Your kids are actually the audience I post for. Steer them toward the sciences.

“So one of the arguments in favor of Bigfoot being real animal (rather than a nature spirit or a cultural or psychological phenomenon) is that the reports are so consistent. Except, of course, when they’re not, as this post highlights.”

Well, (a) all the evidence indicates this is a fake; (b) basing one’s opinion that this is totally out of line with eyewitness reports on the nose alone is, well, I’ve seen many descriptions of the sasquatch nose, just as I’ve seen many descriptions of human noses. In general: the sasquatch nose is broader and flatter than ours. This basically meets that requirement. Irrelevant, as this appears, well, a fake; in any event, no problem.

“So what will it be? If we keep the “real animal” hypothesis, we seem to be left with only a few options.

“1. There is more than one species of “Bigfoot”. This multiplies the problem of the lack of a type specimen, so I think this is a really bad idea. On the other hand, supporters of Ketchum might say that the hairy-faced Bigfoot might be the parent species and the smooth-faced Bigfoot are the hybrids, or maybe vice versa, thus dealing with the question of what happened to the parent species.”

Nature doesn’t care about “bad ideas.” Everywhere there is one ape, there is another. If I were laying bets, I would bet there is more than one unidentified species of North American hominoid. All evidence tells us to expect that. Also, there is no need to take Ketchum and this hybrid business seriously unless …well, shoot, what are the odds that she has anything serious? She could not be mishandling it worse if she does, for sure.

“2. We disregard the less frequent reports. This seems too arbitrary. Besides, Bigfoot believers can’t really reject sightings simply because they don’t fit into a pre-conceived pattern; *all* Bigfoot sightings are routinely rejected for this reason.”

Yes, and, well, no. “All Bigfoot sightings” are rejected by scientists who have not come up with a scientifically-acceptable reason for doing that. We are obliged to cull; culling is what science does. If your bigfoot is three feet tall, purple, green polka dots, arboreal and smells like Chanel…let’s just say that’s not the one I’m looking for first. Sightings form a nice bell curve, and tell us what to expect. One always drops outliers; it’s not good science not to. One can worry about outliers while searching for the thing that puts the bell in that bell curve.

“3. It is generally agreed that “Patty” was a female, and female humans lack beards. Could it be that most encounters with Bigfoot are with females or juvenile males, and only adult males have “beards”? Maybe adult males are more secretive, or maybe they simply don’t survive as long as females, possibly because they fight among themselves.”

“Beard” is one of a number of naive terms used by witnesses, who may in fact be seeing something that actually looks like a beard. What significance that has, we aren’t going to begin to figure out until the animal is confirmed.

4. Maybe hypertrichosis, though still rare, is more common in Bigfoot than in humans.

Gigantism, too, which might explain really big (over 10 feet tall) animals. Of course, my previous sentence applies here too.

Of course, one could also say: one more example of the absolute inability of hoaxers to replicate P/G.

In 45 years.

Anyone who’s not interested in that, I’m not sure why they care about this topic at all.

Because there ARE hoaxes that those same exact people HAVE fallen for but will defend those very hoaxes’ legitimacy with every fiber of their being. People are selective about what they choose to be fooled by.

Then, to add to my consternation, they avow their stance that this is a “real” image, not a costume—they emphatically declare it’s legitimate—all the while knowing it’s not. I don’t get it. They know the image/footage will be vetted by experts, professionals, skeptics, and others interested on the subject, and yet they stick firmly to their convictions. Good grief!

Yesterday, I showed this image to my eight and ten year old nephews, both who are intrigued by Bigfoot, and the eight year old stated, “What’s Chewy (Chewbacca) doing in the woods? I thought he lived in outer space?” Then the ten year old retrieved his Chewbacca figure and was even pointing out the similarities that others have already outlined (nose, forehead, etc.).

So what will it be? If we keep the “real animal” hypothesis, we seem to be left with only a few options.
1. There is more than one species of “Bigfoot”. This multiplies the problem of the lack of a type specimen, so I think this is a really bad idea. On the other hand, supporters of Ketchum might say that the hairy-faced Bigfoot might be the parent species and the smooth-faced Bigfoot are the hybrids, or maybe vice versa, thus dealing with the question of what happened to the parent species.
2. We disregard the less frequent reports. This seems too arbitrary. Besides, Bigfoot believers can’t really reject sightings simply because they don’t fit into a pre-conceived pattern; *all* Bigfoot sightings are routinely rejected for this reason.
3. It is generally agreed that “Patty” was a female, and female humans lack beards. Could it be that most encounters with Bigfoot are with females or juvenile males, and only adult males have “beards”? Maybe adult males are more secretive, or maybe they simply don’t survive as long as females, possibly because they fight among themselves.
4. Maybe hypertrichosis, though still rare, is more common in Bigfoot than in humans.