1. Comment #326669 by Stafford Gordon on January 23, 2009 at 2:37 pm

Eugenie Scott shoots her own fox within the first ten minutes by saying that without evidence scientists can't have a discourse with supernaturalists.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

2. Comment #326679 by plastictowel on January 23, 2009 at 2:51 pm

What do you mean stafford? I'm not sure I understand.

Other Comments by plastictowel

3. Comment #326691 by theolgit on January 23, 2009 at 3:10 pm

A couple of faux pas there. Plesiosaurs wer not dinosaurs although they were living in the same era. The basking shark is a shark it is not a whale.

Other Comments by theolgit

4. Comment #326699 by mbannonb on January 23, 2009 at 3:25 pm

Big Foot is really Cain walking the earth for his sins.

Well, that's what some mormons believe.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/permalink/is_bigfoot_really_cain/

Other Comments by mbannonb

5. Comment #326703 by aquilacane on January 23, 2009 at 3:38 pm

evidence first please

Other Comments by aquilacane

6. Comment #326704 by Crocket Lauderdale on January 23, 2009 at 3:39 pm

A basking shark is a whale? That's news to me. Is a whale shark really a whale too?

Other Comments by Crocket Lauderdale

7. Comment #326706 by zimmyis on January 23, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Is there any evidence that indicates there is/could actually be any great apes living in the world today that we have not yet discovered? Why would we even be looking if there isn't? It's no different than avidly searching for over-sized pigeons...

Folk law and myths are no basis for beginning a scientific investigation. There are so many possible roots to these myths, why would any sane person waste their time investigating them? Is there anybody seriously hunting werewolves nowadays? This is no different. Even speculation seems like a complete waste of time to me...

"That's nothing that a scientist can deal with" is said about supernatural bigfeets, but surely the same applies to any bigfeets, because the only "evidence" is some dodgy photos.

Other Comments by zimmyis

8. Comment #326710 by Russell Blackford on January 23, 2009 at 4:11 pm

Plesiosaur = mesozoic-era reptile. It's not really a dinosaur, but I guess it was shorthand to say "mesozoic-era creature, extinct for many millions of years".

The basking shark mistake is a bit more embarrassing. I guess she had in mind that it's a filter-feeder like a baleen whale. But of course, it's still a shark.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

9. Comment #326713 by Laurie Fraser on January 23, 2009 at 4:15 pm

Whale shark is a shark, Crockett.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

10. Comment #326719 by decius on January 23, 2009 at 4:23 pm

Just a quid pro quo, of course Eugene knows that it's a shark. It happens when thinking ahead what one is about to say.

She should be complimented for holding the whole presentation without reading from notes, rather than be nitpicked over quibbles.

Other Comments by decius

11. Comment #326723 by Russell Blackford on January 23, 2009 at 4:30 pm

Decius, I agree. I've done similar things sooo often. It's easy to misspeak ... and then only realise later what you said and what you really had in mind. Often, in my case, I realise when I wake up in the middle of the night. Dammit.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

12. Comment #326726 by Laurie Fraser on January 23, 2009 at 4:35 pm

I once spent a whole lesson referring to the author of "Tyger Tyger" as "Francis Bacon. Go figure - did I feel like an idiot.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

13. Comment #326753 by Annamation on January 23, 2009 at 5:29 pm

Whats with this site tonight? I often lurk around here for some rational clear thinking to escape the chaos of this world, and what do I find? Bigfoot/Yeti and human cells grown to look like microscopic jellybabies!

Other Comments by Annamation

14. Comment #326756 by Vergil on January 23, 2009 at 5:38 pm

There seems to be a very narrow definition of the term "evidence". Of course eyewitness testimony and fuzzy photographs are evidence.

Other Comments by Vergil

15. Comment #326758 by Adam Morrison on January 23, 2009 at 5:41 pm

There's allways room for human-shaped, cell Jello

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

16. Comment #326760 by Crocket Lauderdale on January 23, 2009 at 5:57 pm

Comment #326713 by Laurie Fraser

Whale shark is a shark, Crockett.

Thanks Laurie, I was just kidding around...just wanted to make sure that all filter feeding sharks hadn't been reclassified ;)

Comment #326706 by zimmyis

Is there any evidence that indicates there is/could actually be any great apes living in the world today that we have not yet discovered? Why would we even be looking if there isn't? It's no different than avidly searching for over-sized pigeons...

Alright, as a disclaimer, I have to admit that I sort of self-indoctrinated myself to the bigfoot phenomenon as a youngster. I still check out the bigfoot websites from time to time to read the new reports and see if there's any new "evidence". Guilty pleasure. Although I'm not a bigfoot believer, I've studied the phenomenon enough to understand the arguments and their rebuttals and I think I can make a fair critique here.

Is there any evidence? Yes. Is it any good? Nope. Not by any scientific standard. Although I would submit that's there's more evidence for bigfoot than there is for god, that's not really saying much. The only scientifically testable evidence so far has been the collection of a few hair samples and I believe one blood sample that was not an exact match with any known animal. Although I think this is interesting, it's really just a "god of the gaps" argument and doesn't really prove anything.

She mentioned "Giganto" as well a bit later in the program. To me this is only interesting in that it sets a precedence in the fossil record for primates achieving a size consistent with typical descriptions reported by those claiming to have seen a bigfoot creature. We know very little of Giganto other than it had big jaws and big teeth. As far as I know, we have no idea if this animal was bipedal or quadrapedal. We also have no evidence of this creature making the migration and necessary adaptations to North America as have other primates (humans). However, if there was any overlap between this creature's existence and that of early humans, it could be a possible "first cause" for the folklore shared by many indigenous peoples across the globe.

As for whether or not its a waste of time or not, well that's a fair question. I'd certainly prefer that my scientists spent their time researching cures for cancer than out searching for Yeti, but I also don't think that someone like Jeff Meldrum (who studies Primate bipedalism) should be laughed at for evaluating alleged bigfoot casts. The existence of bigfoot is a scientific question and as long as "bigfoot hunters" are using the scientific method I can make no judgements on their ambitions. It's different than looking for over sized pigeons because descriptions of bigfoot share many characteristics with known primates and it wouldn't be a stretch to guess that if one is ever discovered, it is indeed likely a primate. Certainly we could learn more about our evolutionary past through the discovery of another bipedal primate than we could with an over- sized pigeon right?

I love the work Eugenie is doing for our nation and I think she does a great job here in her presentation. Her analysis is very fair and she's definitely done her home work. My only critique is that her working rhetorical example of bigfoot as a 12 foot hairy creature in West Texas comes off as a bit of a straw man.

West Texas is by no means a hotbed of bigfoot activity and reports of 12 foot creatures are the extreme. The typical report are 7-9 feet for males with females typically being reported smaller. There are more plausible bigfoot definitions than the one she presented I would have liked to see her debunk a less extreme version. I'm kind of doing a bell-curve assessment here myself and I certainly could be wrong.

Although I agree with her argument that more alleged encounters in more places actually makes the creature LESS likely, I think she generally understates the vast remoteness of the lands these creatures are typically reported. Texas is huge! Check out Oregon on Google Earth...plenty of places to hide there.

Most of us here probably live in urban and suburban environments and it's easy to lose site of just how much earth there is outside of our little villages. I know it's just another god of the gaps argument, but I just tend to think that the gaps are a little bigger than she is implying in regards to alleged habitat.

Either way, the only way this will ever get solved is if he have a body. Sorry for the long post...I love this stuff :)

Other Comments by Crocket Lauderdale

17. Comment #326762 by Vergil on January 23, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Don't apologise Crocket. Your post is very refreshing amid all of the "He believes in God, what an idiot!" brick a brack usually posted around here.

Other Comments by Vergil

18. Comment #326763 by MaxD on January 23, 2009 at 6:17 pm

Crocket,
I've been argueing with bigfoot advocates for a few months. I've read through the "scientific reports" of the BFRO and as a field biologist, I have found all of it remarkably laughable.

Some of the bigfoot experts have come up with bizarely detailed accounts of their biology, but no credible video footage? No type-specimen? No credible tissue? All very strange.

Other Comments by MaxD

19. Comment #326772 by Crocket Lauderdale on January 23, 2009 at 7:34 pm

Comment #326763 by MaxD

I'm still not sure what to think about the BFRO. On one hand they are at least making an attempt to gather data into a format that may have some value. And I do think there are number of members there that are sincere and really trying to maintain some precision in their research. They also played a key role in debunking the "Georgia bigfoot body" hoax perpetrated this summer. Not bad for a bunch of bigfoot believers.

On the other hand, BFRO is essentially a commercial enterprise that uses "bigfoot expeditions" as a way to make money. On these expeditions people will pay money to stay out in the woods with BFRO members in areas suspected of activity. Customers will often report "wood knocking" or "vocalizations" as evidence. This activity might also have been perpetrated by the guides themselves. I suspect a Sherpa or two might have done similiar things on Yeti expeditions as well.

I agree, most of the reports are worthless. The ones I find the most interesting are the most benign...something like "school teacher see large upright animal walk across a logging-road on her morning commute". I guess I find those types of reports more interesting because there's nothing supernatural about them and the reporter doesn't really have anything to gain. This violates Mr. Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" , however, so I guess I have to chuck those reports out as well.

*credible video footage - This might not even be possible. It could always be a man in a suit. Credible photographs are pretty much an oxymoron at this point as well.

Here's a link to my favorite "blobsquatch" report. I actually find this one more interesting than the Patterson Grimlin film that's usually presented. Although it's still debunkable, at least these photographs have reasonable references for size. Unfortunately, this is about as good as the evidence gets.

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=23160


*credible tissue - none yet. The best shot so far was attempted when blood gathered from a bear repellent device outside of a remote fishing cabin in British Columbia. The sample was deemed too degraded by one independent analysis. In another it returned a sequence which had about a 1 in 5000 chance of being human in source. Interesting, but not conclusive by any means.

*No type specimen - This one gets tricky, but yeah, its the holy grail for a bigfoot hunter and really the only evidence worth anything at this point. Although we probably should have found a body by now, I don'think that argument is a deal breaker. Mother nature takes care of its dead pretty quickly in the wild and doesn't always leave a trace. Think how lucky we are when we find fossils. Also, many of the reports are made by hunters, and you think one would have shot one by now. The problem there is that the hunter first has to come to grips with what they are seeing, then they must decide if they want to pull the trigger on something that might be a man in a costume. That would be murder. As crazy as it sounds, some states actually have legislation against "shooting unknown primates" to prevent the accidental death of a hoaxer. They kind of treat bigfoot as an endangered species.

Since you are a field biologist, I'm curious as to what you think you would do if you had an encounter with such a creature. I think it's an interesting thought experiment.

Other Comments by Crocket Lauderdale

20. Comment #326785 by MaxD on January 23, 2009 at 8:53 pm

Crockett,
I just prepared a long post but lost it when I accidently backed my browser up.

My big question for the bigfooters is why is that we don't here about this from really credible outdoors persons. People who made their living in the wilds. Why are there no serious accounts from people like Olaus, or Adolf Murie? Why is it almost always low rent accounts, from inexperienced observers? Why is that Bigfoot can elude the practiced eyes of experienced field biologists, and other naturalist types but almost always appear for a couple of deer hunters with their cell phone camera. I think this is a huge crevass in the credibility right from the word go.

Its true that photos can be faked, but I think if you had a build up of crisper clearer images (that maybe carved out a credible map of ranges-Have you noticed the BFRO suspects these creatures in nearly every state?) Then we might have something to go on, and a place to begin and reasons for doing so.

I spend months in the woods at a time, in remote areas. Whether I see them or not, I always see sure signs of tracks, scat, hair, scratching posts etc of numerous animals. However one thing I never have seen, nor heard any other biologist report any thing the bigfoot experts see. This seems like another nail in the coffin. Why is it that we haven't even got more of this going on?
"Didn't see any thing but man I found a big pile of scat and tons of prints." (This fall, I never saw a cougar for instance, but saw plenty of tracks on the trails to our trapping stations, and fresh scat every few days. The year before a biologist saw a cougar jump, and kill a deer on the same grounds. History, consistently aquired evidence. I wish I could say I had kept such a safe distance from the black bears in the area!)

This kind of report for bigfoot shouldn't be rare at all if these supposed creatures are as wide-spread as their experts claim. People working in the far off wild places should be seeing these signs more regularly but they just aren't.

The other thing I am somewhat puzzled by is the lack of fossil or archeological evidence for these things.

Other Comments by MaxD

21. Comment #326799 by freedom0f5peech on January 23, 2009 at 10:10 pm

That's just what Eugenie Scott needs... more enemies... LOL!!! ;P

And to think, those Big Foot nutters were probably in favor of teaching evolution in the schools. LOL!!! ;P

Sorry, I'm feeling silly.

Other Comments by freedom0f5peech

22. Comment #326800 by Fuzzy Duck on January 23, 2009 at 10:13 pm

Thanks for posting this! I heard about this on the ol' Facespace, and wanted to attend.

Other Comments by Fuzzy Duck

23. Comment #326801 by robotaholic on January 23, 2009 at 10:15 pm

lol freedom0f5peech LOL

Other Comments by robotaholic

24. Comment #326814 by Kit Finn on January 23, 2009 at 11:39 pm

The decomposing basking-shark = plesiosaur idea has been around for ages, though. there was a case of one being washed up on the Orkney Islands in the 188(?)0s, scaring some local farmers and being subjected to a scientific study.

Other Comments by Kit Finn

25. Comment #326829 by hmj on January 24, 2009 at 1:09 am

Comment #326760 by Crocket Lauderdale

"The only scientifically testable evidence so far has been the collection of a few hair samples and I believe one blood sample that was not an exact match with any known animal."

Why dont you mention if DNA tests have been done on the hairs?

Other Comments by hmj

26. Comment #326949 by PERSON on January 24, 2009 at 7:58 am

"one blood sample that was not an exact match with any known animal"
Again, DNA testing is the key I guess. It'd be easy to fake something like this just by mixing the blood of two animals or otherwise adulterating it.

Other Comments by PERSON

27. Comment #326982 by Crocket Lauderdale on January 24, 2009 at 10:38 am

Comment #326829 by hmj

Why dont you mention if DNA tests have been done on the hairs?

Well, from what I understand, most of the testing on alleged bigfoot hairs hasn't involved DNA testing. Most of the sample hairs given to scientists have been examined under a microscope and then compared to the known set of local species. For the bigfoot advocate, the most hopeful results would be "unknown animal". The only DNA tests I'm aware of on hair were performed on some hairs collected up in the Yukon territory. I believe these hairs turned out to be that of North American Bison.

Here's the bottom line, you can collect all the hair, scat, and blood you want, but if you don't have a type specimen with which to compare it to, it doesn't prove anything.

If you have any links to any published research or peer reviewed test results performed on alleged bigfoot samples that contradict what I said above, I would love to see it.

Other Comments by Crocket Lauderdale

28. Comment #326993 by headcold on January 24, 2009 at 11:19 am

I greatly respect what Eugenie Scott is doing, but I've been wondering recently if maybe the NCSE needs someone a bit more assertive and less librarian-ish to represent the teaching of evolution in schools.

Other Comments by headcold

29. Comment #326996 by HourglassMemory on January 24, 2009 at 11:35 am

I see some of you feeling awkward that Euginie is actually bothering to talk about Big Foot and so on.

So what?
It's an entertaining talk.
She's right up there on my list with Dawkins when the topic is Evolution.
Needless to say that I don't mind listening to EITHER on ANY topic.

She seems to be a very nice lady.
Can you imagine her screaming?...

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

30. Comment #327028 by MaxD on January 24, 2009 at 1:51 pm

I think there is a little bit of a bump in Bigfoot traffic thanks to youtube, and the internet I think so it is good that Eugenie is tackling it.

Other Comments by MaxD

31. Comment #327039 by MaxD on January 24, 2009 at 2:02 pm

Crockett,

Here's the bottom line, you can collect all the hair, scat, and blood you want, but if you don't have a type specimen with which to compare it to, it doesn't prove anything.

Here I think you are spectacularly incorrect. You could run several genetic comparissons and discover whether there was something unique to study. Any genetic comparisson could potentially reveal an organism that was clearly not nestled in a known primate clade, but closely related. That would provide researchers a mystery, and a definate search area.

Run your tests with a few different outgroups and you would be on the path toward solving the mystery.
EDIT: Gramatical errors.

Other Comments by MaxD

32. Comment #327064 by Szymanowski on January 24, 2009 at 2:33 pm

I greatly respect what Eugenie Scott is doing, but I've been wondering recently if maybe the NCSE needs someone a bit more assertive and less librarian-ish to represent the teaching of evolution in schools.

What a disappointing comment. A male PhD of such success would not be judged on his appearance.


edit (Jan 25): sorry I must've been in a bloody judgemental mood yesterday

Other Comments by Szymanowski

33. Comment #327199 by Crocket Lauderdale on January 24, 2009 at 6:22 pm

OK, I guess I'll play devil's advocate for a bit.

Comment #326763 by MaxD

My big question for the bigfooters is why is that we don't here about this from really credible outdoors persons. People who made their living in the wilds.

Due to the stigma behind this area of research, I think it's a bit of a Catch 22. If anyone deemed credible claims to have seen a bigfoot, they no longer are deemed credible.

I first learned of Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum's work from an AP article about how much his colleagues resent his side work in the bigfoot phenomenon. Maybe they are right...he does work for a public institution. My point is, I don't think it's fair to use an argument from authority to discount the source of an evidential claim while at the same time ridiculing anyone actually qualified to examine it when they do.

I guess that's why I asked you that hypothetical question. If you had a brief sighting with no physical evidence to back it up - what would you do? Would you tell your colleagues? Would you report it on one of the Bigfoot research sites? Would you just assume you were hallucinating and keep it to yourself?

Why is it almost always low rent accounts, from inexperienced observers? Why is that Bigfoot can elude the practiced eyes of experienced field biologists, and other naturalist types but almost always appear for a couple of deer hunters with their cell phone camera.

Because the majority of the people in the woods are inexperienced observers? I wouldn't discount hunters too much, unless they're drunk. They need pretty good powers of observation in order to be successful. They usually know the local wildlife and can tell the difference between the larger animals. They might not be able to tell the difference between poison ivy and poison oak, but they can probably tell the difference between a deer and a mountain lion, even at a distance.

Many of the reports of from police officers on patrol and several are from military soldiers out on training missions. Presumably, both have the highly trained eyes necessary to make life or death decisions.

Although I get your point, this is still an argument from authority.

Its true that photos can be faked, but I think if you had a build up of crisper clearer images (that maybe carved out a credible map of ranges-Have you noticed the BFRO suspects these creatures in nearly every state?) Then we might have something to go on, and a place to begin and reasons for doing so.

I imagine my enthusiasm for this subject is probably going to diminish as the number of "trail cameras" out in the field increases. This is where modern technology might make a difference. This technology is still very prone to hoaxing, but yeah, a build up of clear images would either suggest a possible animal or a massive hoax.

I get the logic behind the "there's bigfoot accounts in every state" argument, but I think that the word state is irrelevant. What's important is habitat. After all, an alligator doesn't know the difference between Florida and Alabama. Looking at the report maps, it could be argued that these animals are being seen in largely very remote areas, regardless of what state they are in.

I think potential migratory routes would also be something to look at with these maps and it may be a way the reports collected in these "bigfoot research" databases might be useful. If the hypothesis is that there is a small population of migratory and unclassified primates roaming about the woods, then an analysis of the location and time of these reports may be an interesting test.

I guess the reason I have a little more empathy for the eye witness reports is from a personal experience I had when I was a teenager. I remember traveling through the mountains along Skyline Drive up with my family in Maryland and having witnessed a mountain lion run across the road in front of our car and bound up into the woods.

When we got back to the park we told the Park Rangers what we saw and their response was, "There are no mountain lions up here." Although it's possible I was mistaken, I'm pretty confident I wasn't hallucinating at the time. Obviously we know mountain lions exist, but I guess that's why I'm a little less cynical when people say, "I know what I saw, and it wasn't a bear!"

Other Comments by Crocket Lauderdale

34. Comment #327207 by Crocket Lauderdale on January 24, 2009 at 6:55 pm

Comment #327039 by MaxD

Here I think you are spectacularly incorrect. You could run several genetic comparissons and discover whether there was something unique to study....

Cool stuff, I don't mind being wrong at all, it can be quite liberating. I'll see if I can find the report on that blood analysis I mentioned earlier. I believe it was tested three times by three different labs. If I can find it, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Maybe you can help me understand some of this better. How different would a sample have to be from say a human or a mountain gorilla for it to be taken seriously? As someone mentioned earlier, could someone mixing a little human blood with a little chimpanzee blood create a hoax sample? Is that really possible? What if one lab said the sample was "human", while another said it was "chimp"?

On one level, the bigfoot phenomenon is comparable to that of the giant squid, for which we didn't have any clear photos until 2004, and didn't have a body until 2006. Of course there where tons of accounts be deep sea fishermen and all kinds of legends around the animal but no definitive proof. On another level, they're miles apart...we had a lot more physical evidence in the form of tentacles washed up on beaches and such prior to the full body discovery.

Thanks Max...I appreciate your feedback.

Other Comments by Crocket Lauderdale

35. Comment #327225 by Vergil on January 24, 2009 at 9:53 pm

I like your comments Crocket, but your last paragraphs does more harm to Bigfoot than most skeptics comments. The Giant Squid is extremely elusive, but despite not having a body nor photos we pretty much knew they existed from other evidence. Bit washed ashore like you said, beaks in whale stomachs, sucker marks on sperm whales. But the most damning part is that we collected more and more evidence until now, we DO have photos and bodies. We have no more evidence for Bigfoot then we did thirty years ago. It reminds me of UFO hunters pointing out that, ok, we don't have any good photos, but we don't have any photos of plane crashes either. Well, here we are thirty years later and we have lots of photos and even video, but still no good UFO or Bigfoot photos.

Other Comments by Vergil

36. Comment #327230 by Lucas on January 24, 2009 at 11:29 pm

I don't know that appearance was what headcold meant, Szymanowski. I think the attribute being referenced was assertiveness. But even so, I'm not sure I agree. I think being confrontational about evolution/creationism in schools, despite our being factually correct, is maybe not the best tactic, nor even necessary. Eugenie is great. She does great work. One of the smartest things we can do is to make friends with the believers who DO support teaching evolution.

Other Comments by Lucas

37. Comment #327231 by MaxD on January 24, 2009 at 11:41 pm

Crockett,
I think my approach to dealing with it would be similar to the Cornell group that a few years ago reported Ivory-billed Woodpecker sightings. They did a fairly careful project, reported their effort and let the referees judge the paper. Being a team of ornithologists, with a careful observational system helps tremendously. Of course it also helps that we know definatively that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers did once exist.
Once it is out there it is really up to others and your own research team to try to duplicate the results, and add more, that is build on the evidence.
(Incidentally I do think the Ivory-billed has played out,and that the Cornell team were mistaken. And that their subsequent efforts have not been as impressive as the initial publication. Every subsequent analysis has been filled with more hope than substance.)

If I have a situation where I think I have seen something unique, I simply return and continue to observe. A faint image really doesn't mean much to me. Unfamiliar noises in the night? Zilch. You have to do some serious leg work. (Once when I was a neophyte bird nerd I thought I was going to be adding another lifer to my list because I was hearing a strange call, I'd not heard before. I noted it, and kept track, followed it around and to my great shock it was just a Carolina Chickadee engaging in a few vocalizations I'd never heard before. The best thing you can do is really go out with a minimal amount of expectations. Often something you think is truly novel turns out only to be novel to you.

This is one reason I am so shocked when BFRO personel talk so authoritatively about hearing bigfoot. Do you see these animals make the vocalizations that are being attributed I want to ask. Because as near as I can tell they don't. They hear something, and then attribute it to bigfoot. This seems a big mistake to me.
My distrust of untrained observers comes in here in a big way. I certainly don't think trained observers are better than untrained observers as human beings, or are smarter. They just have a greater history of working through observation errors and some training in that regard.(Peripheral vision and any other coarse grain images will cause our minds to fill in a whole lotta detail that just isn't there. Permit me an example. I had been writing a short story involving mounted war rhinos. Driving home dimly paying attention to the cut fields of Indiana corn I saw something large out of the corner of my eye, and as I passed it what my mind said was rhino. I saw decent detail, but not right away, sort of after I'd passed. Horns, folds of skin, the clear pattern of what looks very much like armor. I backed up wondering what the hell was going on because the image had seemed quite real. Just a big White-tailed Deer. The mind tends to fill in details of what you don't see. Does that make laymen observation worthless. hell no, but it does mean that we can't base a whole hell of a lot on it. Until more concrete work comes in it must justt be assigned the catagoryinteresting if true.)



About the DNA, I truly doubt that it could be easily faked. If brought in a blood sample, there are going to also be blood tests run and any mixed blood would reveal itself. Say it could be done. Doubtless it would be imperfect and eventually science would reveal the fraud.

So, if you have an interesting observation don't rush. Hold off on drawing any conclusions. Return, gather data, think of hypotheses, test them. Think of ways to eleminate them through experiment. What did I see?
When looking for new species or simply new sightings of species you haven't seen, it helps tremendously to know your region and its wildlife. This is really the only way to begin to notice a new thing. Build your research, gather your evidence, treat your own ideas ruthlessly, write your paper, submit observation notes, publish in a reputed journal. That is simply all you can do.

Other Comments by MaxD

38. Comment #327240 by Eshto on January 25, 2009 at 1:04 am

Okay lady, thanks for the Fiji mermaid nightmares I'll have tonight.

Other Comments by Eshto

39. Comment #327642 by Roy_H on January 25, 2009 at 3:38 pm

The Creationists and I.D.ers are going have great fun with her faux pas with the plesiosaurs and whale shark!

Other Comments by Roy_H

40. Comment #327960 by Crocket Lauderdale on January 26, 2009 at 11:59 am

Comment #327225 by Vergil

I like your comments Crocket, but your last paragraphs does more harm to Bigfoot than most skeptics comments.

Oh no! I'd better hurry up and delete that last paragraph before he finds out! Just kidding...you're right though, I probably should have elaborated on the "and such" part of the argument.

Back to the photographic evidence again. You're right, we don't have any good photographic evidence, and as the technology for small, inexpensive, and high quality imaging proliferates - especially trail cameras - I think we should expect to see more photo evidence for such a creature. To date, we really haven't.

However, if the hypothesis is that this is a nomadic creature - fearful of humans - that is almost strictly nocturnal and lives in extremely remote and densely forested areas, you can see how much effort would be required to gather that type of evidence. To my knowledge, this is not a high priority of the scientific community nor am I suggesting it should be.

I live in a rather densely populated coastal community in San Diego and we have what I'm pretty certain is a Coyote in our neighborhood. I've seen this thing three times while driving with my girlfriend...once at night and twice in the daylight. The encounters have lasted 5-10 seconds at most before the thing runs off into the brush. The third time I saw it, I actually had my camera in my lap. By the time I got my camera turned on and aimed in it's direction, all I got was a semi-focused picture of a dimly lit patch of brush. Now I've had three shots at getting evidence for this thing with nothing to show for it but my own eyewitness testimony. For most people claiming to have seen a bigfoot like creature, the experience is a once in a lifetime event. For them, not having anything other than a cell phone at the ready is probably to be expected.

Other Comments by Crocket Lauderdale

41. Comment #327962 by crookedshoes on January 26, 2009 at 12:04 pm

I can't fathom why the incidence of bigfoot and UFO spottings and Nessie...have all waned when nearly everyone has a camera in their pocket. I would expect the number of pictures to skyrocket when the cell phone camera is taken into account. I mean, fights in school cafeterias go global. But, instead of many, many more pictures we have fewer....I have to ask why?

Other Comments by crookedshoes

42. Comment #327990 by Crocket Lauderdale on January 26, 2009 at 12:52 pm

Comment #327231 by MaxD

This is one reason I am so shocked when BFRO personel talk so authoritatively about hearing bigfoot. Do you see these animals make the vocalizations that are being attributed I want to ask. Because as near as I can tell they don't. They hear something, and then attribute it to bigfoot. This seems a big mistake to me

I couldn't agree more and this is similar to the Catholic that sees the Virgin Mary in their breakfast toast.

I can relate to your story about your Rhino encounter as well. This summer I was back on the East Coast driving through the mountains of Upstate New York on the way to Lake Placid. At about 1:00 am, about 5 miles outside of a town called White Hall, I came to the realization that I was about to run out of gas. I took the next exit that had a gas station but due to the late hour found that it was closed. So, I figured I would punch in a request for the next closest facility into my GPS. Rather than put me back on the interstate, "Mandy" suggested I travel about 12 miles down some rural mountain route.

Well, about a week earlier, I had seen the Episode of "Monsterqest" on the History Channel that had recounted bigfoot encounters in guess where? White Hall, New York. The further I drove down this mountain road, trees impossibly thick on either side, the greater my anxiety became. Every inch I progressed down that road would be another I'd have to retrace if I ran out of gas, alone, in the dark, in prime sasquatch habitat! My heart started to race and all my senses became ultra aware. Every shadow started to look like bigfoot and every corner I rounded was met with the anticipation of seeing a large beast standing in the road. To try to cope with my growing anxiety, I pulled out my camera and fired up the flash. I figured I ought to at least be ready in case my fears were warranted.

Finally, I chickened out and headed back to the interstate were I could at least be seen by a passing motorist. As silly as it sounds, I think my story gives a good example of how a little indoctrination and some good old fear of being alone in dark woods can combine to create something out of nothing. With this I can relate to the atheists who still have a fear of hell despite giving up their faith and knowing full well that their fears are highly irrational.

Other Comments by Crocket Lauderdale

43. Comment #328002 by Crocket Lauderdale on January 26, 2009 at 1:29 pm

Comment #327962 by crookedshoes

I can't fathom why the incidence of bigfoot and UFO spottings and Nessie...have all waned when nearly everyone has a camera in their pocket. I would expect the number of pictures to skyrocket when the cell phone camera is taken into account. I mean, fights in school cafeterias go global. But, instead of many, many more pictures we have fewer....I have to ask why?

Cellphone cameras are fine for taking pictures of friends and pets in decent light, but are severely limited for applications that require a long focal length and high speed focusing such as identifying flying objects or the low light capabilities and high resolution needed to distinguish a nocturnal animal from it's surroundings. I don't think it's fair to say we have fewer pictures now than ever. I'd say we have more crappy pictures than ever and this seems to coincide with the increase in crappy camera ownership.

As stated previously, I think your argument will gain weight as the quality of inexpensive cameras increases, but for now, I don't think this is the case.

Other Comments by Crocket Lauderdale

44. Comment #328306 by crookedshoes on January 27, 2009 at 6:53 am

Bigfoot is nocturnal?

Other Comments by crookedshoes

45. Comment #328400 by Crocket Lauderdale on January 27, 2009 at 11:21 am

Comment #328306 by crookedshoes

Bigfoot is nocturnal?

Hmmm....it depends on how you interpret the data (anecdotal reports). The human eye is the limiting factor here.

If you only consider close range, face-to-face encounters where the eyewitness gets enough time to analyze what they are seeing and give a detailed account, well then, I'd have to say the creature is a daylight dweller.

If you "zoom out" and look at the larger body of anecdotal evidence, it would appear that the creature is "mostly nocturnal". Although there is a good distribution of encounters in regards to time of day, it seems the majority of "activity" is reported in low-light conditions.

Encounters during the day often reflect that the encounter was a surprise for the bigfoot (it was sleeping) or that it was unaware that it was being observed (it was busy hunting fish). Encounters at night seem to indicate the opposite. Often the bigfoot is described as the observer, keeping an eye on campers from a distance.

Much of the "audible evidence" (screams, calls, wood-knocking) reported happens almost exclusively at night. The bigfoot advocates speculate that what they are hearing is the long distance communication between these creatures. As MaxD pointed out earlier, this evidence is rarely gathered in conjunction with visible evidence as well.

As for the biological adaptations necessary for a primate to become mostly nocturnal, well this is where things start to get a bit supernatural or paranormal. Of the reports that have descriptions of facial features, it is not uncommon for the witness to describe the creature as having "large eyes". I guess this would make sense, larger eyes should let in more light and be an improvement in low-light conditions.

Where it starts to verge on the supernatural is in the description of what they call "eye shine". In a small but not insignificant percentage of reports, witnesses will describe the eyes as being light reflective, typically red, but sometimes orange or yellow. In an even smaller percentage of reports, the eyes will not reflect light, but will have their own ambient glow, also typically red in color. To my knowledge there is no instance of primates developing the light reflective layer common to other mammals.

Other Comments by Crocket Lauderdale