Today in Bigfoot History | 2001 | Bigfoot Gains Traction With Scientists

Posted by: Guy Edwards on January 14th, 2013

Bigfoot Lunch Club

How we picture Sasquatch being welcomed by academia

Today in 2001, Theo Stein of the Denver Post wrote an article originally titled, “Not All Scientists Doubt Bigfoot Now.” it was later retitled when it was archived as, “Legend of Bigfoot put to test, Mounting evidence gives many reason to believe.”

The headline may have changed due to the push back from Science Frontiersmagazine. We will get to that a little bit later.

Overall the Denver Post article listed a few Colorado Bigfoot hotspots, but it mostly centered around the premise that respected scientist were gaining interest in studying the Bigfoot phenomena:

An eclectic assortment of scientists and academics is testing the proposition that Bigfoot isn’t a myth but an ice age survivor that has managed to persist just outside the vision of Western science. Drawing on each other’s disciplines, these researchers are sharing information and applying sophisticated forensic techniques as never before.

As the article continues, it focuses on an Idaho State University professor named Jeff Meldrum. Read why Theo Stein thought the tide was turning towards an academic approach to Bigfoot and why Scientific Frontiers disagreed at Bigfoot Lunch Club.

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

3 Responses to “Today in Bigfoot History | 2001 | Bigfoot Gains Traction With Scientists”

  1. Hambone responds:

    Looks like a new GEICO commercial.

  2. DWA responds:

    A landmark treatment of the topic in the mainstream press, for sure.

  3. DWA responds:

    But something needs to be said about the Science Frontiers demurrer:

    “This is all very good, and some scientists are impressed by the sheer magnitude of the evidence. As G.W. Gill, a professor at the University of Wyoming, comments: “Either the most sophisticated hoax in the history of anthropology has gone undiscovered for centuries, or the big ape exists.” Of course, the same can be said for UFOs and Nessie.”

    Well, no, not exactly. A review of the evidence for each shows that UFOs are just what that says they are; and nobody can even come to the most basic consensus on what Nessie is (the plesiousaur-like monster of popular imagination is more romantic notion than supported by consistent evidence). It would be wise to put a solid bet down that science, when it gets a specimen, will classify sasquatch as a bipedal ape. And it is worth putting a solid bet down that science will get a specimen; it’s mainly a question of when. That reflects the huge difference between sasquatch and the other two.

    “On the other hand, if bigfoot is so ubiquitous, as claimed, why do not the many hunters of lions and bears, who scour the Rocky Mountain wilderness aided by dogs, ever submit credible bigfoot reports? If bigfoot is really out there, these woods-wise hunters should have seen him or her.”

    Well, one could read sighting reports, couldn’t one. Ignorance of the sasquatch evidence usually shows through skeptical comments about it.

    One could also note that with the above attitude, one is not exactly encouraging reports.

    But they get this right:

    “We still need that bigfoot specimen, dead or alive.”

    I mean, if one cares about proof and stuff like that. But if one really cares, relying on a proponent effort that based on time spent alone stands not much more statistical chance of succeeding than I do is a bit thin.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|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.