The Science of Bigfoot
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on December 2nd, 2014
From Andrew May:
In an earlier post this year, Patterson-Gimlin Film: Fake or Fact?, I reviewed one of the ebooks in the Cryptid Casebook series from Bretwalda Books. Most of the titles in this series are written by Larry Jaffer, and – as the name suggests – consist of specific case studies. A couple of months ago, however, Bretwalda editor Rupert Matthews asked me if I would like to write something on “aspects of Bigfoot other than sightings”. I thought this was a great idea, and The Science of Bigfoot was the result.
Here is the book’s blurb:
For many Bigfoot enthusiasts, science has becomes synonymous with knee-jerk debunking. But to ignore science altogether is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If Bigfoot is a real flesh-and-blood creature, and not some kind of paranormal apparition, there is ultimately no alternative to approaching the subject in a scientific way. The aim of this ebook is to explain what that means in simple everyday terms. From anatomy and adaptation, through ecology and evolution, to DNA analysis and the laws of physics – here in one small package is everything you need to know about the science of Bigfoot!
I’m a scientist, and I would really like Bigfoot to exist. I have to admit it’s not very likely, based on the lack of hard, unambiguous evidence. But I get annoyed when skeptics say things like “Bigfoot is a scientific impossibility” – I simply don’t believe that’s true. I don’t think there are any ecological, evolutionary or physiological reasons why a large, bipedal hominid couldn’t exist in the world today.
At the other extreme, it’s not really true to say, as many Bigfoot believers do, that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. The more you look for something and fail to find it, the less likely it is that it’s there to be found. But ultimately you can never prove a negative – absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence.
The screaming headline “DNA Study Proves Bigfoot Never Existed” in Time Magazine a few months ago was simply wrong – an ignorant misunderstanding of the scientific method. Proving that a selection of hair samples came from known species merely proves that those specific samples didn’t come from Bigfoot. That’s a far cry from disproving the existence of Bigfoot.
If Bigfoot does exist, why is physical evidence so hard to come by? One possible explanation is that the species has evolved a kind of “prime directive” to stay out of sight of homo sapiens. As a member of the hominid family, Bigfoot is likely to be of comparable intelligence and resourcefulness to humans – possibly even superior in some ways – so who knows what they might be capable of?
As I said earlier, I would like Bigfoot to exist, although I don’t think it’s likely. It’s a subject everyone will have their own views on. But whether you’re a skeptic or a believer, you’re bound to find food for thought in The Science of Bigfoot. It’s available in Kindle format for just $2.99 from Amazon.com, or for corresponding prices from other national branches of Amazon (currently £1.92 at Amazon.co.uk, for example).
~ Andrew May
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
Unfortunately without a specimen, more likely a corpse, there is no real science for the study of Bigfoot. A very clear and documented video or film will verify it’s existence but it will take a corporeal reality to establish a holotype from which the science of Bigfoot and it’s position in the animal kingdom can be established. I’m still a little surprised that a “road-kill” specimen hasn’t turned up as yet, seeing as how many sightings are from vehicles. Foxes are very clever, swift and secretive animals but you occasionally seen one on the roadside that has been struck down by a motor vehicle. While a driver probably would not stop for anything smaller than a deer, hitting a large animal like a Bigfoot would cause major damage to a vehicle and necessitate a stop. And yes, many bears are struck and killed by motor vehicles every year. I image colliding with a full grown Bigfoot would have about the same effect on a vehicle and driver as running into a large bear.
Well, Andrew, rather have you openminded than not. But here goes the confusion of evidence and proof again.
One thing no proponent needs to be upset about is the evidence; its volume and consistency is such that every phenomenon ranking with it has been proven. It’s just that no one’s looking; and no, weekends here and there isn’t “looking.” NO. ‘FINDING BIGFOOT’ ISN’T LOOKING.
Everyone who has put in solid time has found the sort of compelling evidence that would have led to the confirmation, in pretty short order, of anything else.
But welcome aboard, Andrew.