Bigfootologist is Attacked by Anti-Conspiracy Website

Posted by: Guy Edwards on November 5th, 2014

Rhettman A. Mullis Jr., Founder of Bigfootology

“It is impossible to estimate how many of these creatures live in the world, but I would say that just in North America there may be about 100,000 of them”— Rhettman A. Mullis Jr. of Bigfootology

The quote above is a misquote. The original quote from a Union-Bulletin was “‘a very rough estimation’ is there are 100,000 Bigfoots in North America.” Splitting Hairs? Maybe, but we prefer skeptics of Bigfoot research to be a little more accurate in their reporting–especially if they are critical of the endeavor of Bigfoot research. There’s plenty room for healthy criticism regarding our methods and data collection, but the endeavor itself is a prerogative that only those that are searching can judge. criticizes the estimate of a Bigfoot population in North America, decide for yourself if they have a strong argument at Bigfoot Lunch Club: Bigfootologist under Attack

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

9 Responses to “Bigfootologist is Attacked by Anti-Conspiracy Website”

  1. DWA responds:

    If you have any facts you don’t have to resort to cussin’. Of course, if you don’t…

    And still with the tactic of spouting statistics about animals the mainstream acknowledges and is studying and comparing them with an animal that the mainstream refuses to even address, to the extent of silence on the statements of proponent scientists showing their work.


  2. Goodfoot responds:

    DWA: Right you are! But if your best tactic is meaningless ridicule and name-calling, you never got off the ground in the first place. Best to waive as we float by overhead. And count us.

    Mullis may (or may not) be interested in my own though experiment estimate of NA’s Bigfoot population. 60,000-600,000, but it’s no more to be taken literally than Mullis’ estimate.

    I thought a sustainable population (they’re still here, so they must be sustainable) over the vastness of the North American continent, with groups often separated by enormous distances would have to be fairly large. We know breeding within groups is a dead-end, so wouldn’t there be a need for regular meetings with other groups, for purposes of breeding, and another thing higher primates crave: socialization?

    On the other hand, we can’t be sure we aren’t dealing with 2 or more different species in NA, can we?

    Maybe they’ll attack me; I could use a laugh. And they obviously can too.

  3. mandors responds:

    Okay, so at 3,794,000 total square miles in the US, that would put one Bigfoot per 37 square miles. Does that sound too high? This of course does not include Canada which would of course decrease the density. And if you put the creatures in nuclear type groups of 3 (male, female, kid) that would put one “pod” per 100 plus square miles.

  4. Fhqwhgads responds:

    “Maybe, but we prefer skeptics of Bigfoot research to be a little more accurate in their reporting–especially if they are critical of the endeavor of Bigfoot research.” Naturally, accuracy is altogether optional for the High Priests of the Church of the Unknown Primate.

  5. DWA responds:

    Well, Fhqwhgads, never heard of your church, but the proponents have evidence virtually tantamount to proof on their side, the Skeptical Bishopric…um, that would be big fat zero.

    Like any religion, the SB doesn’t rely on fact but on a fanatical belief in what it wants to think.

    One could follow one’s curiosity, or one could attempt to cram it into a Pez dispenser for the sake of winning an argument. Like any religion, the SB has made a choice, hasn’t it.

    Scientists tend to make another one. When, that is, they have their scientist hat on, which the vast majority don’t when it comes to certain topics, and all the evidence one needs is what they say.

  6. springheeledjack responds:

    –Yeah, what you guys said.

    It’s easy to sit in your chair and complain and call people names when you don’t have any real facts and just like to hear yourself rant.

    Honestly, I don’t know how I feel about a population of 100,000 in North America. At first impulse that seems like a lot considering, but on the other hand, there are a LOT of square miles in this country and much more wild ground than what people think–and that’s because they live in their little personal eco-systems without every going outside to see what’s really out there.

    There are still places in the good ole U.S. of A. where people have never tromped: remote areas in Kentucky comes to mind (only because I have people who live there and know the state well), and the Everglades, and who knows how many out of the way places in the Northwest and even the southwest. There’s plenty of empty ground out east too…

    So don’t get on a soapbox unless you actually do some homework. Mullis may be wrong, but he at least tried to figure out a number based on what he knows. That’s more than the lounge-lizards have done … or whoever they are…

  7. DWA responds:

    Exactly, SHJ.

    It is like this:

    Proponents: field research; application of relevant science; drawing of logical conclusions; marshaling of argument in the finest tradition of scientific endeavor.

    Skeptics: sniping from armchairs.

  8. springheeledjack responds:

    Right on, DWA. Except I’ll go one further–

    Skeptics are people who go through all of the steps you just stated. Doesn’t mean we’re always right in our theories and hypotheses…but you get a theory, test it against the evidence you can and if it doesn’t hold up, you go back to the drawing board with the new information.

    I differentiate between true skeptics and the scoftics who just argue a point against without any compelling evidence at all…or they’re only “evidence” is ‘well you’re gonna have to prove it to me first since you’re making a claim and I don’t have to back up my ideas at all.” That’s not an argument, just applied laziness. I don’t consider that particular group as skeptical at all.

    Keep an open mind, look for answers without deciding first what you believe or don’t believe and use science and forensics to back up your claims. Four letter words are not synonyms for “evidence.”

  9. DWA responds:

    SHJ: but of course. Blame me for failing to use my standard pejorative “Bigfoot skeptic.” Laziness on my part. Beware laziness in science, kids. That’s what Bigfoot skepticism is. The skeptic in this field has a name like Bindernagel, Krantz or Meldrum.

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.