1. As to credentials: I’m just glad somebody going for an advanced degree seems to be interested in this from a scientific standpoint. There aren’t near enough of them.

2. I think his view is: the pseudoscience being applied to the sasquatch (of which we all know there is much) doesn’t exclude the proper application of science to the topic (which of course it doesn’t).

3. As to Hawks: there may be hope for that old codger yet.

Answers to my own questions:

1. Not even sure if he is beyond ABD. Just entered his Ph.D program in 2010.

2. Two significant published works are listed, one is on Lucy’s feet and the other is on anthropology jokes. The third and final paper is not on Bigfoot either.

3. He probably uses “pseudoscience” and the conceptual emotional barrage of that word because his advisor is John Hawks who *seems* to have a harsh pseudoscientific view of Bigfoot.

Does he have tenure?

What are his list of publications dealing with hominology and cryptozoology?

Why would anyone who is not a scoftic or debunker, even if they are excluding Sasquatch studies from the labeled area, use the term “pseudoscience,” unless they accept the political-emotional parameters that are part of using that word?

So far I’m getting the impression that Throckmorton is perhaps treating Bigfoot evolution and bipedalism as more of a thought experiment or some sort of exercise in speculative biology rather than a serious scientific undertaking to get to the bottom of what Bigfoot is. The fact that it is not a particular high priority for him also kind of reinforces this feeling, although he is a scientist and studies where the grants take him. Not all scientists can afford to take on this field when we have other things to do to put food on the table.

Even a speculative work from such an experienced anthropologist could of course offer some good insights, but I wonder if he is really treating Bigfoot as seriously as a lot of us would hope.

Anyway, it’ll be fun to see where this all leads. Consider my interest piqued. As DWA said, yeah let’s hear some more.

And of course we’d – OK, I’d – like to know more about Throckmorton’s take on this. But usually, when someone enters with a zinger like that, he’s probably serious.

I can go with “most of the evidence” being footprints. It’s a quibble, really, whether there are more track fiinds or eyewitness reports. Actually, there are probably far more of the latter. But Krantz said we would be “forced to conclude” the existence of this animal based on the tracks alone. One could make the case that this is not so easy to say about eyewitness reports, although taken as a whole they are far more powerful than most folks understand.

So, um, yeah. Let’s hear some more.