than what people think.

    I’m getting off topic, but scoftics and often the uninformed public like to think that we’re the best and brightest on the planet. For the bulk of the time that may hold true…except for the things that we don’t know about yet, or can’t prove because they are smart enough to evade us, despite all of our numbers and technology and our supposed superiority…

  21. DWA responds:

    red_pill:

    …and now it’s your turn to make MY day. :-D

  22. DWA responds:

    Lack of Evidence:

    “You can’t fault skeptics in the field of bigfoot research. How many times have huge claims been made only to be outed as hoaxes?”

    Actually, I can fault them. All one needs is a basic understanding of how science works and a decent BS meter to fault them plenty.

    Every time one of those “huge claims” comes up I laugh and move on. What I pay close attention to is the real science, practiced by such as Meldrum and Bindernagel, which stands apart from and has nothing to do with all that crap.

    That the skeptic fringe can’t do that as well is a scathing indictment of their understanding and method.

  23. DWA responds:

    maslo63:

    “So if eyewitness accounts are the backbone of our evidence that Sasquatch exists than that means the creature spans the entire North American continent and beyond. We know that cannot be true.”

    How do we “know” that? Answer: We don’t. There’s no inherent reason that can’t be true. It is utterly beyond me how the possibility to which the evidence clearly points “cannot be true.” You’re simply expressing the preconceived bias against the possibility that is the very reason it COULD be true: when no one thinks the animal is real, no one believes sightings, no one follows up, and the animal continues to “not exist,” despite an ever-growing pile of evidence to the contrary.

    “That would mean Sasquatch has one of the largest ranges of any North American mammal and in the time since Europeans first arrived has not been shot,”…[several accounts have been reported; there’s no more reason to disbelieve than to believe them; just because no one has brought back a carcass or part of one that has gotten into science’s hands does not mean it has not happened…];

    “… hit by a car,…” [ditto];

    “… found dead,…[just because no one has brought back a carcass etc.];

    “… caught alive,…[the “Jacko” account may be apocryphal, but maybe not];

    “… photographed on a camera trap…” [the Jacobs photos have been, in my opinion, wrongly relegated to the trash with no clear evidence that they are of a bear. More than one scientist – and I indict Meldrum on this one – has handled the evidence in a way no scientist should. Then, of course, we have the P/G film, on which all legitimate research that has been done indicates that it might be film of just what Patterson says he saw].

    “To accept that Sasquatch cannot possibly have a range so large would require us to discount all the eyewitness evidence that exists for those places where it is unlikely to exist and than how credible is the evidence for those places where it could exist.”

    Stated another way: our whims and preconceived notions should allow us to toss all evidence with impunity if it makes us uncomfortable. Ignore all that, Your Honor, because she didn’t do it. YOU BUY THAT?!?!? THANKS…!!!

    “I find it far more likely that Sasquatch sightings are actually sightings of animals we already know about than an giant ape that spans half the globe and has yet to be properly described.”

    Then you haven’t read sighting reports. I have, tons; and virtually every one I have read can be only one of three things: (1) evidence of a hospitalizable condition; (2) a flat lie; or (3) a sasquatch. There is no way that anyone can see any known North American animal and think it’s an eight-foot ape. But, if you know how psychology works – and when it comes to this topic few do – you DO know how someone could see a sasquatch and think it’s a bear (or a moose, as one of the reported shooters thought when he fired, a legitimate presumption when one reads the report).

  24. Lack of Evidence responds:

    DWA,

    There are 307 Million people in the US. With all of the technology today, including cameras that are capable of taking crystal clear pictures at far distances (Unless you happen to try to snap a picture of bigfoot), hidden trail cams that up to this point have taken pictures of a maingy bear, and just the outline of some fur, better cammo for hunters, you would think that someone would have some better evidence that what has come forward. Footprints and dermal ridges can be hoaxed and that’s Meldrum’s argument. I will agree that he seems to be the most credible in the field of bigfoot research and if he came out and said ” I have something huge”, I would probably believe him.

    It’s laughable that some of the bigfoot researchers have come forward and said that bigfoot can detect electronic equipment and that’s why they are so hard to photograph or film. I wonder where they picked up that skill?

    If you look at the whole outline of what has been brought forward, it’s laughable to think that people actually believe that this thing is roaming around in North America. I have seen more evidence that Santa Claus exists (I have some clear pictures of him with my kids, not blobsquatchy).

    Can anyone really explain and no BS please, why there has been no body? The coelacanth that was supposed to be extinct was found recently in an area as vast as the ocean (where 307 million people don’t live).

    Another question – In your opinion, what is the best evidence that Sasquatch is real?

  25. Oggar responds:

    Like maslo, bigfoot is one of the few remaining large cryptids I give a chance of existing. Some of the more compelling evidence to me continues to be the P-G “Patty” footage and the discovery of friction ridges on some prints. However, an animal of this size living in small groups should not be that difficult to find. They would need a sustainable breeding population and would have a significant effect on their local biome due to resource consumption. It seems to me the best opportunity for the discovery of bigfoot lays in camera traps. Hunters, landowners, biologists and nature enthusiasts are deploying them in vastly increasing numbers. If elusive species of deer, felines, rhinos, etc., are tracked and discovered by these means it seems that by simple extrapolation bigfoot could/should be as well.

  26. maslo63 responds:

    DWA, you’re forgetting that I actually want to believe bigfoot is real…I just can’t do it anymore. There is good evidence. The P-G film, dermal ridges, even the Skookum cast had me. I’ve read many reports, many books (including those by Meldrum and Coleman) and I’ve seen all the shows. But the evidence that exists is still slim and after all this time one of the largest animals on the continent has still eluded us.

    We’ve found the Okapi deep in the African rainforest, and the coelacanth as already mentioned. When was the last time a newly discovered large mammal was described from North America? Been awhile I think, despite some mighty elusive species. We can rediscover tiny frogs we thought extinct but there is a 8′ tall primate roaming one of the world’s greatest powers?

    I don’t want to call the eyewitnesses mentally ill or hoaxers…I’m sure they thought they saw something. People that see UFO’s, Gnomes or Ghosts also are pretty damn sure they saw something. That something could be any of a number of things including humans or bears or hell…even a chimpanzee would be more likely than an undiscovered ape in North America. Lets not forget Occam’s Razor. Is it more likely someone misidentified a bear or saw an undiscovered ape in North America?

    As for the notion that Sasquatch bodies decompose too fast or are nomadic. These just sound like excuses to answer for the fact that the evidence is mostly lousy. Excuses made by people who want to believe (like myself). I mean really, sure bodies decompose but as rare as they may be people find bones in the woods fairly often. I myself have a vast collection of mammal skulls representing a large number of NY species but I don’t have one from one of those NY Bigfoots. We have fossils of animals that lived at the dawn of life and yet no Sasquatch bone…fossil or otherwise? Again…Occam’s Razor.

  27. DWA responds:

    Lack of Evidence:

    As with any scientific topic, this is a deep and broad one. I could write a book answering you. (And am about to write a booklet.) But this is telling: in the face of all of this evidence, you’re asking me questions. I don’t want questions. I want evidence. That’s all any scientific discussion is about. What is your EVIDENCE that all of this discussion, all of this evidence, amounts to nothing?

    Yes, you must produce that. Anyone who knows the volume of the evidence for the sasquatch knows that. As I frequently say here, if you know what I know, you MUST think what I think about this, which is: this is as worthy as any scientific quest going. (I didn’t say “it’s real;” I said “the evidence says we should be looking to find out what’s causing it to happen”.) I have not seen anything to make me question that statement yet.

    “There are 307 Million people in the US.” On the basis of sighting reports alone, I’d say as many as 5 million of them have seen a sasquatch. Remember, this is people coming forward to risk ridicule by saying they’ve seen something “we all know doesn’t exist,” and most if not all of them believed that before their encounters. Fewer, probably, have seen a wolf or a cougar, animals we know to be real. The critical skeptical error in this discussion: if we think it doesn’t exist, that means it doesn’t. Most sighters don’t come forth for years, many for decades; and most of those only find out they can report their sightings anonymously on the Internet by chance. (This I know from reading lots of them. How many have you read?)

    “With all of the technology today, including cameras that are capable of taking crystal clear pictures at far distances…(the rest snipped for space):”

    Almost all photos of cougars, wolves and wolverines, to name just three, are of captive animals. Same for jaguars, to name only one of a host more. Unless an animal has been thoroughly conditioned to human presence, the chance you will get a photo of it – unless you are assiduously searching over long periods for specifically that – is pretty much nil. Shoot, photos of wild camels in Mongolia, in an area with zero trees, ferpetesake, and camels are huge, took the “Planet Earth” crew longer to get than it took Roger Patterson to get his film in an area cloaked with dense forest (I’ve been there; check.) And they KNEW THE CAMELS WERE THERE.

    Number of people, planet-wide, who are looking for sasquatch on anything other than a weekend basis: zero. In history: same number. That wouldn’t confirm anything.

    “… hidden trail cams that up to this point have taken pictures of a maingy [sic] bear, …” As I’ve said here and elsewhere, the treatment of the Jacobs photos may one day be seen to be as erroneous as the treatment of the Patterson film. Proportions simply look wrong for a bear, of which I have seen many in the wild; and the “analysis” I have seen is shoddy at best. Reputable sasquatch proponents engaged in this shoddy work; I can only guess that they saw this as a chance to cast themselves to the public and their mainstream colleagues as “skeptical.” Which in general they are, as any scientist worth a microscope lens has to be.

    “I will agree that [Meldrum] seems to be the most credible in the field of bigfoot research and if he came out and said ” I have something huge”, I would probably believe him.”

    Meldrum will not say that unless he has something tantamount to proof. Which is why I stay clear of most of the Bigfoolery you see on this site, and focus on the scientists. Read Meldrum and Bindernagel; season with several hundred sighting reports; and you start to realize that all the “307 million” and “all this technology” arguments don’t amount to much, against evidence that says the mainstream of science is just not looking at something right in front of its face, something that laymen are seeing a lot. That has happened before. Something like the sasquatch amounting to a hoax? That never has. This would be the biggest deception humans have ever pulled off if it amounts to nothing but a joke we played on ourselves.

    This is one of the benefits of getting acquainted with the evidence. There is no scientist who can argue with me effectively on this topic; and more than one has tried. They announce ignorance of the evidence within the first three sentences, on average, and three times within the first minute, on average. In fact, they sound just like you (maybe the first time you’ve ever been told you sound like a scientist!) Scientists ditch skepticism for scofticism at the funniest times, but I understand. They’re human.

    “It’s laughable that some of the bigfoot researchers have come forward and said that bigfoot can detect electronic equipment and that’s why they are so hard to photograph or film. I wonder where they picked up that skill?”

    When people need to explain something, and they aren’t scientists, they say the funniest stuff. But research has shown that known animals (coyotes, specifically alpha males with camera traps on their territories) sense and avoid camera traps. It’s the beta “wanderers” who don’t know the territory that get their pictures taken. I mean, these things aren’t impossible to see, and if an animal knows its territory well, the site simply looks different after a trap has been put up. To say nothing of the activity required to do that.

    “If you look at the whole outline of what has been brought forward, it’s laughable to think that people actually believe that this thing is roaming around in North America. I have seen more evidence that Santa Claus exists (I have some clear pictures of him with my kids, not blobsquatchy).”

    That is an extremely clear sign of someone ignorant of the evidence. Nothing personal; hey, I don’t know how the hell anyone believes in “quarks.” Physicists are nuts who can’t get dates. You ever see a pic of Einstein? Who would believe that guy on anything?

    “Can anyone really explain and no BS please, why there has been no body? The coelacanth that was supposed to be extinct was found recently in an area as vast as the ocean (where 307 million people don’t live).”

    The coelacanth lives in waters that until recently were untouched by Western scientists. The natives have been thinking coelacanth tastes yummy for uncounted generations (the original specimen was taken by native fishermen); they didn’t see anything unusual about them. This is the difference between “people see it all the time” and “science has confirmed it.” As we see in the case of the sasquatch and yeti (and the kouprey and saola): an enormous difference.

    People claim to have shot sasquatch. One of them described to Grover Krantz the foot of the animal he shot, which he found extremely interesting. So did Krantz: the description matched, exactly, his model for what the foot of a biped that size would have to look like. One described his encounter in detail; he shot one in 1941, almost two decades before Anglo North America made Bigfoot a household word. He thought he was looking at the rear end of a cow moose he’d wounded earlier. He found different when he walked up on his kill.

    No more reason to disbelieve than to believe them. Actually, if one is acquainted with the evidence, more reason for the latter. And why would anyone suppose that a hunter would want to bring a piece back? Many hunters have said the animal looked so human they couldn’t shoot at it; I’m sure that would go double for one who actually went that far and now had to carve it up and carry it out.

    “Another question – In your opinion, what is the best evidence that Sasquatch is real?”

    My question to a physicist: God particle? One sentence, and I have to be convinced.

    The best evidence is HOW MUCH THERE IS and HOW CONSISTENT IT IS (frequency and coherence). Any true scientist recognizes those markers (see: Meldrum). That is: when he bothers to look. Many people have seen it; all trackways analyzed that weren’t nailed as hoaxes are similar; all descriptions sound consistent, right down to facial features and the midtarsal break on the foot, described by more than one sighter who was technically unaware of what he was looking at but knew it was unusual. The biology of the animal is being pieced together from this evidence (something we can’t say about, say, Nessie or Ogopogo).

    In short: the best evidence for the sasquatch is that there is – there has been in history – no other phenomenon for which there is this much evidence that has not been confirmed as real.

    Why it’s not confirmed? Easy to understand, when you’ve read the evidence; thought about it; and realized that no evidence will convince anyone who “knows” it’s not real.

    Read up.

  28. DWA responds:

    Maslo63:

    “DWA, you’re forgetting that I actually want to believe bigfoot is real.”

    I don’t give a crap one way or the other. Except for the evidence. That is all I care about. And all the evidence points to the reality of sasquatch. All I care about. All any scientist should.

    Nessie? Whatever. Ogopogo? Hey, when you got something worthwhile. Mothman? [chuckle/stifled guffaw] Ghosts? Sure, just show me the pics when you have them; I’m not interested otherwise. The paranormal is not a mental area in which I spend any time.

    Sasquatch? Now you got my attention. Evidence is why. Sounds like an animal, leaving the kind of evidence animals leave, everything from footprints and hair to feces and blood. Descriptions are consistent, guidebook-ishly so.

    NO ONE IS LOOKING in the way anyone looks for anything we actually find. It’s all weekend wanderers; science is paying hardly any attention at all. (About as much as I pay to ghosts.) Even the best of the searchers are real people with surreal jobs like you and me; they search when they can.

    Meanwhile, people keep seeing this animal, people who were certain it didn’t exist.

    For a long time I didn’t want to believe Bigfoot was real. An ape in the US? Offended my nature sensibilities. All over the continent? Sure, so are UFOs. Then I read up. Whoa, I said. Then I thought about what I read. Gotta do that, you know. Now, the arguments-against I see as exactly what they are: baseless suppositions and questions. No evidence at all; you kinda need evidence to lodge a position in a scientific argument, particularly when a pile of evidence, growing by the week, contests you.

    The things we found, we looked for. This thing: we’re not looking. Well, some are. But not long enough or hard enough to confirm (although with every trip that, say, the TBRC takes, the evidence continues to build).
    Belief ain’t what science is about. You got evidence, or you got nothing.

    This has piles; and it’s the reason I’m here.

  29. DWA responds:

    maslo63: I need to add one thing.

    “These just sound like excuses to answer for the fact that the evidence is mostly lousy.”

    No it’s not. The fundamental skeptical notion, the one that shows me the skeptics don’t read.

    You know better, right? READ.

  30. DWA responds:

    maslo63:

    I need to add one more thing: the danger of mis-applying Occam’s Razor, as you did.

    The proper way to apply the Razor in this case is: what is the simplest explanation for all this evidence? (Not “the simplest explanation I personally am prepared to accept.” The SIMPLEST EXPLANATION. For example, the simplest explanation for Mothman is that people saw Mothman.) No one cares how many fossils there are for anything else. That is not at issue here. The one issue here:

    What is causing all this evidence?

    To one acquainted with the evidence, Occam’s Razor is clear: the animal people say they are seeing, and describing in detail.

    (Not a bear; unlikely in the greatest extreme. As one knows who reads reports.)

    Occam goes on to say: the simplest explanation is the most likely to be the right one. Provided the evidence is there to support it.

  31. norman-uk responds:

    Believing in bigfoot is not a matter of wanting to, there is a huge body of evidence but it needs studying and looking at with an open mind and the confidence to deal with where it leads. Which is, that Bigfoot does exist, though not absolutely proven, which can be a rare commodity, but enough to accept it is so. Occams razor is about not looking for unneeded complications not the simplest apparent answer. There is a provisional rider in that the answer should fit the facts, simple or not. If one concludes that bigfoot does not exist, then all the evidence, a huge amount, for it has to be denied. This does not make sense and I would suggest is nonsensical

    The problem left then is why is there no body or body parts. There is other evidence of course such as footcasts.etc etc. But focusing on the lack of a body. It is true this is a problem though reasons have been proposed but would seem insufficient to explain it and I think we have to consider this is an unsolved puzzle for the moment. DNA results would act as a substitute body and this appears to be in the offing. Historically it is not unusual to accept something unexplained in terms of the known, expecting an answer eventually. I reckon when the duck-billed-platybus was suspected of being an egg layer and a mammal it took a certain amount of bravery to give it credence!

    For sasquatch to exist it is wrong for some to say there must be a breeding population. There certainly must have been a breeding population and maybe we are at a point, like Ishi that the bigfoot we see is the last or nearly the last of its kind. I cannot imagine how bigfoot can prevail against the diseases brought to it by humans. especially those who seek it in its isolated fastnessses, benignly.

  32. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    That’s the odd thing,isn’t it. Almost everyone you ask (who is familiar with the PGF) is sure that somewhere or other it has been exposed as a fake. (It hasn’t).

    (thanks to Matt Moneymaker for the link to the video). National Geographic pretty well proved it ISN’T faked. Well, that helps. With that a reasonable person can say “Well, we certainly have A Bigfoot.”

    But what IS Bigfoot? Or is Bigfoot more than one kind of thing? COULD it be that at one time there were these hominid creatures roaming North America? “The Siege of Ape Canyon” that took place in 1924 not far from Mount St Helens in Washington State indicates that it wasn’t all THAT long ago that a band or tribe of these creatures could be encountered…not with the most positive of results. One cannot read Fred Beck’s account of that incident without finding his testimony credible.

    But we’re seeing them less and less. Are they dying out? Have they died out already leaving only simulacra of themselves imprinted on the Electromagnetic Field around their former dwellings?

    Has the ancient and long held reverence for these beings by Native Peoples produced Tulpas (Thought-forms) who move and act as if they were real living beings but who no longer are? Nick Redfern has something to say about that in his book THREE MEN SEEING MONSTERS (which is a ball to read).

    OR all they all of the above plus hoaxes and misidentified bears and all the rest?

    I don’t think we can truly SAY just yet….

  33. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    One more thing..DWA: Occam’s Razor isn’t about “the simplest solution” it is about the solution that contains the fewest ASSUMPTIONS. Anyone who cuts their approach down to “Bigfoot is real” or “Bigfoot isn’t real” (eithern way, you see) has complied with that.

  34. maslo63 responds:

    Norman, If Sasquatch is on it’s way out due to diseases brought by man than…where are the bodies? And I’m sorry to say, if there is a creature living from Alaska to Texas, California to Maine than there needs to be a breeding population.

    DWA, You ask “What is your EVIDENCE that all of this discussion, all of this evidence, amounts to nothing?”

    My evidence is the fact that all your evidence is too ambiguous to amount to much. And I never said it amounts to nothing did I? Quite the opposite, I’ve expressed more than once that some of the evidence is good. You don’t need to convince me, I already was convinced and I’m still open minded about it all but eventually someone will have to turn up something tangible because this animal simply cannot be THAT elusive. It can’t! I don’t care how smart it is, I don’t care how rare it is…something has got to turn up eventually. Five million people have seen this thing and not one of them had a good camera? I have a Nikon P-80 I take everywhere, it is a good camera and I know I’m not the only one who has a good camera walking around the woods. Even cell phones have good cameras these days. Back 20 or 30 years ago I could understand the lack of photographs but not these days. The excuses can only hold up for so long. Five million people have seen this thing and not one of them has taken a decent photo or shot the thing or found a body…that’s more unbelievable than Sasquatch at this point. And I think that is ultimately the problem for me. At this point it all just sounds like excuses.

    Everyone has seen this thing, it’s range includes nearly the entire Northern Hemisphere, it’s gigantic and still…no one can find it. You bring up the Camels in Mongolia…I saw Planet Earth so I know what you’re talking about. Well my counterargument is this. If we can find a small population of camels in the vastness of Mongolia AND take some pretty damn good footage of them than why can’t we find an 8′ tall ape in our backyards that everyone has already seen? How can we find Mountain Gorillas in the dense African Rainforest but not a creature that again…spans half the globe. Don’t give me that crap about how a proper expedition has not been launched. It shouldn’t need to be, there are enough tourists, hunters, trappers, hikers that someone should have more than a story by now. There are scientists in the forest studying every other animal on the Globe…should not one of them brought back something tangible by now? And again, not a story about how they saw one… I’ve read enough of those.

  35. DWA responds:

    maslo63:

    Nobody’s looking. Simple as that. Just as I said and say again: “NO ONE IS LOOKING in the way anyone looks for anything we actually find. It’s all weekend wanderers; science is paying hardly any attention at all. (About as much as I pay to ghosts.) Even the best of the searchers are real people with surreal jobs like you and me; they search when they can.”

    In a nutshell. That is why. The level of search is not near what we devote to anything we want to find.

    I keep saying here that this animal is not that elusive at all. It doesn’t have to be; the most elusive critter of all is mainstream scientific credibility for the concept of sasquatch. That critter is virtually nonexistent.

    That is why. PERIOD.

  36. DWA responds:

    Maslo63:

    “Don’t give me that crap about how a proper expedition has not been launched. It shouldn’t need to be, there are enough tourists, hunters, trappers, hikers that someone should have more than a story by now. There are scientists in the forest studying every other animal on the Globe…should not one of them brought back something tangible by now? And again, not a story about how they saw one… I’ve read enough of those.”

    Wrong thinking, driven by a misunderstanding of how science works.

    You don’t confirm something unless you ARE LOOKING FOR THAT THING. Ask any field biologist. Sure, you’ll have rainforest expeditons who put out mist nets and catch bats, owls, insects etc. And that go into a stream and find a turtle, a fish, a frog, etc. But everyone expects them to find that stuff. They find it because they have been in similar areas, and they know where to look. No one says: new turtle? YOU’RE A KOOK! Besides which, a focus on one thing reduces the focus on other things. Stuff will go through the colander, period. Never expect an ivorybill expedition to come back with an accurate bobcat count. Or even to pay enough attention to note that that wasn’t a bobcat, but maybe an unknown species…

    And when you are looking for an animal no one wants to believe exists? I would lay cash money that more than one – maybe considerably more than one – field biologist has seen a sasquatch or yeti in the field. I don’t know how I’d collect, but just say, count on it. How do I not know how to collect? Simple. THEY’RE NOT TALKING. Know why they aren’t? Because to say “oh, by the way, I didn’t see an ivorybill but I saw a sasquatch!” is a straight career killer. You do know that, right?

    All those lay people you say are out there aren’t being believed. Why do you think they suddenly will be? How much do you want to bet that somebody – probably more than one – didn’t bring back what would be proof because, ‘oh, I’ll just be sucked into a circus that will eat up my life and everyone that counts will think I’m crazy? I’m not risking that. I know; and I am the only one I care about.’ It’s happened, count on it; but of course no one’s talking.

    Count on this: no mainstream scientist will report sighting an animal such as this, or finding any evidence of it, unless he is on an expedition that has been explicitly advised that information regarding this animal will be taken seriously. Put a big period at the end of that sentence.

    Too many people are just too full of hope, longing and frustration and thus not thinking about this correctly. I’m sensing it in you. Cut it out, and start thinking like a scientist. When you do, you find that you can just take this to the bank:

    Nothing will be proven until the mainstream mindset of biology is that scientists will report what they see; they will bring back what they find; and IT WILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY unless and until it is proven by the application of the scientific method not to be what it appeared to be.

    Put a bigger period after that one.

  37. DWA responds:

    And yet another benefit of paying attention to the evidence:

    Just about every kind of outdoor worker – snowplow driver to truck driver to motorist (driving IS an outdoor sport, as I counsel my kids when they get in the car in December weariing t-shirts) to hunter to fisherman to construction worker to cop – reports sasquatch sightings.

    Except one.

    Field biologist.

    Point proven.

  38. maslo63 responds:

    Again with the excuses. Given the population of humans on this Continent (on the Globe) and the range of these apes…we shouldn’t have to mount an expedition to find this thing! Someone should have just found one by happenstance. There are enough people doing things outdoors that we should have found it regardless of it’s elusiveness. But no, no one has found one and I’m pretty certain it is because there isn’t one there at all. PERIOD. And that is the reason mainstream science is not involved. There is no 8′ bipedal ape roaming half the Continent right under our noses. The majority of Science knows this…for a reason. PERIOD.

  39. DWA responds:

    You sound like a disappointed True Believer.

    Who is also ignorant of the evidence.

    This is not about hope, or being jilted or wanting to believe. It is about evidence. And the evidence says: got a new species here.

    So now I know you’re going to tell me what you think of Meldrum. And I’ll tell you whether you’re right or not.

    Hint. NOT.

    Anyone who thinks about this rationally and who has been exposed to the evidence to the extent I have thinks, at the very least, what I think.

    No exceptions yet.

  40. norman-uk responds:

    Cass- Occams razor is of limited use and maybe its a good subject to subject itself too? Not looking for unecessary complications like which assumptions have more value or weight than others rather than just the numbers of assumptions It is not of great use really imo.

    Maslo63- ‘Where are the bodies ?’ I do not know but one simple fact is that bigfoot is largely a creature of the forest, forest lands are covered in leaf litter which is acid and bodies and bone quickly disappear. Lots of other reasons are given but they do not entirely explain the apparent absence of bodies or bits of bodies though.

    In my opinion the existence of bigfoot has been virtualy proven by hugh amonts of multiple different sorts of evidence enough of which is unambiguous. In DWA’s earlier blogs he states there is de-facto proof of its existence. So rather than deny the hugh body of evidence for bigfoot the outstanding problem to be addressed is not whether bigfooot exists because there is no body available to study but why this is so and how can one be obtained? Ideally of one that had a good life, reproduced and died in peace and in relative comfort.

    In view of the evidence there is for bigfoot it seems most probable that bodies or bits of them have been or are available and are unrecognised or ignored. I am not taking account of any possible recent developments here. But at some point a dam will burst and there could be plenty! This kind of thing seems to happen in science.

  41. DWA responds:

    Lack of Evidence: I just saw something that bothers me, a little.

    “I will agree that [Meldrum] seems to be the most credible in the field of bigfoot research and if he came out and said ” I have something huge”, I would probably believe him.”

    Now wait here.

    Twice you use the word “laughable,” once in terms of the very existence of an animal Meldrum – even though he uses the most circumspect language – seems to think of as real! And yet you would just snap to if this nutcase told you he had something?

    I hope you know that doesn’t make sense, right?

    You either take him seriously right now, OR YOU NEVER CAN.

  42. DWA responds:

    Cass_of_MPLS:

    There’s actually quite a bit of discussion about what “simplest” means with regard to Occam.

    But no question in this case how to interpret it:

    What’s the simplest explanation of all this evidence? Here it is:

    “Bigfoot is real.”

    To presume the opposite requires a host of assumptions. To think that this is not true is not to know the breadth and depth of the evidence. Which simply cannot be explained without positing pluralities forever.

  43. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    DWA Not really. William of Ockham was very clear. Feel free to read up on it somewhere OTHER than wikipedia.

    As for Bigfoot being REAL. Never said he wasn’t. But it is odd that we’ve been chasing these things since 1884 (remember the story of Jacko?) and at NO time in the last 127 years has anyone produced one Bigfoot dead or alive. DWA complains that that is what you can expect from “Weekend Explorers” but there’s more to it than that. There have been plenty of expeditions that have gone out and spent WEEKS running around the woods of the Pacific Northwest and al they ever come back with are some blurry photos and a footprint or so.

    Now, there has to be a reason for that.

    A. The creature doesn’t actually exist.
    B. It does exist but for SOME reason is able to elude capture and never leaves a corpse where it can be found. No body. No bones. No NOTHING.

    Over a hundred years of photos, footprints, and the occasional recording of what is SUPPOSED to be the cry of the Bigfoot (there has yet to be a case of an audio recording that proves out to be anything OTHER than a known animal or an out and out fraud).

    Much like the audio file I manipulated to create the “Sound” of Mothman when I did my video celebrating Mothman’s anniversary a couple of years ago.

    SO…what can we conclude from this. The creature ASSUMING it exists is highly intelligent since it is able to avoid capture.

    OR (like The Shadow) it has the power to “cloud men’s minds”. In other words it HAS been captured more than once but it was able to take control of the minds of its captors and erase their memories (and make them destroy all evidence OF) the event.

    In line with that let us remember the tradition of the First Nation people who are most familiar with it that you must avoid looking into its eyes or it can take control of your soul,

    Hey we can theorize forever about the Squatch. But I’m 61 and (though I’m disabled now) I spent a good part of the late 60s right through the early 90s chasing after this creature (and others) and I’ve got NOTHING.

    NO ONE has anything. Conclusive. No one.

    Well…except maybe ONE thing…the Patterson-Gimlin film. It isn’t faked. I’ll take the word of the National Geographic on that. But that film was shot back in 1967 (the same year the Beatles released Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band). I was 17 then. That’s 44 years ago. Almost half a century since there’s been anything approaching definite in the way of evidence.

    Eyewitness sightings? SOME may be genuine sightings. The majority are either misidentifications of known animals, delusions, or pure fabrications.

    You might keep that in mind.

  44. DWA responds:

    Cass_of_MPLS:

    Occam was more than clear enough that I’m right. All one has to do is actually read up on the evidence and the simplest explanation – no matter what definition of “simple” one uses – is:

    Bigfoot exists.

    Why? Well, people are seeing it. Lots of them. Lots of other types of evidence are compellingly related to sightings. This evidence has withstood serious scientific scrutiny, although too few scientists have themselves looked at it to convince themselves of that. Almost all sighters had rock-solid scofticism shaken by their sightings. We are not talking a community of True Believers here. But you have to read up to know that.

    When one goes the other way one has to explain lots – and lots and lots – of stuff. Like how a significant share of the US population that looks sane is actually unhinged. Like how a Native American legend has lodged itself firmly in the Anglo population, and attracted serious scientific attention. (No other legend has so seriously jumped cultures; why this one?) Like how technology non-existent in 1967 was used then to create history’s most incredible deception, one that a number of trained scientists aver is no deception at all. Et cetera for more space than this blog has.

    You’ll have to tell me where all these weeks-long expeditions came from. (Hint: if they weren’t fully funded efforts led by competent scientists with mainstream cred, and none of them were, they aren’t worth much.)

    People don’t mistake known animals for eight-foot apes. (Psych 101, however, says the reverse happens all the time.) I have read virtually no sighting reports – and evidence indicates I’ve read far more than anyone here – that could have been other than one of three things: (1) grave mental illness; (2) outright lies or (3) precisely what the witness says they saw.

    When one comes at this topic with more weapons than Occam – including lots of time outside; lots of time thinking about the dynamics of that; and considerably more than the typical layman’s animal knowledge, in addition to lots of reading of the encounter literature – one learns how to think about the evidence.

    We have nothing more solid for anything that hasn’t already been proven to exist. We have nothing this solid for many things that have.

  45. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    DWA: Clearly your understanding of the word “evidence” is a bit on the fuzzy side. Clearly you didn’t read my post. I spent over 35 years chasing Bigfoot OUTSIDE (along with UFOs and various other phenomena).

    One “People are seeing them”. Well, people are seeing something…or, at least, they SAY they are seeing something. Some people lie, others mistake known creatures (bears, most commonly) for Bigfoot.

    Now I have never said Bigfoot didn’t exist (not sure where you get that idea) what I am saying there is no REAL evidence. No confirmed DNA from hair samples, Bigfoot scat. NONE of that. Now that WOULD be evidence. Evidence ANYONE could test.

    Until someone shows up with that it is extremely UNscientific to say “Bigfoot Exists.”

    All we can say is that there is reason to investigate. But we’ve been doing that for more than a hundred years and STILL no REAL evidence.

  46. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    DWA: Suggest you look up the Pacific Northwest Bigfoot Expedition sometime.

  47. DWA responds:

    Cass_of_MPLS:

    The Pacific Northwest Bigfoot Expedition: Oh that thing (with the sketchiest Wiki entry I ever saw, Squatchopedia or otherwise).

    Tom Slick’s playbaby; with principals who had no cred in the mainstream on this subject (mainly because it *was* this subject). A Bigfoot expedition made up solely of Bigfooters means: zero. There has to be a conduit to the mainstream; that didn’t have one.

    AGAIN!* There has to be an up-front understanding that evidence obtained will be viewed objectively by the scientific community at large. Which means: forget it if the mainstream is not interested going in. It may actually *be* interesting; but if the mainstream isn’t interested…forget it. Unless you (a) have a body and (b) have a plan to move that body through the chain of custody to objective scientific review.

    As to fuzzy: My experience here indicates I am among the *least* fuzzy on what constitutes evidence. Stop saying “there’s no proof.” That IS WHY WE’RE HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS. The only difference between evidence and proof is opinion. If the scientists think it’s proof, it is. They accept planets on wispy pseudo-evidence that would never convince a biologist; ‘bigfoot thermal images’ would be proof if all sciences went by what constitutes proof in astronomy.

    Now *this* is fuzzy: “… others mistake known creatures (bears, most commonly) for Bigfoot.”

    NO THEY DON’T, as I have said repeatedly on this site (including a number of times on this thread). Anyone who has read reports knows this.

    But seeing a sasquatch and thinking: must have been a bear? That happens a lot, I’d be willing to bet. (One guy shot a bigfoot he thought was a moose. Plausible story…IF you read it.)

    If the animal’s real, of course. Which the evidence says it is.

    READ REPORTS. Then cite me five examples of a sighting that turned out to be a known animal on further review. One must cite evidence for every position one takes in a scientific debate. Mine is right out there for everyone to read. They’re not seeing bears.

    Eyewitness accounts are “REAL evidence” if one knows what constitutes evidence. (Like they know well in, say, the legal profession, where evidence is all that counts.) Short of proof it’s as real as evidence gets (again, ask any lawyer); it tells you, among other things, where to look, and what you’re looking for. AGAIN!* The sheer volume and consistency of the eyewitness evidence for the sasquatch is uncanny, for something that doesn’t exist. Which Occam would say tells you: it does.

    You will have to excuse my eyebrows going up when I saw you chased UFOs and Bigfoot. That combination gives scientists – or people who think like scientists – major indigestion.

    (In all that time outside, how many cougars did you see? They’re real, right?)

    (I wish these people would debate Meldrum and not me. I can do just fine thanks; but why pretend that Meldrum doesn’t exist? He does. At least Occam might say so.)

    (We will know crypto is a science when people don’t come on places such as this like experts…then talk past the evidence.)

    * i.e. I keep saying this but it doesn’t seem to sink in. Here’s hoping.

  48. DWA responds:

    One more thing: I don’t believe Bigfoot exists. Which means:

    “Bigfoot exists” is not one of the beliefs I currently hold.

    (As you note, that would be UNscientific.)

    But the evidence says: Look, the way science looks for what it expects to find, and you will likely find something.

  49. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    Hello DWA, why do we persist in misunderstanding each other? You seem to be in the throes of a delusion. Namely—you think that “I” think that Bigfoot doesn’t exist.

    That’s not true. I have seen what I would say WAS a Bigfoot on three different occasions in my life.

    Then again…I might have been mistaken. I don’t think I was, but I could have been. Certainly I could produce no PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to substantiate my sightings. (No hair samples, no scat).

    Got some rather out-of-focus pictures—or rather, another member of the expedition shot those and they have appeared on the net as well as elsewhere.

    Some people say they’re real—some people say they are fakes. I can’t prove either of them right or wrong.

    Because, for scientific purposes, I have nothing. Because I have nothing people can submit to laboratory analysis.

    Infrared images are not satisfying for the same reason, by the way. All they show is that you caught something warm-blooded. But infrared images cannot be used to identify WHAT the camera is seeing.

    A human in an ape costume would produce a similar infrared image. And you cannot tell that it isn’t that without PHYSICAL evidence.

    Now, as for Tom Slick—instead of wasting your time reading some wiki about him try Loren Coleman’s excellent biography Tom Slick: True Life Encounters in Cryptozoology.

    I’ll wager Loren’s street creds against yours or anybody else’s when it comes to cryptids. Craig Woolheater, who also posts here, has an excellent record in the field. And there are many others who (like myself) have devoted the better part of their lives to chasing after these things.

    You, my friend, had best learn some humility. You are dealing with people whose experience in in the Sasquatch realm is formidable, indeed.

  50. Craig Woolheater responds:

    Cass_of_MPLS and DWA,

    Let’s try to remain civil here. I don’t think you two are as far apart you think…

    Craig

  51. norman-uk responds:

    Cass

    I wonder if you could explain what appears to be a contradiction in your blogs.

    you state:

    (1) But no, no one has found one and I’m pretty certain it is because there isn’t one there at all.

    (2) You seem to be in the throes of a delusion. Namely—you think that “I” think that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. That’s not true. I have seen what I would say WAS a Bigfoot on three different occasions in my life.

    I am also interested in what you mean by the following, and what was W saying in your opinion?

    (3) William of Ockham was very clear. Feel free to read up on it somewhere OTHER than wikipedia.

  52. DWA responds:

    Cass/Craig:

    Aw, what’s a little nastiness among friends?

    I hope nobody thinks that I believe science is a neat little tea party where everyone agrees. The worst tiffs I’ve seen on Cryptomundo don’t compare to the nastiness the “hard” sciences (maybe that’s why they’re called that!) can muster when otherwise reasonable people violently disagree. If I ruffled feathers, I apologize.

    That said: The evidence needs no apologies. There is much testable evidence for the sasquatch. (Sightings count, big time. They say: LOOK HERE. And when you read them, they don’t say bear.) But until the scientific mainstream is ready to test it – and there are protocols in place for doing precisely that – we won’t have proof. That’s the block, not a lack of evidence.

    Cass: If you’ve seen a bigfoot on three occasions, then you have PROOF. It might not suffice for science, nor for me (I couldn’t accept it as proof if it came from the single person I trusted most; secondhand is secondhand), but if I’d had those sightings personally, I wouldn’t care what science thought. I’d know, and the rest of the world could go hang. I’d have to seriously think about whether I’d tell anybody. But I wouldn’t doubt it any longer.

    In other words, there’s societal proof, i.e., the provisional truths accepted as scientific fact, and personal proof, i.e., good enough for me if I’m that person.

    I do find it interesting that so many people feel that The World Must Know! after their sightings. They risk major ridicule, as I’m sure you know all too well. But we should feel grateful for that impulse. I know I do. There’d be no squatchery without it.

    I may not know enough about your “street cred.” But I do know something about evidence. And if science decided to go confirm the sasquatch tomorrow, I could tell them exactly how to go about it. Actually, they could do that themselves. They practically have the manual, if they’d look at the evidence.

  53. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    1. @Norman of UK Had you clicked the link “the word wikipedia” it would not have taken you to wikipedia but instead to the Principia Cybernetica Web where “Occam’s Razor” is clearly explained. And it does NOT mean “The Simplest Solution is the Correct One.”

    2. I have never said “there isn’t one there.” What I have said (on more than ONE occasion) is “As for Bigfoot being REAL. Never said he wasn’t. But it is odd that we’ve been chasing these things since 1884 (remember the story of Jacko?) and at NO time in the last 127 years has anyone produced one Bigfoot dead or alive. DWA complains that that is what you can expect from “Weekend Explorers” but there’s more to it than that. There have been plenty of expeditions that have gone out and spent WEEKS running around the woods of the Pacific Northwest and al they ever come back with are some blurry photos and a footprint or so.

    Now, there has to be a reason for that.

    A. The creature doesn’t actually exist.
    B. It does exist but for SOME reason is able to elude capture and never leaves a corpse where it can be found. No body. No bones. No NOTHING.

    Over a hundred years of photos, footprints, and the occasional recording of what is SUPPOSED to be the cry of the Bigfoot (there has yet to be a case of an audio recording that proves out to be anything OTHER than a known animal or an out and out fraud).

    See link above to my Mothman video where I manipulated the cries of three different kinds of owls (Barn Owl, Screech Owl, and Great Horned Owl) in order to produce the “cry” of the Mothman. One can take the screech owl and the peacock, mix them together, slow down the audio in parts, reverse it in parts and produce a very satisfactory “Bigfoot” cry. (And, all to often, that IS what people are hearing when they hear “recordings” of Bigfoot on some of the shows.

    3. What do I mean by saying that I “saw” what I think was Bigfoot. I mean I saw something I would call Bigfoot. But, even though another member of our group got photos of those sightings they are worth nothing without solid physical evidence. And, no…you don’t need a body (dead or alive) to prove they exist. But you DO need DNA. Now, these creatures lope through the forests and over rocky hillsides and so on and MUST leave hair samples (among other things) behind. Samples that could be tested for DNA. Much as the portion of the Pangboche Hand (said to belong to the Yeti) WAS tested on two different occasions with VERY interesting results.

    Those test results constitute scientific evidence that that hand belonged to a manlike creature (possibly Neanderthal) but you’ll have to go to my earlier post in this thread for that.
    *******************************************************
    And, finaly, Craig…I am TRYING to be civil but when the guy hasn’t even read Loren’s biography of Tom Slick, the whole NINTH chapter of which is devoted to the Pacific Northwest Bigfoot Expedition…I mean…a guy who claims to be the MOST scientific and experienced poster HERE (what are you and Loren? Chopped liver???) I mean…sheesh. But I’ll play nice…I promise.

  54. DWA responds:

    Cass: I didn’t say there isn’t stuff we can argue about.

    “It does exist but for SOME reason is able to elude capture and never leaves a corpse where it can be found. No body. No bones. No NOTHING.”

    Hunters have examined bodies of the sasquatch they shot. Bones have been found, as have hair, feces, and blood, all under compelling circumstances. That none of these have survived the chain of custody to conclusive scientific examination – in numerous cases, they weren’t even brought in by the person who found them – is a minor quibble against the volume and consistency of the other evidence.

    (And I have to smile when I hear Bigfooters pooh-pooh these allegations, while continuing to search for an animal that, well, must not be real. Not every American wants to be famous; not every American cares whether anyone other than he knows. Not every American thinks the world will be convinced by anything he brings back after the disgusting process of so doing. I sure don’t; good luck getting anything out of me if I ever see one, at least with my real name attached.)

    There are two things that I consider absurdities in the context of this animal:

    1. That all of this consistent evidence has been created by either an organized conspiracy dating from earliest European occupation of the continent, or by a totally unorganized, unrelated series of hoaxes, misidentifications and hallucinations. (The lack of proof is the only thing that forces one to consider this total absurdity.)

    2. That any animal like this could have persisted on the North American continent for this long and left for examination no corpse, no body, no bones, NOTHING. (Fortunately, the evidence says we can ignore this one. To say that those who have found remains are lying is to say the animal isn’t real, period. Or else, Loren, Champ CAN live for 400 years. ;-D )

    “There has yet to be a case of an audio recording that proves out to be anything OTHER than a known animal or an out and out fraud.” This is patently untrue. Many people have reported hearing vocalizations that duplicated purported bigfoot sounds they heard later either on TV or on websites, the provenance of the latter of which remains unknown. Bioacoustics experts have vouched for a number of recorded vocalizations matching those of no known animal and indicating a vocal tract much larger than that of humans. (Read Meldrum.) I’ve heard more than one that I can tell you are not likely of any known animal.

    Once again, the results of the Northwest Bigfoot Expedition are irrelevant. Or, actually, they are…to my argument. That got the same scientific reception P/G got. Until the scientific mainstream is on board, forget proof. Because we hold science responsible for proof.

  55. Mahalo X responds:

    Always pleasing to see a thoughtful discussion. I just checked in on this chat to find it gettin’ hot in here LOL!

    Peace and love to everyone, and happy holidays.

    Remember; no room for bad vibes in good science!

  56. Oggar responds:

    DWA you do make some great points but your claims of tested/confirm DNA seem little more than anecdotal- I, nor anyone else here seems to have heard of these cases. Also the idea that eyewitness testimony is reliable simply because it is consistent and persistent on the creatures form is more than suspect- mythological creatures such as mermaids and unicorns spring to mind. Those creatures were also reported consistently for centuries with details on where and how to find them. If there were a bipedal, ape-like, creature who ranged across the whole of North America, Asia, and Australia. Maintaining populations large enough to support breeding, most likely in groups, evidence of their existence should be more prevalent. As an omnivore native to the Pacific Northwest you would certainly expect to see them along the riversides during the salmon runs- After all a family of 800lbs gorillas needs to eat. But bigfoot seem to be ecologically invisible, if anything the colonization of the Americas by Europeans should have been a great boon to their numbers as they slaughtered many of the large predators such as bears and wolves. As well as planting great fields of foodstuffs. It is more than curious that bigfoot seems immune to biological pressures that have forced animals like the bear into conflict with humans.

  57. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    DWA…we have nothing to argue about. If you’re gullible enough to believe any jerk that claims to have had a carcass of one of these creatures that’s fine.

    As for Jeff Meldrum…he’s a guy I respect one hell of a lot. But he’s an expert on primate anatomy. Not on audio manipulation. Nor does it require any special expensive software to turn the cry of a known animal into something unrecognizable. ALL you need is a computer, a couple of wav files of known creatures and the free Windows Sound Recorder Utility where you can speed up or slow down portions of the audio…REVERSE portions of the audio add echo effects…and MIX the audio of different creatures together in a flawless way. Flawless enough for the human ear anyway.

    Naturally, then, once you have done all that an expert is “animal audio” will say “That’s of no KNOWN creature.”

    Actually it IS but you’d have to dissect the audio to find that out.

    This is not a subject for argument either. MOST (if not ALL) of these audios circulating around are FRAUDULENT.

    There may be somewhere a bigfoot call that is authentic but I have yet to hear it. Oh, you do get claims from people who say “Yes, I know that SOUNDS LIKE the cry of a peacock (or fox or screech owl) but Bigfoot is IMITATING those creatures.”

    I don’t waste my time arguing with crazy people.

    You can download thousands of animal calls from the internet for FREE and manipulate them with sound recorder (or more advanced audio software for even MORE convincing effects) just by visiting one of the many websites out there that offer them.

    The page I used for “Mothman” is here.

  58. DWA responds:

    Cass: you are determined not to get it. Moving on.

    Proof and evidence are different things, even though the only difference is science’s opinion of the evidence. Kind of a critical point to get. Evidence isn’t invalid, even if it’s not yet proof. If I believed anyone, flat out, I’d call it proof, wouldn’t I? All I’m saying is: if he was there, and you weren’t, and there’s lots of reason to think he might be right, I’m not calling him wrong if I wasn’t there. That apparently isn’t a problem for you. I’d say you’re the gullible one, if you’re chasing something for which there is absolutely no evidence that means anything.

    Proof and evidence are different things. Keep referring to that sentence when in doubt. If you think you get it, I’m just saying that I’m not reading that you do.

    Craig’s right. We actually don’t differ much at all. But I see that. You don’t.

    But hey, you’re entitled. Both the proponent and the skeptic fringes tend to talk themselves in circles. Nothing I can do about that.

    And I’ll take Meldrum’s opinion over anybody’s I’ve ever read here. And definitely a bioacoustics expert over yours. You guys can be funny. What exactly are you looking for again?

    Oggar: Never said anything about anything being proven. In fact, one of my most consistent points on this site is that there is nothing one can do with DNA until there is a type specimen, which requires a clearly identified body. If there were evidence for mermaids and unicorns with anything close to the consistency of the sasquatch data, we’d be talking about them the same way we do bigfoot. We aren’t, are we?

    Guys, pay attention to scientists who are paying attention to the data. (And know more than you.) It’s just hilarious not to. Particularly when one styles oneself a proponent. Get in the game.

  59. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    DWA We differ one hell of a lot.

    You say “DNA wouldn’t be evidence until we have something to test it against.”

    But we do. We have apes and we have humans. We can test any DNA found against those looking for similarities. It is possible that the best we could get would be along the lines of what UNSOLVED MYSTERIES got when they tested the fragments of the Pangboche Hand (YETI hand) which Peter Byrne smuggled back (with the aid of James Stewart—again read Loren’s book on Tom Slick if you are unfamiliar with that incident). The conclusion…human-like but not human. (Earlier testing suggested Neanderthal). But THAT would at least be PROOF that there is a REAL (so far unidentified) CREATURE to search for in the Pacific Northwest. PROOF that ANY scientist could test.

    Yes, TEST. For as long as the specimens of hair or feces or whatever lasts. Well, where ARE these specimens? This thing lives in the woods. It must leave clumps of hair on trees and so on at least SOME of the time. And if one follows its “footprints” (or the line they were on) one should certainly be able to locate its droppings.

    But no has. Not once. Except for the sort of hear-say stories you seem to prefer to reality.

    As for the experts. They answer the question they’re paid to answer. “Does this sound like the cry of a known animal.” Answer “No.” They don’t say “My God! You’ve recorded the Call of the Sasquatch!”

    There’s a difference there which you seem unable to grasp.

    Claims to have shot Squatches, or run across their corpses, etc.

    Yeah, I’ll call the people making those claims liars.

    Why?

    Because they are.

    This is the last time I am going to respond to you because your argument doesn’t make sense.

    Your argument is “If you believe in these things why don’t you believe all the stuff you read about them?”

    But I don’t “believe” in these things. I have seen creatures on three occasions that MIGHT be Bigfoot…but might not have been. The sightings were brief and the photos my friend took…unclear. A Polaroid of a creature standing off in the distance is not very useful for identification. You can only blow it up so much before it becomes completely useless.

    Jeff Meldrum. I am quite familiar with Jeff’s work (having followed it for the last 20 years or so). Yeah, I take his word for a lot. But again…he isn’t a sound effects expert. Neither are the guys who usually get asked about these recordings. Mike Dees and so on.

    When someone brings back a specimen that can be tested THEN we can begin to PROVE the existence of Bigfoot.

    We do NOT need a live Bigfoot or even a dead one. All we need are some hair samples. Understand that, please. ANY source of viable DNA that can be compared to what already exists in the mammalian DNA database which all DNA testing labs use for comparison tests.

    DWA if you “want to believe” that’s fine.

    Personally, I want to KNOW. And to know we need proof. Not stories, not personal encounters, not photographs of questionable authenticity, not audio recordings (that can be faked even more easily than photographs, films, and footprints. PROOF.

    And no…it is not up to the scientists to provide that. It is up to those who claim this creature exists to provide it.

  60. DWA responds:

    Just checking back to see if Cass has figured out how to think about this.

    Apparently, other than conceding that Occcam points to the reality of the sasquatch, he hasn’t.

    “Occam’s Razor isn’t about “the simplest solution” it is about the solution that contains the fewest ASSUMPTIONS.”

    Assumptions required to say “the evidence points to the existence of an unknown animal”: none. That would be zero. Just a big – and consistent – pile of evidence. All that’s required. Compare to any other cryptid. None compare. It’s the biological profile of a species unknown to science.

    (A scientist – I’m taking “scientist” over “Cass” every time – says – wrote a whole book on this – that this pile of evidence is a scientific discovery that we just haven’t acknowledged we’ve made yet.)

    Assumptions required to say “it’s all fake”? At least three. (That would be three.)

    1. North America is no place for apes, so we can discount this huge pile, which is of course wrong;

    2. A vast and directed continent-wide conspiracy;

    3. a vast and random continent-wide mass neurosis.

    Plus, whoops, 4. some almost-impossible mix of 2. and 3. Or, in my preferred phrasing: “lies behaving like biodata.”

    “Evidence points to reality of sasquatch” wins. So he’s contributed to science. Go Cass!

    And he still hasn’t figured out how close we are on this. I know everyone else here knows that “belief” is not part of this discussion. He’s using belief a lot; particularly when he “concludes” acoustic evidence is all faked and “concludes” that people he’s never met are all lying. And he’s still searching anyway.

    (Welcome to the fringe. I don’t look for anything for which evidence doesn’t exist.)

    Most here probably know that DNA is nothing unless there is a type specimen. Numerous pieces of evidence have tested “unknown primate.” If one read up one would know that. Guess where that leaves us. In terms of proof, nowhere, says science.

    Now I really am done. New worlds to explore. Anything anyone doesn’t get, read again, right up there. (Or search Cryptomundo for DWA.) Got you covered.

    We will know crypto is a science (i.e., zoology) when folks who don’t know how to look at the evidence come on here talking like experts.

    (UNSOLVED MYSTERIES? Mothman? Wha? Circus. Focus on the science, not the tabloid jungle.)

  61. DWA responds:

    OK, had to add this.

    Cass says: “And no…it is not up to the scientists to provide that. It is up to those who claim this creature exists to provide it.”

    They’ve been “providing that” for over a half-century. The pile is HUGE. And we haven’t moved toward proof yet. Why?

    THAT’S WRONG. It is on the mainstream of science to prove the existence of new species. Period. Inability to understand this is, well, just plain un-scientific. Bigfooters can do all they want. But it’s clear they lack the money and the time. We know where those things are…don’t we?

  62. DWA responds:

    I could wait for Cass to catch this. But that hasn’t been working too good. I said

    “We will know crypto is a science (i.e., zoology) when folks who don’t know how to look at the evidence come on here talking like experts.”

    Clearly that’s a mistake. It should be:

    “We will know crypto is a science (i.e., zoology) when folks who don’t know how to look at the evidence STOP COMING on here talking like experts.”

    There you go.

  63. Jonathan Poulsen responds:

    You’re never going to prove anything with films and footprints, you can get a close-up full facial film with HD quality and you take it to the skeptics and they will say “fake”. They said that to Roger Patterson and they are going to keep on saying it to any other film that comes out. Although I think that Roger Patterson’s film is authentic and that a handful of footprint casts are legitimate, what you need is a body. It could be a carcass or a live specimen, but nothing else will do but a body. There is an awful lot of evidence for the existence of a hominid form of primate living in the forests in the Pacific Northest, but to the skeptics there is nothing. Us Sasquatch researchers have evidence, but we don’t have proof.

  64. norman-uk responds:

    Oggar

    Potential bigfoot samples have been tested for DNA for many years. Mainly by Todd Disotell of New York labs (16 years) with no results that indicate bigfoot. Only results like no DNA or bear or human (contamination) The New York labs have been the respected leader in this field with a reputation built on NOT finding any bigfoot DNA ! Now this could be because there was no bigfoot DNA in the samples or it was missed by the lab. or the technology used was dated. In my opinion because of all the evidence there is for Bigfoot there should have been Bigfoot DNA in some of the samples. I would suggest the bigfoot DNA had little chance of being identified because of the extreme sceptical outlook of the lab towards bigfoot. This sceptical outlook can be shown by listening to a broadcast on Monster quest involving Todd Disotell which is still on the net. Where he showed his penchant for jeering and sneering at bigfooters in general (excluding Meldrum for some reason)

    I think there was some kind of consensus at that time based on the sceptics mantra that bigfoot DNA if found would be a waste of time without a body, which seemed to me clearly wrong. I think when the realisation of this possible situation was appreciated other labs were asked to do the analysis and results started to come in. Culminating in Dr Melba Ketchums work which has and is producing results. One interesting possibility is that Denesova man might turn out to be one of the extent relic hominds or has made a DNA contribution. We’ll likely know when Dr Ketchum goes public. Whatever, the cat seems to be out of the bag on the subject of bigfoot DNA and even professor Bryan Sykes has asked for possible bigfoot samples. All this does demonstrate that thinking that bigfoot is there is no longer a matter of eccentricity.

    Eyewitness testimony is a valuable resource despite hoaxes and inaccuracies and an opportunity for scientists to glean valuable information from them. A reasonable view can be reached and along with all the supporting evidence is a very strong indication for the reality of bigfoot. Mermaids and unicorns both have arguably some reality in fact in that the mermaid could be dugongs or seals and the unicorn something like an oryx. As is often the case if observations are reported there is generally something real at the bottom of it. Feral humans don’t fit the bill as bigfoot is concerned but something much more exciting!

    I think bigfoot is smarter than a bear and has learned the hard way not to tangle with humans. There are records of humans and relic hominds being at war in earlier times, guess who won. An apparent failure to thrive at its simplest could be because bigfoot is at least near human and very vulnerable to human diseases and lucky to survive to date.

  65. DWA responds:

    Jonathan Poulsen:

    One thing I can say about both you and me: we understand the difference between evidence and proof. In this search, that is considerably more than half the battle.

  66. norman-uk responds:

    Erratum on my last log in first para, MonsterQuest should have been monster talk, apologies!

  67. Jonathan Poulsen responds:

    MonsterQuest is for entertainment only. Skeptics watch shows like Destination Truth and Monster Quest and think to themselves “What a bunch of hogwash”. A breakthrough in the field of sasquatch research would be a documentary film or a television special that presents all the evidence without interviewing random sighting eyewitnesses. But two sightings that I think should be noted in every documentary are Albert Ostman’s kidnapping, and William Roe’s encounter because both men signed affidavits under the Canadian government swearing to the legitimacy of their stories. Ostman was even interrogated by A.M. Naismith who found no contradictions or falsifications in the story. More pieces of evidence that should be noted are the Bossburg Cripple, the Skookum Cast, the Greys Harbour Casts, The Walla Walla Casts and the Minnesota Iceman. Also, it should be noted that there have been several times they have been killed, their bones have been found or they have been captured alive.

    I want every skeptic to think twice about saying “No sasquatch has ever been killed”.

  68. norman-uk responds:

    I think you are pointing to an ideal in today’s terms, that is a body WITH DNA but the ideal is not essential. A fossil is usually without DNA which may only indicate the genus or less but can be provisionally accepted by science. DNA without a body may be seen as more difficult, but in the case of Sasquatch there would be lots of supporting evidence some current some historic and to get DNA there is usually associated physical material such as hair or bone. It would be quite reasonable therefore if reliable DNA results were obtained and they were unique to accept they were of a new species. Especially if there were multiple similar results. I think this is what Melba Ketchum is attempting and quite possibly achieved.

    The evidence for Sasquatch is actually quite rich and quite broad in nature which at least should make it a subject for official study. In some cases, such as done by Jeff Meldrum this endeavor is insufficient as the whole public case seems to rest on his shoulders. More official bodies should enter the fray to research Sasquatch in an effort to further knowledge and widen its research to make the whole subject less publicly vulnerable. This is apart from the admirable non-official research which goes on.

    The is no doubt in my mind that much of the different kinds of evidence for Sasquatch is good evidence and confidence in that is what should define the actions and expression of those who appreciate that and are interested in establishing the fact of sasquatch for good reasons. What should not define their actions are sceptics specially those who are not going to accept anything other than a body however unreasonable that may be and insist on body as essential not ideal when it clearly is not. By demanding a body sceptics are in effect denying the reality of sasquatch!. Where were they when densova man got its ticket on a few bits of unremarkable bone?

    Those who believe in sasquatch, on the evidence, should not do the sceptics job for them by rolling over and accepting their often specious arguments. The valid case needs to be put on its merits and not to pander to sceptics where their case is not meritorious or without balance.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



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.