Wild Woman of the Forest

Posted by: Loren Coleman on March 3rd, 2009

Eugenie Scott speaks her skeptical or, is it debunking, mind on Bigfoot.

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

19 Responses to “Wild Woman of the Forest”

  1. Sergio responds:

    I feel cheated.

    The time I spent watching her is lost forever; wasted; gone with the wind; I will never get it back.

    How unfortunate considering I could have been reading or doing something far more enlightening and/or worthwhile.

    And this woman has a PhD??


  2. Alton Higgins responds:

    Some of Dr. Scott’s comments and opinions are addressed in a couple of articles at the TBRC web site:

    Ask the TBRC” (a play off the “Ask a Scientist” series featuring Eugenie Scott).


    Bird Beaks, Bible Belt Biology, and Bigfoot” (addressing Scott’s contention that standard evolutionary explanations should not be questioned).

  3. maslo63 responds:

    I made it 12 minutes in, not going any further. Seriously, does anyone actually believe sasquatch is a shape-shifter? Does she ever address the actual evidence for the creature?

  4. DWA responds:

    Sergio: feel ya, buddy.

    I can’t watch this. It upset me enough reading it.

    If one is a scientist, one is a scientist all the time, much more so than when one is off-duty as a police officer. You can’t just start sounding like an unschooled layman based on no evidence, no matter who you’re talking to. Or what you’re talking about.

    But too many scientists haven’t gotten the memo yet.

    Is it really that hard to say “I haven’t reviewed the evidence, and so can’t pass judgment?” Or is it OK to presume that your audience is a bunch of idiots, so your discipline can take a holiday too? Just asking, don’t mean nuthin’ by it.

  5. norman-uk responds:

    I dont think you have to be a scientist to be a bit of an expert on bigfoot and to be able to make informed or interesting or maybe new contributions to the subject. In some areas you do need to be a scientist and there are admirable examples of both. But Dr Scott, a top academic fails on both counts, factually and logically, albeit pleasantly. It is science which is failing in the bigfoot mystery!

    Does she really need to point out the need for critical thinking? Perhaps the mistake here is that she made her mind up and then translated what information she did get to support her preconceptions. How could she sensibly think the evidence for bigfoot’s existence amounts to less than a 5% possibility! Of course she may have confused what gets in the media sometimes with what bigfoot is all about. It seems to me rather sad that she and those she lectures will miss out on a fascinating subject.

    Me, I was reasonably satisfied of the case for bigfoot and like-wise many years ago, now my interest is to see the current evidence properly appreciated. Like DNA where(IMO) science is failing to distinguish between human and and bigfoot DNA. Then Bigfoot maybe saved before it becomes extinct (and before I become extinct). bigfoot etc must be under great threat from the ravages of civilization and human diseases. I expect numbers are reducing exponentially to a low number.

  6. cryptidsrus responds:

    She’s entitled to her opinion, Sergio.

    She’s totally flat out wrong, of course, and she is definitely a debunker.

    That’s the way it is.

    Ultimately, one day the truth will come out.

    We’ll have to wait for that. The evidence IS out there, though.

  7. superd responds:

    This women must be part of the Government conspiracy to cover up bigfoot. My computer froze 7 minutes in and so I read Sergio’s comment and glad I did. Even 7 minutes was too much to waste on her. I feel sorry for the people in that room that had to listen to her.

  8. DWA responds:


    “Does she really need to point out the need for critical thinking?”

    The ironic thing is that, in so doing, she doesn’t do any.

    She accepts what science has handed down as dogma, the way Moses took the tablets. No more questions; here it is. Apes are tropical; they eat leaves; they’re all gorillas. Thank you.

    Science is either constantly poised to question what it has learned; or it is not science.

    And bears only live in the tropics and are only black. Try not to think of a big white bear.


  9. PhotoExpert responds:

    Pathetic! Unbelievable! Eugenie Scott has a PhD? OK, then. She must possess some scientific background.

    With that being said, didn’t something just jump out at you at the beginning of this video? Doctor, and I use the term loosely, Doctor Scott made several jumps, excluding facts and evidence.

    First of all, she uses the gorilla as a comparison for the BigFoot of Texas. She compares a known and documented herbivore and it’s environment to BF. Who ever said BF was a herbivore?

    She claims that for BF to exist in that environment there is not enough vegetation to sustain it’s dietary needs. She may be correct in that assumption, if the premise is that BF is a herbivore.

    She discounts or dismisses any evidence we currently have on BF and that is that BF does in fact eat meat, as stated in many witness accounts and observations. She made her analogy and camparison of BF, a purported omnivore, to that of a gorilla, a known herbivore. Her premise for her argument is an incorrect assumption. So let me stop you right there Dr. Scott!

    Dr. Scott: Your argument is flawed. You never investigated the theory that BF is an omnivore in your argument. You discounted that. And you ignored all the evidential reports of what BF eats and what the diet may consist of. You ASSUMED that BF is a herbivore like the mountain gorilla and that environmnent of the Texas BF could not sustain the creature’s dietary needs. You may be correct in your assumption if BF is a herbivore, but evidence and eyewitness accounts disprove your theory.

    Dr. Scott further humors us by using Ray Wallace’s hoaxed tracks and hoaxed Yeti footage as proof, that most videos and track casts are hoaxed. She even looked at the PG footage as if it were a definite hoax. Shhh, nobody tell her that many experts have looked at the PG footage and can not conclude it is a hoax and may be authentic footage of a real creature. Shhh, nobody tell her of the credible testimony of Patterson and Gimlin. She just discounts that, never addresses it or never brings those facts to light. Some skeptic!

    My suggestion to Dr. Scott is this: Remember that mirror you pulled out at the beginning of this video? Perhaps take a good look at yourself as a scientist. A true scientist would include all evidence including eyewitness accounts. A true scientist would scrutinize ALL evidence and not use just the evidence that may back her hypothesis or poor analysis.

    I think Dr. Scott needs to open her mind a bit more. Maybe she should consult Dr. Meldrum on track casts before making such narrow assessments. Perhaps she should read the testimonials of Patterson and Gimlin or at least hear what other experts have to say in opposition to her analysis of the PG footage. Perhaps Dr. Scott should review all the evidence and sighting reports before coming to a conclusion for her hypothesis. Perhaps Dr. Scott should entertain the thought that BF is not an herbivore, a mountain gorilla, and most likely an omnivore. Dr. Scott may want to study what animals and plants are available in the Texas scrub brush that could sustain an omnivore the size of BF. Afterall, panda bears are huge mammals in a tough environment with little food source available. For years, people thought the panda to be an imagined creature. But then it was discovered, against all odds, that a panda had a food source to sustain it, bamboo!

    My suggestion to Dr. Scott is to at least get the facts straight. My suggestion to Dr. Scott is to evaluate all the evidence. My suggestion to Dr. Scott would be to be skeptical and not cynical. Afterall, true skeptics are supposed to be objective in their analysis. I found her lecture here in video very skewed and very subjective.

    My last suggestion to Dr. Scott would be to look in that mirror she held up in the beginning of the video and look at herself to see if she can find the reflection of an objective scientist.

    That’s all!

  10. mystery_man responds:

    PhotoExpert- Haven’t seen you pop up here for quite awhile. Good to see you still comment sometimes, since your input is very much appreciated. 🙂 Very good comment here. Well said, sir!

  11. feralhiker responds:

    I enjoyed the talk, thank you for posting this. I wish she were a bit more familiar with some of the Bigfoot literature, she did make some mistakes which reduces credibility. The most glaring I noticed was putting the crippled footprint from northern California when it was from Bossburg, WA.

  12. Aaron7531 responds:

    She talks in front of a bunch of people who have no knowledge to debate her. If she went up against Loren, she would get smoked. I think it’s funny how these great skeptics never debate anyone with any knowledge. I mean if she has not studied the bigfoot evidence what makes her such an expert on the subject? Ridiculous. Scientists are supposed to question everything. She obviously made up he mind before hand and twisted the “evidence” she wanted to use to her advantage and skipped over anything damaging to her case. Pathetic.

  13. DWA responds:


    “What do we know from science?”

    That’s your cue that she thinks she’s talking to a room of numbskulls.

    I keep saying this: why don’t they debate the scientists who disagree with them? Shoot, they get carved up when they come here. I’d have a field day with this lady, and I don’t even have a science degree.

    Some scientists remind me of some priests; their religion is a Great Mystery. They practice it; but understanding it is beyond them.

  14. PhotoExpert responds:

    mystery_man–Hey! I see you have noticed my lack of posting. However, I have not been absent. I read Cryptomundo each and every single day. I just have been extremely busy.

    I opened my third business. Owning and operating all three entities, ate up more free time than I thought it would. So I barely had time to read, let alone, post!

    Also, not to blow my own horn, but I did something that took a lot of guts, morals, and ethics. Let’s just say I went up against the big boys to protect children. Sort of a whistleblower scenario. As a result of that, word got out on who this heroic whistleblower was and I have been inundated by the press. I think I have some inkling of how Loren feels. TV stations and interviews, radio shows, and newspaper reporters! It’s just a little overwhelming since I am not use to it. I do not know how Loren does it each and every time a cryptid comes into the news.

    God Bless You Loren!

    Good hearing from you mystery_man! I read all of your posts! Frankly, even if I had the time I would have nothing to add to the thread, since you cover them so brilliantly!

  15. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Exactly. Scott is preaching this stuff as absolute fact, yet avoiding the inconvenient matter of actually debating with informed scientists on the matter. This is irresponsible. Scientists do not always agree with each other, and they usually engage in a lot of peer review, which can be oft times a scathing and almost Darwinian process. You can’t just spout off your ideas, cherry pick data, and expect people to accept it as fact while at the same time avoiding any meaningful criticism from other scientists who may disagree with you. This is especially the case when you are trying to make a case for something outside of your own field without so much as even looking at or entertaining the evidence from scientists within that field. If she wants to get in this arena, she has to put her money where her mouth is and be subjected to cross examination by informed scientists within cryptozoology, and actually listen to what they have to say.

    I’d love to see a debate between her and Loren. I’d pay to see that. 🙂

    I just have to say that it is Ok to question Ms. Scott’s assertions. Don’t be cowed because she has an advanced degree or think she must be right because of that degree. Science is all about questioning what you see, it is a hallmark of science, and you do not have to even be a scientist to do so. Imagine what the world would be like if no one questioned or debated new findings, assertions, or hypotheses. Chaos, madness, we’d still be in the Dark Ages, bloodletting our five humors and thinking that a flat Earth is circled by the sun.

    I say in this situation, take any good points she makes to heart, don’t write her off completely (after all, that’s not what you want her to do either), but be ready to question what you here and be able to back up your arguments against with data. The more data you have that the proposer of something you do not agree with does not, the more your case will hold up and the more useful your observations will be.

  16. Spinach Village responds:

    So she gets a lot of time for a one sided argument? Wow, OK, don’t know if I’ll actually make it through, but it seems that way.

  17. Bruce responds:

    I watched it.

    I had to after she called a Basking Shark a whale. 16 mins in.

    I liked the way she spoke about the mystic Bigfoot. It can do magic. If that does not say “This is a joke subject” I do not know what else she could say. Using her logic most of the creatures in the rainforests I have been to do not exist because I have not seen their skeletons littering the ground. People must be immortal because I have never seen a dead body in the streets.

    The best comment was the fact that if a Wildman existed then we would have to throw out all our concepts of science. Just like when scientists tell us the set conditions for life. Then they discover creatures that live on the side of under water volcanoes that conflict with the set Scientific Conditions for Life. She needs to go to those creatures and explain that they can not exist because it confilicts with known concepts of science.

    As I recall “Being on a train travelling 35 mph would suck the air out of your lungs”. That was science. Imagine the state of the world if we stuck to that fact.

    I also like the comment of the discovery of some of the new species of animal. They have recently been discovered by western scientist but the locals have know about them for a long time. I find it interesting that some of the locals have been talking about creatures that are odd. But therefore can not exist because western scientist have not seen them.

    I find there is more to the some of the stories that locals tell. You just have to carve away the magical element and you can find a bit of truth.

    Chinese Dragon. Take away the magic. You are left with an Oarfish. Still impressive. Very real.

  18. CryptidHuntr responds:

    I agree with mystery_man I would pay to see her debate with Loren Coleman. Loren would most likely win : )

    If so many people have seen it and just about every culture has their own version of it then…. is she saying the whole world is creating a hoax, a lie? How is that possible? So many responsible and trustworthy people have seen it. Is she calling President Theodore Roosevelt a liar??!!! (Yes he has seen and heard bigfoot) I wonder why some skeptics don’t have an open mind to new and unidentified things. People didn’t believe that a colacanth could actually exist yet some people did claim to see it and have pictures of them. Yet once a skeptic found it and analized it, it was proven. Same with the mountain gorilla. Nobody believed that it existed and here it is. Why cant the same happen with Bigfoot? Everything will be discovered some time in the future. Why not now???

  19. maico490 responds:

    What I have notice about the all the non-believer is (including my friends) none of them have spent time in the back country of our mountains. The last time I went backpacking in the High Sierras I heard something walk on two feet behind are tent. I was to chicken sh@t to look out. This was 20 miles into the back country in the mid of the night. What ever it was took are food that we had way up in the tree. We were there for 5 days and did not see another soul around on the trail in. We left that day because we had no food left. I told my Dad what I heard and he said it was a bear. I just left it at that and didn’t say anything else. After that I became a believer. I still get chills thinking about that night, no moon out and the wind blowing through the trees. I have not gone backpacking since that time.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|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.