Aug 21 2008
Bigfoot Hoax
That was a short news cycle!
Last week two Georgia boys, Matt Whitton and Rick Dyer, announced to the world that they had found the dead body of a bigfoot and had it in their freezer. They also said that they found the body at an undisclosed location where they also saw several other bigfeet scurrying off into the woos.
They promised a press conference where they would show their evidence. Skeptics responded with an appropriate level of skepticism – predicting that the press conference would yield no actual evidence as this was all an obvious hoax. Believers, like Cryptomundo, were breathless, declaring, “It certainly looks like the real deal.”
Last Friday they held their press conference and told the world about the evidence that they will provide in the future, but they did not present a body, compelling photographs, scientists who have examined the body or DNA evidence – nothing.
This week the whole thing was revealed as a hoax. The “body” turned out to be a bigfoot costume.
I know, bigfoot – ho hum. This is classic skepticism – wasn’t bigfoot debunked in the 1970′s? Sure, but I do want to make a few observations.
First, the media ate up this story from soup to nuts. Fox, CNN, and all the major outlets went with this story. I strongly suspect that they all new from the outset that this was bunk. The tone of their reporting was non-committal, typical of a fluff piece presented in the same spirit as a carnival sideshow. All they seemed to care about was the chance to put “Bigfoot” in their headlines – the content wasn’t important. As usually, they were delightfully free of hardcore skeptical content. But it also seems like they knew this one would blow up fast and so did not want to come off looking like they were had, so they were proactively coy.
The story also contains an enduring mystery. Whitton and Dyer, according to reports, had a agreement to sell the body to Searching for Bigfoot CEO Tom Biscardi. After the hoax was revealed Whitton and Dyer apparently vanished with Biscardi’s money. What is not clear is the extend to which Biscardi was in on the hoax. Was he just a dupe who got taken by a couple of con artists, or was he the mastermind?
The question comes up because of Biscardi’s history. Even other bigfoot hunters don’t trust this guy. The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization has this to say on their website:
Journalists, beware!
Tom Biscardi is NOT one of the “leading bigfoot researchers”, but rather a well-known scam artist on the American bigfoot scene. He seeks media attention, relentlessly, to futher (sic) his scams. He should receive no attention at all.
In the 1980′s Biscardi was involved in the marketing of a collection of fake bigfoot footage made by in the infamous hoaxer Ivan Marx (see John Green’s “The Apes Among Us”).
Then in 2005 he orchestrated the infamous “Coast-to-Coast AM” radio show scam, regarding a supposed “captured bigfoot” in California. His claims about an imminent capture of a bigfoot in Northern California dominated the popular late night radio shows for several days, like an extended Orson Wells hoax.
Although apparently sincere, the BFRO are not always so savvy to hoaxes. They were taken in by the Sonoma bigfoot video, later admitted to be a hoax that was made for a Penn & Teller Bullshit episode.
I also can’t quite figure out what was in it for Whitton and Dyer. Did they think they would get away with the hoax? Were they just trying to make a quick buck from Biscardi? That seems unlikely given that he has a long history of being a huckster himself. If they were all in on it, was the rapid news cycle of attention worth it?
I guess anything is better than the daily grind of a mundane life. Really – they should just get a hobby.
The hoax has apparently cost Whitton his job as a police officer. I guess he didn’t forsee that – but really, if you are going to pull a scam do you really want the world to know? Scam by press conference? It seems these guys did not think this through.
Or maybe there is a deeper layer to the con yet to be revealed, if ever. Maybe we have not yet gotten to that part of the movie where we find out what was really going on the whole time.
None of this means, of course, that bigfoot does not exist. But it is consistent with the mainstream scientific view that there is no credible or compelling evidence for bigfoot, and the existence of such a creature that has escaped scientific notice is highly implausible. The whole affair also supports the general skeptical belief that the entire bigfoot community are a bunch of hapless pseudoscientists.
On a positive note I did get the sense that the public was generally skeptical of this event – or at least were waiting for actual evidence. Maybe they are starting to catch on, and this event will help the process – especially since the turnaround from suspected hoax to definite hoax was short enough to be within the public attention span.
70 Responses to “Bigfoot Hoax”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
As usually, they were delightfully free of hardcore skeptical content.
Hum, maybe there should be some sort of Skeptics Gone Wild video series. I’m guessing that Rebecca is already on that (working on that that is).
oh, the first line was a quote from the entry. Tried to use the q tag but it didn’t work. Is blockquote the correct tag for in-line quotes?
A Freudian slip, Dr N?
From the Fox article that mentioned Whitton’s firing:
“He was a real go-getter,” Turner said, citing Whitton’s wounding in the line of duty earlier this summer while apprehending a suspect who had allegedly shot a woman in the head. “For someone to do a complete three-sixty like that, I can’t explain it.”
Chief Turner seems to find geometry a little difficult.
I was interested to note that the local authorities were aware of the whole fiasco – they fired Whitton as soon as the hoax was revealed – but they did not take any action to investigate something that looked like fraud from the beginning.
I had a lot of conversations about this Bigfoot ordeal with coworkers and other skeptics. I don’t think anyone bought this from the get go, as you said. When I moved back to the Atlanta area from the “jawjuh hills,” I did so happily. There were more Bigfoot sightings around me than shopping centers and that worried me. I wasn’t worried about Bigfoot so much as people who claim to see Bigfoot.
My primary interest in woo lies with human belief systems, particularly faith-based beliefs, and especially those without the imprimatur afforded by millenia of communal reinforcement, such as with major religions. Bigfoot as a pop cultural belief is relatively new and I follow these occasional media circus events, um, religiously. All the skeptical message boards on the internet have followed this thing with glee, for no believer group is more entertaining than the ‘footers’.
RE: Whitton & Dyer’s motivations for the hoax…
One school suspects they hold great resentment towards Biscardi for having damaged the scientific case for BF with his multiple hoaxes and wanted to sting the stinger and steal back some of the money they feel Biscardi has stolen over the years.
Another notion holds that this was a localized hoax that spun out of control and ‘went national’, that W & D simply failed to bail out quick enough, or perhaps got mesmerized by the prospect of their Warholian 15 minutes of fame.
Yet another holds that W & D carry disdain for the soap opera-ish, unprofessional and pseudoscientific mien of the BF community and wanted to teach them all a lesson, and that snagging Biscardi in the bargain was pure gravy.
There is some money to be made if you can attain the type of publicity they did and manage to string it out long enough to sell videos, obtain book deals, TV schlockumentary deals, publish websites, sell ‘seats’ on bigfoot safaris, and all the trash merchandise like t-shirts, coffe cups, bumper stickers, etc. Go to any woo convention and you’ll see tables and tables of this stuff for sale.
For most skeptics, the ultimate assessment is something along the lines of “who knows, who cares” about the latest in a long line of BF tomfoolery (pun intended: Tom Biscardi).
RE: Whitton’s job loss as a police officer…
Whitton was already on medical leave after suffering a GSW in the line of duty (‘gun shot wound’ – pardon my forensic psychology background). It is not unusual for an officer who’s been shot to decide the job doesn’t pay enough and quit, on his own or at the insistence of family. My mother succeeded in getting my father to accept early retirement when he was shot on duty in his 24th year as a police officer. In other words, Whitton may have had no intention of returning to work. Perhaps he’d planned to file for disability. You would assume he knew he was risking fraud charges, but that ain’t necessarily so with a rural Georgia rank and file police officer.
Ultimately, it’s difficult to assess or determine what motivates people to attempt a patently absurd hoax, one that can’t possibly succeed without the goods to prove the hoaxed claim. Sometimes the gains aren’t measured in dollars, but in fame and recognition – glory – no matter how brief it might be, and no matter what level of ridicule and animosity backfills the hole left by revelation and debunking. By Halloween most people won’t recall the names Whitton & Dyer, but these Georgia country boys did have themselves a summer.
The person who will have lost the most out of this is Loren Coleman of Cryptomundo. Skeptics know him for what he is, but BF believers revere him because of the way he pretends at a scientific reserve and thereby lends credibility to the BF myth, if only as judged by believers. He had declared on his Cryptomundo website on August 12, 2008, and I quote:
“I feel, in all honesty, this, indeed, may be the real deal, and I say this carefully after reviewing information that has been shared privately with me. I cannot say more yet. But people will be very surprised.”
Gulp! PULL… reel, reel, reel…
Within a few days Coleman realized his error of credulity and magically somebody “hacked” his website and the above quote was no longer available. Skeptical message boards standardly copy these sorts of claims and quotes precisely because they tend to, um, disappear when the cat is let out of the bag. Skeptical posters at several message boards have also debunked Coleman’s “I was hacked!” claim. His credibility among skeptics and scientists was never good, but now it will take a dive among many BF believers as well.
Ah, but the wonderful thing is that no matter how many of these hoaxes fall out, a certain core of believers will line right up again for the next one, and again, and again, and their numbers are constantly augmented by young readers new to the internet, readers who trust the ‘evidence’ as presented by BFRO and all the other BF advocacy orgs and their websites. If you want a good laugh, go to the BFRO website one day and read their treatment of the evidence, especially their responses to skeptical questions and doubts. They are absolutely hilarious examples of the pretzel logic dance required to maintain belief. The reasoning so poor, so egregiously believerish, you are tempted to believe it’s all parody, a bigfoot version of The Onion.
Steve,
You may want to check this out.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,408082,00.html
Seems like you’re right.
You refer to these two as “Georgia boys” and yet they are clearly men. Are these the same two you referred to as “hicks” on your podcast? Thank you for maintaining the Southern stereotype. We appreciate it.
Speaking with all the authority of a gen-u-ine Southern hick, I ask you, what do Southern hicks do if not play hunter-in-the-woods games about bigfoot? The whole episode seems an entirely hick thing to do. Perhaps if you altered your negative connotation of the word ‘hick’?
Eximious – I referred to these two as “hicks” and “boys” not because they are Southern, but because they are hicks.
My assessment was based largely on their youtube video (sorry, I just checked, and it is no longer up). I meant the terms to be derogatory – of those two guys. I did not mean any slur against southerners. As far as I’m concerned, they are two ignorant hicks who happen to be from Georgia.
Sorry if my intent was misinterpreted and there was any offense.
In Canada we call hayseeds “hicks”. We don’t have a south. One summer my family and I used to go watch stock car racing around a dirt track in the county. In Canada. We called the people there hicks. It’s a great insulting term. I would rather you not claim it as one that can only apply to people from the American south.
And sorry, when a guy is trying to pull roughly the same fraud for a second time, the polite language is no longer warranted.
It’s weird the crytomundo guy would try to make his comments vanish as they were widely quoted and available like crazy from google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22I+feel%2C+in+all+honesty%2C+this%2C+indeed%2C+may+be+the+real+deal%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enCA275CA275
What’s his game? Is he still holding to the “my site was hacked and the only thing they deleted was the bit where egg is all over my face. Damn those Chinese hackers!”
Wait, the entry still appears to be there, no?
http://www.cryptomundo.com/breaking-news/ga-gorilla/
I disagree here somewhat. There is no “mainstream scientific view” on bigfoot. There is no research (that I’ve seen) demonstrating that the idea is implausible—highly or otherwise. There is nothing inherently implausible about bigfoot, it’s just supposed to be a big primate: such things exist, and have existed in the past. What seems implausible is that no one has got hold of a body yet. But how unlikely is that? I don’t know, and neither do you. There’s no reliable research on it. How often do people find dead gorillas, for example?
Zoologists generally seem to be open to the idea, at least, the few I’ve talked to. I’ve haven’t come across a mainstream scientist with appropriate credentials that has thought about it and concluded it must be bunk.
Now, of course, the evidence for bigfoot is weak, obviously. But in the prior plausibility stakes, bigfoot is orders of magnitude higher than practically all the other woo sceptics deal with.
There is.
All great apes have great caloric needs, and only inhabit tropical and sub-tropical climates. This appears to be the case also with extinguished species.
Man made it out of the tropics because he could master technology and advanced hunting techniques.
Even primates, who have less stringent dietary requirements, are not to be found outside warm-temperate zones.
Bigfoot is said to live in areas where other great apes would never survive.
Secondly, a sizeable population of primates is necessary for successful reproduction. Below a certain number extinction is inevitable.
Such a sizeable population couldn’t possibly evade detection for long in densely inhabited places like the US.
Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Macaque
Obviously true. But what is that number? A few hundred? A couple of thousand? Do you know? How unlikely is that number really that unlikely to evade scientific description? Also, bigfoot could be going extinct right now (if it were real, that would most likely be the case).
There are two problems with this. Firstly, it is simply an assertion–we do not know if it is true or not. I would love to see someone at least try to do a study. Secondly, if bigfoot is real, it’s presumably been detected many hundreds of times (all those people that say they’ve seen it). Possibly at least once on film. (By the way, what is the population density of the Rockies? I didn’t think it was high…)
My problem with bigfoot scepticism is that people are overreaching. All that really needs to be said it that the evidence is far from compelling. ‘Nuff said. But instead, we have a lot of sceptics making the same pulled-out-of-their-arse gut-feeling type argument we usually get from the other side.
Sir, you ARE the other side, an apologist.
That a thing is ‘possible’ is a meaningless assessment. There is sufficient science available to place the existence of bigfoot along a probability scale, say from 0 inches at the bottom and straight up for 20 feet. Given the reasonable assumptions you can make about an animal the size of the reported bigfoot, about breeding populations, human-shared ranges, an estimate of the likelihood of discovery, etc., a probability can be reasonably assigned. But, whereas ‘all the other woo’ is placed one half inch up that 20 ft scale of probability, bigfoot does indeed fare better, checking in at perhaps five eighths of an inch. Holding evidence better than that for ghosts or psychics still leaves plenty of room for poor, weak evidence. I don’t pick the most favorable comparisons of evidence without also checking the least favorable: I also must measure the body of evidence for bigfoot against the body held for known animals, large apes if you like, to see what is required for a reliable conclusion.
We know an animal exists when we have scat, bones, teeth, entire bodies, and so on. The list of possible physical evidence for an animal is long, of course. Bigfoot enjoys none of it, not conclusively. Most importantly, I ought not pick and choose my evidence. Bigfoot has been reported all across the US and Canada, often in fairly densely populated areas – certainly denser than the Colorado mts you cite, the least dense, hence the first (and only) example an apologist might chose.
Were it me, I have to hypothesize a extremely wide-ranging animal, one who maintains essential invisibility in all terrains – PAC NW mountains and forests, valley lands, flat farmlands and scrub lands, swamps, wetlands, suburban areas, public parks, etc. – ALL the places bigfoot is reported, an animal obviously with excellent adaptation abilities, given the wide variance of terrain it covers, with climates varying from Alaska and the Canadian far north down to the muggy swamps of Florida, ground cover, foliages, trees, etc. vastly different from range to range. But that’s from where the reports are coming, so I can’t just pick out the PAC NW or the Rockie Mountains because it’s easier to hide a bigfoot there.
When I factor in everything, I have no problem dropping the proper ‘it’s possible, just no evidence’ and going with ‘bigfoot doesn’t exist’. I might be wrong, but you’ll never prove it without evidence, and after seeing enough to where it would be unreasonable for me not to accept the existence of bigfoot, I would joyfully join you in the wonder of its discovery.
While all knowledge is tentative, it is reasonable to assume there is no bigfoot. The probability is that low.
It is redundant to say bigfoot is ‘possible’. Anything’s possible and the label informs us not at all.
@ John Conway
Not the most relevant part concerning the great apes, and even the rest arguably still stands.
The tiny sub-population of macaques living in alpine forests heavily relies on hot springs for survival, as the article that you linked points out. But I am happy with focusing on the great apes. You will agree that bigfoot must be one, if it exists.
I can’t recall exactly, but if memory serves me well, I think we are talking of several thousands of individuals.
I could find out, if needed. Of course, it’s a speculative figure, but it has been extrapolated.
I shall add the caveat that Homo Sapiens has survived a narrower bottleneck. Then again, we are a species more resourceful than all other apes.
Well, it makes sense to say that a large animal is bound to leave numerous traces of its presence in its environment. Although the Rockies certainly aren’t densely populated, they aren’t exactly virgin territory. Some interaction is statistically bound to happen.
To which film are you referring to? All the material that I came across stinks, to say the least.
I agree with you that all needs to be said it that the evidence is far from compelling, but my impression is that, all considered, we can reasonably infer a low plausibility, without necessarily drawing a-priori conclusions.
@DevilsAdvocate
I knew I would be misinterpreted here. I do not believe bigfoot exists. I, too, have reason that it seems unlikely it exists, given that no one has managed to bring forward any compelling evidence for bigfoot’s existence. What I am arguing against is chucking bigfoot in a bin with a bunch of stuff I (and I guess a lot of other sceptics) would stake my life against being true. Things like ESP, homeopathy, astrology and other bunk we know is false.
What I think we have is some weak evidence for bigfoot versus a lot of untested, and mostly vague, reasons for thinking bigfoot isn’t real. We simply don’t know how implausible bigfoot is, because no one’s done any sort of scientific study to measure it’s implausibility.
By the way, I don’t really appreciate you trying to make out that I’m on “the other side”, and that I’m an “apologist” just because you disagree with me about the prior plausibility of bigfoot. You’re welcome to google the crap out of me. I think you’ll find me surprisingly woo-free. I know it’s hard to approach these arguments in good faith, given the barrage of crap out there, but please try.
@decius
I suspect you’re probably right, bigfoot does seem unlikely, given the reasons you put forward. But, before I go on, I’d like to reiterate my point that if bigfoot were real, that interaction to mention as lacking seems to have happened.
However, my main point is this: I haven’t seen any actually scientific study focused on the stats. Or, indeed, as I said above, any scientific study at all on the implausibility of bigfoot. I would like to see something of the sort done, before sceptics make really beat the drum on prior plausibility, that’s all. Of course it’s fine to say “no good evidence, don’t believe it.”
P.S. I’ve thought about trying to do such a study, but it seems like quite an undertaking, given that primates aren’t my bag (I’m more into definitely extinct reptiles), and I can’t easily study the local (I’m in London, not exactly bigfoot country… although I have seen some pretty odd things stumbling home after a night at the pub…).
John, you may be overlooking the history behind where these reports of Bigfoot sightings are coming from. And it’s essentially the history of the development of a mythical beast, starting not only with the Yeti in the Himalayas, but with the creature known as Sasquatch in the Pacific Northwest. I have some personal knowledge of the Sasquatch legend, having lived with the Tlingit Indians in Alaska as a child. According to my father, Bigfoot and Sasquatch were different names for the same mysterious animal. So naturally here was a ready made explanation for certain strange sightings in the woods – sort of equivalent to strange sightings in the skies. Bigfoot is in a way the UFO of the forests.
My point being that there is more reason to be suspicious of such observations than the mere absence of a statistical probability that such a beast could exist based solely on mistaken sightings of some other phenomena.
All of the people that have “seen” it have in one way or another been convinced of its existence to being with. Which, somewhat paradoxically, makes the accuracy of any sightings even less worthy of belief than you might have earlier imagined.
“Convinced of its existence to begin with” was the phrase I meant to use.
Oh, sure, I think the anecdotal evidence for bigfoot is weak. If you’ve go people out there expecting to see something… well, we know what generally happens then. Of course, the answer from the ‘Footies would be that sasquatch myths are based on a real animal.
In the end, I’m very much at bodiez or it never happened.
John, I reacted -properly- to the way you supported your assertions, a way that is consistent with apologists defend bigfoot – selecting out the convenient data while ignoring the inconvenient, etc., things like that.
Think and argue like a woo, and what are you? Not for me to say. Judge for yourself.
Besides, I agreed one hundred percent with your main point about not taking bigfoot off the menu of possibilities, I merely assigned a certain probability to the question, a very low probability and one supported by factoring the totality of bigfoot claims against the extent evidence is support of them.
PLease consider the possiblity that one can be an apologist without insight.
Do we find great apes (aside from humans) anywhere without lesser primates? The comment above was it’s not unreasonable to believe in bigfoot as we know primates exist. Let’s put it this way. We know giant redwoods exist, so it is not unreasonable to think we could find them in the middle of a desert or at the North Pole.
Of course, that claim would be very unreasonable.
Sure we find small scrub in deserts and maybe moss and tundra in the north but places where we find giant redwoods we also see a gradation of flora. Moss, plants, bushes, little trees, bigger trees, giant redwoods. The mega flora or fauna is at the apex of a very noticeable gradation. Likewise where we see great apes (chimps, gorillas, orangutans) we also see numerous lesser primates (crazy little monkeys!)
While primates certainly migrated to North America millions of years ago, none (big or small) have managed to survive in North America, certainly not the Pacific Northwest. Given there are no living examples of smaller fauna (monkeys), it would seem reasonable that the mega fauna did not survive either.
Sorry to whip out the 50 caliber on some of you boys, but I’m seeing some obviously
pseudoscientific smug skeptic propaganda here:
DevilsAdvocate writes:
“There is sufficient science available to place the existence of bigfoot along a
probability scale, say from 0 inches at the bottom and straight up for 20 feet.”
MM: Can you specifically cite that science? Because your substantiation sounds very much
like your own hypothetical pseudoscience >>> :
“Given the reasonable assumptions you can make about an animal the size of the reported
bigfoot, about breeding populations, human-shared ranges, an estimate of the likelihood of
discovery, etc., a probability can be reasonably assigned.”
MM: That sounds really good … but can you please show us how that probability is
calculated exactly? How the math is rationally assigned? … without just a suggestion that
it can be done.
Or, alternately, point me to someone who already has scientifically assigned the
probability that you are describing.
As far as I know, this has not been done at all, beyond the type of *speculation* you made,
which has indeed been made before, and has been propagated the same loose way you are
propagating it here.
If you make an unsupported statement like that … then you just *might be* a
pseudoscientist.
——————————————-
DevilsAdvocate writes:
“Were it me, I have to hypothesize an extremely wide-ranging animal, one who maintains
essential invisibility in all terrains – PAC NW mountains and forests, valley lands, flat
farmlands and scrub lands, swamps, wetlands, suburban areas, public parks, etc. ALL the
places bigfoot is reported …”
MM: 1) How would they be seen and reported if they were ‘essentially invisible’ in all
those environments? Or do you mean ‘essentially invisible’ like mountain lions?
2) Can you cite some otherwise credible reported sightings in “densely populated areas”?
Are all suburbs and public parks “densely populated areas” by your definition?
3) Were you aware that many vast and rarely visited parts of this continent are “public
parks” … Or did you mean rather “city parks”? If so, please point out those bigfoot
reports from city parks … Point those out from a collection of reports that most
“footers” would characterize as among the most credible. Let us get an idea of how common
those specific types of reports are, in the context of all bigfoot reports.
4) Were you unaware that over the past few decades in North America suburbs have been
carved into forests that are also habitats of large mammals such as bear, deer, elk, moose,
mountain lions, etc.
In those “densely populated” environments, there are occasional sightings, of even the most
skittish large mammals.
Devils Advocate writes: “.. an animal obviously with excellent adaptation abilities, given
the wide variance of terrain it covers, with climates varying from Alaska and the Canadian
far north down to the muggy swamps of Florida, ground cover, foliages, trees, etc. vastly
different from range to range. But that’s from where the reports are coming, so I can’t
just pick out the PAC NW or the Rockie Mountains because it’s easier to hide a bigfoot
there.”
MM: Were you unaware that *every* major native North American predator category (bears,
big cats, wolves) had a historical population range from Alaska all the way down to
Florida, and most parts in between? Were you unaware that there are presently bears, and
big cats, and wolves (reintroduced) in the muggy swamps of Florida?
If bears can inhabit areas close to “densely populated areas”, while only occasionally
being seen …. why would it be implausible for a more rare, and possibly more intelligent
mammal species to inhabit the same zones, while only occasionally being seen?
Does the primate design have some inherent barrier to that edge-of-civilization habitat
scenario?
Most often the only “evidence” noticed that bears are inhabiting edge-of-civilization
zones, are the occasional sightings, and the tracks on roads and human trails (which bears
don’t mind being visible), and the scats they deposit in conspicuous places specifically so
they *will be* visible to other bears.
————————-
Decius writes:
“All great apes have great caloric needs, and only inhabit tropical and sub-tropical
climates.”
MM: So, by your definition, humans are not great apes, and caloric needs of great apes
can only be satisfied in tropical and sub-tropical climates. And there are simply not
enough calories outside the tropics to support the special needs of megafauna apes.
Decius: “Man made it out of the tropics because he could master technology and advanced
hunting techniques.”
MM: What are the “advanced hunting techniques” you speak of … that would unavailable to
other upright primates? Do all successful hunting techniques require technologies like the
bow and arrow, spears, and snares? Are you certain that humans were not hunting animals
before the dawn of those technologies? Is hunting the exclusive domain of technologized
humans?
Decius: “Bigfoot is said to live in areas where other great apes would never survive.”
MM: Other large omnivorous megafauna did very well for themselves far outside tropical and
sub-tropical zones. So what is it exactly about the physiology of ancient megafauna apes
that would make them utterly unadaptable to colder climates?
Decius: “Such a sizeable population couldn’t possibly evade detection for long in densely
inhabited places like the US.”
MM: Correct, and that’s why thousands of credible people in the US have spotted these
animals, and heard their sounds, and found their tracks. They are ‘detected’ on a regular
basis, they are just not killed by humans on a regular basis.
——————————
Roy Niles: “All of the people that have ‘seen’ it have in one way or another been
convinced of its existence to begin with. Which, somewhat paradoxically, makes the accuracy
of any sightings even less worthy of belief than you might have earlier imagined.”
MM: But the truth is the exact opposite … A large portion, perhaps the majority, of the
eye witnesses, clearly indicate that they either never thought about the subject at all, to
begin with, or they simply never believed it at all, prior to their observation …
So where did you pull that bogus assertion from? I assume you got it from somewhere …
matt_moneymaker:
I got my information from first living with Indians in Alaska and later working as a logger in the Pacific Northwest. The chances of someone being in the woods for any reason in those areas that had never heard of Bigfoot before are from slim to none. And how did these observers that you conveniently seem to have run across get the idea that what they supposedly saw was Bigfoot if they never heard of it before?
And all reports of sightings I became aware of “knew” it was Bigfoot because they took the stories they had heard about it seriously.
They believed what they wanted to believe – or, as it seems in your case, had a vested interest in promoting that belief.
Oh jeeez …
Roy asks:
“And how did these observers that you conveniently seem to have run across get the idea that what they supposedly saw was Bigfoot if they never heard of it before?”
Am I the only one who thinks that question sounds kinda silly?
Most of the reports we have received (via our web site which has been soliciting sighting reports for over 12 years now) were not submitted to us immediately after the incident. Many of the witnesses said it took them some time to realize that the animal they observed must have been what people call a “bigfoot.”
Sometimes it takes a while for people to find the right word that applies to what they observed.
In some places in America in years past, plenty of people had never heard of the subject before, or perhaps heard the word bigfoot before, but were unaware of the ‘legend’. If they were aware of the legend, most people didn’t believe it — in non-native communities at least.
Even among native communities in the Northwest, just about everyone has “heard” of bigfoots before, but that does not mean they all believe in their existence ….. No sir.
By your logic, if a person has even heard of the subject before, then their observations are automatically questionable, tainted and should be disqualified. To extend that further, all laymen observations are suspect if they had some prior knowledge of the phenomenon observed.
And I must ‘believe’ in these animals not because I know they exist, not because I have seen one up close, but rather because I have a vested interested in promoting that ‘belief.’ If I have a vested interest, then that automatically means that I could not know the truth.
I don’t DO belief. Rather, there is evidence for things, including the all important science-dependent, under-appreciated anecdotal evidence.
All the evidence logically leads in a certain direction. You don’t have believe anything except logic, and perhaps simply patterns of human behavior that the legal system relies heavily upon, to see the writing on the wall with this topic.
In short, the alleged eyewitnesses never told you they saw Bigfoot, you told them they saw Bigfoot.
“Even among native communities in the Northwest, just about everyone has “heard” of bigfoots before, but that does not mean they all believe in their existence ….. No sir.”
And the reason for that, to the extent that they don’t, is that the indigenous people have never actually seen hide not hair of one.
So you kind of hoisted yourself by another petard there, didn’t you.
Of course if they think you’re dumb enough to believe it, they’ll tell you they have seen at least one and exactly where to go look.
In fact, I heard there’s one right there in Orange County doing GEICO commercials.
Roy Nileson, wrote:
“And the reason for that, to the extent that they don’t, is that the indigenous people have never actually seen hide not hair of one.”
MM: Roy, Roy, Roy. You seem real sure of yourself about that … You seem real sure that everyone who has seen a sasquatch is actually lying, especially indians.
I guess if you start off with the stubborn assumption that it is impossible for them to exist, then you can only conclude that all those witnesses must be lying or imagining things.
You know better than all those witnesses, right Roy?
Roy wrote:
“Of course if they think you’re dumb enough to believe it, they’ll tell you they have seen at least one and exactly where to go look. ”
MM: So all those dang indians up there will give you a bum steer if they think you’ll fall for it, right? Ain’t no indians up there who are honest or credible, right?
And what about all those white witnesses up there?
Yip, they’ve probably been hangin round all those dang indians too long … and smoking Lord knows what in their peace pipes, and drinking too much fire water back in their tipis, right Roy?
You can run your Bigfoot con all you want, but nobody on this site is likely to be impressed by that style of argument. I lived with Tlingit Indians, and in effect was one of them. They were hunters and fishermen in the Alaskan wilderness. They never saw a Sasquatch or Bigfoot, or knew any Indians personally who saw one. They thought they had once existed, but were no more.
The same goes for the Hoopa tribe in Northern California where I have relatives who lived for over 50 years on the reservation there.
So are Indians liars when faced with the patronizing antics of the white man? No more than you seem to be when lulling suckers into joining your own “expeditions” at http://www.bfro.net/
And telling those white “witnesses” that the man in the ape-suit you had planted in them thar trees was the genyouwine article.
# matt_moneymaker
matt,
no one, here, is responsible for your education or lack thereof.
The answers to the naive questions that you asked, with the transparent intent to muddle waters, can be easily found in the relevant entries of sites like wikipedia.
The fact that you portray yourself as an bigfoot expert , while at the same time ignoring the early history of Homo Sapiens and his direct ancestors is a huge contradiction, speaks volumes about your ideological commitment and general lack of credibility, and so do your repeated argumenta ad verecundiam and ad populum.
For the sake of not giving the impression that I evade the question, the hunting technologies that I referred to are stone tools, hand-axes, stone knives, cleavers, spears, atalatls and woomeras – some of which have been in use for millions of years. See Homo habilis and Homo ergaster.
Most of all, the large brain that distinguishes the genus Homo from all other apes, is what allowed large groups of hunters to synchronise their actions and maximise efficacy.
I wish you a speedy recovery from your delusions.
To Decius, the poser pseudoscientist:
You are an Internet poser. You’ll evade my direct questions, then you’ll scurry over to Wikipedia for a good long while to bone up on the things you’re ignorant about, and then misdirect the questions which demonstrate your ignorance.
Go ahead, dodge my questions again:
By your definition, humans are not great apes, and caloric needs of great apes can only be satisfied in tropical and sub-tropical climates, right?
Is it your position that there are simply not enough calories outside the tropics to support the special needs of megafauna apes?
Decius: “Man made it out of the tropics because he could master technology and advanced hunting techniques.”
MM: So, according to your logic, only technologized humans could hunt well enough to escape tropical and sub-tropical zones? And only homo sapiens have brains large enough to allow mastery of cooperative, synchronized hunting?
The relevant technologies you cite enhance the power of thrown projectiles (the rest are just hand stone implements, more or less available to anything with hands), so without those, no chance for great apes in the New World, right? No other hunting techniques except those involving spears, altlatls, woomeras, bow and arrow, etc., would allow megafauna apes to hunt other animals … is that what you’re saying?
Are you saying that humans were not hunting animals before the dawn of those technologies?
Then you claimed: “Bigfoot is said to live in areas where other great apes would never survive.”
MM: Other large omnivorous megafauna did very well for themselves far outside tropical and sub-tropical zones.
So what is it exactly about the physiology of ancient megafauna apes that would make them utterly unadaptable to colder climates?
More ignorance from Decius: “Such a sizeable population couldn’t possibly evade detection for long in densely inhabited places like the US.”
To reiterate the obvious: They are ‘detected’ on a regular basis, they are just not killed by humans on a regular basis.
I really wonder how guys like you are going to rationalize your self-assured ignorance over the next few years as it starts to become increasingly obvious that this species really did survive, in Asia and North America — well outside the tropics.
It’s a wonder to me … because I know how very wrong you are. You will take a position not because you know what you’re talking about, but rather because it dresses you up as the rational skeptic you want to pose as.
On this topic, Decius, you are dead wrong. You have no problem being dead wrong on this web site, as long as you’re anonymous, right?
Wow, I’m stunned by Moneymaker’s racism. I guess I shouldn’t be stunned by displays of ignorance by the ignorant….but…..wow!
||I really wonder how guys like you are going to rationalize your self-assured ignorance over the next few years as it starts to become increasingly obvious that this species really did survive, in Asia and North America — well outside the tropics.||
Haul in a body and we would happily, gleefully, admit we were wrong. What would it take you to conclude bigfoot, on balance, is as unlikely as finding giant redwoods in the desert or the high arctic? How many expeditions do you have to mount to ape canyon that come back with no body, no bone, no unambiguous hair samples, before you decide “well, we can stop looking”?
You seem to confuse reasons why we need good evidence with denial. As I’ve pointed out, greater and lesser primates have made it to North America but none have survived. We do not see great apes surviving where lesser primates have not (save, for of course, the single great ape with the ability to use technology to a great extent). It’s not unreasonable to conclude that where lesser primates cannot flourish, the great apes might not be able to either. We could be wrong. So haul in that body and show us we are. I can’t wait.
||So what is it exactly about the physiology of ancient megafauna apes that would make them utterly unadaptable to colder climates?||
Body fat.
# matt_moneymaker
I simply answer when I have time to peruse this blog, that is every second day, or so.
Please, reserve the definition “pseudoscientist” for yourself and your ilk, at least until bigfoot will be part of zoological taxonomy (i.e. actual science).
That day, I will be glad to accept its existence, too.
Wrong. I strongly decry your reading deficiency, since I nowhere suggested any such nonsense.
I made the case that of all great apes, Homo sapiens is the only one that made it out of the tropics, given the technological advantages that Homo has over the other apes.
This is not according to my logic, but according to the available fossil record and compatible with observation of the distribution of great apes and their habitats, as well as their behaviour.
Duh. Those stone implements were manufactured and artfully crafted by early humans for their intended purposes. No other ape has ever displayed any such capability.
Megafauna and great apes are not interchangeable terms, just to clarify.
Again, the different caloric and dietary needs neatly separate apes from other fauna, as well as the lack of a thick fur suitable as protection from colder climates.
In other words, without clothes-making technology, Homo sapiens and neanderthalensis would have not be able to colonise or inhabit Europe during the glaciation.
For your information, orangutans and gorillas are not omnivorous.
And yes, we are all wrong, only you have the revealed truth – the evidence is just around the corner, the great discovery just about to be made.
What a pity that science doesn’t agree.
But of course, scientists are all ignorant and deluded. That’s why we should listen to cranks.
mindme,
I think you’re getting my point.
Although I do not yet have a corpse to display, which is the only thing that would satisfy everyone simultaneously … No one is going to get away with claiming that “science has demonstrated or proven” that these animals do not exist … Some skeptic posers will make that claim, and I will call their bluff, every time, because it is a false assertion that even skeptics should not tolerate. Skeptics may claim their is not yet enough physical evidence to convince them, but that’s all they can say.
There is no evidence that they don’t exist — no evidence except arguable extrapolations.
The ape design is perfectly capable of evolving to carry body fat, as humans have demonstrated very well.
The ape design is also perfectly capable of evolving to grow a much thicker dermal layer, and much denser fur.
————————–
100 years ago, talk of “thinking machines” (aka computers) was very woo. If you all had been alive back then, it would have been woo to you too.
And now look at you all. You can’t keep your hands off that woo.
I should send around a few t-shirts to you boys that say:
“Some woo is true”.
matt_moneymaker
I would be interested in hearing your answer to mindme’s question.
What would it take to get you to say that Bigfoot most likely doesn’t exist?
Put up, or shut up.
Dear matt_moneymaker,
Please answer mindme’s question. What would it take to cause you to give the existence of Bigfoot a probability close to zero?
Also, Do you believe in unicorns?
(Please do not use the unicorn question as a reason to not answer mindme’s question.)
Way to confuse the question! You’re talking about sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic, a concept well known to fans of science (especially sci-fi nerds).
Unless you’re suggesting that bigfoot is, in fact, super-advanced technology (some sort of Terminator prototype? hmmm…) your analogy does not hold.
You’re right that science has not disproven bigfoot – you can’t prove a negative. But there’s such a thing as prior plausibility, and decius has already given many, many good reasons why bigfoot is highly implausible. It’s an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary proof. If you want us to take your claims seriously without any proof, I think you’ll be interested in this neat teapot this Russell dude found orbiting Mars.
Oh, and why did you even need to bring up computers anyway? The coelacanth is right there as a great example of a creature thought not to be extinct that was later found. They did manage to produce a specimen for that however…
MM I’ve not read thru this whole thread but could you point out where the skeptics have said science has proven bigfoot doesn’t exist? Doing a text search of the thread I can find no skeptic using terms like “proven”, “prove”, “demonst*” in the context you describe. As I’ve noted, I think you’re confusing reasons for doubt with disbelief.
I will wager not one single person commenting here wouldn’t do back flips of joy if we discovered concrete evidence that a large, intelligent primate exists in North America. Understand this: WE TOO WANT TO BELIEVE. But we want good evidence.
To paraphrase the words of Dr. N. to a UFO true believer, if you haul in a body I’ll eat as much crow you’re willing to serve me.
You never answered my question what it would take to falsify your belief? We believe for example that the “god particle” exists and we can run experiments to try and find it. But what if the LHC doesn’t turn it up? Okay we might design a couple more sensitive colliders, we might figure out a more subtle way to detect it. But what if those all fail? At some point science is going to reasonably conclude it (like experiments to find the ether) doesn’t exist and they better explain gravity another way. So, how many expeditions do you have to mount before you reasonably conclude bigfoot probably doesn’t exist and there’s another explanation for all your bigfoot sightings?
To your comment that some woo is true let me paraphrase Sagan: they laughed at Galileo but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. That some fantastical ideas are later demonstrated true or to have the foundations of plausibility doesn’t mean one should credulously accept everything. I just find when people have to take refuge in this obvious fact, they lack other facts to support their claim.
Do you believe in UFOs? Do you believe in a 6 day creation of the universe? Do you believe in fairies? Do you believe in Santa? If you answer no to one of these, why do you not believe?
I wonder if the 7th day of creation was important. I mean, bread has to rise after kneading. Maybe God was letting creation rise on the seventh day but neglected to mention it. So I disbelieve in a 6 day creation. I think it took seven.
For the person that took offense to describing the hicks as “boys”, I was listening to the Are We Alone podcast and they devoted part of the show to the Biscardi press conference. I noticed Biscardi himself kept referring to the hicks as “boys”. Surely, at this point of the hoax, Biscardi wasn’t trying to belittle them by using “boys”?
One thing at a time:
The Q:
“Please answer mindme’s question. What would it take to cause you to give the existence of Bigfoot a probability close to zero?”
The A:
It’s interesting that you put your question that way. You think I’m operating purely on speculation.
I have seen one of these animals up close (~15 feet away). That was after eight years of periodically pursuing reports, and taking lots of hikes, and staking out rural properties.
Since then I have been approached by these animals several times, at greater distances, in different places on this continent, in the course of pursuing them.
I don’t offer that as proof. I’m merely explaining why nothing is going to persuade me that they don’t exist … because I know empirically that they do indeed exist, and are quite real and biological.
Several ‘skeptics’ have gone with me on some of those forays, and were with me when a few of these approaches happened. Those skeptics came away with a whole new appreciation and respect for the topic, to say the least.
If you don’t think any person in this world is credible. And thus no one’s clear description of anything has any value at all, then I can assure you that you will never discover anything yourself. You will only be a serial doubter — a doubter of odd things noticed and described by non-scientists before they are officially discovered by scientists.
You might feel safe socially by holding the posture of a doubter, but you are guaranteed to be on the wrong side of an argument at some point, if that’s all you know how to do.
Scientific discoveries are ALWAYS preceded by anecdotal observations, often by lay people to start with, and then eventually by scientists, in controlled circumstances. That process is repeated, and the object or phenomenon is tested and measured, etc. And then the studies are repeated by other scientists. That’s the scientific process.
Scientists are often not the first people to notice new things.
Furthermore, some new things are not easy to control, and they appear only occasionally, and they appear in unpredictable places, and they are only fleeting when they do appear.
Those types of objects or phenomena don’t get studied as quickly as others, precisely because they are difficult to observe, and difficult to measure, and thus difficult to study directly, not to mention the process of repeating the studies.
Some of you who consider yourselves skeptics might disagree with that. It wouldn’t surprise me at all. Some of you might think that everything that *can* be studied, or discovered, must be easy to observe, and must be easy to control, and must easy to predict, and must easy to photograph or measure.
There is likely more than one category of things that you people call “woo” … which very well may real, but are not predictable, nor controllable, nor easy to observe, photograph, measure, etc.
Along those lines, you can probably separate “woo” into two general categories:
Woo category 1: The woo things that don’t have a long history of observations, and don’t have lots of credible eyewitnesses.
Woo category 2: The woo things that do have a long history, and do have lots of credible eyewitnesses.
Let’s put something through that machine to see how it works … something like … religion.
Christianity is the most popular religion, so let’s use that one.
Christianity does go back thousands of years, but there are not thousands of credible eyewitnesses. You won’t find thousands of credible people alive today (people who any lawyer or judge would consider highly credible witnesses for a trial) who claim to have seen Jesus with their own eyes.
Millions might say they “believe” in Jesus. Millions might say they have “felt” Jesus or “heard” Jesus speak to them … but you won’t find many non-kooks who are adamant that they actually observed Jesus somewhere on some occasion.
It’s kinda odd actually, because millions of people adamantly believe that Jesus is around them all the time, but basically none of those people will say they’ve actually seen Him, beyond idol representations of Him.
There are not thousands of people who seriously claim to have seen Elvis at a gas station, etc. That’s just hyperbole. If you disagree, then try to find one of those eyewitnesses. Try to find one who would be a good eyewitness for a trial.
There are not thousands of people who claim to have seen Unicorns either.
If a given topic in Woo category 2 is also something that would be unpredictable, and uncontrollable, and difficult to observe, photograph, measure, test and re-test …. Then I would not advise taking a strong skeptical stance against it.
Individual items of potential evidence in Woo category 2 might not be legit, but if you write off the whole topic due to the outcome of a particular item, then you are neither logical nor rational.
I think you misunderstand what it is to be a sceptic. It’s not about “being on the right side of an argument”. We believe what the evidence tells us, and if the evidence changes (as it so often does), our beliefs will. There’s no shame in it. Right now there is no credible evidence for bigfoot and the premise is implausible at best.
I say to you right now Matt, we will believe in bigfoot. Just show us some evidence.
Wow, Matt, why didn’t you tell us this before? It would have changed the whole tenor of this exercise. Too bad after all those stakeouts you had to forget your camera when you most needed it. You will need to put this personal sighting info. on your website, now that you’ve been able to remember it. Maybe even more details will come back to you.
But personally I think all Bigfoots out there are Neanderthal/human hybrids abandoned by (mostly) human mothers at birth for the usual reasons. I have personally seen women in the woods acting furtively and am now convinced this was their purpose in being there.
That’s very cool indeed. I, too, have some experience in tracking and pursuing large animals for the purpose of photographing them. I trust you took some photos. Who wouldn’t carry a camera, especially when trying to settle a great scientific dispute over the existence of a mythical creature?
Could you please show us what shots you took?
Matt would have had pictures but the creature was naked and was given a chance to go put some pants on. Bigfoots, as it turns out, are tricky (as many hybrids are).
@matt.
Please don’t lie to us. It makes me feel uncomfortable.
Many scientists think they’ve seen something with their own eyes and yet they still can put on their science hat and define what it would take to falsify their anecdotal observations. Odd, MM, you can’t. Many doctors swear a certain treatment works, they’ve seen it in their own clinic, but when published data come out to the contrary they accept their subjective experience has been falsified and change their medical practice.
Dr. N is a birder. I’m sure many birders have sworn up and down they’ve seen some rare, rare bird up close. I would hope if Dr. N had such an experience he would also agree that at the end of the day, despite being an experienced birder, he’s also capable of a misidentification and could define what it would take to falsify his belief. Rare birds need a stable breeding population. If after 50 years no solid evidence can be brought in that the lesser ivory billed rebecca warbler exists, aside from reports by birders steeped in the legend of the beauty and vicious beak poking ability of the ivory billed rebecca warbler, no shells of the bird’s distinctive eggs turn up, no examples of the bird’s distinctive sponge painted nest, no samples of the bird’s tie dyed feathers, no droppings that contain the bird’s distinctive diet of organic granola and three bean tofu salad, then I would hope Dr. N. and other scientifically minded birders would go “on balance, I really doubt the lesser ivory billed rebecca warbler exists. I was probably wrong and actually saw the common greater cream beaked black crowned jay bird and I’m going to cease taking people’s money on expeditions to find this bird and it’s majestic loft-style nest over looking the forests of the Boston Common”.
Good scientists admit even their own mighty powers of observation can be wrong. You simply can’t?
“I think you misunderstand what it is to be a sceptic. It’s not about “being on the right side of an argument”. We believe what the evidence tells us, and if the evidence changes (as it so often does), our beliefs will. There’s no shame in it. Right now there is no credible evidence for bigfoot and the premise is implausible at best.
I say to you right now Matt, we will believe in bigfoot. Just show us some evidence.”
———–
I think I see what’s happening here. The evidence is indeed there, but you don’t want to look at it. You say there’s no evidence … when there’s piles of it. It’s been available for a long time, and it falls into different categories.
Do you expect me to bring it to your house?
Do not confuse the idea of “evidence” with “physical remains” because physical remains are only one type of evidence. Even scientists look at more types of evidence than just physical remains … really, honestly … ask some scientists if you doubt that.
One good example is the Skookum Cast. EVERY scientist who has examined it in person, without exception, says it is “compelling evidence” of an unclassified primate species in North America. Dr. Daris Swindler went even further. He said it was evidence of something that could be the descendant of a Gigantopithecus (giant ape).
Until his death, Dr. Daris Swindler was arguably the most influential primate anatomist in the nation. Before he examined the Skookum Cast he was an ardent skeptic of the subject. After examining that *evidence* he said he was wrong in the past, and had simply been blind to the accumulation of prior evidence, which he should have taken more seriously. But there’s a lot of cultural flotsam out there which tends to easily interfere with one’s grasp of the subject. And much of that cultural flotsam is misrepresentations floated by uninformed self-described skeptics.
There are a few non-scientists who have offered alternative explanations for the Skookum Cast, but NOT ONE of those people has ever examined the cast itself, and none of them are scientists. Their alternate explanation, based on their own unfounded or confused speculations, was that the impression(s) in the mud was left behind by an elk. Fortunately, the examining scientists were keenly aware of that alternate explanation, so they paid particular attention to it and positively ruled that out.
One scientist might be wrong, but a handful of scientists, who are already skeptical, all agreeing on something … are probably not wrong.
Aside from the Skookum Cast there is a collection of track casts from across the continent, found years apart, which show discrete anatomical characteristics, including dermal ridges, that are consistent. If you’re going to summarily claim that this collection of casts is all fake, or not evidence somehow, then I will know for sure that you are not a scientist.
You’ll make some loopy argument that because it is theoretically *possible* to fake evidence in this category … then it is not really evidence …
The same can be said of ANY category of evidence … including physical remains.
It is theoretically possible to fake physical remains also.
Sound recordings are a form of scientific evidence. The scientists don’t say the best recordings are fake. And they don’t say they are misinterpretations.
————————————————————————
There’s far more evidence of these animals than of surviving IBWs.
————————————————————————
The night I got closest to a sasquatch, I was scouting for a place to set up a night-vision-enabled surveillance system.
You may not understand some things about photography/videography in the dark. It requires special equipment, especially if you’re going to film from a distance in near total darkness.
A nightvision-camcorder combination, back in 1994, was not a small gadget. The NV scope attached to a camcorder ended up being slightly bulkier than a small bazooka.
That unwieldiness, combined with the other items required to stabilize it and protect it from the elements … was too big a package to carry around while sneaking through the woods, watching and listening for movement.
Of course, I did return and set it up the next day, after my observation, but the animals (two were there but only one approached me) didn’t come back to the same spot, or were perhaps put off by the large IR lamp I installed for additional illumination. That’s entirely possible. What was certain was that these animals were right there one night, but then didn’t walk in front of the camera system after that.
Since that time, I and other people in the BFRO have gotten footage in other places. I was the very first person to get footage of a sasquatch with a surveillance camera. That happened in Kentucky in 2005. There are a few other clips from that location which will all be released, including the clip I obtained, in a documentary that is currently in production.
It’s a Canadian-run operation now, and the documentary has been slow to get going, but it is definitely going now. The main man producing the documentary, Canadian real estate mogul Adrian Erickson, is not going to just sit on that footage any longer, thankfully.
Recently members of the BFRO have obtained a few other interesting pieces of footage. Almost all of these clips were obtained at night. They are not as clear and lengthy as commercial wildlife footage, but they are indeed photographic *evidence.*
I am able to present that footage on the web site, now that we have a separate server that can handle the downloads. That’s a recent development for us. As a matter of fact, I would be working on the release of that footage at this very moment if I was not typing this message …
——————————————————-
It is the folly of a self-described skeptic to judge reality based solely on narrow categories of evidence, and then only when there’s a sufficient degree of it.
Regarding this particular topic, it is only appropriate for skeptics to say that there is “no physical remains available yet, and less evidence, in certain other categories, than one would assume there should be” … but that’s all.
It is NOT appropriate to say that until that point, you can all safely assume that these animals do not exist …
You cannot be correct about that now … and then be correct later when there is sufficient evidence and you change your stance.
If you are going to change your stance later, then you are wrong right now, if you are implying they don’t exist.
The reality or existence of things is something entirely separate from the question of whether there is sufficient residual evidence to persuade a certain category of humans called skeptics. Scientists seem to understand that, but skeptics apparently do not.
Skeptics sometimes interfere with science when they make false assertions which tend to deter scientific inquiry — false assertions like “there is no evidence” or “their existence in North America is implausible”. Those are statements of fact which are false, or highly subjective at best.
There is evidence for their existence, and their existence is not even implausible, given all the evidence.
The misperceptions spread by uninformed, narrow-minded, self-described skeptics … tend to mislead the academic community — enough for several of them to sign a petition at Idaho State, asking the University to make Dr. Meldrum halt his scientific inquiry into the subject …
Their principal justification for wanting him stopped … It was an ‘embarrassment’ to them, because so many people have a particular attitude about the subject.
Society needs skilled and informed skepticism in certain contexts were scientists aren’t going to focus, such as claims of superpowers, etc. But the things that science can focus on and resolve … skeptics should be very careful about, careful not to cause interference with the scientific process that skeptics do not engage in.
This thing seems to only come out at night, so I guess it’s not a neanderthal hybrid after all.
Here’s a good rundown of sightings and related information about Bigfoot and related creatures.
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Mysterious-Creatures/Apelike-Monsters.html
Note that the Hoopa reservation receives prominent mention here as a Bigfoot habitat. Yet after some alleged sightings by non-Indians in the area, no-one seems to have interviewed any of the tribe members concerning any sightings of the beast during the lifetime of anyone on that reservation.
Of course they were in fact interviewed but after they related that no traces of Bigfoot’s lair, excrement, scent, possible food sources, etc., had ever been found over the last 50 years or so, that part of the story was killed.
Wow. Matt’s a walkin’ talkin’ Festival Of Fallacies.
Well, you know the other old saying about evidence:
“Believing is seeing.”
# matt_moneymaker
You expect us to believe that you haven’t released your footage since 2005, and that some major documentary is on its way.
OK, show us some evidence supporting this new outlandish claim of yours.
Explain also why you failed to collect dung, which is what any naturalist would have done in the absence of other hard evidence.
DNA can be easily extracted from excrement and the matter would have been laid to rest.
Let me guess – you did, and the lab running the tests is about to release its ground-breaking findings in a few weeks time.
# DevilsAdvocate
This is nothing. Did you check out his site?
Go to the faq, for instance “Why aren’t there more photos?” for a hilarious list of special pleadings.
Decius writes:
“You expect us to believe that you haven’t released your footage since 2005, and that some major documentary is on its way.”
MM:
It’s not my footage anymore, nor has it been since 2005. I sold the rights to the Canadian who was putting more money into the project there. He’s got it now, and it’s going to be part of the documentary.
If I had kept that surveillance footage and released it prematurely, it would have surely led to interference with the effort on the property. Too many curious people would have come around.
It was best to let the project operate under the radar, and allow the story to be told in context of a single documentary with all the footage, and the story behind it.
Decius writes:
“OK, show us some evidence supporting this new outlandish claim of yours.”
MM:
I love it! … What a cliche, peanut gallery skeptic you are! To everything you say, “Prove it!”
So my mention of the documentary is an “outlandish claim”.
You’re saying I’m lying and there is no documentary in production, eh?
Or more precisely, it is not reality until I provide you (or this forum) with some proof of the upcoming documentary … When I do that, then my assertion of an upcoming documentary magically transforms from non-reality to reality … as if it wasn’t reality before I satisfied your arbitrary skepticism.
What will you have to say for yourself, and your assertion this day, when the documentary finally gets released? Will you admit you were wrong about that?
Nah, you won’t admit that you were wrong. You’ll just change your anonymous handle and pretend like you never said it was an “outlandish claim.”
The documentary is indeed in the works. They interviewed me for it, in Kentucky, two months ago. A Princeton Ph.D. ecologist (Dr. Leila Hadj-Chikh) was brought in there in late 2005, and has now lived at the property for nearly three years, trying to study this family group that came around periodically.
And also during this two year period, Adrian Erickson brought over some other people for a visit, including Dr. Jeff Meldrum, and Dr. John Bindernagel (Canadian). When Bindernagel was there, he got to see a sasquatch, for the very first time in his life.
Bindernagel is another person who, like me, would have a hard time defining some criteria that would dissuade him from knowing what he saw with his own eyes.
Obviously Bindernagel was keenly aware, beforehand, of the possibility that the whole thing might be a set up. Anyone involved in this biz is continually on guard for that, whenever walking into a new situation. But peanut gallery skeptics like Decius somehow think they are the only ones who consider a possibility like that …
Bindernagel is a scientist … So instead of being a smug skeptic, and summarily concluding that it must be a set-up, without even checking it out … Bindernagel went there and saw for himself, and was very glad he did.
That’s one of the key differences between skeptics and scientists, it would appear. Perhaps I’m wrong but it seems that skeptics are only concerned with a rhetorical exercise, whereas scientists actually want to know the truth, so they will investigate things.
Decius writes:
“Explain also why you failed to collect dung, which is what any naturalist would have done in the absence of other hard evidence.”
MM: I see … So you’re assuming that these animals would have DEFINITELY left some dung behind, on those occasions when they came around the property. It’s just a foregone conclusion for you — if an animal like that came by at all, it would have pooped there … because all mammals excrete dung everywhere they go, no matter how briefly they hang around.
Decius, you are an ape … Do you leave dung behind everywhere you go? Only on discussion forums, right?
Decius writes:
“DNA can be easily extracted from excrement and the matter would have been laid to rest.”
MM:
It is certainly *possible* that scat was found and collected there during that period. I don’t know for sure yet. The folks there stopped telling me details like that a while back, because they knew I wasn’t perfect at keeping the matter secret. However Meldrum has been openly mentioning the Kentucky project at the last few conferences he spoke at, so it isn’t very secret any more.
The people running the project thankfully took my advice on certain things. They got very qualified people (scientifically qualified) to work on that project. It wasn’t run by amateurs or enthusiasts. It was all pro.
Decius writes:
“Let me guess – you did, and the lab running the tests is about to release its ground-breaking findings in a few weeks time.”
MM: I don’t know if they have collected DNA there. Maybe. Maybe not. They do have at least five (5) clips of footage though, possibly more. And it is very interesting footage, to say the least. People will be talking about this footage for a long time. I strongly believe this footage is legit.
Decius writes:
“This is nothing. Did you check out his site?
Go to the faq, for instance “Why aren’t there more photos?” for a hilarious list of special pleadings.”
MM:
It’s kinda funny how I was able to point out a whole long list of fallacies by the anonymous DevilsAdvocate, yet now he claims my assertions are full of fallacies.
I don’t think so.
Yes, do go there to that FAQ page and read what I wrote about the photography issue. You might learn a few things. Rational people will definitely learn a few things from it.
Here’s the URL to that page:
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=412
Con-men always have these little “inyourface” tells semi-hidden in the bodies of their propaganda, mostly for the amusement of other con artists – and partly to taunt those who know the con is staying just on the “right” side of the law, be it civil or criminal.
I especially liked the prominent use of the name Daris Swindler.
Matt wrote:
“And also during this two year period, Adrian Erickson brought over some other people for a visit, including Dr. Jeff Meldrum, and Dr. John Bindernagel (Canadian). When Bindernagel was there, he got to see a sasquatch, for the very first time in his life.”
But on his own site (http://www.bigfootbiologist.org/page5.html), Dr. Bindernagel neglects to mention that he finally saw a sasquatch.
He did mention something about a book he wrote on the subject, which would benefit from the publicity of a documentary. Questions of credibility may have been a factor in neglecting to mention his personal familiarity with the beast.
I think I’ve taken enough of you time here. I will leave now, with a few parting words:
There are some intelligent, rational chaps on this forum. I am happy they exist. Skepticism is a necessary component of a modern society.
On occasion skepticism is the only thing that prevents people from being misled by false claims. I would urge you all to consider the topics where skepticism should be applied, and topics where science should be applied instead.
Be mindful of subjects and situations where science might be unfairly discouraged by overreaching skepticism.
Scientists are, in a sense, formally trained skeptics. They can easily identify alternative explanations for things. That’s their bailiwick. They should be encouraged to inquire about things they feel deserve inquiry.
Self-described skeptics do a disservice to science and society when they make misleading assertions which have the effect of discouraging systematic inquiry. A statement like “There is no evidence.” is quite misleading. Dr. Jeff Meldrum wrote a very big book about all the evidence for these animals.
Several other statements in the comments of this blog entry are misleading. It is a disgrace to legitimate skepticism to allow those statement to stand unchallenged.
The bigfoot/sasquatch topic involves thousands of documented observations of a possible animal species that fits the description of a species that was known to exist in Asia and was thought to be extinct. Skeptical challenges are not the way to find out the truth in this matter. There are other ways to find the truth which are not so purely argumentative.
My request is to let the scientists do the science with this phenomena. Let them be the skeptics.
Scientists who have been researching this subject for years will tend to know more about it than any skeptic who has not been researching the subject for years.
If the methods/conclusions of those scientists appear to be weak, then let other scientists point that out.
Roy writes:
“And also during this two year period, Adrian Erickson brought over some other people for a visit, including Dr. Jeff Meldrum, and Dr. John Bindernagel (Canadian). When Bindernagel was there, he got to see a sasquatch, for the very first time in his life.”
But on his own site (http://www.bigfootbiologist.org/page5.html), Dr. Bindernagel neglects to mention that he finally saw a sasquatch.
He did mention something about a book he wrote on the subject, which would benefit from the publicity of a documentary. Questions of credibility may have been a factor in neglecting to mention his personal familiarity with the beast.”
MM: Roy, you are not a skeptic. You don’t deserve that title. You are nothing more than a bitter, pessimistic, smug cynic.
Bindernagel was asked to not disclose details about the KY project before the documentary was completed. I would have been very surprised if he had mentioned something about it on his web site. In person, he will tell you about it.
By your logic, Roy, any person who writes a book on a topic does not have credibility to make statements about significant developments in that field, because the sales of their book may benefit from their statements …
I don’t think you ever went to college, Roy. Because many of your professors would have had a major problem with your attitude.
The credibility issue would come up if he actually told a lie that he could be caught at. And we all know that a published claim of having seen a sasquatch close up would be either a lie or an admission of extreme gullibility.
Actually I have a degree from UC, Berkeley, my field of study being a combination of Psychology, English and Philosophy. I went from there to a 22 year career as a Federal Agent, and spent another 20 some years as a Private Investigator, specializing in exposing con artists and the like.
Would you like to know how many professors I know that were caught in a con such as yours? Or how many had faked credentials and scholastic records?
Matt,
I have never had a problem to admit when I was wrong, or if I previously held a false opinion.
The day that the documentary is out, I will retract my scepticism.
Until then, I have the right to express my honest opinion. You strike me as someone who talks a lot and has nothing to show in support of his extraordinary claims.
Implying that the evidence of a great scientific discovery must be shrouded in secrecy and shielded from the external world is simply preposterous. It makes sense only in the context of fraudulent claims, as it was the case with the latest bigfoot conjob, where the fraudsters voiced similar idiotic concerns, in an attempt to delay the inevitable conclusion.
I concluded my first reply to you by wishing you a speedy recovery from your delusions.
That’s no longer appropriate – what you should do is to grow up and find a honest occupation.
So, MM, long story short, unlike a scientist who is willing to admit his own powers of observation could be biased and can be falsified and said scientist can layout the goalpost for such, you believe you’re incapable of being mistaken.
Mmmmmm.
||I think I see what’s happening here. The evidence is indeed there, but you don’t want to look at it. You say there’s no evidence … when there’s piles of it. It’s been available for a long time, and it falls into different categories.||
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I always thought before we enter an animal into the taxonomy we have to have either a body or a living sample. You do not get special dispensation because your challenge is a hard one.
Signs of a pseudoscience: expectation of lowered standards of evidence, arguments that explain away the lack of evidence, subjective jihadist approach, waving away any opinion that does not allow BF existence, categorical denial of skepticism.
If you were to pour 1,000,000 cups of weak tea (anecdotal BF sighting reports) into a large vat (BF sighting report databases), you would not magically get strong tea (quality evidence). You’d have a vatful of weak tea. It’s not the volume of evidence, it’s the quality that matters. One piece of sufficiently high quality evidence will suffice. I suggest a body.