20 Responses to “Sasquatch Anatomy”

1. stevencrawley78 responds: November 15th, 2007 at 5:06 pm

   The fact that the casts show such intricate detail such as warts “fingerprints” and other anatomical details just prooves that there may be something out there.

   I mean what sort of hoaxer sits around with his buddies designing warts on footprints just to hoax some footprints that may or may not be discovered in the middle of nowhere??

   The same could be said for for the Footage of “Patty”. Correct me if i am wrong but Paterson’s footage was the first footage of a bigfoot ever recorded. And it is female!

   No hoaxer footage I have seen since Patty has ever filmed a female. They are always male. This is why I believe the Patrerson footage is real. It doesn’t seem to fit that in the 60s a group of guys most likely with chauvanistic tendencies would decide to hoax bigfoot footage and use a female costume. If Paterson was going to fake the footage he would’ve used a male costume

2. DARHOP responds: November 15th, 2007 at 5:52 pm

   I really do need to start spending some time in these and other areas of my state. The Olympic Peninsula, The Hoh Rain Forest and The Gifford Pichot, are just three areas off the top of my head I believe could be and most likely is the home to many of the Big Ones. Man, there are so many areas around this state that could be home to these beings. Mt. Rainer, Mt Saint. Helens, Mt. Adams. The Cascades, so much area for the Big Ones to survive unseen by most. I wonder if Jeff ever takes people with him out in the field when he does research. You know, like volunteers. I should of asked him that when I had the chance to dang it. Cuz I would volunteer to help him out in anyway I could in the field researching. Man that would be so kool. I think I will send him a e-mail and ask him. He probably only uses his students. I’m gonna have to try and find out. I wonder if he spends much time in Washington researching? Another good question to ask him. Anyway, great article.

3. Dragonheart responds: November 15th, 2007 at 6:45 pm

   that’s just amazing… I can read those Bigfoot storys again, and again, and again, and they STILL sound so believable. Who would hoax some footprints, somewhere in the forests, and using some strange “cable-loaded” flexible foots? Well, nobody who has a clear mind, that’s for sure!

   Really interesting article, thank you Loren!

4. Bob Michaels responds: November 15th, 2007 at 10:30 pm

   Just rec`d my copy of Sci American today and was surprised to see an article by Marguerite Holloway on Bigfoot Anatomy and Dr Jeff Meldrum.Mention is made of Matt Cartmill of Duke University who reviewed Meldrum and a David a Daegling, (an anthropologist at Univ of Fla a critic of Dr Meldrum) writings in the American Journal of Physical Anthroplogy and made a wild guess that the chances of Bigfoot being real is one in Ten Thousand Bottom line we just have to obtain some proof in the form of a specimen or DNA.

5. DavidFredSneakers responds: November 16th, 2007 at 12:09 am

   Great article, it was a breath of fresh air to see something on Meldrum that treated the subject even handedly.
   Definetly great to see Dr. Meldrum as I opened the magazine today.

6. Bob K. responds: November 16th, 2007 at 1:03 am

   Darhop-I’ve been to most of those places-moved to the great state of Washington a couple of years ago, and I agree that they are all fine areas to check out. I think if you seek, you shall find. I had an experience at Mt. Rainier that I really cant explain, kinda near where Gifford Pinchot and Mt. Rainier meet. I live in the Lower Columbia area now, but am coming back up north to visit my stepdaughter in about a week, and I’m probably going to visit the Olympic Peninsula for a few on my way back home, keeping my eyes and ears peeled as always. Best of luck while you track the Big Fella.

7. airforce47 responds: November 16th, 2007 at 1:09 am

   Good article. I found the link to Freeman was inop and Loren might want to look at that. Anybody who doesn’t believe old hairy is real just needs to go out in the woods with one of us and look around it.

   They’re there and you just need to know where to look.

8. mystery_man responds: November 16th, 2007 at 5:11 am

   All I can say is that whoever the people are who were able to design a cable loaded, flexible toed foot device for hoaxing that could fool a physical anthropologist who specializes in bipedalism, is perhaps wasting talent that could be used in more useful pursuits than hoaxing.

9. DWA responds: November 16th, 2007 at 11:01 am

   M_M:

   Exactly, and this needs to be factored into that whole Occam thing that comes up when we’re trying to explain alleged sas encounters.

   [Oh. Scientific American. This field is slowly but surely picking up some chops, eh?]

   One “simple” explanation that skeptics toss into every discussion is “hoax.” See, it’s NOT really a simple explanation. Passing off Patty as a hoax isn’t simple; neither is passing off the sheer number, consistency, nuanced differences indicating individuals or the same individual over long periods of time, and morphological distinctions that show up in these trackways. It is NOT simple to say “this is a hoax,” because of the sheer improbability of the hoax (or the incredibly interlocking, intricately layered, long-term series of hoaxes) that would be necessary to explain ALL of this. Sure, one instance, or a dozen, or 2,000 of them, could be. But to be taken seriosuly, skeptics need to propose a plausible scenario under which ALL could be. Or else, they need to debunk the entire data set, case by case.

   This is a distinction that skeptics fail to grasp; they fail to understand that, when you enter a proposal into a scientific discussion, you MUST back it with evidence, or you just look silly.

   So there it is, skeptics. You are REQUIRED to defend the hoax scenario with evidence. (Find that spring-loaded foot - sorry, both those feet - for me. Better yet, find the guy who made ‘em. He could score a couple billions applying that knowledge to, say, orthopedic medicine.) Saying that scientists like Meldrum are required to do your work for you - and remember that he entered this arena sniffing for a hoax - is something no serious scientist, or anyone with a working knowledge of how science operates, would try to do. You can’t hold scientists to hard standards while you yourself get to be flighty, silly and harebrained. If you are in the debate, take off the clown outift and the makeup, and help those of us who are serious to take you seriously.

   Off soapbox.

10. dogu4 responds: November 16th, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    Considering the readership of SciAm it will be interesting to read the kind of response this generates in comments next month and on the blogs in the mean time.

11. cryptidsrus responds: November 16th, 2007 at 3:52 pm

    I’ve always respected Meldrum.
    You’re right on, DARHOP. Going on an expedition with him would be so cool. I would do anything. I’ll carry the eqipment if necessary.

12. DWA responds: November 16th, 2007 at 4:18 pm

    stevencrawley78:

    you are wrong. Let me show you why you are wrong.

    Welcome to the Land Of LOTOH, Where the Skeptics Dwell.

    The Legend of the Omnipotent Hoaxer (LOTOH) is my favorite skeptical dodge, because instead of only being stupid, conspiracy-theorist crazy or simply uninformed, it’s actually funny. Not, of course, intentionally funny. But bery funny nonetheless.

    The Patty-not-Patrick case is the quintessential application, the type case, if you will. Every time the question comes up: why are there breasts on this one and not on any of the ape-suit hoaxes? We hear “simple. This is how a hoaxer makes it look real.” No discussion of why NOBODY else, in the whole history of fakesquatchery, has tried to do it. (I don’t think anyone has! I’ve never seen another one.) So, what, Patterson is THE ONLY ONE WHO WANTED TO MAKE IT LOOK REAL? He’s a genius! No discussion of how one reason nobody does breasts on a fake is that they’re too afraid it’ll make the fake obvious. (They’re right.)

    The Roe drawing? Simple. Patterson copied from Roe. (Patterson’s a genius, and he doesn’t see that the Omnipotent Hoaxer would “make it look real” by shooting a MALE. They do have to reproduce, don’t they?) Dermal ridges? They’re all casting artifacts. Bossburg? REALLY clever one there, Bossburg. Making it look like a cripple? Sheer genius. The midtarsal break? THAT one is so unreal that you’d HAVE to think it’s real, Unless You Know Better. And so on and so on. No discussion of how all these geniuses would rather make no money in a field everyone laughs at (but of course no one laughs! Ridiculed for saying you saw Bigfoot? Never happens, prove it!) than make billions off of stratospheric talent. No discussion of how these geniuses, traveling all over the continent, even to its remotest corners, all happen to be making something that looks like the same species. Or how they’re all comparing notes; is there some clandestine convention or professional society of sas hoaxers we’ve never heard of? Or how One Genius Guy has been running this whole scam, apparently since before whites occupied the continent.

    I’m betting that when the animal is confirmed we’re gonna hear somebody say, “See? THAT’s EXACTLY WHAT A HOAXER WOULD DO TO MAKE IT LOOK REAL!” That’ll probably be what Ben Radford says.

13. DARHOP responds: November 16th, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    Bob K. responds:
    November 16th, 2007 at 1:03 am
    Darhop-I’ve been to most of those places-moved to the great state of Washington a couple of years ago, and I agree that they are all fine areas to check out.
    I agree, I think all the above mentioned places are perfect places for someone to check and maybe even have some kind of encounter if they just spend enough time. As they say, patience is a virtue. I’ve been in this state for 43 years. I can’t believe it has taken me so long to really really want to check things out. I mean I use to wonder about the BigOnes when I was younger. But I never really was into them like I have been for last few years. And they are right in my back yard more or less. That’s what I find kinda funny. I live in Shelton. Forest all around. Fact it has been called the Christmas tree capital of the world. It’s a logging town actually. Simpson Timber has a mill there. There has been some sightings in Mason county. My brothers friend and his wife saw a BigOne one night near Mattlock. This was in the late 80’s I believe. They were driving home about 1:00am and it crossed the road in front of their car. Anyway, they are here.

14. DavidFredSneakers responds: November 16th, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    I was thinking the same thing Dogu4. I hope there is some positive feedback from SciAm readers. I think I’ll write them.

15. AtomicMrEMonster responds: November 19th, 2007 at 2:15 am

    Why use “cable-loaded flexible toes” when a rigid fake foot can do the same job? Not that a hoax is the only explanation for such tracks, mind you. The plaster cast of a young black bear’s track on this site shows features that are quite similar to this supposed Bigfoot track casting.

    It’s quite simple to make a midtarsal break with a rigid foot, as shown by these pictures. It’s so simple that I can easily imagine someone creating it by accident, perhaps like this.

    It should be noted that ordinary human feet can leave prints with “midtarsal breaks” in them and that it seems bear feet have a midtarsal break-looking feature as well. Come to think of it, this picture of a bear’s foot and leg looks more like Dr. Meldrum’s drawing of a hypothetical Sasquatch foot/leg than Patty’s does. I also find it interesting that this bear’s foot resembles this supposed Bigfoot track.

    Speaking of bears, I find the resemblence between this “Bigfoot track” and this Himalayan black bear track to be astounding. I really need to look into whether or not the Himalayan black bear’s American cousin has similar feet. It wouldn’t surprise me, though.

    Overlaid animal tracks are another non-hoax way for “Bigfoot tracks” to get created.

    And what’s this about a conspiracy? While it’s certainly possible that some hoaxers provided eachother with fake feet (like Wallace and Mullins apparently did) through the mail, I’d imagine that it’s be easier for hoaxers to just copy pictures from Bigfoot books or order copies of plaster Bigfoot casts.

    Why hoax, you ask? How about doing it as a prank? That’s certainly a good enough reason for people who make crop circles and the guy behind this cryptid hoax. Other possible reasons could include a need for attention (be it positive or negative) after “discovering” the tracks (it sure beats M* by proxy) or someone trying to convince people that Bigfoot is real.

16. DWA responds: November 21st, 2007 at 11:28 am

    Atomic:

    Then there’s the simplest explanation: an animal that has feet that look exactly like that, i.e., not like a bear or like any other animal, made the tracks.

    (Bigfoot tracks don’t look like bear tracks. Period.)

    Any other explanation ignores:

    1) how very, very, very, very many trackways there are;
    2) how very, very, very, very many of them are in areas so remote that no one could see a reasonable chance of a person coming across them any time soon;
    3) how very, very, very internally consistent all these trackways are, on so many subtle characters;
    4) I’ll spare going to 20) on this to show all the other things that are being ignored.

    Could one of those other explanations explain all, or even many trackways? It’s conceivable.

    Is it likely? No.

    I’d rather researchers invest their time in the most likely explanation, given what we now know, than waste their time on pranks, hoaxes and other causes, which just aren’t likely at all to explain ALL of what we see.

    As Myra Shackley puts it: the evidence for the sasquatch meets the tests of frequency and coherence. No alternative explanation does. Nor has such an explanation, really, ever even been offered.

17. DWA responds: November 21st, 2007 at 11:40 am

    Atomic:

    I should have included this with everything else I said.

    Every tracker - indeed, anyone who’s been outside a lot - knows that every animal can, on occasion, make a track that looks like that of pretty much every other animal. That a known animal can, on rare occasions, make a track that looks somewhat like another track that just happens to be a sas track really means nothing, in debunking terms. You don’t look at the track; you look at the TRACKWAY. You WILL know whether that’s a bear when you do that.

    Again: frequency and coherence. No “alternative explanation” washes, except in an individual case, if it does not possess these. Sure there’s a hoax or a prank or a known-animal track or whatever you want to call it posing as a sas track, here and there.

    Enough of them to provide a true alternative explanation? No way.

    The “alternatives” need to be systematically applied to every single piece of evidence, to conclusively debunk each and every one, or there is no case against.

    That’s the fundamental “skeptical” flaw when it comes to the sasquatch. There’s no simple counterargument to this simple argument: this is an animal we haven’t catalogued yet.

    Occam would say: why isn’t science looking?

18. DWA responds: November 21st, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    Atomic: I’m reviewing the images you have up there. So far I have the following to say.

    1. The bear/Bigfoot “comparisons” I’m just not seeing. The bear tracks look, well, like a bear’s tracks. The Bigfoot tracks look human, but not exactly. The very superficial resemblance between bear and human tracks has often been remarked upon, but never to say that the two can be easily confused. They can’t. You can’t confuse bear trackways with sas trackways, either.

    2. Those things you are highlighting as “midtarsal breaks” aren’t even close. As seen in sas tracks, the midtarsal break looks much different. What you are seeing in the photos is the simple result of sand getting pushed up under the arch. Sas tracks don’t show an arch. And that “midtarsal-break-like” feature you are showing on the sole of the bear’s foot will NOT leave anything worth noting in an actual track, says here. Again, not even close. That’s one mangy bear.
    3. There is virtually no sas trackway on record that submits to the explanation of track overlays by known animals.

    4. To compare a photo of a bear’s foot and leg to a drawing of a sas leg to a motion frame of a sas leg is flatly not done. You can’t do it. That’s an apple, a banana and an orange. Just to illustrate how much so: (a) I flatly disagree with you, and think the Patty shot is MUCH more like Meldrum’s drawing, and think that 99 out of 100 people selected at random off the street would say the same; and (b) you couldn’t have picked a frame of the P/G film that compares worse with the drawing than that one. You’d find plenty that would be a much more obvious match, though.

    Frequency. Coherence. Or else, there’s only one “simple” explanation: science needs to do more work here, on the MOST likely explanation.

    Oh, and remember. You’re not arguing with me here. You are arguing with scientists, in clearly relevant fields, who have made in-depth firsthand studies of volumes of evidence. I think they’d do a much better job than I’m doing.
    I can only respond to any potential counters with this: read up on this as much as I have, and you WILL change your mind.

19. AtomicMrEMonster responds: November 24th, 2007 at 11:27 pm

    DWA:

    I think these people would disagree with you about Bigfoot tracks not looking like bear tracks.

    As for your “ignored points”:

    1) There are numerous hoaxers and animals whose overlaid (or otherwise altered) tracks could create “Bigfoot tracks.”

    2) Isn’t it odd how people always find those “remote areas?” It’s not like it’d be impossible for the person who faked tracks in a remote area to be the one who “discovered” the tracks. Animal overlays could also come into play.

    3) After reading into the 1855 “Devil’s Footprints” in Devon, England, I’ve learned to take reports of consistent features with a grain of salt. Hoaxers can inadvertainly create/reproduce such details and I wouldn;t be surprised at all to learn that natural processes are behind some of them. Page 13 of “The Locals” (by Tom Powell) reveals Dr. Krantz’s 3 secret qualifications for determining if a track was real or not. However, those details match up with tracks made by Wallace-style fake feet.

    In situations where careful visual documentation was made of the trackway, I’d agree that the entire trackway should be looked at. However, that isn’t always the case.

    I showed those pictures to other people to see what they thought. They saw the resemblence, although it was noted that the Himalayan bear track picture had some grass covering a toe and that it would’ve been much easier to see the resemblence if the bear picture was “flipped”. I did find some other, similar pictures, though. Perhaps you’d have better luck by doing a Google image search for bear prints, tracks, etc.?

    As for the midtarsal break issue, I think we’re talking about different parts of the footprints. Go to the “Evidence of a Midtarsal Break” section here (which also shows the inconsistencies in numerous Sasquatch tracks). I’m talking about the sort of thing shown there (and in the experiment by Matt Crowley; perhaps I should’ve used the term “midfoot pressure ridges” instead). Think of the fature shown in the bottommost track on the “davidsanger” picture. I think that Dr. Meldrum thinks the heel is missing since he thinks that the overlaid tracks show the “true” footprint.

    You might want to reconsider your statement about that feature of a bear’s foot not leaving anything in an actual track. I also found this to be interesting.

20. AtomicMrEMonster responds: November 24th, 2007 at 11:29 pm

    continued:

    Dr. Bruce Marcot’s work here tentatively pointed to some trackways being the result of overlaid animal tracks. I think he’s onto something, too. If the bear that made the track in this picture put its hind(?) foot down more over to the right, I’d say that it’d make a good “Bigfoot track.” I was also lucky enough to find this trackway consisting of bear prints overlaid enough to show how a quadrupedal animal’s tracks can seem like those of a bipedal animal, but not overlaid enough to give the impression of a Bigfoot trackway. This is supported here.

    Getting back to “Bigfoot trackways,” I think I see signs of a partial overlay in this.

    As for the bear/drawing/frame issue, the “main comparison” was between the still and the drawing; the reference to it resembling a bear’s foot/leg was a personal aside. If the foot/leg truly did match Dr. Meldrum’s drawing, shouldn’t we expect it to match no matter what frame I pick? Now if Dr. Meldrum made a model of his hypothetical leg/foot that was found to match up to the frame I linked to, he’d have a good case. Otherwise, he might want to think about reworking his drawing.

    Finally, there’s a bit of a problem with your appeal to the authority of Krantz, Meldrum, et al: They haven’t fully looked into alternate explanations. If Dr. Meldrum had done so, we wouldn’t be having this discussion (since he would’ve covered these issues in greater depth for his article).

    I’ve been reading sightings reports since I was a little kid. They make for good stories, but aren’t good for much more than that. For information on an incident where numerous sightings of an animal were proven to have been incorrect, you should look up the 1978 sightings of an escaped Red Panda in Rotterdam, Holland. You see, the escaped red panda was found to have been dead before those sightings happened (it was hit by a train on some tracks near the zoo). If I remember correctly, Hans van Kampen did an article about it in 1979.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|