Ask a Scientist: Sorry, Bigfoot Probably Doesn't Exist. But If He Options

[tugboatwa]

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/0...ked_tuesday.php

Ask a Scientist: Sorry, Bigfoot Probably Doesn't Exist. But If He Did, He Would Be Taller Than a Bear

By Andy Wright in Celebrities, Last Night, Science and Tech, WTF?
Wednesday, Jan. 14 2009 @ 9:21AM

Axis cafe was packed Tuesday night, with attendees of this month's Ask a Scientist lecture jockeying for spaces to crouch between plastic seats and late-late-comers peering over the shoulders of the simply late comers. One woman, an out of towner who had wondered into the cafe simply to wait for her daughter to get off of work nearby, asked what the reason was for the crowd. That can be summed up in one word: Bigfoot

Interest in the mythical beast, who first crept into a generation's subconscious when he upstaged John Lithgow in Harry and the Hendersons, has been running high ever since a trio of hoaxsters froze a lumpen Halloween suit in a freezer and declared it to be the carcass of Sasquatch last summer.

The crowd ran the gamut of young hipsters, the older socks-in-clogs crowd, and the truly eccentric. One man with a long white beard who was waiting in the food and drink line that snaked out of the building opened his jacket to the women in front of him and proclaimed (one assumes in correlation to whatever conversation they were having without him) "Yes, but wouldn't it be cool if they made hats out of these?" Due to the women's polite giggles and smiles, it's safe to assume that nothing illegal had transgressed.

The presenter was Berkeley-based Eugenie C. Scott, a physical anthropologist and executive director of the National Center for Science Education. For the uninitiated, Scott helpfully told the crowd that the NCSE dealt with the teaching of evolution in public schools. Pause: "We're for it!" She quipped.

Thank you folks, tip your waitresses!

Scott has spent her life campaigning for creationism to be removed from school curiculum, and is on the Board of Directors of the Bay Area Skeptics Society. Audience members who were hoping to see a loony tossing about poorly rendered plaster casts of Bigfoot tracks would be sorely disappointed.

Scott deftly plowed through a laundry list of reasons it is unlikely the Sasquatch exists. It's been sighted in too many locations, there isn't enough for a creature that large to eat, it conveniently covers its tracks, disposes of its dead, and hides really, really well. And while she allowed that some accounts of Bigfoot sightings were genuinely unexplained, this didn't mean that one should rush to the conclusion that the creature existed. The appropriate answer, she insisted, was a scholarly, "We don't know."

Then came the questions.

One man stood and proclaimed, in an ominous nod to conservationism and cryptozoology, "We're gonna change the earth so much -- it's gonna have no where to hide."

Scott seemed understandably unsure how to respond to this statement.

A second man asked Scott "what percentage" she thought Bigfoot existed. To drive the point home he repeated, with meaning, "Percentage-wise."

"Less then five percent," Scott returned, and then added, "But that's because I'm an optimist."

Yet another man, who identified himself as as Bigfoot Field Researcher with the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, wanted to know if the anthropologist thought that everyone who had ever spotted a Bigfoot was participating in a mass delusion.

The answer, again, was "No, but that doesn't mean the Bigfoot exists."

By the time Scott had clicked through a series of slides, including UFOs, Marvin the Martian,

this very funny chart illustrating exactly what Bigfoot might be taller than, cast doubt upon the Patterson Video (the Zapruder Film of Bigfoot believers) and gathered up her papers for the evening, any budding Mulders in the audience should have felt a bit deflated.

Brandon Kiel, the man who had identified himself as a Bigfoot Field Researcher, however, remained convinced of the animal's existence.

He said that he liked Scott's presentation, but that "...some of her facts were not factual."

Such as?

"To say that people spot 12-foot-tall things running around is dismissive," He said "We've never had anybody say they were 12-feet-tall. We know that females are in the range of six feet, eight feet tall and that males maybe top out at nine-feet-tall."

Kiel grew up listening to stories of his relatives spotting strange creatures in rural Oklahoma and professes to have seen Bigfoot on two different occasions, once during the day and once with infrared technology. He also said he had worked with famous primatologist, Jane Goodall.

"She came to my college in Oklahoma to help students put together the primatology habitat. I worked with her on that. Very vaguely. I was the one that shuttled her around campus and around town."

There were undoubtedly audience members who, in spite of themselves, wanted to believe in Bigfoot just like Kiel. Isn't a world with a Bigfoot in it more exciting than one without it? In the end, Scott made the better case. But should another team of flim-flam artists stuff a bear suit in a hollow tree and proclaim it to be the definitive evidence that the creature exists, a lot of very smart people will push aside their understanding of the scientific method just so they can maybe, sort of believe in it, just for a few days or hours. And word to the wise: Keep the height at a believable nine feet, please.

[behemouth]

Scott deftly plowed through a laundry list of reasons it is unlikely the Sasquatch exists...there isn't enough for a creature that large to eat,

There it is again: the perennial objection. And this time coming, once again, from a degreed physical anthropologist.

"deftly"?...I don't think so.

[XionComrade]

There it is again: the perennial objection. And this time coming, once again, from a degreed physical anthropologist.

"deftly"?...I don't think so.

Yeah I think that if "Isn't enough food" is still the best argument they have, it proves 400% they are real...What a ridiculous thing to say...

[Bitter Monk]

He also said he had worked with famous primatologist, Jane Goodall.

Wait for it...

"She came to my college in Oklahoma to help students put together the primatology habitat. I worked with her on that. Very vaguely. I was the one that shuttled her around campus and around town."

[Dudlow]

What a big surprise!

First came 'Pro-Kill' versus 'No-Kill'.

Maybe it's time we further divide the world of BFery into 'Pro-Think' versus 'No-Think'.

Dudlow

This post has been edited by Dudlow: Jan 14 2009, 07:09 PM

[billgreen2005big...]

very informative new article interesting new thread.. thanks bill WOW.. talk about when worlds collide

[DavSquatch]

Wait for it...

I caught this too Bitter, reminds me of the time I was sharing a smoke with
Hefner, huh ? um, err, well George Hefner he ,uh, went my high school.




dav

[Rugby411]

He also said he had worked with famous primatologist, Jane Goodall. She came to my college in Oklahoma to help students put together the primatology habitat. I worked with her on that. Very vaguely. I was the one that shuttled her around campus and around town.

Come on guys...try not to be so reactionary and oversimplified. I'm always more than happy to come onto the forums and discuss things but when people feel the need to belittle and dismiss other researchers, it just becomes tiresome. I've been open and transparent as a researcher and think that sometimes the trivialization and minimizing just gets tiring after a while.

I minored in Primatology while in college and was the head of the provost council my junior year. When Dr. Goodall came to help city architects design the Oklahoma City Zoo's new primatology habitat, I was asked to be her liaison and make sure she got to her appointments on time and was prepared for whatever situation she might find herself in. I was able spend close to a week with her, ate lunch with her most of that week, and talked with her at length on her books, primatology research, and some sasquatch related topics. I maintain a friendly relationship with Dr Goodall especially when she comes to the area give talks.

The reporter who was there asked for my credentials, I discussed my degree and minor, she asked if I had ever worked with any known primatologists and Jane's name came up. I was very offhanded in discussing it as I don't want to come off like I'm "name dropping" but at the same time I was honest. The reporter chose to phrase things the way she saw fit for her story. Keep in mind I'm learning pretty quickly how the media works to massage certain topics to get the story to flow in the direction they would like it to flow.

I don't mind coming onto the forums and answering questions but I'd ask that there be at least a base modicum of respect for each other. At least until I've proven that I don't deserve to be respected.

[Dudlow]

Come on guys...try not to be so reactionary and oversimplified.

Just to be clear, 'Rugby411', my comment was not directed towards you but rather Berkeley-based Eugenie C. Scott whose presentation seems somewhat suspect to me, at least the way the press tells it above. Pesonally I think it very cool you were assigned as liaison to Jane Goodall -- that is a coup unto itself! I wouldn't doubt that would help to propel one headlong into serious research. Lady Luck is with you.
Dudlow

[Rugby411]

Dudlow that wasn't volleyed in your direction.

It was more for the "snark patrol".

Cheers,

B

[Bitter Monk]

If you got owned by the reporter then it's a lesson learned. If she asked who you'd worked with and you said Jane Goodall then you can't exactly blame it on yellow journalism.

[Huntster]

.....The reporter chose to phrase things the way she saw fit for her story. Keep in mind I'm learning pretty quickly how the media works to massage certain topics to get the story to flow in the direction they would like it to flow........

Welcome to mass media.

You're learning why it's as dangerous (and perhaps more so) to talk to a reporter than it is to talk to a cop or lawyer.

[KevinM]

From yet another "field researcher":

We know that females are in the range of six feet, eight feet tall and that males maybe top out at nine-feet-tall.

Who's "we?"

And I take more than a grain of salt at the above use of the term "know."

This post has been edited by KevinM: Jan 18 2009, 01:52 PM

[Rugby411]

BitterMonk said: If you got owned by the reporter then it's a lesson learned. If she asked who you'd worked with and you said Jane Goodall then you can't exactly blame it on yellow journalism.

I think 'ownage" is definitely par for the course. When we step out from behind the computer screen it seems we step into the line of fire. I take full responsibility for discussing my background and professional relationships, but still the way things can be altered and tailored by a writer to fulfill their agenda gives me pause for being so open. And I really don't want that; so my alternative is to just talk from the heart and hope for the best, I guess.

My issue, and maybe this is due to the fact that I'm not much of a presence here and so many of you don't know me, is the snarkiness and out-of-the-gate cynicism displayed by some of the group members. As I said before it'd be nice to at least have a little bit of slack before the darts and arrows start flying.

But then again maybe that wouldn't be as fun. I'll carry on and hope for the best.

This post has been edited by Rugby411: Jan 18 2009, 04:17 PM

[Bitter Monk]

See what I find interesting is you complain about the "out-of-the-gate cynicism" and not being given an any slack before the "dart throwing", yet in the same post you yourself make a comment about stepping out from behind the computer screen, as if others are using it as some kind of a shield. You shouldn't make gross assumptions about others while asking for "slack" from the same.

As for the risks involved with journalism I can certainly attest to it myself. Having done television and film interviews and having been quoted in at least one paper without my actually having spoken with the reporter I know the risks. My advice would be don't do off the cuff interviews and if you're asked to do a scheduled one make them show you their work before you show them your own.

[GuyInIndiana]

From yet another "field researcher":

Who's "we?"

And I take more than a grain of salt at the above use of the term "know."

Yeah, I understand what you mean there Kevin, but come on... look at the stupid chart!

WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND ever suggested all Sasquatch were freakin' 12' tall, and WHO HAS the requisite knowledge about these creatures to conclude how they "must be" taller than a certain bear species?

That's just an idiodic chart and who ever made it should be lampooned and dismissed from being considered for intelligent discussion.

[bluforMD]

Keep in mind this was "Ask a Scientist..."

It's one of those suggestive headlines (whether intentional or not). Far too many people think one group of professionals (in this case "scientists" which is a rather broad group in itself) think alike or even have the same degree of knowledge within a specific field.

I wouldn't have cared if the title was "Ask this Scientist..." but it is something I have seen many times before, the semantics of headlines, titles, etc.. That grows tiresome. Part of the reason I even care to point this out is because I have personally had to deal with this issue my entire career.

[Rugby411]

Despite how it may have been taken, BM, the "stepping out from behind the computer screen" wasn't meant as a put down. Not being able to inflect or vary my tone via keyboard may have made it seem that way.

[behemouth]

I thought I would include people on my discovery that this entire talk is now up online via wired. I'd watch it myself but I know I'd just get steamin' mad and start throwing things at my computer. So for all the masochists out there, it's at the top of the wired science videos here:

http://www.wired.com/video/science