Killing Bigfoot with Bad Science
Is anyone doing any justice to the Bigfoot claim?
Filed under Cryptozoology
| Skeptoid #11 December 03, 2006 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe Also available in Japanese |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 11, December 03, 2006
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4011
Today, we're going down a dark forest path on the trail of Gigantopithecus Americanus: the North American Sasquatch.
I see many cases on both sides of the Bigfoot debate where bad arguments, bad science, and just plain weirdness is being put forth, doing great disservice to their own side of the argument. There are intelligent and productive ways to explore a subject and present a case, but I don't see it being done very often on either side of the Bigfoot debate. I'm going to present what I consider the top three ways that each side of the Bigfoot claim is shooting themselves in the foot, beginning with the skeptics.
1. Saying that the guy who confessed to making tracks disproves the entire thing.
In 2002, a Washington logger named Ray Wallace died, and his family produced the carved wooden feet that he used to make Bigfoot footprints all over the Pacific Northwest, beginning in 1958. The newspapers and TV tabloids lapped it up, reporting that the entire Bigfoot phenomenon was now proven to be a hoax perpetrated by Wallace. Well, I feel the time has come for me to come clean about something that I've wanted to get off my chest for decades. When I was a kid, I once made some fake Bigfoot footprints too. The cat's out of the bag. Bigfoot is now doubly proven to be a hoax.
Obviously, anyone who has any kind of basic understanding of research methodology can't accept Ray Wallace's story as proof that Bigfoot is a hoax. Sure, he made fake prints. So have a thousand other guys. They were doing it before Ray Wallace was born, and they're still doing it today. Anyone can be making those tracks. Anyone...
2. Saying the Patterson-Gimlin film is "the worst fake ever."
I'm not a Bigfoot believer but I will give credit where credit is due. The Patterson-Gimlin film looked like a real animal to me. The Discovery Channel's "duplication" of it looked ridiculous. It looked nothing like a real animal, and certainly didn't remotely resemble the subject shown in the Patterson-Gimlin film. Chewbacca looked more real than the Discovery Channel's Bigfoot suit. Hollywood's state of the art in gorilla suits in 1967 were Planet of the Apes and The Galileo Seven episode of Star Trek. Two loggers with no previous gorilla suit experience made a suit that was better than today's state of the art, and certainly light years ahead of the 1967 state of the art. I'm not saying the film's real, I'm saying give credit where credit is due, and admit that if it is a fake, it's astounding. If you disagree then go through a stabilized version frame-by-frame as I have.
The half dozen or so Hollywood special effects artists who have since "come forward" to claim that they were responsible for the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot suit, and the dozens of guys who have "come forward" to claim that they were the guy wearing the suit, are no more evidence against the film than Ray Wallace's wooden feet are evidence that no real Bigfoot footprints exist.
Critics of the film also say that the creature's behavior is unrealistic. I have no knowledge of what a real Bigfoot's behavior might be, but I have encountered bears half a dozen times, and they acted exactly like the Patterson-Gimlin creature: just walked away, unconcerned, with maybe only a look or two back.
3. Criticizing good scientists like Jeff Meldrum.
I've read old and new criticism of Dr. Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University, and I'm only mentioning his name in particular as one example. There are several prominent tenured professors at legitimate accredited universities who have done Bigfoot research. They are probably far, far outnumbered by professors who have done psychic or other paranormal research, but let's stick to the subject.
Dr. Meldrum is not the obsessed Bigfoot guy who lives and breathes it 24 hours a day, and exhorts his students to become believers. Rather, he has a long list of publications and edited volumes, none of which pertain to Bigfoot; he teaches six courses, none of which pertain to Bigfoot; he's an Associate Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology; he's an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology and the Department of Occupational and Physical Therapy; and he's the Affiliate Curator at the Idaho Museum of Natural History. He's not the Professor of Bigfoot. He carries as great a load of academic work in non-Bigfoot related studies as any professor. He's a real scientist doing real work. On top of all of this, he studies casts of Bigfoot footprints.
Dr. Meldrum is responsible for drumming up his own grant money from private donors to fund any Bigfoot research that he chooses to do. In some cases, he has received small amounts of matching funds from the university. If you feel this was a bad expenditure, then criticize the university regents who decided to write the check, don't criticize the person they gave the funds to. The work of responsible scientists like Dr. Meldrum is exactly what true skeptics should be asking the Bigfoot community for, not criticizing him for it.
Here is the way for a responsible skeptic to handle the Bigfoot claim. It's to say "You're making an extraordinary claim. Show me extraordinary evidence, and I'll believe it. Until then, I'm not convinced." Occasionally candidate evidence has come forward, like hair and stool samples, or the skull cap from Tibet. This evidence has been properly tested, and so far no new great ape species has been proven (and if I'm wrong about that, I invite your comments on the web site). A responsible skeptic's obligations do not extend to poking fun at the people who are looking for evidence, considering the lack of evidence to be proof of no evidence, or making personal comments about people. That's not good science. In some cases, Dr. Meldrum, and other scientists like him, are being better skeptics than the skeptics.
And now, I'd like to say a few words to those who mean to support Bigfoot but do themselves more harm than good with bad arguments. The wrong ways to support Bigfoot:
1. Stating that Bigfoot is an extraterrestrial, or comes to us from another dimension.
If Bigfoot claims are going to make any headway into mainstream science, it will be through zoological channels, not supernatural channels. Such claims are the most extreme form of counterproductivity, setting Bigfoot claims backwards all the way into the Dark Ages.
2. Being delusional: Seeing detailed Bigfoots in a blurry photograph that shows no such thing.
Half the Bigfoot web sites out there show numerous photographs of bushes and wooded areas, with certain areas circled. There's nothing within the circled area except other bushes; maybe a shadow, or a dark branch. But wait! Here's a detailed sketch of what's hiding inside that shadow. I'm not a psychologist so I won't presume to affix a label to this phenomenon; but seeing things in pictures that aren't there, and then obsessing over it, does not strike me as healthy. It's certainly more effective at raising concern for the claimant, than it is at convincing anyone that Bigfoot exists. If all you have is bad evidence, you're better off not presenting it.
3. Doing bad science: Seeking to support a preconceived conclusion.
Science doesn't work by starting with the goal of proving something and then assembling whatever evidence you can find that supports it. That's doing propaganda, not science. Start with a testable hypothesis, and then form a theory based on the evidence revealed by the data. Of course, following this method is going to make it pretty hard to come up with a theory that's supportive of Bigfoot, but that's what it's going to take if Bigfoot supporters hope to prove their point.
I know you're going to listen to all of this and conclude that I'm the pro-Bigfoot guy. I'll admit to being a Bigfoot hopeful (a hope based more on emotion than on any actual likelihood), but certainly not a believer. My point is simply that both sides of every debate contain a lot chaff along with the wheat. Both sides of every skeptical issue believe that they're right, but even those on the side that is right (and by that, I mean whichever side you're on) can probably stand to clean up their act a little, no matter what the issue is.
© 2006 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Alderman ,Jesse Harlan. "Bigfoot studies render academic an outcast." MSNBC. MSNBC.COM, 3 Nov. 2006. Web. 5 Nov. 2009. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15548356/>
Autumn Williams. "Bigfoot Photo and Picture Gallery." OregonBigfoot.com, The Legend Lives. Autumn Williams, 1 Jan. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. <http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/gallery.php>
Daegling, David J., and Schmitt, Daniel O. "Bigfoot's Screen Test." The Skeptical Inquirer. 1 May 1999, Volume 23.3: 3.
Davis, Marlon K. "M.K. Davis' frame by frame rendition of the Patterson Film." Bigfoot Encounters. Bobbie Short, 1 Dec. 2005. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. <http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif>
Eagan, Timothy. "Search for Bigfoot Outlives The Man Who Created Him." The New York Times. 3 Jan. 2003, New York Edition: Section A, page 1.
Meldrum, Jeff. Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. New York: Forge Books, 2006.
Napier, John Russel. Bigfoot: The Sasquatch and Yeti in Myth and Reality. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1972.
Reference this article:
Dunning, B.
"Killing Bigfoot with Bad Science." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
3 Dec 2006. Web.
19 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4011>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 54 comments
Here's some scientific analyses of Bigfoot that clearly shows the creature does not exist: http://thoughtsonscienceandpseudoscience.blogspot.com/
Readers might find this interesting, thanks!
The Other John Mc, USA
December 16, 2012 1:28am
Brilliance I tell you! Brilliance! Why skeptics are SO smart that we don't actually have to do any science to dismiss the 5 simga cumma level set of observations on bigfoot.
Oh, 6 people seeing a 8ft hairy creature standing in their path, which then runs off into the woods at an inhuman rate of speed is NOT an observation, no need to do any corroborative research....why NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOhohohoh.... it is a 'CLAIM' - I forgot. Only for blessed subjects are observations allowed as actual data. In disdained subjects, seeing something is an 'extraordinary claim.' That way we do not have to formulate a construct and do that stupid irritating predictive testing thing. I would rather dismiss it by BRILLIANCE!!! That key shortcut to the scientific method. But brilliance must be conducted by being filmed in front of bookshelves....that is key.
Why? Because we are brilliant I tell ya! Brilliant!!! We are so smart. Screw the scientific method and observation population analyses. It was dis-proved LONG ago, through brilliance. And we are brilliant and we represent science, so there is NO NEED for science.
My job is all done here. Next subject...yawn, cuz they are ALL worthy of ignoring by science and method.... because.........
....yep, you guessed it, BRILLIANCE!!!
Brilliance, SelfBrilliance
December 27, 2012 4:50pm
Jeez it would be nice if we had evidence for a new hominid/hominin.
To date the evidence of a big foot is very weak on the ground (akin to ghosts and angels).
The big foot idea was because of a clever film in my youth. It was an admitted fake that crept into mythology. Macky has a great point on this methodology. Its called speculation on pop culture.
People see more UFO's than Bigfoots. At least the former are happy to keep them in the unidentified basket.
There is a great and anthropological argument for bigfoot. Its the same for any cryptid (whether recent or ingrained). The mythology is important to some.
It would be nice to get a sample..It would be nice to get an observation that is coherent.
Mud, At virtually missing point, NSW, OZ,
January 15, 2013 4:45pm
Too much is made of the Patterson-Gimlin footage. Really, it's just a big, shaggy Rorschach blot. You see what your bias dictates - a dude in a suit if you're a skeptic, or a living, breathing, compliant-gait-ambling Sasquatch if you're a believer. "Experts" on both sides analyzing the film *prove* little that's indisputable, only make claims & reach conclusions which are gospel to their respective choirs. Were PGF empirical, objective, irrefutable evidence of Bigfoot, then skeptics would have to give over. Just like when someone who denies the past reality of dinosaurs, upon viewing the full skeletal magnificence of "Sue" (that famous South Dakota T. rex), would surely admit, "Well, unless my eyes are playin' tricks, I think ya got me there."
If it was an actual Bigfoot Patterson filmed then what of the following math?
Thousands of "sightings" multiplies out to a total of tens of thousands of BFs since, as with rabbits & deer, when you see one, it indicates a nearby breeding population. (Western lowland gorillas have up to 20 members per social group.) So with all these huge hairy humanoids shuffling cryptically around the country (every state bar Hawaii reports "encounters"), why don't we have a single forensically attributable hide, skull, hair, fingernail, or piece of poo to believe in? (Forget about a whole body.) Something we can hold, smell, test, examine, CONFIRM as real?
A skeptic has to have more than some shaky, blurry film footage to become an ex-skeptic.
Windigo, The Rocky Mountains, America
January 27, 2013 10:36pm
The point is, Brilliance, that there is no evidence to test. Nothing that bears more than a cursory examination. No remains, no scat, no footprints, no live specimens. The only thing we have is eyewitness testimony and eyewitness reports are the least reliable form of evidence.
It may surprise you, but people make mistakes, see things where there aren't things, confuse one thing for another and out and out LIE.
Darren, Liverpool, UK
February 09, 2013 2:42am
And not only is there no evidence, but the main proposed evidence - the Patterson film - has been shown to be a hoax. The guy who wore the suit admitted to wearing it, the guy who made it admitted to making it, and Patterson has been shown to have been a schemer his whole life. But Bigfoot proponents don't know how to weigh this information...They've reached a conclusion and nothing will get in their way.
Mike, Pennsylvania, U.S.
March 04, 2013 6:27pm
"Bigfoot Is Real"
http://bigfootsightings.org/friends-sasquatch-different/#comment-25296
If you do read this letter go down to the comment, "the real story about the bible and evolution.
That will explain the whole story.
Jesus Christ, Havre de Grace, Maryland
March 22, 2013 8:10am
Should you take the time to follow Jesus' link to the Friends of Sasquatch message board you’ll see The Lord Himself waxing wise on how Bigfoot *really* came about (rather than by regular evolution or as an alien left behind or by misidentification of existing creatures or through hallucinations by buzzed folks or from dude-in-suit hoaxes).
The Savior states that "several thousand years ago" some slaves escaped from a city in an unnamed land. Ending up in Africa & Borneo, they captured female gorillas & orangutans respectively &, of course, had sex with them (as conquering human hordes are wont to do).
This, Jesus says, is how the African people (their skin dark, like the gorilla's) & the Indians (red-skinned a la the orangutan) came to be.
Somehow, & The Messiah is a little sketchy on this, breeding through generations separated out the Sasquatches from the natives (who are hybrids, clearly, since all you need to do is "look at the nose of a full blooded African and Indian you will notice that it is wide and flat like the gorilla and orangutan’s nose").
So Bigfoot & his ilk are the product of "man-made evolution" says the Son of God. As if His word on the matter is not enough, He cites the North American Science Institute as earthly authority for the finding that "Patty" (of Patterson-Gimlin fame) is "a human-gorilla hybrid."
And thus a racist revision of the Adam & Eve story by someone parading as Jesus Christ gives us the latest explanation for Bigfoot.
Okay.
Next!
Windigo, The Rocky Mountains, America
March 23, 2013 1:08am
Interesting article and one I am mostly in agreement with. The Discovery Channel remake of the film is an area that concerns me. I have always thought that it was made that badly on purpose to keep the bigfoot homefire burning and not as a real comparison. And, yes, this may reflect my loathing of the Discovery Channel which used to show us discoveries instead of ghosts and blobsquatches.
Over and out
Gary B, Rockford,IL
May 14, 2013 8:13am
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
"He's not the Professor of Bigfoot."
Really? Have you visited is "professional" webpage at ISU?
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/crypto.html
It's an rare scientist who uses his web presence to boast of an appearance on "Coast to Coast AM". He seems to be quite interested in media attention for his "reserch", and is recently promoting the use of a blimp to find Bigfoot from above:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/05/uk-usa-bigfoot-blimp-idUSLNE8A400D20121105
I don't buy this defense of Meldrum as an objective scientist who just tangentially has examined Bigfoot evidence.
BJ Nicholls, Salt Lake City
December 11, 2012 9:37am