The list of ‘likely’s that work against the existence of bigfoot is unfortunately about 5 miles longer than the list in support of the existence of bigfoot.

It remains, as ever, about conclusive evidence, nothing less. This is true no matter what the scientific question at hand may be. ‘Likely’ doesn’t cut it any more than ‘unlikely’ does -it’s all a wash.

As ever, we need physical evidence to the degree that it would be unreasonable NOT to accept it as proof of the existence of bigfoot.

I disagree that supporters are “arguing from a position of ingorance”. There seem to be several instances of physical evidence being analyzed and concluding that there are more likely than not unidentified species out there. This evidence and the rate at which it is being collected also seem to be accelerating or building up, largely due to technology. For example when I first read about cryptid primates as a kid there were no DNA samples coming back classified as “unidentified primate.”

As far as whether or not they test against all other animals, I don’t know. From the wording I have a feeling that results were compared to all of the other known primates, but I haven’t thoroughly researched the issue myself.

Also, I had a question: when these hair tests are conducted, do they compare them to hairs from known species from the area in question, or against every known species with hair on the planet?

The reason I ask is because, as an avid outdoorsman, I own numerous pieces of winter weather gear, purchased from an online source because it’s cheap and decently made. This is achieved by importing the gear in bulk from other countries. Long story short, because of my near daily traipses through the woods and fields of North Carolina, there are an uncountable number of hairs in those fields, fallen from my fur-lined hats, coats, gloves, etc.

Were someone to turn in one of those hairs, hoping it was a bigfoot hair, any hair analysis that only screened out fauna local to NC would fail to identify these hairs, most of which are from mammals native to Russia, China, Indonesia, and Korea.

If bigfoot advocates would take the time to review their own words, we find those testing the hairs were unable to identify it and consider it ‘likely’ to have come from an unknown primate, we read that bigfoot is ‘probably’ a primate, that the testing processes ‘approach’ proof, etc., etc.

In others words, testing that begins with “well, maybe…” so far has always ended up in the exact same spot:

“well, maybe…”

That nail is much too thin to hang your hat upon. Placing undue value on never-ending inconclusive findings is essentially an argument from ignorance.

But the thing is in the case of the metal levels analysis they are not assuming – they are following scientific protocols that allow them to determine what kind of animal a hair came from. Following these protocols brings them to the conclusion that the hair is likely from an unknown primate species. It’s not their assumptions telling them that – it’s their scientific analysis of the evidence. This does approach proof, depending on how reliable and accurate the metals level tests are.

I look forward to seeing Loren and everyone else at the Bigfoot conferences, but I won’t be giving the same talk. It was really just an intro and quick survey and would bore anyone already in the field!

As for Bigfoot hair, I agree it would probably have primate characteristics; my point is that we can only ASSUME that is the case, not PROVE it is the case. If cryptozoology is to improve its evidence and methodology, it needs to begin drawing much clearer distinctions between facts and assumptions.

First, the objective and subjective conclusion, of course, weighs in favor of Bigfoot, seemingly a biped unknown hominoid, being a primate.

Chupacabras, which if they exist, I would have to tentatively classify as unknown primates, appear to have hair, in various sightings, and thus fur and hair samples from them could be found to be “unidentified primate,” until we have a type specimen.

As to Ben’s presentation, I am sure he is fair but bluntly skeptical in his approach. However, because I will be speaking before or after him at both of those forthcoming Bigfoot conferences he mentions, I’ll correctly wait until I can see his talk.

I have had my own bad experiences with too many sloppy, shaky, and sensational media accounts, that for now, the benefit of doubt goes to Ben, as far as being somewhat misrepresented in this media account.

Oh, okay. And how do you know for certain that a Bigfoot is a primate? Is that an assumption or a fact? Or that a dragon or chupacabra hair might not also be deemed “unidentified primate” or have “metal content”?

And I’m not being sarcastic about the dragons: in the latest issue of Fortean Times there’s a review of a new book about whether dragons really exist.

Usually the phrase I’ve heard used is “unidentified primate” which sort of narrows it down. DNA allows for these distinctions sometimes.

From a cryptozoological or scientific perspective having a sample indicate any unidentified animal of significant size of any type would be of interest. As I’ve said before chupacabras are a phenomenon I’m pretty skeptical about. I’m not sure what you mean by “dragons” – are you referring to a specific cryptozoological phenomenon?