Brian

The gait test did exactly what it set out to do: determine if it was impossible for an actor to mimic what was seen in the P/G film. Nothing more, nothing less. Hypothesis rejected. It is possible for a person to mimic everything done in the film under “laboratory” conditions. I found this part of the program to be an attempt to allay the skeptics’ cry of believer non-impartiality.

I don’t see an issue with relegating mention of the suit’s quality to a footnote. We all know that any suit that we’ve seen leaves much to be desired, and pales in comparison to what’s in the film. I’d love to know what the SFX guy saw that I can’t in that 40-year-old overexposed film. He’s basing his claim that it’s a hoax on foot-pad color? Right…

I found Dr. Turtle’s input to be relevant, but only to those who actively go out in search of a specimen. I don’t think it should be a surprise to anyone that someone who goes into the woods to find an 8-foot bipedal primate might just see one (”real” or not). How many images of tree stumps in the woods have we seen? I do find his experiments completely irrelevant for the couple driving down the road at night who chance upon something, or the people who claim to be complete non-believers prior to their experience. I didn’t expect to see the deer who ran out in front of my car this morning, nor did I dream about deer, read about deer, or even think about deer; but saw one, I did.

I can’t comment on Dr. Jablonski’s beliefs about the biodiversity and biomass in the coniferous forest, but it smacked of ill-preparedness. I can’t blame her for her ignorance about the possibility of scat samples and nesting, but someone should have told her about some of the evidence prior to filming her.

I found the testimony of Dr. Begun to be, perhaps, the most egregious, though not really in terms of content. Physical anthropology is not in my background, unfortunately, but scientific research (neurobiology) is. I find it troublesome that someone in the profession would say, and I beg forgiveness for the paraphrase, “A plausible hypothesis does not prove “truth”.” While I can’t disagree with this notion, I think Galileo, Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Jay Gould, Darwin, even Ramon y Cajal, might have a thing or two to say here… A plausible hypothesis requires testing, of course, but I would argue that “truth” is esoteric, and ultimately, unknowable. Sasquatch may be a reality, but we won’t know without rigorous testing of the hypothesis that it doesn’t exist. To use the most easily understood example, we believe that black holes exist because the evidence suggests they do, not because we’ve seen one with our naked eyes.

I also find his multiple mentions of “myself and many of my colleagues believe…” to be pretty small of him. What does HE believe? I don’t care what his colleagues think. They’re not being interviewed. We all have differing degrees of knowledge and understanding (to put it politically), which is why I don’t talk science with my immunologist friends.

Finally, and I’m overextending in my scientific credentials here, I’m not sure how valid the argument against the existence of an unknown creature is when you bring up “expected” anatomies. I understand that the fossil record suggests that an upright primate would MOST LIKELY have certain foot characteristics, but I fail to see the validity of the argument. It’s an UNKNOWN. Why can’t it go against the grain of preconceived assumptions. Why can’t it have both the mid-tarsal flexion, and a non-opposing digit? It may not fit the model, but nothing ever fits the model. That’s the thrill of discovery!

Still, the show, and Meldrum’s book, have me convinced that “we,” the believers and pseudo-agnostics, are going about this the right way. Taking the evidence at face value, examining it with an open mind, and making hypotheses. Then, testing those hypotheses, as weird as they may be, and making conclusions. Never be afraid of being wrong, and owning up to it. I’d be pleased as punch to see this whole issue fly in the face of the skeptics with incontrovertible evidence, but I’m also open to the (admittedly remote) possibility that ALL of this is a huge, multi-national, multi-generational hoax…

Brian, Ph.D

Several times while hunting I have found what look like large built nests, where branches thicker than my thumb had been ripped off trees, not cut with a saw! But no, such a nest does not exist and it must be in my imagination! As I have said before, when Bigfoot is proven, it will be scientits like the 2 on this show who will have their tails behind them. Then they will simply declare, “Well I always knew that Bigfoot was real”.

Humans are great actors. So what is the big deal that a human can copy the gait in the Patterson Film, in lab conditions? Where is the surprise in that? Lets see it be done in the field! Where rocks, loose ground and branches are in the way! Bet that would change everything! As a matter of fact I challenge anyone to reproduce the Patterson film with 1967 technology! Bet it can’t be done! Remember to include feet with dermal ridges and large breasts.

As far as I am concerned the Patterson film is the real thing. Show me a modern day reproduction using 1967 technology that looks the same. I doubt that will ever happen because most know it can’t be done. Were the Patterson film a fake, surely somone could copy/reproduce it today? Not being able to do this implies the Patterson film to be genuine.

Jablonsky made several statements that showed she wasn’t even remotely familiar with much of the eyewitness and other evidence. She stated that nests and scat have never been found. This is wrong on both counts - suspected nests/shelters have been reported in a number of different locations and scat has been reported in several.

And the assumptions about diet were nonsensical. Chimps are omnivores that occasionally hunt monkeys. Larger primates that lived in colder climates could simply rachet up their meat consumption - which is consistent with a lot of the eyewitness reports of animals carrying carcasses, digging for shelfish, etc.

And although the “Russian tooth” technically isn’t Bigfoot related, it does represent skeletal remains, contrary to Begun’s statements. (Assuming the Russian tooth is authentic.)

You’re not employing the scientific method when you ignore or don’t even bother to examine large amounts of the available evidence.