Killing Bigfoot with Bad Science

Bigfoot (and other "cryptid" animals) are probably the only area where real science and pseudoscience can rub elbows comfortably. Certainly it's not a _bad_ idea to study the topic properly.

However, I do worry that this is kind of a "back door" for pseudoscience to contaminate the real thing. Bigfoot is a totally unfalsifiable phenomenon. There's no conclusive proof of absence and cannot be, short of gathering up the entire Pacific Northwest into a big sieve and inventorying every large mammal. Which means Bigfoot will always be "not discovered yet" rather than "disproved."

Cambias, Amherst, MA
December 04, 2006 6:54am

I thought this was all cleared up with that Six Million Dollar Man episode in 1976: The Secret of Bigfoot.

Chris Moyer, Decatur, GA
December 04, 2006 8:08pm

This is great!

Reminds me somewhat of when an elderly uncle lost his wife (she died, he didn't lose her at the supermarket or behind the settee) and took hundreds of photographs of the curtains because "Anne is in the curtains!". Of course, if you traced a picture of my aunt's face over the pattern of the curtains you could probably say it was an elaborate dot-to-dot, but you could also make images of the Taj Mahal or Abraham Lincoln.

Keep up the good work Brian!

Hedde, Medway, UK
December 06, 2006 3:15am

Maybe someone should try Google Earth, I found 2 Tony Roma's in Tenerife!

Unfortunately if we're discussing it, then someone claims to HAVE discovered it...But since watching a tv prog. where some guys went to the Amazon and found TITANUS, the world's biggest beetle [8 in.], I think a furry [8 foot] American should be no problem...A true native. The Amazon is a bit more tricky, I would say.

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
December 20, 2006 6:32am

Surely a big-foot would leave big-foot prints that could be tracked by us, not to mention dogs. I'm sure if he has been running around, avoiding people, he must be sweaty by now! And easy to track.

Not to mention there's no remains or fossils of one.

scott morgan, pontypridd
January 24, 2007 10:32am

Well Scott, maybe Big Foots dig Big Graves, in the sides of Big Mountains.

Maybe some will turn up as polystrate fossils, still standing upright, holding a coke and a Big Mac!

Hope you're feeling better...

Tutor...to the rich and famous!

What a surprise, the spell check has never heard of polystrate...

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 23, 2007 1:39am

I pre-fer t' kill bigfeets with my thirdee-aught six. Lessin' they gits themselves 'hind yonder cabin, then Maw comes out widt d'skillet.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
July 02, 2007 5:14am

As for the fossil record comment. It was just until a few years ago that the first fossil record of a Chimpanze were found! ONLY two sets of known record of this animal even through the general public believes in Chimps. Same goes for the Grizzley bear, Ferret, Mtn Lion and I could type about 40 other animals too. And I dont mean dead ones found in a ZOO, but in the wilds, by scientist or the average hiker.
Read Meldrums book for the scientic evidence before you say any more. If you dont know the facts how can you argue

NMiller, Bozeman Montana
October 15, 2007 8:26pm

I have an interesting incident to relay. My team was on a training mission in Washington state. We had NVG, blank rounds and all that. Of course, since there are a lot of marijuana growers in the woods in Washington state who get angry when you get near their plots by accident, we also always carried a magazine apiece of live ammo. Just in case, you understand. We were camped, resting after an eventful day and I was one of three on watch. There was large movement in the woods near us and I thought a bear had wandered near us. So I shouted to let Mr Bruin know we were in the area and to avoid a potentially nasty incident. A strange screaming answered me and a rather horrible odor came with it. We were all awake now and I walked in the direction of the noise and fired off a dozen blanks. That caused whatever it was to bolt in the opposite direction on two feet. Bears do not run on two feet and only grizzly bears are about 8 feet tall. So we loaded up with real ammo and went for a look. We tracked it by broken vegetation until we got to a clearing at the bottom of a tall cliff which the beastie climbed in jig time. We waited until daylight and decided we could not climb that cliff without equipment and it would take a couple hours at least. I do not suggest it was a Bigfoot, it could have been an elaborate hoax to scare people away from a marijuana plot nearby or for other cause, but the tracks were large, rather indistinct, and some six feet apart where it ran through the woods

Don Herman, Washington Court House, Ohio
December 04, 2007 8:18am

For the comment about a fossil record, there are fossil remains of a 9 foot tall ape called gigantopithecus. granted it is at least 100000 years extinct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus

william boyce, san antonio, tx
December 05, 2007 1:14pm

I am not sure that reading Meldrum would convince anyone but the die hard bigfoot believer. I personally think that Meldrum is too biased to believer that bigfoot is real, and is misinterpreting the rather poor evidence out there.

Robert Allen Clary, Tillsonburg Ontario Canada
April 28, 2008 8:38am

Another point rarely ever mentioned is a minimum population size that would be needed if Bigfoot did exist. We usually envision a lone creature, but sustained existence should require a population size large enough to avoid inbreeding.

I’m no expert on numbers, but I once saw a show on Bigfoot that did make one reference to this commonly over looked aspect to Bigfoot existence. It claimed a minimum population size of 500 to 600 needed for sustainability, and a rough number of around 5000 to 6000 would be needed to avoid inbreeding.

What ever population numbers we chose to believe, Bigfoot’s existence would require minimum number of males, females, and various ages of off-spring. The population would require an adequate food source and habitat, and should leave behind more evidence than just the famous foot print.

So why is there not more evidence of marked territory, migration patterns, droppings, and its deceased, just a few things that come to mind of any sustainable population in the wild.

Ken Stringer, Atlanta, GA
May 27, 2008 3:44pm

The fact checking in the episode was hideous. The narrator kept referring to people from the University of Washington as being from Washington State University.

Aaron, Seattle, WA
June 01, 2008 10:09am

Well now, am I the first to talk about the recent discovery!?

The analysis goes something like this:
Some no hopers invent some pathetic tail... Then it's proved wrong!

"One of the two samples of DNA said to prove the existence of the Bigfoot came from a human and the other was 96 percent from an opossum, according to Curt Nelson, a scientist at the University of Minnesota who performed the DNA analysis."

HOWEVER. A conspiracy begins to be formulated:-

"Results of the DNA tests were revealed in an e-mail from Nelson and distributed at the Palo Alto, California, news conference held by Tom Biscardi, host of a weekly online radio show about the Bigfoot."

"Biscardi said the DNA samples may not have been taken correctly and may have been contaminated, and that he would proceed with an autopsy of the alleged Bigfoot remains, currently in a freezer at an undisclosed location."

Yeah. Okay Biscardi. We're all going to believe your results when they lead to fantastic ratings for your show - even when you tell us at the end that it was inconclusive.

Oh, and don't forget that accidental fire which will rip through the buildings destroying the whole body, before anyone can see it!

There's one thing for certain.

With a BIG animal like BIGFOOT, it's bound to be surrounded by a BIG PILE OF CRAP!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 18, 2008 3:55am

Yes Griff, a pathetic tail indeed. Not even a hint of one, never mind prehensile.
All in all, a thoroughly debunked pathetic tale.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia
August 20, 2008 3:27am

Breaking news.... I Neil {Griff to my friends} have found ... Big Foot!

I simply typed "bigfoot" into Google Earth and it went here...

"Bigfoot, Texas, USA!"

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 24, 2008 5:36am

so many civilizations describing the same creature is for sure evidence that it at least once existed. Late hoaxes do a lot of damage to scientific investigations.
As natural habitats become less every day, some day the will come out for sure.

Dr.Q, san juan . PR
September 11, 2008 10:16am

How imaginative to you have to be to come up with Bigfoot? It's a large ape-human like creature just a couple slight exaggerations from us, or primates we know exist. Besides, what does "described the same creature" mean? Bigger than us? Hairy?

Dragons need not have existed just because a couple cultures came up with them independently. Lizards scare people, so naturally large ones are scarier.

These types of things really aren't even all that big of a coincidence. Humans are natural born exaggerators and story tellers, and these things aren't even inventive, they take things we know to exist and kick them up a notch. There's no reason to think that telling "Tall Tales" began with Paul Bunyon.

If you really think about it the fact that so many different cultures, presumably spread out over the world, share the same folklore about Bigfoot is LESS reason "it" exists. Human beings are pretty much the only animals of any size that span the globe.

Jeremy Lindgren (vita10gy), Eau Claire, WI
September 11, 2008 1:41pm

Brian,

I can prove to you that bigfoot does in fact exist. Every year around January the Bigfoot makes his appearance as Sierra Nevada's Bigfoot Barley wine. Yes, I do indeed kid, but seriously this is one of the greatest beverages on the planet. Good episode also, I appreciate your constant reminders to keep arguments civil and not personal. This is the best way that skeptical and scientific people will win over people skeptical of reality. thanks for the great podcast.

Andrew Lucic, Gainesville, FL
February 10, 2009 10:04pm

Sorry, but the Patterson/Gimlin IS bad. It was thrown together by Wah Chang's group in 1967. Roger used the $700 he "borrowed" from the Radfords to have the costume made for the movie he was making. "Patty" used simple 1940's era ape suit methods: a helmet with a jaw and teeth surrounded by a latex and hair mask with eyeholes. It's not nearly as difficult as POTA was. It's no different that what Charlie Gemora did - it's just a different mask. The muscle masses moving are simply foam muscles under the skin. All of this is way out of focus and degraded. You have never gotten a clear close-up look at Patty as you have other ape suits and you never will.

John Doe, California
May 12, 2009 9:34am

I do not believe that it is such a far stretch of either science or anthropological reality to accept that there is a reasonable possibility that a heretofore undiscovered species of a hominid exists. The Pacific northwest from Northern California to the coast of Canada and beyond would be more than an adequate environment to both hide and feed a population of these individuals. Professor Grover Krantz was of the persuasion that a fairly large population of some 1300 could reasonably survive in the wilderness regions of the northwest Pacific coast alone.Unfortunately Doctor Krantz did concede that until a Sasquatch was shot and killed then brought to the eyes of the public and anatomists to dissect, this would be the only evidence that the scientific community would accept.
Skeptics are always so predictable. "It can't be therefore it isn't!" "Don't bother me with the facts. My mind is already made up!" The same is indicative of the UFO phenomena.

Doc Vega, Plano, TX
May 21, 2009 11:13am

Actually, Patterson's film is the Best Fake Ever

Bifgoot, Alive in Georgia
June 12, 2009 1:02pm

I used to think the Patterson-Gimlin footage was of a guy in a gorilla suit. Then I saw History channel's much criticised show MonsterQuest's "Critical Evidence" episode which examined the footage in detail, brought in a creature suit expert who with computer technology was able to determine the height and proportions of the subject in the footage. On top of this, Dr. Jeff Meldrum revealed a finding in the plausible footprints he has studied called a "meta-tarsal break" which means a foot that is hinged just forward of the ankle but well before the toes. The MonsterQuest findings made no claim of spotting this but I am reasonably sure I saw this feature at play in 2 of the subject's footsteps just before its feet were obscured by foreground objects.
Data summarised:-
* Footprints allegedly from the film site indicate a meta-tarsal break (characteristic of primates but not humans)
* Subject in footage does not conform to human skull & limb proportions nor mechanics
* Subject's fur moves realistically - not like a fabricated suit in 1967 would
* Subject appears to have an observable meta-tarsal break not once but twice
* Computer analysis of scale indicates subject to be between 7'2" & 7'6" tall
Applying Occum's Razor, is it more likely a large, misshapen human using a periscopic/camera device to see, with a broken pair of feet to fake an extremely rarely known feature of primates - yet able to stride confidently - was wearing a masterfully tailored suit or is the footage real?

Johnny Burrows, Sydney, NSW, Australia
August 08, 2009 10:18am

Sorry guys, but no matter what tabloid shows like "Monsterquest" say about the PGF, the fact remains that it is a man in a suit. Al DeAtley, Roger's brother in law, funded the whole thing. He ADMITS that the film is bogus.

J Smith, California
December 24, 2009 9:32pm

The creature that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin filmed in 1967 in Northern California at Bluff Creek of Bigfoot was real. If it was a fake there was no reason to make it a female. That would simply be more trouble for them to create. It would be simpler to make a male.
Plus it had a hernia on it's leg. Why would they go to the trouble of putting that there. The creature that Roger Patterson filmed was half man and half gorilla. It was created by men that went to Africa a long time ago. They used ropes to catch female gorilla's and had sex with them and that's where the African people came from. The first Europeans that saw the Africans said that some of the African women had genitals that resembled that of a gorilla. If you look at the nose of an African you will notice that it is wide like the gorilla's nose. Bigfoot is simply a man made creature. And that's the truth.

Jesus Christ, Deadwood, SD
May 11, 2010 5:34pm

Jesus, as the son of an omniscient deity, you should know that hernias are not something that occur on limbs. Perhaps you should ask the old man, if you are still unsure of basic anatomy.

Marius vanderLubbe, nullabour Plain, Australia
June 06, 2010 7:54pm

Marius actually you can get hernias in many places. As defined a hernia is "a general term referring to a protrusion of a tissue through the wall of the cavity in which it is normally contained". The term herniate means to rupture. Most commonly we think of Epigastric or intestinal hernias, but quite often body builders will herniate leg muscles, this in many cases is known as a femoral hernia (upper thigh area)but other muscles in the legs can tear and herniate as well. Do a simple google search for leg hernia to see how many well respected medical websites list them as clinical injuries. Not only muscle but also soft tissue can herniate too. I myself have three herniated (again ruptured) discs in my lower spine where they protrude out beyond where they normally should be contained. So don't rule out something just because of your lack of understanding and/or knowledge on the subject matter. This is not a personal attack I just want to bring your attention to this to give you and others more information. I am not saying the footage indicates this as an injury of the "thing" (be it man or beast) in the film shown by Patterson, just that it is a real injury that could really happen. As the author of the article said do not throw bad science into your argument for or against Bigfoot. I, like him am an open minded skeptic, but its arguments that lack scientific knowledge or act on emotion and conjecture that do not help either side's cause.

Hairy Woodsman, Western / MA
July 30, 2010 1:20pm

This one sounded a bit apologetic and one-sided to me, to be honest. BBC's undeniably ridiculous recreation of the PG footage is no argument for (or against) anything, in my opinion. They couldn't replicate it, that's for sure, but in no way does this indicate that *actual* sate-of-the-art special effects teams couldn't pull it off more convincingly. I mean, just look at old puppets and suits by Jim Henson's Creature Shop, for example. Hollywood has been able to create lifelike monster/animal suits for decades, including ones with non-human limb-to-body ratios. I'm aware that this doesn't touch the authenticity of the PG film, but my point is that just because a TV show couldn't replicate it properly doesn't mean it's impossible. Just watch movies like Congo, or Labyrinth to see eerily lifelike creature suits in action, and those are hardly state-of-the-art anymore.

E. Fahn, Ulm, Germany
August 10, 2010 12:41pm

In this show Mr. Dunning said something to the effect that not finding , or not having solid proof of B.F. is not evidence that there is NO B.F.. I don't think that is really correct. There have been may looking for this creature and with today's technology , it is ALMOST impossible not to find a creature so large when we have supposed evidence to follow. The fact we can't find the creature despite of decades of searching and real research money being spent on it , does give strong evidence of there being no such creature. I will admit, Yes it still may be possible even though, that B.F. exists , But with absolutely no evidence to date it makes it highly improbable. Yes we can't know everything , but not finding anything to support this claim is still very strong evidence that B.F. does not exist.

googoobh, Cuyahoga Falls
August 20, 2010 9:26am