Cryptomundo » No Hard Evidence of Bigfoot ?

No Hard Evidence of Bigfoot ?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on January 4th, 2006

The Lakeside Leader of Slave Lake, Alberta Canada listed as one of its top stories of 2005, a tale of found and photographed footprints.

The Leader covered a story alleging the existence of Bigfoot to start the summer season. Reporter James Boston met with a man (who wishes to remain anonymous) and examined pictures of what could be interpreted as Bigfoot’s footprint. The mythos surrounding Bigfoot, or Sasquatch, if you prefer, goes back more than 70 years. To date, no hard evidence has been brought forward to validate the hominid’s existence.

The original article detailed a sighting in the area, as well as the footprint find.

No hard evidence? The footprint casts, hair and scat samples point to a North American primate. I find it harder to believe that every eyewitness account is a case of mistaken identity or hoaxing, that every track found was made by someone tramping around with over-sized wooden feet, than it is to believe that the animal is out there…

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 4th, 2006 at 4:48 pm and is filed under Bigfoot, Bigfoot Report, Cryptozoology, Evidence, Eyewitness Accounts, Forensic Science, Sasquatch. You can follow responses via our RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.

Spread the Word!

del.icio.us Digg Furl Reddit StumbleUpon Help

Similar Phenomena:

21 Responses to “No Hard Evidence of Bigfoot ?”

Doug responds: January 4th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
I hate to be negative, but until the right people see it (someone outside bigfoot research circles) or a corpse is brought in, it will not be taken seriously. Even after bringing in the DNA of a similar creature from Bhutan, still no one pays attention and most regard bigfoot researchers as kooks. I do not think, even with the hard evidence of dermal ridges in some of the casts, most folks will even take a look. We need a body, but I do not condone the killing of one to prove the rest exist. It may be the one that keeps a gene pool healthy enough to continue its existence. It’s a catch 22 situation. Maybe someday we will find a naturally deceased one, but I am skeptical of it happening.
DrX responds: January 4th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
If there is hard evidence sufficient to justify belief in Bigfoot, I think Bigfoot advocates should put it all together and present it to an appropriate scientific authority for identification. That would settle the matter, don’t you think?

If there is neither the confidence in the evidence nor the availability of the evidence to do this, then I don’t see the point in making claims about the evidence.

Doug, I’m not aware that DNA from Bhutan has been identified as a creature similar to Bigfoot. Professor Brian Sykes has identified samples of DNA from Bhutan as pig and bear, and there is another sample he has not been able to identify. NB: One sample is unidentified; it is not identified as either Yeti, Sasquatch, or Bhutani Death Vole.

Jumping to the conclusion that an unidentified sample means it is identified as the creature of your choice is one reason why, as you say, Doug, most people regard Bigfoot believers as kooks.
Sasquatchery responds: January 4th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
“If there is hard evidence sufficient to justify belief in Bigfoot, I think Bigfoot advocates should put it all together and present it to an appropriate scientific authority for identification. That would settle the matter, don’t you think?”

Grover Krantz’ attempt back in the 1990’s with dermal evidence was the last time I’m aware of that this was done, to no avail. Dermal evidence does not constitute indisputable proof so it went nowhere, and the monumental paradigm shift that would be involved in getting the mainstream scientific community to accept even the possibility of Bigfoot didn’t help either.

As far as “believing” in Bigfoot, it depends on whether you’re looking for evidence of sufficient quality (a body) to definitely establish the animal’s existence and taxonomy, or looking for evidence sufficient to warrant entertaining the possibility that something is out there. It’s one thing to harp on the fact that no body has yet been produced, which is a compelling argument but not a conclusive one. It’s another to fault people for deciding that there’s enough circumstantial evidence to entertain the possibility.

“Jumping to the conclusion that an unidentified sample means it is identified as the creature of your choice is one reason why, as you say, Doug, most people regard Bigfoot believers as kooks. ”

Well stated. Many researchers don’t understand that there’s a BIG gulf between “unidentified” and “Bigfoot”.

But skeptics are susceptible to similar lapses in logic. There is a particularly widespread perception among skeptics that just the act of pointing out more mundane alternative explanations for phenomena somehow disproves the more unconventional ones.

I see this alot in skeptical enquiry into paranormal areas; one classic is the so-called “orbs” so commonly photographed that supposedly represent ghosts. A skeptic will quite smugly produce floating dust particles, photograph them and then say “this is what the orbs are”, thinking that this somehow PROVES that “orbs” represented in another photograph aren’t ghosts. In fact all he did was raise another possible explanation, perhaps a more likely one but certainly not exclusive of any of the others.

Maybe it is a long shot to prove that Bigfoot exists, but if it is out there then it is possible. I can think of no practical way to prove that it does NOT exist, whether the animal actually exists or not. A Bigfoot researcher has a mighty challenge; the skeptic has an impossible one. Many, if not most, skeptics don’t comprehend that fact or realize that they aren’t on any higher moral or logical grounds than the researchers are.
shovethenos responds: January 4th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Great response, Sasquatchery.

I do have one quibble with this statement:

“Well stated. Many researchers don’t understand that there’s a BIG gulf between “unidentified” and “Bigfoot”.”

I think most researchers do understand that. But the thing is, if a sample is truly unidentified - meaning it does not match any known animal - then it is still a cryptid, and therefore scientifically significant.

Take the Bhutan sample. I think most cryptozoologists, naturalists, etc. would be just as excited if it were some newly idenitified kind of bear as if it were a newly identified 10 foot tall ape. There have been several new species of monkey found recently, and there were probably less numbers of sightings reported before they were found than the number of sightings reported at most of the cryptid primate “hot spots”. It seems to be a matter of whether or not the person forming the opinion is coming from a position of true objectivity and clarity in reasoning, and whether or not they have received an effective presentation of all of the availible evidence.
Doug responds: January 5th, 2006 at 12:20 am
DrX:
Very good point on jumping to conclusions and well taken. I do remember the interview of the program, which I cannot remember which cable network it was on, the particular hair and follicle was taken from a tree and sent to Oxford University. The gentleman who oversaw the DNA testing described it as “behaving very strangely” and “unlike any he had seen”. Do wish I could remember the name of the show. In a later interview with Jane Goodall on NPR, a caller called in and asked her what she felt about the possibility of unknown apes still to be discovered. She replied that DNA of one had been found in Bhutan and creatures such as sasquatch and Yeti were surely out there (you might be able to still download this from their site). I did jump to conclusions on that one. I still feel, however it will still take a specimen, more likely to be found dead than alive (I wouldn’t want to be on a team attempting to catch a live one) to prove its existence. I believe most will accept no less.
Craig Woolheater responds: January 5th, 2006 at 12:55 am
Here is a link to the NPR interview with Jane Goodall.
Kurt responds: January 5th, 2006 at 7:53 am
I dont think people will believe anything less than one shot, stuffed and mounted in the Smithsonian.
Loren Coleman responds: January 5th, 2006 at 8:40 am
The live capture of an unknown hairy hominoid (i.e. anthropoid or hominid), in which extensive photography, blood sampling, DNA sampling, physical examination of the specimen can take place, would be more justified in today’s zoological sampling atmosphere.

Then establishing a protected preserve in the most likely location for survival would be the logical next step.

Biotechnically microtagging the specimen for tracking, and then releasing it back into the wild should come next.

It seems unnecessary, in this day and age, to “shoot, stuff, and mount” a Bigfoot, Yeti, or similar species.

Capture, examine, and release, I predict, will be the way to go. If we open the gates to shooting them, we will certainly speed their extinction.
DGBennett responds: January 5th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Greetings!

Mr. Coleman, I’d like to begin by complimenting you on one of your books. I found “BIGFOOT!: The True Story of Apes in America” to be entertaining, interesting and very informative. I enjoyed all of the historical backgrounds (obviously reflecting your own painstaking research over several years). It’s a great book which will grace my home library as long as it holds up through repeated re-readings.

I caught the last half (or third) or the show (“Giganto: The Real King Kong”) last night/this morning, and found it to be very interesting. Since childhood, I’ve always been fascinated by legends of Sasquatch… the Yeti… being based on actual creatures existing in present-day reality, and I guess (like the X-File’s Fox Mulder), I WANT to believe. In the 25-odd years that have elapsed since my childhood days, I have grown more sophisticated; unfortunately I am also more cynical - much of the ‘magic’ I once believed in as a kid is now faded away into the sometimes harsh realities of every-day life and adulthood.

Still, there is something intriguing about “Bigfoot”. As you said, there is A LOT of compelling and credible evidence (in the form of believable eye-witness accounts, the famous “Patterson Film” of 1967, and thousands of footprint castings… as well as vocalizations recorded through the years. Still no body, though. It’s unfortunate that it will ultimately come down to that – either killing/capturing one in the wild, or stumbling on a corpse/remains before science (and the world) will believe. I hope the latter is true… I perish the thought of someone killing one outright to prove anything (if they do exist, they are obviously magnificent… intelligent… and worthy of existence as they are).

I do hope someday that I see one. Even if I don’t gather any evidence (other than my account), it would be validation to me of something I have long held as possible and magical.
texasgirl responds: January 5th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
I’m new to the Bigfoot research and everything but I really want to believe in it.

Where do y’all think one is most likely to be found?
Craig Woolheater responds: January 5th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
texasgirl, we at the Texas Bigfoot Research Center are doing our part to see that it happens here in the Lone Star State. Check our our website for more info.
texasgirl responds: January 5th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
I check that site often Craig, It would be nice to see it happen here.
I’m amazed that there hasn’t been a sighting down here where I live around Victoria, Tx. Plenty of cover if you ask me, maybe they don’t like the ocean…
DGBennett responds: January 5th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
I’ve only had one experience with something I believe to have been “Sasquatch” a few years ago… I think I heard some of them vocalizing at some distance (across a large field from me, in the deep autumn woods). It happened in late September, 2003 out in the rural areas of Andover, Ohio. I was visiting a friend during his family gathering/reunion. It was late, and there was no more room to sleep in the house. So I spent the night in my pickup truck cab. The windows were cracked to let in the pleasant cool air. It was very quiet. Then, in the early-hours of the morning, I heard distant bellows and cries… very faintly. It sent chills up my spine, and I tried to see what it was. I had my SONY Handycam (with night vision) handy, and I pointed it in the direction of the noises. It was so faint, my camera didn’t capture it. Needless to say, it sounded odd to me. It could have been anything really, so I’m not jumping to conclusions (as I’m no outdoorsman, and don’t readily know all of the common animal calls out there). I have heard recordings attributed to Sasquatch before, and what I remember hearing sounded similar. I told my friend and his father about it the next day. They are both avid deer hunters, and told me they too have heard strange, startling sounds in the woods outside their farm in the autumn months. Perhaps, if it is “them”, they are migrating elsewhere… I don’t know! It’s a great mystery of mine.

My one great hope in life is to see a great American ape in the wild. I would love to know they do exist.
DrX responds: January 5th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Sasquatchery - and others here - I think you might gain some insight from reading up on a couple of things: the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, and Occam’s Razor. I’m not going to bother with your straw man about proving a negative except to note that it is a straw man.

Thanks to shovethenos and Doug, for your comments.

Cheers.
KenMD responds: January 5th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Seems to me as I have been following the subject now for a short time that indeed the problem is good scientific proof. Something undisputable, something with a P-value
KenMD responds: January 5th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
I think the rest of my blog comments got lost???
Did you have them Craig? Quite long, I rehash later if not.
Doug responds: January 5th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
KenMD:
You are correct. It would be nice for a live capture, however it would be done. If it comes down to the only way to prove its there is to kill it, then I wish people would just leave it alone. If the creature does exist, it has done a most excellent job of staying away from us.
shovethenos responds: January 6th, 2006 at 6:18 am
I too grew up with the “Bigfoot” and “Yeti” accounts in books, movies, on TV, etc.

But in my opinion you don’t need to possess childlike romanticism or some form of mental illness to believe it is quite possible that they exist. There is too much evidence - DNA analyzed by experts, vocalizations analyzed by experts, dermal ridges on casts analyzed by experts, etc, etc, etc. - that point to the possibility they exist.

One can approach the issue from a stricly logical viewpoint - devoid of any emotion, “magical”, or wishful thinking - and still come to the conclusion that it is quite possible they exist. In fact I think that there is a lot of emotionalism present on the part of the skeptics - a kind of “herding”, “conformity”, or “consensus-seeking” mental reflex that drives a lot of their opinions without giving the evidence an objective look.
DGBennett responds: January 6th, 2006 at 8:03 am
I agree… and I too have viewed it from both a romanticism (as a child, fascinated with the classic 1970s TV documentaries; the books from the local library about Yeti and Bigfoot; and from whatever else I could locate and digest on the subject – I was a Sasquatch junkie!), and as a healthy skeptic in adulthood. The evidence accumulated over the years (and within the last 20, including the “Skookum Cast”, or evidence of unique dermal ridges on footprint casts consistent with a creature the size of Sasquatch) are very compelling. My wife will look at me an laugh whenever I talk about “Bigfoot”, but I do believe this creature is as real as silverback mountain gorillas are. I have heard the argument for years now that it must be a hoax – after all, why hasn’t a body ever been discovered, or why haven’t more hunters seen or shot them? And I maintain that they have much more to fear from us than we do from them, so they have developed a sophisticated level of cunning and stealth to avoid us at all costs – smart critters! It’s not hard to sense when a human being is near by, for the most part (we’re noisy… we smell of deodorants and perfumes, we often times cook and eat aromatic meals at campsites, and we have effectively ‘taken over’ most of the world with our cities and homes. There are places in our modern world which are still unscathed… virgin… and they are still mercifully vast. And it is not a huge stretch of the imagination to envision a population of a few thousand unknown great apes thriving there undetected. Most of the chance encounters with their kind are the same as those of people who accidentally come across a grizzly bear in the woods – they are accidental, catching the creature quite unaware and by surprise. Others are by their willingness to approach us… their curiosity. It is evident that they are far more aware of us than we are of them. My great hope is to actually see one in my lifetime – to have a peak. I want to know they exist. I would love that… and I would never endanger their kind or attempt to kill or capture one. They are magnificent beings which deserve our respect and our conservation. I have never read anywhere that they have intentionally harmed a single soul, or killed anyone outright. A creature that could quite easily outrun or overpower a human choosing NOT to do so says a lot for their kind. I believe they are highly intelligent, adapted, powerful, and peaceful. Let’s hope we can be the same towards them as well – I’d hate to make them angry with us!
Kurt responds: January 6th, 2006 at 8:08 am
Capture, examine, and release, I predict, will be the way to go. If we open the gates to shooting them, we will certainly speed their extinction.

I never said open the gates to shooting them and in order to make them extinct you have to prove they exsisted in the first place,,you cant do that.When the best evidence is a 40hr old tape made by 2 guys that some say is a fake and you say you dont think its a fake,,where is ” all the evidence” since then ?I havnt seen any picture,,film,,cellphone pic or anything as good as that 40yr old tape. Archeologists are digging up dinosaur bones every day ,,putting together huge skeletons of once living things.Yet there are people out there who still dont belive dinosaurs ever lived. And your capture,tag and release theory sounds all good and well if your working for PETA but whos gonna get close enough to a bigfoot to “tag” it when no one can even get close enough to take a decent picture that wont get raked over the skepitcal coals of conventional science like all of them do. Face the facts you will never catch a “live one” and the only way you`ll ever prove it is with the end of a gun or the front end of a truck and to texasgirl ive asked the same questions about Maine ,with no response.
DGBennett responds: January 6th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Kurt:
I think it would be quite a formidable task to capture and release such a creature… but I agree, it would be the right thing to do. Will it be carried out that way? Probably not… I think once rednecks catch wind that these creatures are real, they will be sufficiently freaked-out and want them all dead. And with the arsenals and ignorance most of those people possess, it might prove to be a great danger for the animals. Personally, I would be delighted to know that peaceful giants are living in the world around me… it adds a sense of wonder and magic to our planet that is often times missing or forgotten.

I think it is also quite telling that no concrete skeletal or biological evidence of their physical bodies has ever been reported. Gigantopithicus Blacki molars and fossilized jawbone fragments [from Asia] have been catalogued and studied for several decades now, but not many. There is no conclusive evidence to state definitively if they are true descendents of Giganto… or if they are an entirely as-of-yet unidentified new species. The truth of the matter is that most large creatures that die in a natural setting are beset upon by a myriad of ravenous critters – they are devoured and reclaimed quickly. And there is also speculation that they take care of their own… possibly moving bodies to remote locations, or even burying them. Who knows? It’s extremely rare to find a dead grizzly bear in the wild, yet they do exist.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Spread the Word!

21 Responses to “No Hard Evidence of Bigfoot ?”

Leave your comments

Main Page

Join The Search

Mystery Pages

Login

Advertisement

Syndication

Donate Today

The Beyond

Advertisement

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills

viagra how it works

cheap gerneric viagra

generic viagra levitra and cialis pills

viagra anxiety!

viagra andnot generic

taking viagra woman

taking viagra woman

viagra andnot generic

cheap gerneric viagra

taking viagra woman

taking viagra woman

cheap gerneric viagra

viagra anxiety!

taking viagra woman

taking viagra after the expiration date

taking viagra woman

cheap gerneric viagra

taking viagra woman

cheap gerneric viagra

taking viagra woman

taking viagra woman

snorting viagra health

cheap gerneric viagra

taking viagra woman