Bigfoot believers do not like Daegling's conclusions, but he gives the legend a fair shake. He takes the mystery seriously and analyzes it carefully, posing some reasonable questions:
I will list some of his conclusions, and add some of my own opinions:
1."If Bigfoot is a real animal, why have we found no bodies or bones for scientists to study?"
This is a very good question. North America has been a good environment in the past for allowing the creation of fossils, because geographic and climatic conditions were excellent for their formation. There are very good fossil collections of many large mammals from the past in North America.
There is a fossil record for every genera of animals larger than about 40 pounds known to be living in North America north of Mexico, EXCEPT for a supposed bigfoot.
Where are the fossils that show when such a large animal arrived or evolved in North America? If big foot is as wide-ranging as believed, some fossils would show up somewhere from the past. Thus we are left with no historical basis to believe a "bigfoot" creature ever lived here.
2. "How can a breeding population of 1,000 pound primates live on the well-populated West Coast of the United States without occasionally (or even frequently) being killed by a hunter or struck by an automobile?"
Another good question. Some counter arguments have been. that other creatures or even small groups of man have gone unnoticed in some area. However, these have always been very limited in range, and people in general weren’t “looking” intensely for the creatures or beings in question. Bigfoot sightings have come from all over, thus it becomes statistically quite likely that SOMEWHERE, SOMEONE would stumble across a body, or accidently (or purposely) killed a bigfoot. Thus we are left with no current hard evidence that a bigfoot creatures still survives.
3. "If there's a breeding population of large animals amid a human population well equipped with camcorders and picture phones, why haven't we gathered much more and much better photographic evidence in the last 40 years?"
The same argument holds from question 2, with wide-ranging bigfoot sightings, and the current ease of taking movies or pictures, one would expect much more "verifiable" visual documentation. We would not be
left with very unclear photos, or questionable footage that clearly could be a hoax.
Another addition - where are the juvenile footprints? There clearly would have to be bigfoot running around in various stages of maturity, leaving both small and large footprints.
As a skeptic, I find this evidence, or lack thereof, hard to overcome. Neither the past nor the present offers any conclusive evidence of the existence of bigfoot.
Full Version: Daegling and Bigfoot
QUOTE
Bigfoot believers do not like Daegling's conclusions...
Many of the favorable reviews given on Amazon are by advocates. I gave the book three stars and said it was worthwhile reading for advocates and skeptics. Rick Noll said it was the best skeptical bigfoot book out there and gave it four stars. That doesn't sound like people of the sasquatch religion (i.e. believers) not liking conclusions.
Here was my summary of Daegling's chapter on natural history. Where you say he gave the legend a fair shake (and I agree to a point), I'd say at a minimum I gave him a fair shake on the arguments you are citing.
QUOTE
Chapter 2: The Natural History of Bigfoot
The most important sentence in the chapter was on the last page:
“From the perspective of natural history, the arguments pro and con are something of a wash: the existence of Bigfoot is not impossible but perhaps merely implausible.”
A reasonable statement, IMHO… now I’ll go into how he arrived at that. The argument will be Daegling’s with some paraphrasing, quoting, and shortcuts thrown in. If something is my opinion, I’ll say so.
To be legitimate in the eyes of science, Bigfoot has to conform to principles of ecology, evolution, and common sense. Otherwise, it won’t be taken seriously. Its existence has to be plausible. If on the basis of general tenets of biology it can’t be ruled out a priori, then we can offer zoological explanations (instead of sociological or psychological). It has to have an evolutionary history (ideally discernable in the fossil record). There has to be more than one of them (so that there can be little squatches to replace the older ones). They have to be able to eat, avoid predation and disease, and, most importantly, remain hidden from view.
Admitting it is a primate imposes some limitations and expectations of what we should see, eliminating more extreme speculation. If it is one species, a certain level of consistency is also expected. Variation is present between individuals, but it should be constrained. “… no animal is infinitely variable in size, proportion, anatomy or behavior.”
Then there is this important paragraph:
“To entertain the idea that Bigfoot represents a zoological species, then, we need to demonstrate four things:
(1) Bigfoot has an evolutionary history that can reasonably place the animal in contemporary North America;
(2) the habitats of North America can sustain a population of these primates;
(3) the totality of evidence—from prehistory, historical accounts, and contemporary anecdotes—is consistent with the biology of a large-bodied primate; and
(4) there is a sensible explanation as to why a Sasquatch has never been collected.
If we can support these contentions, then perhaps the taboo of talking about Bigfoot in scientific circles needs to be lifted.” End quote.
Fossil Record
The North American primate fossil record does not support the idea that Bigfoot is “homegrown”. So, most advocates say that Bigfoot migrated to North America from Asia.
The fossil record of primates exhibits diversity and an ability to fit into various niches. Ideally, we should have a continuous record of fossilized sasquatch remains. But, the fossil record is spotty, even for known primates.
“Chimpanzees and gorillas are real animals that had real ancestors, but it is not the fossil record that allows us to draw that conclusion….. But if we rightly place the burden of proof where it belongs, then it seems reasonable to ask that, since the advocates cannot produce a single living Bigfoot, they at least come up with a fossil or two.”
He then goes into Gigantopithecus. It’s a safe assumption the animal was massive. It was related to orangutans and was an omnivore. The size and general diet makes it an apparent match for data from Bigfoot witnesses.
Daegling thinks that Krantz belief that Giganto was bipedal is not warranted.
“Yet the inference was a stretch: paleontologists usually won’t commit to a label of bipedality for a species unless some representative fossils from the pelvis or lower limb are preserved. Inferring bipedality from parts of the skull is something of a gamble.”
Krantz wanted to legitimize sasquatch research by giving the animal a scientific name, using a set of footprints as the material evidence of the living form. There is precedent for this for naming species on the basis of trace fossils, but not for a living species. “… unusual, but not, scientifically speaking, illegal.”
The problem is that there is no fossil record of Gigantopithecus in North America. We have fossils for many other mammals of the Pleistocene. Maybe Bigfoot was a latecomer to North America, crossing on the Bering land bridge (along with Native Americans). Native American remains are spotty farther back, but increase as we get closer to the present.
He goes into theories regarding Australopithecus and Neanderthals. Daegling thinks arguing about what it is puts the cart before the horse. “In the end, it is a distraction because it asks: “What is it?” before establishing whether there is an “it” to begin with.”
Bigfoot Habitat and Ecology
Daegling goes into a line of reasoning regarding how all great apes occupy tropical habitats today. A great ape in the seasonal temperate climate of the PNW is “at best unexpected.” We needed fire and shelter to venture from tropical climes. A gorilla would never survive in the PNW. Giganto was a tropically adapted form.
But, Bigfoot’s size is a predictable asset in this fashion. A principle of biology known as Bergmann’s rule states that animals tend to get bigger the further one moves from the equator (like bears). Your body’s surface area-to-volume ratio decreases as you get larger. Metabolically, you can get away with eating less per unit body weight too, eating lower quality foods. Bigfoot would seem to be well adapted to the PNW forests.
No way to resolve the problem because the arguments “are unfettered by data on the object of study.” Yes, large mammals can do well in temperate forests. That alone is sufficient to argue that Bigfoot isn’t impossible, but it’s not a strong argument for its reality.
How Does Bigfoot Remain Hidden?
“The remaining aspect of Bigfoot’s natural history that is profitably considered with respect to the issue of plausibility is whether there are credible behavioral and ecological explanations as to how Bigfoot, far and away the tallest beast in the forest, can remain cryptic after decades of pursuit.”
Four natural history arguments are considered:
Bigfoot lives in a remote habitat that is generally inaccessible to people. Daegling has three problems with this argument. (1) If Bigfoot habitat is so remote, why aren’t there dozens of other unknown creatures being reported as well? (2) Few places in the lower 48 states have not seen human visitors. (3) If humans cannot access Bigfoot habitat, reports should be virtually nonexistent.
Bigfoot is rare and therefore encounters are rare. This argument is unsustainable for the same reason. If encounter reports are genuine, the population must be in the many thousands. If Bigfoot is rare, “then the vast majority of accounts must be bogus.”
Bigfoot has enhanced sensory capabilities that permit it to escape detection. Bigfoot detects people before they can, and encounters only happen when Bigfoot permits it. Daegling thought this explanation bordered on the paranormal, but a colleague explained similar behavior in chimpanzees. The problem is that chimpanzees eventually get used to the presence of pesky humans, and stop running away. “If Bigfoot is just another primate, shouldn’t we expect that eventually they would be accustomed to having curious humans around?”
Bigfoot is extremely hard to kill. Given Bigfoot’s size, the argument isn’t unfounded. He briefly discusses other large animals, and finds it a reasonable explanation for any one particular case. However, given the number of stories of Bigfoot being shot or hit by a car, “ [how is it] that Bigfoot always survives these violent encounters[?]”
Alternative Explanations
“If there is no animal behind it all, then the skeptical view needs to offer an alternative explanation.”
Explanations that it’s not an animal take two forms.
(1) The paranormal explanation. (Jud: Ugh. You can read that paragraph yourself)
(2) Bigfoot is a contemporary mythological figure perpetuated through hoaxes.
Daegling admits that not all Bigfoot encounters are fabrications. “Some people perceive Bigfoot and cannot be convinced otherwise, and these people are telling the truth.”
He then dives headfirst into cultural anthropology and the social science of myths. Myths are still a powerful force, even in contemporary Western culture. They tell us why things are the way they are and provide meaning. The reality of the elements within the narrative has no bearing on their lure or usefulness to us.
“Put bluntly, when Bigfoot appears this means something well beyond a mere sighting of a large bipedal ape.”
However, a sociocultural explanation does not necessarily exclude a zoological one. Bigfoot is a mythological figure regardless of its material existence.
He then stops himself and puts off the discussion of myth for much later in the book. Myth can’t explain the mountain of evidence accumulated. Fictional monsters don’t leave footprints and shouldn’t be photographed.
The resolution of the problem can’t be from natural history arguments alone (Jud: at least not currently. Find some post-Pleistocene Giganto bones and teeth—maybe a pelvis and a femur—in a coastal cave in British Columbia and things all of a sudden get more interesting.) Natural history arguments are a wash. So, we need to look at the accumulation of evidence. The social history of that evidence and the story of the people responsible for it is the next chapter.
The most important sentence in the chapter was on the last page:
“From the perspective of natural history, the arguments pro and con are something of a wash: the existence of Bigfoot is not impossible but perhaps merely implausible.”
A reasonable statement, IMHO… now I’ll go into how he arrived at that. The argument will be Daegling’s with some paraphrasing, quoting, and shortcuts thrown in. If something is my opinion, I’ll say so.
To be legitimate in the eyes of science, Bigfoot has to conform to principles of ecology, evolution, and common sense. Otherwise, it won’t be taken seriously. Its existence has to be plausible. If on the basis of general tenets of biology it can’t be ruled out a priori, then we can offer zoological explanations (instead of sociological or psychological). It has to have an evolutionary history (ideally discernable in the fossil record). There has to be more than one of them (so that there can be little squatches to replace the older ones). They have to be able to eat, avoid predation and disease, and, most importantly, remain hidden from view.
Admitting it is a primate imposes some limitations and expectations of what we should see, eliminating more extreme speculation. If it is one species, a certain level of consistency is also expected. Variation is present between individuals, but it should be constrained. “… no animal is infinitely variable in size, proportion, anatomy or behavior.”
Then there is this important paragraph:
“To entertain the idea that Bigfoot represents a zoological species, then, we need to demonstrate four things:
(1) Bigfoot has an evolutionary history that can reasonably place the animal in contemporary North America;
(2) the habitats of North America can sustain a population of these primates;
(3) the totality of evidence—from prehistory, historical accounts, and contemporary anecdotes—is consistent with the biology of a large-bodied primate; and
(4) there is a sensible explanation as to why a Sasquatch has never been collected.
If we can support these contentions, then perhaps the taboo of talking about Bigfoot in scientific circles needs to be lifted.” End quote.
Fossil Record
The North American primate fossil record does not support the idea that Bigfoot is “homegrown”. So, most advocates say that Bigfoot migrated to North America from Asia.
The fossil record of primates exhibits diversity and an ability to fit into various niches. Ideally, we should have a continuous record of fossilized sasquatch remains. But, the fossil record is spotty, even for known primates.
“Chimpanzees and gorillas are real animals that had real ancestors, but it is not the fossil record that allows us to draw that conclusion….. But if we rightly place the burden of proof where it belongs, then it seems reasonable to ask that, since the advocates cannot produce a single living Bigfoot, they at least come up with a fossil or two.”
He then goes into Gigantopithecus. It’s a safe assumption the animal was massive. It was related to orangutans and was an omnivore. The size and general diet makes it an apparent match for data from Bigfoot witnesses.
Daegling thinks that Krantz belief that Giganto was bipedal is not warranted.
“Yet the inference was a stretch: paleontologists usually won’t commit to a label of bipedality for a species unless some representative fossils from the pelvis or lower limb are preserved. Inferring bipedality from parts of the skull is something of a gamble.”
Krantz wanted to legitimize sasquatch research by giving the animal a scientific name, using a set of footprints as the material evidence of the living form. There is precedent for this for naming species on the basis of trace fossils, but not for a living species. “… unusual, but not, scientifically speaking, illegal.”
The problem is that there is no fossil record of Gigantopithecus in North America. We have fossils for many other mammals of the Pleistocene. Maybe Bigfoot was a latecomer to North America, crossing on the Bering land bridge (along with Native Americans). Native American remains are spotty farther back, but increase as we get closer to the present.
He goes into theories regarding Australopithecus and Neanderthals. Daegling thinks arguing about what it is puts the cart before the horse. “In the end, it is a distraction because it asks: “What is it?” before establishing whether there is an “it” to begin with.”
Bigfoot Habitat and Ecology
Daegling goes into a line of reasoning regarding how all great apes occupy tropical habitats today. A great ape in the seasonal temperate climate of the PNW is “at best unexpected.” We needed fire and shelter to venture from tropical climes. A gorilla would never survive in the PNW. Giganto was a tropically adapted form.
But, Bigfoot’s size is a predictable asset in this fashion. A principle of biology known as Bergmann’s rule states that animals tend to get bigger the further one moves from the equator (like bears). Your body’s surface area-to-volume ratio decreases as you get larger. Metabolically, you can get away with eating less per unit body weight too, eating lower quality foods. Bigfoot would seem to be well adapted to the PNW forests.
No way to resolve the problem because the arguments “are unfettered by data on the object of study.” Yes, large mammals can do well in temperate forests. That alone is sufficient to argue that Bigfoot isn’t impossible, but it’s not a strong argument for its reality.
How Does Bigfoot Remain Hidden?
“The remaining aspect of Bigfoot’s natural history that is profitably considered with respect to the issue of plausibility is whether there are credible behavioral and ecological explanations as to how Bigfoot, far and away the tallest beast in the forest, can remain cryptic after decades of pursuit.”
Four natural history arguments are considered:
Bigfoot lives in a remote habitat that is generally inaccessible to people. Daegling has three problems with this argument. (1) If Bigfoot habitat is so remote, why aren’t there dozens of other unknown creatures being reported as well? (2) Few places in the lower 48 states have not seen human visitors. (3) If humans cannot access Bigfoot habitat, reports should be virtually nonexistent.
Bigfoot is rare and therefore encounters are rare. This argument is unsustainable for the same reason. If encounter reports are genuine, the population must be in the many thousands. If Bigfoot is rare, “then the vast majority of accounts must be bogus.”
Bigfoot has enhanced sensory capabilities that permit it to escape detection. Bigfoot detects people before they can, and encounters only happen when Bigfoot permits it. Daegling thought this explanation bordered on the paranormal, but a colleague explained similar behavior in chimpanzees. The problem is that chimpanzees eventually get used to the presence of pesky humans, and stop running away. “If Bigfoot is just another primate, shouldn’t we expect that eventually they would be accustomed to having curious humans around?”
Bigfoot is extremely hard to kill. Given Bigfoot’s size, the argument isn’t unfounded. He briefly discusses other large animals, and finds it a reasonable explanation for any one particular case. However, given the number of stories of Bigfoot being shot or hit by a car, “ [how is it] that Bigfoot always survives these violent encounters[?]”
Alternative Explanations
“If there is no animal behind it all, then the skeptical view needs to offer an alternative explanation.”
Explanations that it’s not an animal take two forms.
(1) The paranormal explanation. (Jud: Ugh. You can read that paragraph yourself)
(2) Bigfoot is a contemporary mythological figure perpetuated through hoaxes.
Daegling admits that not all Bigfoot encounters are fabrications. “Some people perceive Bigfoot and cannot be convinced otherwise, and these people are telling the truth.”
He then dives headfirst into cultural anthropology and the social science of myths. Myths are still a powerful force, even in contemporary Western culture. They tell us why things are the way they are and provide meaning. The reality of the elements within the narrative has no bearing on their lure or usefulness to us.
“Put bluntly, when Bigfoot appears this means something well beyond a mere sighting of a large bipedal ape.”
However, a sociocultural explanation does not necessarily exclude a zoological one. Bigfoot is a mythological figure regardless of its material existence.
He then stops himself and puts off the discussion of myth for much later in the book. Myth can’t explain the mountain of evidence accumulated. Fictional monsters don’t leave footprints and shouldn’t be photographed.
The resolution of the problem can’t be from natural history arguments alone (Jud: at least not currently. Find some post-Pleistocene Giganto bones and teeth—maybe a pelvis and a femur—in a coastal cave in British Columbia and things all of a sudden get more interesting.) Natural history arguments are a wash. So, we need to look at the accumulation of evidence. The social history of that evidence and the story of the people responsible for it is the next chapter.
The thread with this post can be found at the following link:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...bigfoot+exposed
I won't respond to your post point by point. Suffice it to say that I think you are overstating your case, and painting a mild caricature of the advocate position. I think if you were more careful with your wording, I would basically end up agreeing with you.
It's not about belief, because I don't believe or know or whatever in Bigfoot. I don't expect anyone to be convinced of the reality of an animal based on the current state of evidence, so I don't think we should be proselytizing.
There is evidence that ranges from extremely poor to ambiguous to strongly suggestive that is still not airtight and is certainly open to interpretation. I don't think it should be dismissed on an a priori basis, and many leading scientists in various fields basically hold the same position.
I want investigation of the phenomena to not be scoffed at as ridiculous and to receive some minimal level of support from institutions (and I'd say Idaho State supports Meldrum...or at least the dean does) and from private groups or individuals willing to fund research (not even asking for your tax dollars here). I see nothing wrong with inquiry.
There is a whole lot wrong with other forms of activity taken on by "investigators." The disgraceful behavior and psuedoscientific claims of particular individuals unfortunately end up characterizing us as a group. But, that's a whole different thread.
There may be reasons why the existence of bigfoot in the America is impossible.
1. Lack of food supply. Despite counterarguments that they could live off nuts, berries and tree bark and the like , large great apes with big brains need a big diet of protein and fat - more than you can find in the woods in Indiana or forests of California.
2. Bare feet - a real problem in cold climates, because the feet have no protection from the cold like other cold weather mammals have. Unless bigfoot wears shoes, its feet are going to freeze in the winter.
1. Lack of food supply. Despite counterarguments that they could live off nuts, berries and tree bark and the like , large great apes with big brains need a big diet of protein and fat - more than you can find in the woods in Indiana or forests of California.
2. Bare feet - a real problem in cold climates, because the feet have no protection from the cold like other cold weather mammals have. Unless bigfoot wears shoes, its feet are going to freeze in the winter.
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 09:36 PM) 
There may be reasons why the existence of bigfoot in the America is impossible.
1. Lack of food supply. Despite counterarguments that they could live off nuts, berries and tree bark and the like , large great apes with big brains need a big diet of protein and fat - more than you can find in the woods in Indiana or forests of California.
2. Bare feet - a real problem in cold climates, because the feet have no protection from the cold like other cold weather mammals have. Unless bigfoot wears shoes, its feet are going to freeze in the winter.
1. Lack of food supply. Despite counterarguments that they could live off nuts, berries and tree bark and the like , large great apes with big brains need a big diet of protein and fat - more than you can find in the woods in Indiana or forests of California.
2. Bare feet - a real problem in cold climates, because the feet have no protection from the cold like other cold weather mammals have. Unless bigfoot wears shoes, its feet are going to freeze in the winter.
1) How did the native Americans survive this apparent food shortage? Are they not big brained mammals?
2) How do you come to this conclusion, have you examined the feet of one of these creatures?
The Japanese Macaque (the monkeys you've likely seen pictures of hanging out in natural hot springs during a snow storm...darn cute) survives winter temperatures as low as 5 degrees Fahrenheit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Monkey
Someone else can deal with your other question. We have a few biologists on the BFF who can do a better job than I can with questions of diet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Monkey
Someone else can deal with your other question. We have a few biologists on the BFF who can do a better job than I can with questions of diet.
One More Debunker Exposed -- Comments On David Daegling's Bigfoot Exposed
Thanks to gifts from Bobbie Short and Roger Knights, the International Center of Hominology now has two copies of Bigfoot Exposed -- An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend (AltaMira Press, 2004) by David J. Daegling. As indicated by the subtitle, the purpose of the book is to assure the public that Bigfoot is only a legend. The educational bottom line is this: Bigfoot "is a human invention, and it is reinvented constantly"(p.248). In this respect, it's a repeat of John Napier's message in his BIGFOOT (1972), and to the question, which book is better or worse, I have to repeat Stalin's phrase "both are worse". Still, Napier's has certain merit over Daegling's, for Napier openly avowed the real reason why he "will happily settle for the myth": otherwise anthropologists "shall have to re-write the story of human evolution"(p.204).
Daegling is a spokesman of a Knowledge Monopoly, and has written his book accordingly. (See Henry Bauer's article "Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels", in The Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.18, # 4). Still, we should be thankful to him and all other monopoly authors, for the more they engage in explaining Bigfoot away the more they expose their prejudice, bringing closer the day of Bigfoot recognition.
Daegling exposes Bigfoot from the position of associate professor at the University of Florida. I am exposing Daegling from the position of science director at the International Center of Hominology in Moscow, Russia. Hominology is a branch of primatology, founded in the middle of the 20th century in science's "no-man's land" between zoology and anthropology. An immediate impulse for its emergence was the Yeti problem, while an underlying historical and scientific reason was the discovery that "wild men" have been known throughout history all over the world. The self-laudatory term Homo sapiens was introduced by Linnaeus in the middle of the 18th century in contrast to what he termed Homo troglodytes and Homo sylvestris.
Hominology is the science of living non-sapiens hominids (homins, for short), so of necessity it could only come into being after the emergence of the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology. Homins were unknown to modern science because there was no modern natural science to know them. Hominology means a scientific revolution in a number of disciplines, first and foremost in the theory of man's origin (anthropogenesis), as Napier rightly feared. Without considering this crucial factor, it is impossible to understand the attitude of mainstream scientists to the subject of Bigfoot or any other relict hominids.(Let us note that gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans are also relict species today). Hominology's evidence comes from natural history, mythology, folklore, ancient and medieval art, eyewitness accounts, footprints, vocalizations, and photography.
Why as yet no living or dead specimen or a part of its body? The shortest answer is that too little time has passed since the birth of hominology. It is a newborn science, devoid of recognition and funding. Even with the greatest funding in the world it takes time to apprehend certain bipeds not wanting to be apprehended, as, for example, Osama bin Laden. There is little doubt that Bigfoot and other homins are not willing to be apprehended and have every capacity to stay at large. The rare cases of their capture are marked in history as special events. On the other hand, the accidental capture of a specimen by apple orchard guards in Russian in 1989 ended in the release of the creature because it threatened to ruin the car in which it was imprisoned. Had the car owner been promised a tiny fraction of the reward for the capture of Osama bin Laden, the situation in hominology would now be different.
In his book The Locals, Thom Powell presents the case of a Bigfoot reportedly captured in 1999 in Nevada during a forest fire. The creature was said to have been taken away by the authorities and disappeared without a trace. I take the story seriously because of its many realistic details and because we have had similar reports in Russia. Now that the name of the wealthy Hollywood owner of the so-called Iceman has been indicated, I am convinced that Ivan Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans were not mistaken when they said that what they saw was an object of biology, not fakery. The corpse was both exhibited and withdrawn for religious reasons.
So a more involved answer to the question why definitive biological evidence in hominology is not available is this. The number of people interested in obtaining such evidence is an infinitesimal fraction of those who are indifferent to the task or are against it for one reason or another. Further, the number of those among the interested who may have a chance to find and recognize such evidence is also an infinitesimal fraction. The negative impact of indifference on one side, and hidden or open hostility on the other, leaves the tiny number of hominologists little chance to quickly obtain traditionally acceptable biological proof. For this reason hominology still finds itself in a cryptozoological phase of development.
And yet of all cryptids in the world Bigfoot is the best documented biologically. We have for it eyewitness accounts, footprints, handprints, a body print, hair samples, scat, recorded vocalizations, and a film footage. The progress in obtaining and analyzing so many different kinds of evidence by unfunded volunteers is amazing (see Christopher Murphy, Meet the Sasquatch, 2004 , Hancock House). For hominologists this is more than enough to take Bigfoot for a reality, but it is not yet enough for mainstream scientists, and this is not only because Bigfoot is not an ordinary primate, but because it is the harbinger of a scientific revolution.
Many hominologists agree with me that it is impermissible for moral reasons to seek the solution of the problem by means of a rifle. We pin hopes on the method proposed by our teacher, the founder of hominology, Boris Porshnev, who wrote:
"If proceeding most cautiously we succeed in conditioning the creature to come and take food in a definite place, that would be a real scientific victory. There is a basis for such prospects, namely, the above-mentioned cases in different geographical areas of local people habituating and even befriending relict hominoids. Scientific work could be launched in such a case even without direct contact of researchers with the specimen, for modern zoology boasts of an excellent means of taking color films with a telephoto lens at a great distance. A relict hominoid would then appear on the screen showing its usual movements and habits against a background of its natural environment. So step by step relict hominoids on earth could find themselves under man's protection and permanent scientific surveillance. At a certain moment it would be possible, of course, to observe the death of this creature. Then the anatomist would get a corpse for autopsy. Thus the perspective of studying Homo troglodytes looks as the reverse of zoology's canon: not from dissection to biology but from biology to dissection" (Porshnev 1963, in Dmitri Bayanov, Bigfoot: To Kill or To Film? The Problem of Proof, 2001, pp.13,14).
Thanks in part to the Internet, the secrets of habituation are beginning to open up, turning Boris Porshnev's vision into a reality, as indicated by the book 50 Years with Bigfoot: Tennessee Chronicles of Co-Existence, 2002, by Mary Green and Janice Carter Coy, and by Igor Bourtsev's article "Russian Hominologist in Tennessee" (Bigfoot Co-op, December 2004).
Finally, why is hominology scientific rather than pseudoscientific, as alleged by some critics? According to Henry Bauer's Science or Pseudoscience, 2001, the main criterion of a scientific pursuit is "connectedness", i.e. "crucial links with the mainstream"(p.158). "All natural scientists accept and draw on the same laws, facts, and methods"(p.11). I understand this as follows. The unknown can only be studied and understood by proceeding from and connecting with the known. Magnetism has been known to science since antiquity, while electricity was much of an unknown two centuries ago. Faraday and Maxwell connected electric phenomena with magnetism and thus ushered in the era of electricity. So their work was very scientific.
By this criterion, UFOlogy is not yet a science because so far specific UFO observation reports cannot be connected with or explained by the existing scientific knowledge. Hominology, on the contrary, by the criterion of connectedness seems to be the most scientific of sciences for it provides "crucial links" with and between the theory of evolution, paleoanthropology, mythology, demonology, folkloristics, the history of religion, and the history of art.
In addition, hominology gives a natural answer to the natural question why apes are still with us while brainier apemen or pre-sapiens hominids died out. The answer is they didn't. Their wholesale extinction is the illusion of Paleoanthropologists who are as adequate experts on relict hominids as paleontologists were on living coelacanths. Relict hominids are hidden in natural forests and mountains, but above all they are hidden in "the forests of the mind". The task of hominology is to drive them out of those "forests" into the open vistas of science.
Such is the necessary prelude to taking Dr. Daegling on in earnest. Someone declaring nowadays that stones falling from heaven are nothing but a myth would have to refute the science of meteoritics. Similarly, anyone publishing a book declaring that Bigfoot is a myth has to take on the science of hominology in its theoretical, historical and geographical aspects. As this task proved Herculean for Dr. Daegling, he opted for the simple job of declaring all the sightings mistaken, all the footprints faked, and the Bigfoot documentary hoaxed. The whole tome of 276 pages consists of nothing but endlessly repeated naysayings. John Green has already challenged Daegling's expertise on Bigfoot tracks:
"People who have never seen any tracks but claim to know more about them than those who did see them are not a rare breed, their number is legion, but for someone to join their ranks waving the flag of "scientific verification" is bald-faced hypocrisy. What the tracks were like may be "anecdotal" to Dr. Daegling, but it is first-hand knowledge to those of us who studied them, photographed them and cast them, and because of our efforts there is plenty of solid evidence available to any scientist who will take the trouble to see if it can be verified or not. Dr. Daegling is not among those who have been prepared to take that trouble. Instead he stayed home and wrote a book"(John Green's email Bigfoot Exposed, Jan.3, 2005).
As for eyewitness accounts, they, according to Daegling, cannot be trusted for the following reason: "Unfortunately, we have been asking the wrong question through the years. "What did you see? we ask the eyewitness. If we take the answer at face value, we miss the meaning of the phenomenon. It may be more important to ask the one question the eyewitness may be in no position to answer: "Why did you see it?"(p.259). What a useful piece of advice, especially for detectives seeking information from witnesses, or for zoologists interviewing eyewitnesses with the aim of determining habitats of rare animals, or for physicists collecting sightings of ball lightning.
The major part of the author's naysayings are devotes to the Patterson-Gimlin film. This part of the book is of special concern to me and my Russian colleagues because the film was for the first time systematically studied and validated to our own satisfaction in Moscow back in the 1970s. So let us see what the author says about the Russian research and researchers.
It is untrue that "the Moscow Academy of Sciences boasted its own Institute of Hominology"(p.111). The Institute is even today nothing more than a dream of mine.
It is untrue that Porshnev's first name is Victor (p.111). It is Boris.
It is untrue that Dmitri Bayanov is schooled in biomechanics(.p111).
It is untrue that Donskoy's "report ... is thoroughly subjective and devoid of any particulars of argument"(p.111).
It is untrue that "Up until 1992, (...) there had been no scientific efforts directed at the film that took up the issue from a purely quantitative (and ostensibly objective) standpoint"(p.119). Daegling's References include out paper, published in 1984, "Analysis of Patterson-Gimlin Film: Why We Find It Authentic". It is based both on quantitative and qualitative analysis and presents quantitative findings.
It is untrue that the film speed "is unknown"(p.128). Igor Bourtsev did find it in 1973. His method and result stand in black and white in the above mentioned paper, listed in Daegling's References.
It is untrue that Perez "threw down the gauntlet" (to the mainstream) in the matter of the Bigfoot film(p.119). This was done by Russian hominologists in their report presented in 1978 at the Vancouver Sasquatch conference.
It is untrue that "The gait of the film subject (...) is easily duplicated by human beings"(p.147). Mimicked, yes, but not duplicated. Human beings can mimic the walk of different animals, such as bears, camels, elephants, as well as of the film subject. But they cannot imitate it in a natural, uncontrived manner characterizing Bigfoot's gait.
It is untrue that "Skeptical inquiry into the film has made significant strides since 1967"(p.205). Actually, it hasn't moved an inch. On the contrary, all aspiring debunkers of the film over the past decades have been exposed and defeated, and not a single proof or argument put forward by us for the film's authenticity has been refuted.
Dr. Daegling claims to have found "a glaring anomaly" in the film subject, namely, "the Achilles tendon appears to attach far forward on the heel, where the adaptive advantage of having an elongated heel in the first place is completely lost. (...) A prosthesis explains what is seen in the film; evolution, by contrast, cannot make sense of it"(p.144). In our paper published 20 years before Daegling's book and listed in his References, the matter of Bigfoot's elongated heel and Achilles tendon is dealt with as follows:
"The heel is actually seen to be sticking out in an inhuman way in some frames, suggesting an unusually large heel bone (calcaneus) as has been predicted by Grover Krantz using theoretical considerations and the evidence of the footprints. That the heel of the filmed subject is really unusual is testified to by the fact that this feature was independently discovered in Moscow and Ottawa. In Moscow it was seen by Bayanov and Bourtsev as "an omen of the creature's reality". (...) It is worth pointing out also that this peculiarity has never been reported by eyewitnesses because it appears only for a fleeting moment when the Achilles tendon is not tight in a certain phase of the stride" (The Sasquatch and other Unknown Hominoids, edited by Vladimir Markotic and Grover Krantz, 1984, p.226).
The film records in some of its frames these fleeting moments. In other words, there is no anomaly with attachment of the Achilles tendon. It is attached in the usual place at the end of the heel, and the impression that it is attached in a wrong place appears only when the tendon is slackened, not tightened. Dr. Daegling hides this fact from the reader by hiding our analysis of the film, described by Dr. Roderick Sprague as "by far the best and most thorough discussion of this classic film" (CRYPTOZOOLOGY, Vol.5,1986,p.105).
On p.211, Daegling quotes Dahinden's phrase "lying by omission". Dr. Daegling's biggest lie by omission is his total silence about my book America's Bigfoot: Fact, Not Fiction. U.S. Evidence Verified in Russia, 1997, devoted to our validation of the Patterson-Gimlin film, which is not even listed in his references. A possible reason for the omission is the strength of the case it makes, as indicated by this appraisal by Dr. Henry Bauer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies:
"Glimpses of the Patterson film in various television shows had left me incredulous that the creature shown in it could be real. This book has made me almost equally incredulous that the film could have been faked, and thus I have become open to the staggering possibility that relict hominids may still be with us in sufficient numbers that we have the chance to learn something about them. I recommend this book heartily as a highly interesting reading adventure"(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.18, Number 3, 2004, p.533).
On p.211, we read Dr. Daegling's conclusion that "Poor scholarship is one tell-tale sign of a pseudoscientific approach". This remark applies in full measure to the author. What's more, his book, by its intent and quality, is simply anti-scientific. Its contents do nothing but delude the reader. Fortunately, with the wide means of exposure provided by the Internet, Dr Daegling's book, unlike that of Dr. Napier, is not destined to delay the search for Bigfoot. The process of undeceiving the public is gathering speed.
Dmitri Bayanov
International Center of Hominology
Moscow, Russia
Thanks to gifts from Bobbie Short and Roger Knights, the International Center of Hominology now has two copies of Bigfoot Exposed -- An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend (AltaMira Press, 2004) by David J. Daegling. As indicated by the subtitle, the purpose of the book is to assure the public that Bigfoot is only a legend. The educational bottom line is this: Bigfoot "is a human invention, and it is reinvented constantly"(p.248). In this respect, it's a repeat of John Napier's message in his BIGFOOT (1972), and to the question, which book is better or worse, I have to repeat Stalin's phrase "both are worse". Still, Napier's has certain merit over Daegling's, for Napier openly avowed the real reason why he "will happily settle for the myth": otherwise anthropologists "shall have to re-write the story of human evolution"(p.204).
Daegling is a spokesman of a Knowledge Monopoly, and has written his book accordingly. (See Henry Bauer's article "Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels", in The Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.18, # 4). Still, we should be thankful to him and all other monopoly authors, for the more they engage in explaining Bigfoot away the more they expose their prejudice, bringing closer the day of Bigfoot recognition.
Daegling exposes Bigfoot from the position of associate professor at the University of Florida. I am exposing Daegling from the position of science director at the International Center of Hominology in Moscow, Russia. Hominology is a branch of primatology, founded in the middle of the 20th century in science's "no-man's land" between zoology and anthropology. An immediate impulse for its emergence was the Yeti problem, while an underlying historical and scientific reason was the discovery that "wild men" have been known throughout history all over the world. The self-laudatory term Homo sapiens was introduced by Linnaeus in the middle of the 18th century in contrast to what he termed Homo troglodytes and Homo sylvestris.
Hominology is the science of living non-sapiens hominids (homins, for short), so of necessity it could only come into being after the emergence of the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology. Homins were unknown to modern science because there was no modern natural science to know them. Hominology means a scientific revolution in a number of disciplines, first and foremost in the theory of man's origin (anthropogenesis), as Napier rightly feared. Without considering this crucial factor, it is impossible to understand the attitude of mainstream scientists to the subject of Bigfoot or any other relict hominids.(Let us note that gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans are also relict species today). Hominology's evidence comes from natural history, mythology, folklore, ancient and medieval art, eyewitness accounts, footprints, vocalizations, and photography.
Why as yet no living or dead specimen or a part of its body? The shortest answer is that too little time has passed since the birth of hominology. It is a newborn science, devoid of recognition and funding. Even with the greatest funding in the world it takes time to apprehend certain bipeds not wanting to be apprehended, as, for example, Osama bin Laden. There is little doubt that Bigfoot and other homins are not willing to be apprehended and have every capacity to stay at large. The rare cases of their capture are marked in history as special events. On the other hand, the accidental capture of a specimen by apple orchard guards in Russian in 1989 ended in the release of the creature because it threatened to ruin the car in which it was imprisoned. Had the car owner been promised a tiny fraction of the reward for the capture of Osama bin Laden, the situation in hominology would now be different.
In his book The Locals, Thom Powell presents the case of a Bigfoot reportedly captured in 1999 in Nevada during a forest fire. The creature was said to have been taken away by the authorities and disappeared without a trace. I take the story seriously because of its many realistic details and because we have had similar reports in Russia. Now that the name of the wealthy Hollywood owner of the so-called Iceman has been indicated, I am convinced that Ivan Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans were not mistaken when they said that what they saw was an object of biology, not fakery. The corpse was both exhibited and withdrawn for religious reasons.
So a more involved answer to the question why definitive biological evidence in hominology is not available is this. The number of people interested in obtaining such evidence is an infinitesimal fraction of those who are indifferent to the task or are against it for one reason or another. Further, the number of those among the interested who may have a chance to find and recognize such evidence is also an infinitesimal fraction. The negative impact of indifference on one side, and hidden or open hostility on the other, leaves the tiny number of hominologists little chance to quickly obtain traditionally acceptable biological proof. For this reason hominology still finds itself in a cryptozoological phase of development.
And yet of all cryptids in the world Bigfoot is the best documented biologically. We have for it eyewitness accounts, footprints, handprints, a body print, hair samples, scat, recorded vocalizations, and a film footage. The progress in obtaining and analyzing so many different kinds of evidence by unfunded volunteers is amazing (see Christopher Murphy, Meet the Sasquatch, 2004 , Hancock House). For hominologists this is more than enough to take Bigfoot for a reality, but it is not yet enough for mainstream scientists, and this is not only because Bigfoot is not an ordinary primate, but because it is the harbinger of a scientific revolution.
Many hominologists agree with me that it is impermissible for moral reasons to seek the solution of the problem by means of a rifle. We pin hopes on the method proposed by our teacher, the founder of hominology, Boris Porshnev, who wrote:
"If proceeding most cautiously we succeed in conditioning the creature to come and take food in a definite place, that would be a real scientific victory. There is a basis for such prospects, namely, the above-mentioned cases in different geographical areas of local people habituating and even befriending relict hominoids. Scientific work could be launched in such a case even without direct contact of researchers with the specimen, for modern zoology boasts of an excellent means of taking color films with a telephoto lens at a great distance. A relict hominoid would then appear on the screen showing its usual movements and habits against a background of its natural environment. So step by step relict hominoids on earth could find themselves under man's protection and permanent scientific surveillance. At a certain moment it would be possible, of course, to observe the death of this creature. Then the anatomist would get a corpse for autopsy. Thus the perspective of studying Homo troglodytes looks as the reverse of zoology's canon: not from dissection to biology but from biology to dissection" (Porshnev 1963, in Dmitri Bayanov, Bigfoot: To Kill or To Film? The Problem of Proof, 2001, pp.13,14).
Thanks in part to the Internet, the secrets of habituation are beginning to open up, turning Boris Porshnev's vision into a reality, as indicated by the book 50 Years with Bigfoot: Tennessee Chronicles of Co-Existence, 2002, by Mary Green and Janice Carter Coy, and by Igor Bourtsev's article "Russian Hominologist in Tennessee" (Bigfoot Co-op, December 2004).
Finally, why is hominology scientific rather than pseudoscientific, as alleged by some critics? According to Henry Bauer's Science or Pseudoscience, 2001, the main criterion of a scientific pursuit is "connectedness", i.e. "crucial links with the mainstream"(p.158). "All natural scientists accept and draw on the same laws, facts, and methods"(p.11). I understand this as follows. The unknown can only be studied and understood by proceeding from and connecting with the known. Magnetism has been known to science since antiquity, while electricity was much of an unknown two centuries ago. Faraday and Maxwell connected electric phenomena with magnetism and thus ushered in the era of electricity. So their work was very scientific.
By this criterion, UFOlogy is not yet a science because so far specific UFO observation reports cannot be connected with or explained by the existing scientific knowledge. Hominology, on the contrary, by the criterion of connectedness seems to be the most scientific of sciences for it provides "crucial links" with and between the theory of evolution, paleoanthropology, mythology, demonology, folkloristics, the history of religion, and the history of art.
In addition, hominology gives a natural answer to the natural question why apes are still with us while brainier apemen or pre-sapiens hominids died out. The answer is they didn't. Their wholesale extinction is the illusion of Paleoanthropologists who are as adequate experts on relict hominids as paleontologists were on living coelacanths. Relict hominids are hidden in natural forests and mountains, but above all they are hidden in "the forests of the mind". The task of hominology is to drive them out of those "forests" into the open vistas of science.
Such is the necessary prelude to taking Dr. Daegling on in earnest. Someone declaring nowadays that stones falling from heaven are nothing but a myth would have to refute the science of meteoritics. Similarly, anyone publishing a book declaring that Bigfoot is a myth has to take on the science of hominology in its theoretical, historical and geographical aspects. As this task proved Herculean for Dr. Daegling, he opted for the simple job of declaring all the sightings mistaken, all the footprints faked, and the Bigfoot documentary hoaxed. The whole tome of 276 pages consists of nothing but endlessly repeated naysayings. John Green has already challenged Daegling's expertise on Bigfoot tracks:
"People who have never seen any tracks but claim to know more about them than those who did see them are not a rare breed, their number is legion, but for someone to join their ranks waving the flag of "scientific verification" is bald-faced hypocrisy. What the tracks were like may be "anecdotal" to Dr. Daegling, but it is first-hand knowledge to those of us who studied them, photographed them and cast them, and because of our efforts there is plenty of solid evidence available to any scientist who will take the trouble to see if it can be verified or not. Dr. Daegling is not among those who have been prepared to take that trouble. Instead he stayed home and wrote a book"(John Green's email Bigfoot Exposed, Jan.3, 2005).
As for eyewitness accounts, they, according to Daegling, cannot be trusted for the following reason: "Unfortunately, we have been asking the wrong question through the years. "What did you see? we ask the eyewitness. If we take the answer at face value, we miss the meaning of the phenomenon. It may be more important to ask the one question the eyewitness may be in no position to answer: "Why did you see it?"(p.259). What a useful piece of advice, especially for detectives seeking information from witnesses, or for zoologists interviewing eyewitnesses with the aim of determining habitats of rare animals, or for physicists collecting sightings of ball lightning.
The major part of the author's naysayings are devotes to the Patterson-Gimlin film. This part of the book is of special concern to me and my Russian colleagues because the film was for the first time systematically studied and validated to our own satisfaction in Moscow back in the 1970s. So let us see what the author says about the Russian research and researchers.
It is untrue that "the Moscow Academy of Sciences boasted its own Institute of Hominology"(p.111). The Institute is even today nothing more than a dream of mine.
It is untrue that Porshnev's first name is Victor (p.111). It is Boris.
It is untrue that Dmitri Bayanov is schooled in biomechanics(.p111).
It is untrue that Donskoy's "report ... is thoroughly subjective and devoid of any particulars of argument"(p.111).
It is untrue that "Up until 1992, (...) there had been no scientific efforts directed at the film that took up the issue from a purely quantitative (and ostensibly objective) standpoint"(p.119). Daegling's References include out paper, published in 1984, "Analysis of Patterson-Gimlin Film: Why We Find It Authentic". It is based both on quantitative and qualitative analysis and presents quantitative findings.
It is untrue that the film speed "is unknown"(p.128). Igor Bourtsev did find it in 1973. His method and result stand in black and white in the above mentioned paper, listed in Daegling's References.
It is untrue that Perez "threw down the gauntlet" (to the mainstream) in the matter of the Bigfoot film(p.119). This was done by Russian hominologists in their report presented in 1978 at the Vancouver Sasquatch conference.
It is untrue that "The gait of the film subject (...) is easily duplicated by human beings"(p.147). Mimicked, yes, but not duplicated. Human beings can mimic the walk of different animals, such as bears, camels, elephants, as well as of the film subject. But they cannot imitate it in a natural, uncontrived manner characterizing Bigfoot's gait.
It is untrue that "Skeptical inquiry into the film has made significant strides since 1967"(p.205). Actually, it hasn't moved an inch. On the contrary, all aspiring debunkers of the film over the past decades have been exposed and defeated, and not a single proof or argument put forward by us for the film's authenticity has been refuted.
Dr. Daegling claims to have found "a glaring anomaly" in the film subject, namely, "the Achilles tendon appears to attach far forward on the heel, where the adaptive advantage of having an elongated heel in the first place is completely lost. (...) A prosthesis explains what is seen in the film; evolution, by contrast, cannot make sense of it"(p.144). In our paper published 20 years before Daegling's book and listed in his References, the matter of Bigfoot's elongated heel and Achilles tendon is dealt with as follows:
"The heel is actually seen to be sticking out in an inhuman way in some frames, suggesting an unusually large heel bone (calcaneus) as has been predicted by Grover Krantz using theoretical considerations and the evidence of the footprints. That the heel of the filmed subject is really unusual is testified to by the fact that this feature was independently discovered in Moscow and Ottawa. In Moscow it was seen by Bayanov and Bourtsev as "an omen of the creature's reality". (...) It is worth pointing out also that this peculiarity has never been reported by eyewitnesses because it appears only for a fleeting moment when the Achilles tendon is not tight in a certain phase of the stride" (The Sasquatch and other Unknown Hominoids, edited by Vladimir Markotic and Grover Krantz, 1984, p.226).
The film records in some of its frames these fleeting moments. In other words, there is no anomaly with attachment of the Achilles tendon. It is attached in the usual place at the end of the heel, and the impression that it is attached in a wrong place appears only when the tendon is slackened, not tightened. Dr. Daegling hides this fact from the reader by hiding our analysis of the film, described by Dr. Roderick Sprague as "by far the best and most thorough discussion of this classic film" (CRYPTOZOOLOGY, Vol.5,1986,p.105).
On p.211, Daegling quotes Dahinden's phrase "lying by omission". Dr. Daegling's biggest lie by omission is his total silence about my book America's Bigfoot: Fact, Not Fiction. U.S. Evidence Verified in Russia, 1997, devoted to our validation of the Patterson-Gimlin film, which is not even listed in his references. A possible reason for the omission is the strength of the case it makes, as indicated by this appraisal by Dr. Henry Bauer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies:
"Glimpses of the Patterson film in various television shows had left me incredulous that the creature shown in it could be real. This book has made me almost equally incredulous that the film could have been faked, and thus I have become open to the staggering possibility that relict hominids may still be with us in sufficient numbers that we have the chance to learn something about them. I recommend this book heartily as a highly interesting reading adventure"(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.18, Number 3, 2004, p.533).
On p.211, we read Dr. Daegling's conclusion that "Poor scholarship is one tell-tale sign of a pseudoscientific approach". This remark applies in full measure to the author. What's more, his book, by its intent and quality, is simply anti-scientific. Its contents do nothing but delude the reader. Fortunately, with the wide means of exposure provided by the Internet, Dr Daegling's book, unlike that of Dr. Napier, is not destined to delay the search for Bigfoot. The process of undeceiving the public is gathering speed.
Dmitri Bayanov
International Center of Hominology
Moscow, Russia
QUOTE(mkianni @ Feb 15 2007, 09:46 PM)
1) How did the native Americans survive this apparent food shortage? Are they not big brained mammals?
2) How do you come to this conclusion, have you examined the feet of one of these creatures?
2) How do you come to this conclusion, have you examined the feet of one of these creatures?
1. I think they included meat in their diet, please show me documentation of a bigfoot that eats meat.
2. Just going by the "supposed" bigfoot footprints, which clearly show toes, heel, etc., i.e. a "bare" foot.
"The Japanese Macaque (the monkeys you've likely seen pictures of hanging out in natural hot springs during a snow storm...darn cute) survives winter temperatures as low as 5 degrees Fahrenheit."
This still does not answer the problem of bare feet on cold ground.
BIGFOOT EXPOSED: AN ANTHROPOLOGIST EXAMINES AMERICA’S ENDURING LEGEND. By David J. Daegling. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press. 2004. 288 pp. ISBN 0-7591-0539-1. $24.95 (paper).
This is a book in search of a niche. As the title suggests, Daegling is preoccupied with the examination of a “legend”. Even the selection of cover art reflects his perception and portrayal of the matter as a rustic provincial phenomenon. So what does a biological anthropologist have to do with it? He concedes at the outset that much of the book deals with the social history of the phenomenon. Yet there is little adherence to accepted standards of historical scholarship. The shallow historical treatments are riddled with misstatements and uncritically rehearsed second-hand accounts, often filtered through the disingenuous interpretations of career skeptics, such as Michael Dennett. In fact, Daegling acknowledges that Dennett paved the way for the book. Judging by my own first-hand dealings with Dennett, this concession alone does much to undermine confidence in Daegling’s ability to deal with this subject objectively.
Daegling separates everyone into either a skeptics’ camp or an advocates’ camp, which appears an egalitarian gesture, given the prejudicial nature of the overused label “believer”. But then he proceeds to adopt an unbecoming tone of condescension, resorting to the repeated application of the label “true believer” and sprinkling the text throughout with belittling terms and phrases intended to depict the advocates as fringe fanatics. He lumps the advocates and their conclusions and observations indiscriminately into a common lot irrespective of their varied expertise or background. He fundamentally fails to distinguish the phenomenon from the purported evidence for a zoological entity, contending that the latter cannot be considered isolated from the former. Ultimately he dismisses all evidence as unworthy and casts Bigfoot as an archetypal mythological figure.
Chapter 1. Encounters with Monsters immediately sets the tone. Of the several connotations of the label “monster” we can select something that is abnormal or unnatural; a fabulous creature, i.e. one passing the limits of belief. He relates his personal erstwhile encounter with the goblin universe – a nocturnal run-in with a bleating deer -- and rightly makes the point that experiences are ultimately a matter of interpretation. Whether in everyday activities or in the practice of science, we must interpret the data. However, the quality of data ranges widely, and to place all eyewitness accounts on equal footing with his ambiguous experience is not an impressive show of discrimination. His flippant comments, such as “there has been enough Bigfoot hair collected to weave a few area rugs” merely underscore his a priori dismissive approach.
Chapter 2. The Natural History of Bigfoot, engenders some hope for a rational and objective treatment. In one respect, Daegling correctly observes, “Bigfoot must fit within the paradigm of evolutionary biology if it has any hope of achieving scientific legitimacy,” i.e. become the object of general attention. On the other hand, the empirical question of its existence does not fundamentally depend on having a satisfactory fit within a prevailing paradigm. If it indeed exists, its ecological niche and evolutionary connections will in due time be illuminated and if necessary produce a shift in paradigms. The argument of “impossible because it doesn’t fit our theory” has proved to be vulnerable in the past. However, even an attempt to assess a potential fit is prejudiced since with each turn of the discussion the basic questions of populations, fossil record, habitat and ecology are obfuscated by superficiality or outright misstatement of fact. He claims the odor of Bigfoot is so foul that people have been known to pass out from the stench, insinuating several times that such a rank monster couldn’t remain hidden. In fact, an associated odor is mentioned in less than 10% of reported encounters (and no one has ever been overcome by it). In reference to Gigantopithecus fossils, Daegling suggests that reliable estimates of body size are not to be had from dental dimensions. This is a curious assertion, since the correlation of primate molar dimensions and body mass is well established in the literature (e.g. Gingerich, 1977; Gingerich et al., 1982). He gives the misleading impression that Gigantopithecus is simply a large orangutan. He trivializes Krantz’s interpretation of the reconstructed mandible of Gigantopithecus and implications for locomotion, without offering refuting evidence to falsify it. At any rate, I think all would agree that the giant ape was certainly terrestrial, and being terrestrial there are only two ways to locomote – either quadrupedally or bipedally. Given the potential constraints on the forelimbs and pectoral girdle of a giant hominoid, I would say Krantz has better than a 50/50 chance of being correct about bipedalism and his hypothesis is worthy of consideration.
On the point of potential habitat, Daegling falls into the trap that has ensnared many before him – interpreting what it is to be a hominoid based on the meager representation of relic species that are known today in isolated refugia within the tropics. He speculates, “a gorilla would starve among the conifers of the Cascades if the snows of winter didn’t freeze it first.” His unawareness is twofold: first, he conveys no sense of the past diversity of hominoid evolution and the fact that apes may likely have evolved in the temperate to subtropical seasonal forests of Eurasia; second, he clearly has no concept of the richness of the temperate rain forests of North America as habitats for a large omnivore. He continues by asserting that speculation has free reign when the ecology of Bigfoot is contemplated. On the contrary, it is quite reasonable to ask whether a large generalized primate omnivore could make a living in a given habitat and then assess the available resources, rather than tender a vacuous rejection.
Daegling then unsheathes “the sharpest question in the critic’s arsenal” – how does Bigfoot remain cryptic after decades of pursuit? The lack of physical remains is unquestionably the lynch pin to the mystery and no reasonable person asserts that a new species should be recognized in its absence, but the question can be fairly asked, who does Daegling assume is doing the pursuing? There is not now, nor has there ever been, a sustained long-term effort on the part of amateur or professional to pursue the matter in the field. He employs the same “rhetorical trick” that he elsewhere accuses others of – he props up his hypothesis that a giant ape couldn’t inhabit and remain hidden, by simply deeming the alternative to be beyond reason, without offering an accurate assessment of the facts, empirical or theoretical, and by overstating perceived contradictions.
Chapter 3. The Social History of Bigfoot. After a mere 13 pages of dismissive arguments in chapter 2, Daegling opens this chapter with a surprising admission that Bigfoot’s natural history is an open question, although the argument in his estimation comes up a little short. Here the treatment comes further into focus as Daegling says, “If we can examine the social history – the stories, their interpretation, the people who make the plaster casts of footprints – and we can conclude that there need not be a strange animal behind these items, then the phenomenon of Bigfoot is one step closer to resolution. Essentially the remainder of the book deals with this social history, because it is in this context that we are forced to evaluate the best evidence for Bigfoot.” Of course “need not be” is an assumption quite different than demonstrating that there isn’t such an animal. If such an animal were to exist, it could very reasonably be expected that it would have worked its way into regional folklore as is the case with numerous commonly recognized animals.
Regarding origins, Daegling attempts to discredit any possibility of a biological basis for Bigfoot by insinuating a contemporary point of origin, i.e. Bluff Creek, California, in 1958. At first posited hypothetically, this theme surfaces repeatedly like flotsam, despite his disclaimer that it is “a widespread but mistaken impression that Bigfoot as a phenomenon started de novo with the discovery of gigantic strangely proportioned footprints by a road crew in a remote region of northern California in 1958.” He portrays Bigfoot as a local legend catapulted from the “local taverns” into the global public consciousness. While the AP coverage of October 1958 certainly popularized the notion of California’s hairy forest giant, it was by no means a mere local phenomenon. One discovers with a little effort that it is part of the landscape in every environment where suitable habitat exists. For example, eleven years earlier in British Columbia, remarkably similar footprints had been found and documented by multiple witnesses. Daegling fails to give reasonable consideration to these and numerous other historical accounts and instead focuses on the pre-1958 Bigfoot “classics,” such as Jacko, Ostman, and Beck, placing undue significance where serious research has already discredited or stylized retelling of the stories has naturally shaded some realities through interpretation. He entirely passes over the rich Native American traditional knowledge relating to sasquatch. Certainly it can be debated whether there is indeed a zoological underpinning to this element of the indigenous world view, but its significance warrants more deference than afforded here. Instead he asserts the skeptic’s notion that Bigfoot (coincidentally) got a lot busier in the aftermath of the events of 1958. He fails to consider an alternate possibility that in the wake of widespread publicity, people were more willing to come forward with their experiences since they could now put a label on their experience and perhaps felt less likely to face ridicule.
Daegling goes on to introduce a number of personalities, who he avows would be in control of Bigfoot’s history, just as he repeatedly professes that if this event or that incident had not occurred Bigfoot would have ended up in folklore’s waste heap. These are simply baseless allegations. He makes a pointed remark that one of these personalities, Rene Dahinden, held contempt for those PhDs that Dahinden deemed had not paid him sufficient deference. In reality it was Dahinden’s arrogance and generally caustic demeanor that eventually alienated all who held any opinion at variance to his, or who presented evidence that drew attention from his monopolization of the Patterson-Gimlin film. I believe I held the distinction of precipitating his displeasure more rapidly than anyone previously, when I presumed to counter his reading of a particular set of tracks. Daegling suggests that Dahinden’s attitude “was vindicated in time when the arrogance of the PhD types would lead them to make blunders in interpretation.” From the tenor of this remark and what follows, it appears there is ample arrogance to go around.
Barbara Wasson, a psychologist by training, is misleadingly portrayed as a tracker, and it is suggested that she was qualified to not only psychoanalyze the witness but to authoritatively evaluate any tracks associated therewith. In a later chapter it is eventually acknowledged that she is an avocational animal tracker. Yet in nearly the same breath, Bob Titmus’ veracity is impugned by virtue of his ability to find trackways. Titmus, a professional taxidermist and indeed an experienced tracker spent more time in the field in northern California searching for sign than anyone from that period.
John Green is pegged disparagingly as a “true believer” whose “penchant for cataloging” has produced a disparate collection of reports including “three-, four-, and five-toed tracks, hair of every conceivable tint and shade, eyes of various color.” This is simply a specious assessment. What is interesting is the inherent consistency and general lack of apparent embellishment that characterizes the vast majority of this data set. Of course there are outliers quite possibly resulting from fabrications, misidentification, poor observation and/or documentation. No one person could individually verify every account that came to his attention. However, Green’s data are amenable to scientific analysis and serve as the basis of an ongoing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis. A word about toe number is worth mentioning since this accusation of inconsistency is palmed off repeatedly. My experience is that three-toed tracks, which are in fact very infrequent, are not tracks of animals at all, but simply cases of misidentification or hoax; four-toed tracks can result from amputation or simply the lack of impression of a small toe (four-toed bear tracks are not uncommon for either of these reasons).
The remainder of the chapter broaches in abbreviated fashion the Patterson-Gimlin film, the Minnesota iceman, the Bossburg cripplefoot, Paul Freeman, and the Skookum cast. Here we are treated to a mere inkling of the distortions that are foisted on the reader in the subsequent chapters that deal with each subject at greater length, if not greater depth or insight.
Chapter 4. Bigfoot Scrutinized: Why the Greatest Hits are all Misses. Daegling continues his denigration of the “data” and his assertion of their lack of amenability to scientific scrutiny. He does acknowledge the reflexive rejection of Bigfoot by the scientific community, but justifies this by cliché allusions to cold fusion and Piltdown to illuminate what he feels constitutes scientific worthiness. Of the potential hypotheses addressing Bigfoot, Daegling focuses on only one, “that Bigfoot is explicable entirely by human agency.” However, rather than set out to refute this hypothesis after a scientific fashion, he turns the process on its head and selects and interprets data that appear to bolster his skeptical position, while unjustifiably trivializing any and all alternatives.
The historic Bigfoot is considered further. The violent aspects of two early accounts are portrayed as being at odds with the stereotypical caricature of Bigfoot as passive, if inquisitive. Such variation or even evolution of perception, even if real, has its parallel in the evolving perceptions of known great apes, such as gorillas – from bestial monsters to gentle giants. Even today very different perceptions of the gorilla’s nature would be had from the perspective of a modern ecotourist versus that of a poacher hunting bushmeat.
Ray Wallace’s supposed exploits are revisited. The flatly false allegation is made that when Wallace was away from the construction site, Bigfoot lost interest in the operation. Daegling is duped by the media hype over the claims of Wallace’s surviving family of faked footprints. He simply accepts that they produced bogus carved feet that matched the tracks found in Bluff creek from 1958-1967. In reality, the carved feet match none of the documented footprints, particularly not those cast by Jerry Crew. The fake feet spotlighted by the press, and illustrated in a later chapter, diverge noticeably from the numerous fake feet produced and peddled by Wallace in later years in Toledo, Washington, and bear no resemblance to the crude blockish squared-off feet carved by Rant Mullens. They do bear resemblance to the 15-inch casts made by Bob Titmus (a copy of which it turns out was in possession of Wilbur “Shorty” Wallace) which likely served as inspiration for the most notorious set of fake feet widely publicized. Faced with this contradiction the Wallaces merely regrouped and countered that it must have been another pair of fake feet that were used to make the 17-inch Crew footprints, since there were so many, as they now assert, and they didn’t profess to have them all. The Wallace claims about just how the tracks were fabricated change with each retelling of the story, with each irreconcilable contradiction unraveling their claim. Daegling’s “simplest explanation” is by no means as simple as he would have his reader accept, and represents an egregious abuse of the often misapplied principle of parsimony. He sermonizes that “commonsense compels us to write off the whole affair” – nonsense perhaps, but clearly not commonsense.
Much ado is made over the human shenanigans accompanying the incidents at Bossburg, which did resemble a circus in the aftermath of the discovery of exceptional footprints. These high jinks have cast a pall of suspicion over the footprints in the minds of many, but none of this skepticism has provided a satisfactory explanation for the enigmatic footprints themselves. Daegling’s explanation falls decidedly short and provides no justification for the ad hominem attack on Grover Krantz. Daegling credits Dennett with putting the first dent in Krantz’s reconstruction of the skeletal proportions of the Bossburg foot. Dennett observed that the talotibial joint does not contact the ground; therefore its position could not be deduced from a footprint. First, Dennett ignores the fact that the analysis producing the reconstruction was two-pronged, ultimately combining observations from the Patterson-Gimlin film with the deformities of the Bossburg track. It was the anterior-posterior thickness of the ankle and noticeable elongation of the heel of the P-G film subject that clued Krantz in on the inferred position of the talotibial joint. The anterior border of the tibia is quite subcutaneous; hence the long axis of the tibia can be reasonably inferred from the anterior border of the leg. Furthermore, the relative length of the calcaneal tuberosity varies rather consistently among primates according to body mass and locomotor adaptation. The great apes display a graded series from gibbon to gorilla. The relationship of the talus to the distal end of the calcaneus is comparatively uniform (excepting such highly modified leapers as the tarsier). If Krantz had some idea of the position of the calcaneocuboid joint, then he could reasonably approximate the position of the talus. Far from being “scientifically indefensible,” the hypothesis that the lateral bunionettes correlate to the derangement of the calcaneocuboid and cubometatarsal joints is tenable and finds precedent in the orthopedic case literature. There are admittedly few examples of long-standing adult cases since such conditions in humans are typically corrected in infancy. The long-term effects of such a condition are not well documented. Indeed, Krantz’s reconstruction of the foot proportions has received independent corroboration from my modeling of the foot based on multiple independent examples of midtarsal pressure ridges. To suggest that someone without any familiarity with the anatomy of the foot simply scaled up a tracing of a figure in an orthopedics textbook, fabricated a set of artificial feet and stomped hundreds of footprints in snow, mud and even underwater is naïve at best. To further imply that there is any merit to Kenneth Wylie’s allegation that it was confessed faker Ray Pickens that was responsible for the Bossburg tracks again reveals how ill-informed Daegling is about the original data. Pickens has appeared on television displaying his wares, which are on par with the crude creations whittled by Rant Mullens illustrated in this chapter. His first admitted escapade with his concocted feet came long after the incidents at Bossburg.
Attention is next turned to Paul Freeman and events occurring in the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington State. Daegling indicates this locale is “well removed from the mountainous coastal habitat that is usually associated with Sasquatch activity.” What is apparently lost on Daegling is the fact that the northern end of the Blue Mountain range is extremely wet, with up to 90 cm of precipitation annually and rich habitat resources amply sufficient to support a large omnivore, not to mention one of the nation’s largest elk herds. Accounts of Bigfoot had emerged from the region long before Freeman arrived on the scene and continue after his departure. Daegling’s entire assessment of the incidents involving Paul Freeman appears to be largely filtered through the smoked lens of Michael Dennett. The numerous problems alluded to by Daegling lie not with the tracks but with the decidedly skewed interpretations of the tracks. With all due respect to the reputed tracking prowess of Joel Hardin, his mind was made up prior to the event; he interpreted the tracks as if they were man tracks. In most points of his objection the apparent contradictions are precisely what should have been expected based on the distinctive style of walking surmised for the sasquatch, based on other tracks and eyewitness accounts. Krantz deals with Hardin’s points head-on in his book and I discussed them at length indirectly with Hardin on-line. Dennett is again cited as a source for Dahinden’s claim that tracks were left in a nonsequential series, with two left feet in succession – an apparently damning situation, if true. Dahinden corrected this bit of misrepresentation when I questioned him on it. His sarcastic comment, indiscriminately reported by Dennett, that in some instances one couldn’t tell a right foot cast from a left, and thus there appeared to be “two left feet” was baseless. Further distortions by Dennett include the often repeated claim that Freeman admitted to faking footprints. In reality Freeman stated that he had experimented in his backyard to determine what would be required, if it was even possible, to fake a convincing Bigfoot track. In that case, I guess I am guilty of hoaxing Bigfoot tracks, as well as any other serious-minded researcher who has done his homework. As for the rumor that Freeman worked at an orthopedic shoe company -- as best I can determine there is no substance to it; let Dennett reveal his “anonymous sources.”
Finally the chapter is rounded out by brief mention of the Skookum cast, an apparent body imprint. Frankly, it is surprising how much disinformation can be packed into a mere four pages on this subject. Here again Daegling demonstrates his lack of familiarity with the primary data and relies heavily on the skeptic, this time Benjamin Radford (who by the way, is not a science writer, as stated, and has no qualification to evaluate the cast). Daegling clearly has the impression of a muddy wallow, as the site was unfortunately described initially, conjuring the image of a sasquatch reclining in wet gooey mess. The immediate site was actually moist clay soil surrounding a shrinking puddle of collected rain water that was an ideal consistency to take the imprint of fine detail, including hair and dermatoglyphics, without adhering to the subject. The cast has been examined firsthand by a number of specialists, including three primate anatomists, Krantz, myself, and Daris Swindler; the latter two coauthored an abstract and presented on it at the meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Pacific Division meetings. Krantz had no hesitation to “endorse” the cast, contrary to claims otherwise. Without deference to these academics, Daegling instead turns to Cliff Crook and Don Keating, two amateur Bigfoot investigators, neither one having examined the cast itself or having backgrounds qualifying them to evaluate it even if they did, for a “withering critique” of the cast and the assertion that it is merely an elk imprint. Daegling endorses their conclusion that the heel is made by the elk kneeling. A straightforward comparison between the imprint of the wrist of a 650 pound elk and the heel imprint has excluded this simple hypothesis on the basis of size, shape and hair pattern. Daegling abandons professionalism by stating, “Any claim that the Skookum cast could not have been faked borders on the asinine.”
Chapter 5. The Patterson Film is considered by Daegling the one piece of evidence that deserves consideration on its own merits. Apparently Daegling had access to a copy of the film provided by Dahinden for study, which may be the only engagement with any of the primary data he has had. One is left to question the quality of the copy he worked from based on his comments, such as lack of observable facial details. A fair amount of these are quite discernable, especially from early stills that were made directly from the original film. He suggests that published accounts of the context of the film are loaded with inconsistencies, when in fact it is his thinly researched and superficial rendition that is misleading. He suggests that there was wholesale lack of interest by institutional science, when in fact there were showings at several institutions, including the University of British Columbia, the American Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian. While the reception was cool, few reviewers were willing to dismiss it outright and none could offer a reasoned explanation of how it would have been faked. The matter of filming speed bears significantly on the analysis of the film. Daegling unjustifiably asserts that Patterson had been filming at 24 fps prior to the encounter. However in scenes of Patterson on horseback leading the packhorse taken just prior to the encounter (dubbed the cowboy footage) it is very clear that the camera was already set at the slower speed. Daegling attempts to cast aspersion on Krantz’s conclusion that the film was shot at 18 fps, since that setting does not exist on the snap dial of the camera (the options included 16 and 24 fps). Krantz’s approach to determining the speed directly from the film is sound and the plausibility of an intermediate rate was soundly vindicated by direct analysis of the frame rate variance of that model of camera, and by other means as mundane as observing the blurring effect of camera motion. Through personal communication I can report that Don Grieve stands by his conclusion that at the slower speed the likelihood of a human being responsible for the unusual gait was extremely unlikely. Daegling’s quibbling over the commentary by Disney technicians is pointless. Ken Peterson, who had been with Disney from the beginning, straight out said they couldn’t replicate the film (and frankly, no one has been able to since).
A feigned effort to understand Gimlin’s role in the incident is again inaccurate. Daegling again relies on secondary sources who by their statements are obviously also unfamiliar with the primary data. In this case it is Wylie who is surprised by what he perceives as indifference on the part of Gimlin about this “life-changing experience.” This singular and subjective conclusion is baseless. Gimlin was amazed at the encounter since he had previously placed little confidence in the creature’s existence. He did express disappointment in the film itself because it fell short of what he had witnessed firsthand at close range and unobstructed by the tunnel-effect of the camera’s viewfinder. Wylie’s lack of authority reemerges later when he asks why the storms that sent Patterson and Gimlin packing didn’t wash away the footprints which Daegling presumes are within the “margins of the creek bed.” The best footprints were on a sandbar 30-40 inches above the level of the creek. The rising creek and mudslides on primitive mountainside logging roads did not have to inundate the entire canyon in order to imperil the retreat of Patterson and Gimlin. Daegling states that Gimlin tried in vain to pursue the film subject, implying that the tracks mysteriously ended after a mere few hundred feet. In fact Gimlin was eager to follow the evident trail leading up the steep mountainside, but Patterson understandably objected to being left behind on foot and unarmed, his horse having bolted. Titmus later tracked it a consider distance up the mountain. This sort of ignorant innuendo peppers the book throughout and underscores the tactics adopted by the skeptics.
The inevitable rehearsal of the hoaxer’s claims is likewise unbalanced and inaccurate. To counter Chambers’ straightforward denial of the rumors that he made the costume, Daegling teams up with magician Mark Chorvinsky to foist a convoluted conspiracy theory to bolster the rumor. But wait, it was actually Wallace that was responsible, Daegling continues, because he informed Patterson precisely where to go to run into a photogenic Bigfoot. Gimlin reports that Patterson did visit Wallace once, but came away unimpressed. Wallace’s claim of telling Patterson where to go to film is nothing but another wild yarn, in character with Wallace’s reputation. He claimed the site was in the Onion Lake region (actually miles from the film site), accessible by trail (a logging road was nearby), near a large boulder (no such landmark). But now, Daegling shifts, it is Bob Heironimus that lays claim to being the “man in the fur suit” in cahoots with Patterson himself. Take your pick.
Daegling suggests the reaction of the advocate camp is predictable: the appearance is not that of a costume, the subject is too large, its arms are too long and the walk is too bizarre. He then sets out to demonstrate that this argument is wrong. What follows is certainly the most egregious misrepresentation yet, since it is made knowingly. Daegling takes Krantz to task for asserting that no man of the estimated stature of the film subject is built so broadly. He turns to the Anthropometric Source Book (1978) and selects the measure called “interscye”. In a sample of 1,004 men of the German Air Force, interscye of the ninety-fifth percentile is 49.6 cm, a good 3 cm larger than Krantz’s estimate of Bigfoot's impossibly wide thorax. Daegling glibly concludes that according to Krantz’s assertion, 5% of German aviators were in need of zoological reclassification. Daegling’s smugness is unwarranted since a closer examination reveals that the “interscye” (measure #506) is “a taped measure across the back between the posterior axillary folds at the lower level of the armpit.” A taped measure is distinguished as an arc or a circumference measured on the surface of the body, rather than a straight projected length, as would be estimated from a film image. In this case, interscye is an arc following the contour of the back from one armpit to the other. If the radius of curvature of this arc is large, then the difference between the length of the arc and its cord length, or linear distance between its end points, is minor, and perhaps justifiably negligible. If there is considerable depth to the torso, the radius of curvature will be considerably smaller and the disparity between arc length and cord length can be significant. The correct measure found in the Anthropometric Source Book for comparison to Krantz’s chest breadth is, not surprisingly, “chest breadth,” (metric #223) defined as “the breadth of the torso measured at the nipple line” (without pressure). This is a straight-line projected measure of the greatest breadth of the torso taken at the level of the male nipple. Whether projected from the ventral or dorsal surface is irrelevant. In this dimension the ninety-fifth percentile of the same sample of German aviators measures a mere 35.4 cm, much less than the 49.6 cm value for the interscye, and also much less than the 46.5 cm chest breadth estimated by Krantz for the film subject. Indeed, the ninety-ninth percentile of the German sample still only reaches 37.4 cm, still over 9 cm shy of the film subject's estimated chest breadth. The largest reported value actually comes from a sizeable sample of 2984 U.S. law enforcement officers, with a ninety-ninth percentile value of 41.7 cm for chest breadth and 192.6 cm for stature. I have had this very conversation with Daegling previously, but to no apparent avail.
From the crest of the head to the heel of the foot, Daegling is off the mark. He laments that the presence of a sagittal crest in a female primate is “not only shocking, but unprecedented.” In fact, modest sagittal crests have been documented in female gorillas. It is a scaling matter relating the relative size of the jaws and the skull, not a matter of gender, plain and simple. Regarding the elongated heel, Daegling asserts that the Achilles’ tendon does not insert at the proximal end of the calcaneus, but instead appears to attach far forward on the heel. This conclusion is simply indefensible and is based on a single redrawn frame where the sole of the foot is overexposed due to its orientation to the sun and camera lens. At this point in the step cycle, the Achilles’ tendon would be expected to be relatively slack, lending the elongated heel a protruding appearance. An examination of other frames depicting the step at a point where the ankle plantarflexors are active and the tendon taut (not to mention provide a more advantageous angle from which to assess the anatomy) would have readily indicated the insertion of the tendon is indeed at the end of the heel (Meldrum, 2004).
Chapter 6. Further Musings on Footprints. The depth of alleged Bigfoot tracks is one of the topics of this chapter. Daegling sets up a hyped theoretical situation with 3-inch deep tracks, and one has to look carefully for the point where he backs off from that unrealistic generalization (in the moist firm sand of the Patterson film site, for example, the tracks were approximately 1 inch in depth). He takes the reader through a useful, if flawed, exercise of the quantification of the forces involved in impressing a footprint, but fails to discuss or even consider the constraints and obstacles to such a complex analysis, e.g. variable moisture content, heterogeneity of the soil, dynamic versus static action of the foot, etc. A shod horse in sand is not employing only the area of the shoe for support, nor is it reasonable to merely divide the body mass equally between four limbs. Likewise it is misleading to suggest that a jack beneath the back end of a truck is supporting half the truck’s weight, or for that matter is in any way analogous to the dynamics of the footprint of a heavy biped.
Step length (the distance between opposite successive footfalls) is confused with stride length (the distance between successive footfalls of the same foot, i.e. 2 successive steps) and the difference is never distinguished. A simplistic proposition is offered that, as suggested by the Wallace heirs, one simply hangs on to the back of a moving truck to give the fake footprints a greater stride and “provide the punch necessary to impress the tracks deeply.” A failed demonstration of this tactic was performed by the Wallaces on camera with comedic but unconvincing results, as one might imagine.
The proposition that sasquatch have flat flexible feet capable of a midtarsal break is critically reviewed. The fact that Daegling equates a pressure disc displaced from behind the pronounced ball of a human foot with the evident pressure ridge proximal to the midfoot of the sasquatch track (see Fig. 6.1 and 6.2.) aptly illustrates his lack of discernment concerning the dynamics of hominoid footprints. Contrary to his allegations, I have examined fresh tracks in the ground exhibiting this feature, as well as a number of other examples of photos and casts of footprints consistently displaying the same.
Once again, this time with emphasis, Daegling declares: “the exact form of the pedal skeleton cannot be reliably inferred from the shape of a footprint even under ideal circumstances.” Neither Krantz nor I have made the assertion that the “exact form” of the individual skeletal elements can be inferred. We have indicated that commonly discernable landmarks can indicate the relative proportions of foot segments and positions of key articulations. Considering a human footprint, either on a hard surface or impressed, the position of the tuberosity of the fifth metatarsal is often evident as a convexity on the lateral border of the footprint; persistent flexion creases indicate the position of the hallucial metatarsophalngeal joint; in flat feet the apex of the convexity on the medial border of the foot marks the navicular tuberosity. These are plainly observable landmarks that frequently have their homologs in alleged sasquatch footprints.
Chapter 7. Three Red Herrings. Having concluded that Bigfoot fails the evidentiary standard, Daegling suggests that the advocates typically retreat to three lines of diversionary defense. The first is that alternative explanations are unlikely or unreasonable; the second that the lack of bones is explicable on ecological grounds; the third that Bigfoot has avoided detection because of its paranormal abilities or origins.
Chapter 8. A Science of Sasquatch. Daegling starts off with the rhetorical question “Why doesn’t Bigfoot get an aside in anthropology textbooks?” He apparently missed the fact that it was afforded an entire page in one of the most widely used introductory physical anthropology texts (Nelson & Jurmain, 1988; and it received a much more even-handed treatment there than it has received here). There is a confused argument over the need to acknowledge every prank and every explicated circumstance or be guilty of abandoning scholarship. By this point it is obviously a case of the pot presuming to call the kettle black, even were the contention justified. Here again sources are misrepresented. In a footnote to a reference evaluating a purported vocalization, Daegling states “these authors could not rule out that the various sounds were prerecorded.” In fact the abstract of the reference he cites clearly states “They [the authors] also conclude that the tape shows none of the expected signs of being prerecorded or rerecorded at altered speed and hence diminish the possibility of a hoax.”
His exasperation is only equaled by that of the informed reader when he concludes with the resignation that “Stinking like a landfill, hirsute beyond confusion, and impossible to miss at 8 feet tall, Bigfoot plods through our backyards pressing the feeble soil clear through to the mantle, and yet our luck is so astonishing, incomprehensibly bad that we just miss it day after day, year in and year out.” Spoken like a true arm-chair skeptic.
Chapter 9. The Eyewitness Problem rises somewhat above the muck of the preceding chapters and offers a more thoughtful, if still condescending discussion of the weal and woes of dealing with eyewitness accounts. Here Daegling finally broaches the relevance of Native American world views and Wildman traditions world-wide.
Chapter 10. The Bardin Booger. In this chapter Daegling indulges an aside to recount the story behind Florida’s Bardin Bugger, presumably a local iteration of the more popularized Skunk ape, to illustrate the life history of a local legend. It apparently constitutes his field research supporting the assertion that Bigfoot is simply a “local legend” born of frequenting “local taverns.”
Chapter 11. The Phenomenon. Here Daegling concludes with an argument that sasquatch is a mythological figure. This is self-evident to anyone. The advocates do not deny the mythological element. But only the uninitiated and uninformed will be swayed by the arguments presented in the preceding chapters to accept the premise that this is the exclusive explanation for the phenomenon. Rather than inform with discrimination this book routinely perpetuates misconceptions and disinformation. It is cut from the same cloth as the pretentious skeptical sources Daegling relied so heavily upon, professional cynics who would vainly wrap themselves in a hijacked banner of science and critical thinking. In the end, it is a notable contribution precisely because it so plainly illuminates the dismissive tactics that are too common in anthropological and zoological academia regarding this subject.
Jeff Meldrum
Departments of Biological Sciences and Anthropology
Idaho State University
Anthropometric Source Book. NASA Reference Publication 1024. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Technical Information Service.1978.
Gingerich, PD (1977) Correlation of tooth size and body size in living hominoid primates, with a note on relative brain size in Aegyptopithecus and Proconsul, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 47: 395-398.
Gingerich, PD, BH Smith, and K Rosenberg (1982) Allometric scaling in the dentition of primates and predictions of body weight from tooth size in fossils. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 58:81-100.
Meldrum, DJ (2004) Midfoot flexibility, fossil footprints, and sasquatch steps: New perspectives on the evolution of bipedalism. Journal of Scientific Exploration 18:65-79.
Nelson, H and R Jurmain. Introduction to Physical Anthropology, 4th edition. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1988, p. 352.
This is a book in search of a niche. As the title suggests, Daegling is preoccupied with the examination of a “legend”. Even the selection of cover art reflects his perception and portrayal of the matter as a rustic provincial phenomenon. So what does a biological anthropologist have to do with it? He concedes at the outset that much of the book deals with the social history of the phenomenon. Yet there is little adherence to accepted standards of historical scholarship. The shallow historical treatments are riddled with misstatements and uncritically rehearsed second-hand accounts, often filtered through the disingenuous interpretations of career skeptics, such as Michael Dennett. In fact, Daegling acknowledges that Dennett paved the way for the book. Judging by my own first-hand dealings with Dennett, this concession alone does much to undermine confidence in Daegling’s ability to deal with this subject objectively.
Daegling separates everyone into either a skeptics’ camp or an advocates’ camp, which appears an egalitarian gesture, given the prejudicial nature of the overused label “believer”. But then he proceeds to adopt an unbecoming tone of condescension, resorting to the repeated application of the label “true believer” and sprinkling the text throughout with belittling terms and phrases intended to depict the advocates as fringe fanatics. He lumps the advocates and their conclusions and observations indiscriminately into a common lot irrespective of their varied expertise or background. He fundamentally fails to distinguish the phenomenon from the purported evidence for a zoological entity, contending that the latter cannot be considered isolated from the former. Ultimately he dismisses all evidence as unworthy and casts Bigfoot as an archetypal mythological figure.
Chapter 1. Encounters with Monsters immediately sets the tone. Of the several connotations of the label “monster” we can select something that is abnormal or unnatural; a fabulous creature, i.e. one passing the limits of belief. He relates his personal erstwhile encounter with the goblin universe – a nocturnal run-in with a bleating deer -- and rightly makes the point that experiences are ultimately a matter of interpretation. Whether in everyday activities or in the practice of science, we must interpret the data. However, the quality of data ranges widely, and to place all eyewitness accounts on equal footing with his ambiguous experience is not an impressive show of discrimination. His flippant comments, such as “there has been enough Bigfoot hair collected to weave a few area rugs” merely underscore his a priori dismissive approach.
Chapter 2. The Natural History of Bigfoot, engenders some hope for a rational and objective treatment. In one respect, Daegling correctly observes, “Bigfoot must fit within the paradigm of evolutionary biology if it has any hope of achieving scientific legitimacy,” i.e. become the object of general attention. On the other hand, the empirical question of its existence does not fundamentally depend on having a satisfactory fit within a prevailing paradigm. If it indeed exists, its ecological niche and evolutionary connections will in due time be illuminated and if necessary produce a shift in paradigms. The argument of “impossible because it doesn’t fit our theory” has proved to be vulnerable in the past. However, even an attempt to assess a potential fit is prejudiced since with each turn of the discussion the basic questions of populations, fossil record, habitat and ecology are obfuscated by superficiality or outright misstatement of fact. He claims the odor of Bigfoot is so foul that people have been known to pass out from the stench, insinuating several times that such a rank monster couldn’t remain hidden. In fact, an associated odor is mentioned in less than 10% of reported encounters (and no one has ever been overcome by it). In reference to Gigantopithecus fossils, Daegling suggests that reliable estimates of body size are not to be had from dental dimensions. This is a curious assertion, since the correlation of primate molar dimensions and body mass is well established in the literature (e.g. Gingerich, 1977; Gingerich et al., 1982). He gives the misleading impression that Gigantopithecus is simply a large orangutan. He trivializes Krantz’s interpretation of the reconstructed mandible of Gigantopithecus and implications for locomotion, without offering refuting evidence to falsify it. At any rate, I think all would agree that the giant ape was certainly terrestrial, and being terrestrial there are only two ways to locomote – either quadrupedally or bipedally. Given the potential constraints on the forelimbs and pectoral girdle of a giant hominoid, I would say Krantz has better than a 50/50 chance of being correct about bipedalism and his hypothesis is worthy of consideration.
On the point of potential habitat, Daegling falls into the trap that has ensnared many before him – interpreting what it is to be a hominoid based on the meager representation of relic species that are known today in isolated refugia within the tropics. He speculates, “a gorilla would starve among the conifers of the Cascades if the snows of winter didn’t freeze it first.” His unawareness is twofold: first, he conveys no sense of the past diversity of hominoid evolution and the fact that apes may likely have evolved in the temperate to subtropical seasonal forests of Eurasia; second, he clearly has no concept of the richness of the temperate rain forests of North America as habitats for a large omnivore. He continues by asserting that speculation has free reign when the ecology of Bigfoot is contemplated. On the contrary, it is quite reasonable to ask whether a large generalized primate omnivore could make a living in a given habitat and then assess the available resources, rather than tender a vacuous rejection.
Daegling then unsheathes “the sharpest question in the critic’s arsenal” – how does Bigfoot remain cryptic after decades of pursuit? The lack of physical remains is unquestionably the lynch pin to the mystery and no reasonable person asserts that a new species should be recognized in its absence, but the question can be fairly asked, who does Daegling assume is doing the pursuing? There is not now, nor has there ever been, a sustained long-term effort on the part of amateur or professional to pursue the matter in the field. He employs the same “rhetorical trick” that he elsewhere accuses others of – he props up his hypothesis that a giant ape couldn’t inhabit and remain hidden, by simply deeming the alternative to be beyond reason, without offering an accurate assessment of the facts, empirical or theoretical, and by overstating perceived contradictions.
Chapter 3. The Social History of Bigfoot. After a mere 13 pages of dismissive arguments in chapter 2, Daegling opens this chapter with a surprising admission that Bigfoot’s natural history is an open question, although the argument in his estimation comes up a little short. Here the treatment comes further into focus as Daegling says, “If we can examine the social history – the stories, their interpretation, the people who make the plaster casts of footprints – and we can conclude that there need not be a strange animal behind these items, then the phenomenon of Bigfoot is one step closer to resolution. Essentially the remainder of the book deals with this social history, because it is in this context that we are forced to evaluate the best evidence for Bigfoot.” Of course “need not be” is an assumption quite different than demonstrating that there isn’t such an animal. If such an animal were to exist, it could very reasonably be expected that it would have worked its way into regional folklore as is the case with numerous commonly recognized animals.
Regarding origins, Daegling attempts to discredit any possibility of a biological basis for Bigfoot by insinuating a contemporary point of origin, i.e. Bluff Creek, California, in 1958. At first posited hypothetically, this theme surfaces repeatedly like flotsam, despite his disclaimer that it is “a widespread but mistaken impression that Bigfoot as a phenomenon started de novo with the discovery of gigantic strangely proportioned footprints by a road crew in a remote region of northern California in 1958.” He portrays Bigfoot as a local legend catapulted from the “local taverns” into the global public consciousness. While the AP coverage of October 1958 certainly popularized the notion of California’s hairy forest giant, it was by no means a mere local phenomenon. One discovers with a little effort that it is part of the landscape in every environment where suitable habitat exists. For example, eleven years earlier in British Columbia, remarkably similar footprints had been found and documented by multiple witnesses. Daegling fails to give reasonable consideration to these and numerous other historical accounts and instead focuses on the pre-1958 Bigfoot “classics,” such as Jacko, Ostman, and Beck, placing undue significance where serious research has already discredited or stylized retelling of the stories has naturally shaded some realities through interpretation. He entirely passes over the rich Native American traditional knowledge relating to sasquatch. Certainly it can be debated whether there is indeed a zoological underpinning to this element of the indigenous world view, but its significance warrants more deference than afforded here. Instead he asserts the skeptic’s notion that Bigfoot (coincidentally) got a lot busier in the aftermath of the events of 1958. He fails to consider an alternate possibility that in the wake of widespread publicity, people were more willing to come forward with their experiences since they could now put a label on their experience and perhaps felt less likely to face ridicule.
Daegling goes on to introduce a number of personalities, who he avows would be in control of Bigfoot’s history, just as he repeatedly professes that if this event or that incident had not occurred Bigfoot would have ended up in folklore’s waste heap. These are simply baseless allegations. He makes a pointed remark that one of these personalities, Rene Dahinden, held contempt for those PhDs that Dahinden deemed had not paid him sufficient deference. In reality it was Dahinden’s arrogance and generally caustic demeanor that eventually alienated all who held any opinion at variance to his, or who presented evidence that drew attention from his monopolization of the Patterson-Gimlin film. I believe I held the distinction of precipitating his displeasure more rapidly than anyone previously, when I presumed to counter his reading of a particular set of tracks. Daegling suggests that Dahinden’s attitude “was vindicated in time when the arrogance of the PhD types would lead them to make blunders in interpretation.” From the tenor of this remark and what follows, it appears there is ample arrogance to go around.
Barbara Wasson, a psychologist by training, is misleadingly portrayed as a tracker, and it is suggested that she was qualified to not only psychoanalyze the witness but to authoritatively evaluate any tracks associated therewith. In a later chapter it is eventually acknowledged that she is an avocational animal tracker. Yet in nearly the same breath, Bob Titmus’ veracity is impugned by virtue of his ability to find trackways. Titmus, a professional taxidermist and indeed an experienced tracker spent more time in the field in northern California searching for sign than anyone from that period.
John Green is pegged disparagingly as a “true believer” whose “penchant for cataloging” has produced a disparate collection of reports including “three-, four-, and five-toed tracks, hair of every conceivable tint and shade, eyes of various color.” This is simply a specious assessment. What is interesting is the inherent consistency and general lack of apparent embellishment that characterizes the vast majority of this data set. Of course there are outliers quite possibly resulting from fabrications, misidentification, poor observation and/or documentation. No one person could individually verify every account that came to his attention. However, Green’s data are amenable to scientific analysis and serve as the basis of an ongoing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis. A word about toe number is worth mentioning since this accusation of inconsistency is palmed off repeatedly. My experience is that three-toed tracks, which are in fact very infrequent, are not tracks of animals at all, but simply cases of misidentification or hoax; four-toed tracks can result from amputation or simply the lack of impression of a small toe (four-toed bear tracks are not uncommon for either of these reasons).
The remainder of the chapter broaches in abbreviated fashion the Patterson-Gimlin film, the Minnesota iceman, the Bossburg cripplefoot, Paul Freeman, and the Skookum cast. Here we are treated to a mere inkling of the distortions that are foisted on the reader in the subsequent chapters that deal with each subject at greater length, if not greater depth or insight.
Chapter 4. Bigfoot Scrutinized: Why the Greatest Hits are all Misses. Daegling continues his denigration of the “data” and his assertion of their lack of amenability to scientific scrutiny. He does acknowledge the reflexive rejection of Bigfoot by the scientific community, but justifies this by cliché allusions to cold fusion and Piltdown to illuminate what he feels constitutes scientific worthiness. Of the potential hypotheses addressing Bigfoot, Daegling focuses on only one, “that Bigfoot is explicable entirely by human agency.” However, rather than set out to refute this hypothesis after a scientific fashion, he turns the process on its head and selects and interprets data that appear to bolster his skeptical position, while unjustifiably trivializing any and all alternatives.
The historic Bigfoot is considered further. The violent aspects of two early accounts are portrayed as being at odds with the stereotypical caricature of Bigfoot as passive, if inquisitive. Such variation or even evolution of perception, even if real, has its parallel in the evolving perceptions of known great apes, such as gorillas – from bestial monsters to gentle giants. Even today very different perceptions of the gorilla’s nature would be had from the perspective of a modern ecotourist versus that of a poacher hunting bushmeat.
Ray Wallace’s supposed exploits are revisited. The flatly false allegation is made that when Wallace was away from the construction site, Bigfoot lost interest in the operation. Daegling is duped by the media hype over the claims of Wallace’s surviving family of faked footprints. He simply accepts that they produced bogus carved feet that matched the tracks found in Bluff creek from 1958-1967. In reality, the carved feet match none of the documented footprints, particularly not those cast by Jerry Crew. The fake feet spotlighted by the press, and illustrated in a later chapter, diverge noticeably from the numerous fake feet produced and peddled by Wallace in later years in Toledo, Washington, and bear no resemblance to the crude blockish squared-off feet carved by Rant Mullens. They do bear resemblance to the 15-inch casts made by Bob Titmus (a copy of which it turns out was in possession of Wilbur “Shorty” Wallace) which likely served as inspiration for the most notorious set of fake feet widely publicized. Faced with this contradiction the Wallaces merely regrouped and countered that it must have been another pair of fake feet that were used to make the 17-inch Crew footprints, since there were so many, as they now assert, and they didn’t profess to have them all. The Wallace claims about just how the tracks were fabricated change with each retelling of the story, with each irreconcilable contradiction unraveling their claim. Daegling’s “simplest explanation” is by no means as simple as he would have his reader accept, and represents an egregious abuse of the often misapplied principle of parsimony. He sermonizes that “commonsense compels us to write off the whole affair” – nonsense perhaps, but clearly not commonsense.
Much ado is made over the human shenanigans accompanying the incidents at Bossburg, which did resemble a circus in the aftermath of the discovery of exceptional footprints. These high jinks have cast a pall of suspicion over the footprints in the minds of many, but none of this skepticism has provided a satisfactory explanation for the enigmatic footprints themselves. Daegling’s explanation falls decidedly short and provides no justification for the ad hominem attack on Grover Krantz. Daegling credits Dennett with putting the first dent in Krantz’s reconstruction of the skeletal proportions of the Bossburg foot. Dennett observed that the talotibial joint does not contact the ground; therefore its position could not be deduced from a footprint. First, Dennett ignores the fact that the analysis producing the reconstruction was two-pronged, ultimately combining observations from the Patterson-Gimlin film with the deformities of the Bossburg track. It was the anterior-posterior thickness of the ankle and noticeable elongation of the heel of the P-G film subject that clued Krantz in on the inferred position of the talotibial joint. The anterior border of the tibia is quite subcutaneous; hence the long axis of the tibia can be reasonably inferred from the anterior border of the leg. Furthermore, the relative length of the calcaneal tuberosity varies rather consistently among primates according to body mass and locomotor adaptation. The great apes display a graded series from gibbon to gorilla. The relationship of the talus to the distal end of the calcaneus is comparatively uniform (excepting such highly modified leapers as the tarsier). If Krantz had some idea of the position of the calcaneocuboid joint, then he could reasonably approximate the position of the talus. Far from being “scientifically indefensible,” the hypothesis that the lateral bunionettes correlate to the derangement of the calcaneocuboid and cubometatarsal joints is tenable and finds precedent in the orthopedic case literature. There are admittedly few examples of long-standing adult cases since such conditions in humans are typically corrected in infancy. The long-term effects of such a condition are not well documented. Indeed, Krantz’s reconstruction of the foot proportions has received independent corroboration from my modeling of the foot based on multiple independent examples of midtarsal pressure ridges. To suggest that someone without any familiarity with the anatomy of the foot simply scaled up a tracing of a figure in an orthopedics textbook, fabricated a set of artificial feet and stomped hundreds of footprints in snow, mud and even underwater is naïve at best. To further imply that there is any merit to Kenneth Wylie’s allegation that it was confessed faker Ray Pickens that was responsible for the Bossburg tracks again reveals how ill-informed Daegling is about the original data. Pickens has appeared on television displaying his wares, which are on par with the crude creations whittled by Rant Mullens illustrated in this chapter. His first admitted escapade with his concocted feet came long after the incidents at Bossburg.
Attention is next turned to Paul Freeman and events occurring in the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington State. Daegling indicates this locale is “well removed from the mountainous coastal habitat that is usually associated with Sasquatch activity.” What is apparently lost on Daegling is the fact that the northern end of the Blue Mountain range is extremely wet, with up to 90 cm of precipitation annually and rich habitat resources amply sufficient to support a large omnivore, not to mention one of the nation’s largest elk herds. Accounts of Bigfoot had emerged from the region long before Freeman arrived on the scene and continue after his departure. Daegling’s entire assessment of the incidents involving Paul Freeman appears to be largely filtered through the smoked lens of Michael Dennett. The numerous problems alluded to by Daegling lie not with the tracks but with the decidedly skewed interpretations of the tracks. With all due respect to the reputed tracking prowess of Joel Hardin, his mind was made up prior to the event; he interpreted the tracks as if they were man tracks. In most points of his objection the apparent contradictions are precisely what should have been expected based on the distinctive style of walking surmised for the sasquatch, based on other tracks and eyewitness accounts. Krantz deals with Hardin’s points head-on in his book and I discussed them at length indirectly with Hardin on-line. Dennett is again cited as a source for Dahinden’s claim that tracks were left in a nonsequential series, with two left feet in succession – an apparently damning situation, if true. Dahinden corrected this bit of misrepresentation when I questioned him on it. His sarcastic comment, indiscriminately reported by Dennett, that in some instances one couldn’t tell a right foot cast from a left, and thus there appeared to be “two left feet” was baseless. Further distortions by Dennett include the often repeated claim that Freeman admitted to faking footprints. In reality Freeman stated that he had experimented in his backyard to determine what would be required, if it was even possible, to fake a convincing Bigfoot track. In that case, I guess I am guilty of hoaxing Bigfoot tracks, as well as any other serious-minded researcher who has done his homework. As for the rumor that Freeman worked at an orthopedic shoe company -- as best I can determine there is no substance to it; let Dennett reveal his “anonymous sources.”
Finally the chapter is rounded out by brief mention of the Skookum cast, an apparent body imprint. Frankly, it is surprising how much disinformation can be packed into a mere four pages on this subject. Here again Daegling demonstrates his lack of familiarity with the primary data and relies heavily on the skeptic, this time Benjamin Radford (who by the way, is not a science writer, as stated, and has no qualification to evaluate the cast). Daegling clearly has the impression of a muddy wallow, as the site was unfortunately described initially, conjuring the image of a sasquatch reclining in wet gooey mess. The immediate site was actually moist clay soil surrounding a shrinking puddle of collected rain water that was an ideal consistency to take the imprint of fine detail, including hair and dermatoglyphics, without adhering to the subject. The cast has been examined firsthand by a number of specialists, including three primate anatomists, Krantz, myself, and Daris Swindler; the latter two coauthored an abstract and presented on it at the meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Pacific Division meetings. Krantz had no hesitation to “endorse” the cast, contrary to claims otherwise. Without deference to these academics, Daegling instead turns to Cliff Crook and Don Keating, two amateur Bigfoot investigators, neither one having examined the cast itself or having backgrounds qualifying them to evaluate it even if they did, for a “withering critique” of the cast and the assertion that it is merely an elk imprint. Daegling endorses their conclusion that the heel is made by the elk kneeling. A straightforward comparison between the imprint of the wrist of a 650 pound elk and the heel imprint has excluded this simple hypothesis on the basis of size, shape and hair pattern. Daegling abandons professionalism by stating, “Any claim that the Skookum cast could not have been faked borders on the asinine.”
Chapter 5. The Patterson Film is considered by Daegling the one piece of evidence that deserves consideration on its own merits. Apparently Daegling had access to a copy of the film provided by Dahinden for study, which may be the only engagement with any of the primary data he has had. One is left to question the quality of the copy he worked from based on his comments, such as lack of observable facial details. A fair amount of these are quite discernable, especially from early stills that were made directly from the original film. He suggests that published accounts of the context of the film are loaded with inconsistencies, when in fact it is his thinly researched and superficial rendition that is misleading. He suggests that there was wholesale lack of interest by institutional science, when in fact there were showings at several institutions, including the University of British Columbia, the American Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian. While the reception was cool, few reviewers were willing to dismiss it outright and none could offer a reasoned explanation of how it would have been faked. The matter of filming speed bears significantly on the analysis of the film. Daegling unjustifiably asserts that Patterson had been filming at 24 fps prior to the encounter. However in scenes of Patterson on horseback leading the packhorse taken just prior to the encounter (dubbed the cowboy footage) it is very clear that the camera was already set at the slower speed. Daegling attempts to cast aspersion on Krantz’s conclusion that the film was shot at 18 fps, since that setting does not exist on the snap dial of the camera (the options included 16 and 24 fps). Krantz’s approach to determining the speed directly from the film is sound and the plausibility of an intermediate rate was soundly vindicated by direct analysis of the frame rate variance of that model of camera, and by other means as mundane as observing the blurring effect of camera motion. Through personal communication I can report that Don Grieve stands by his conclusion that at the slower speed the likelihood of a human being responsible for the unusual gait was extremely unlikely. Daegling’s quibbling over the commentary by Disney technicians is pointless. Ken Peterson, who had been with Disney from the beginning, straight out said they couldn’t replicate the film (and frankly, no one has been able to since).
A feigned effort to understand Gimlin’s role in the incident is again inaccurate. Daegling again relies on secondary sources who by their statements are obviously also unfamiliar with the primary data. In this case it is Wylie who is surprised by what he perceives as indifference on the part of Gimlin about this “life-changing experience.” This singular and subjective conclusion is baseless. Gimlin was amazed at the encounter since he had previously placed little confidence in the creature’s existence. He did express disappointment in the film itself because it fell short of what he had witnessed firsthand at close range and unobstructed by the tunnel-effect of the camera’s viewfinder. Wylie’s lack of authority reemerges later when he asks why the storms that sent Patterson and Gimlin packing didn’t wash away the footprints which Daegling presumes are within the “margins of the creek bed.” The best footprints were on a sandbar 30-40 inches above the level of the creek. The rising creek and mudslides on primitive mountainside logging roads did not have to inundate the entire canyon in order to imperil the retreat of Patterson and Gimlin. Daegling states that Gimlin tried in vain to pursue the film subject, implying that the tracks mysteriously ended after a mere few hundred feet. In fact Gimlin was eager to follow the evident trail leading up the steep mountainside, but Patterson understandably objected to being left behind on foot and unarmed, his horse having bolted. Titmus later tracked it a consider distance up the mountain. This sort of ignorant innuendo peppers the book throughout and underscores the tactics adopted by the skeptics.
The inevitable rehearsal of the hoaxer’s claims is likewise unbalanced and inaccurate. To counter Chambers’ straightforward denial of the rumors that he made the costume, Daegling teams up with magician Mark Chorvinsky to foist a convoluted conspiracy theory to bolster the rumor. But wait, it was actually Wallace that was responsible, Daegling continues, because he informed Patterson precisely where to go to run into a photogenic Bigfoot. Gimlin reports that Patterson did visit Wallace once, but came away unimpressed. Wallace’s claim of telling Patterson where to go to film is nothing but another wild yarn, in character with Wallace’s reputation. He claimed the site was in the Onion Lake region (actually miles from the film site), accessible by trail (a logging road was nearby), near a large boulder (no such landmark). But now, Daegling shifts, it is Bob Heironimus that lays claim to being the “man in the fur suit” in cahoots with Patterson himself. Take your pick.
Daegling suggests the reaction of the advocate camp is predictable: the appearance is not that of a costume, the subject is too large, its arms are too long and the walk is too bizarre. He then sets out to demonstrate that this argument is wrong. What follows is certainly the most egregious misrepresentation yet, since it is made knowingly. Daegling takes Krantz to task for asserting that no man of the estimated stature of the film subject is built so broadly. He turns to the Anthropometric Source Book (1978) and selects the measure called “interscye”. In a sample of 1,004 men of the German Air Force, interscye of the ninety-fifth percentile is 49.6 cm, a good 3 cm larger than Krantz’s estimate of Bigfoot's impossibly wide thorax. Daegling glibly concludes that according to Krantz’s assertion, 5% of German aviators were in need of zoological reclassification. Daegling’s smugness is unwarranted since a closer examination reveals that the “interscye” (measure #506) is “a taped measure across the back between the posterior axillary folds at the lower level of the armpit.” A taped measure is distinguished as an arc or a circumference measured on the surface of the body, rather than a straight projected length, as would be estimated from a film image. In this case, interscye is an arc following the contour of the back from one armpit to the other. If the radius of curvature of this arc is large, then the difference between the length of the arc and its cord length, or linear distance between its end points, is minor, and perhaps justifiably negligible. If there is considerable depth to the torso, the radius of curvature will be considerably smaller and the disparity between arc length and cord length can be significant. The correct measure found in the Anthropometric Source Book for comparison to Krantz’s chest breadth is, not surprisingly, “chest breadth,” (metric #223) defined as “the breadth of the torso measured at the nipple line” (without pressure). This is a straight-line projected measure of the greatest breadth of the torso taken at the level of the male nipple. Whether projected from the ventral or dorsal surface is irrelevant. In this dimension the ninety-fifth percentile of the same sample of German aviators measures a mere 35.4 cm, much less than the 49.6 cm value for the interscye, and also much less than the 46.5 cm chest breadth estimated by Krantz for the film subject. Indeed, the ninety-ninth percentile of the German sample still only reaches 37.4 cm, still over 9 cm shy of the film subject's estimated chest breadth. The largest reported value actually comes from a sizeable sample of 2984 U.S. law enforcement officers, with a ninety-ninth percentile value of 41.7 cm for chest breadth and 192.6 cm for stature. I have had this very conversation with Daegling previously, but to no apparent avail.
From the crest of the head to the heel of the foot, Daegling is off the mark. He laments that the presence of a sagittal crest in a female primate is “not only shocking, but unprecedented.” In fact, modest sagittal crests have been documented in female gorillas. It is a scaling matter relating the relative size of the jaws and the skull, not a matter of gender, plain and simple. Regarding the elongated heel, Daegling asserts that the Achilles’ tendon does not insert at the proximal end of the calcaneus, but instead appears to attach far forward on the heel. This conclusion is simply indefensible and is based on a single redrawn frame where the sole of the foot is overexposed due to its orientation to the sun and camera lens. At this point in the step cycle, the Achilles’ tendon would be expected to be relatively slack, lending the elongated heel a protruding appearance. An examination of other frames depicting the step at a point where the ankle plantarflexors are active and the tendon taut (not to mention provide a more advantageous angle from which to assess the anatomy) would have readily indicated the insertion of the tendon is indeed at the end of the heel (Meldrum, 2004).
Chapter 6. Further Musings on Footprints. The depth of alleged Bigfoot tracks is one of the topics of this chapter. Daegling sets up a hyped theoretical situation with 3-inch deep tracks, and one has to look carefully for the point where he backs off from that unrealistic generalization (in the moist firm sand of the Patterson film site, for example, the tracks were approximately 1 inch in depth). He takes the reader through a useful, if flawed, exercise of the quantification of the forces involved in impressing a footprint, but fails to discuss or even consider the constraints and obstacles to such a complex analysis, e.g. variable moisture content, heterogeneity of the soil, dynamic versus static action of the foot, etc. A shod horse in sand is not employing only the area of the shoe for support, nor is it reasonable to merely divide the body mass equally between four limbs. Likewise it is misleading to suggest that a jack beneath the back end of a truck is supporting half the truck’s weight, or for that matter is in any way analogous to the dynamics of the footprint of a heavy biped.
Step length (the distance between opposite successive footfalls) is confused with stride length (the distance between successive footfalls of the same foot, i.e. 2 successive steps) and the difference is never distinguished. A simplistic proposition is offered that, as suggested by the Wallace heirs, one simply hangs on to the back of a moving truck to give the fake footprints a greater stride and “provide the punch necessary to impress the tracks deeply.” A failed demonstration of this tactic was performed by the Wallaces on camera with comedic but unconvincing results, as one might imagine.
The proposition that sasquatch have flat flexible feet capable of a midtarsal break is critically reviewed. The fact that Daegling equates a pressure disc displaced from behind the pronounced ball of a human foot with the evident pressure ridge proximal to the midfoot of the sasquatch track (see Fig. 6.1 and 6.2.) aptly illustrates his lack of discernment concerning the dynamics of hominoid footprints. Contrary to his allegations, I have examined fresh tracks in the ground exhibiting this feature, as well as a number of other examples of photos and casts of footprints consistently displaying the same.
Once again, this time with emphasis, Daegling declares: “the exact form of the pedal skeleton cannot be reliably inferred from the shape of a footprint even under ideal circumstances.” Neither Krantz nor I have made the assertion that the “exact form” of the individual skeletal elements can be inferred. We have indicated that commonly discernable landmarks can indicate the relative proportions of foot segments and positions of key articulations. Considering a human footprint, either on a hard surface or impressed, the position of the tuberosity of the fifth metatarsal is often evident as a convexity on the lateral border of the footprint; persistent flexion creases indicate the position of the hallucial metatarsophalngeal joint; in flat feet the apex of the convexity on the medial border of the foot marks the navicular tuberosity. These are plainly observable landmarks that frequently have their homologs in alleged sasquatch footprints.
Chapter 7. Three Red Herrings. Having concluded that Bigfoot fails the evidentiary standard, Daegling suggests that the advocates typically retreat to three lines of diversionary defense. The first is that alternative explanations are unlikely or unreasonable; the second that the lack of bones is explicable on ecological grounds; the third that Bigfoot has avoided detection because of its paranormal abilities or origins.
Chapter 8. A Science of Sasquatch. Daegling starts off with the rhetorical question “Why doesn’t Bigfoot get an aside in anthropology textbooks?” He apparently missed the fact that it was afforded an entire page in one of the most widely used introductory physical anthropology texts (Nelson & Jurmain, 1988; and it received a much more even-handed treatment there than it has received here). There is a confused argument over the need to acknowledge every prank and every explicated circumstance or be guilty of abandoning scholarship. By this point it is obviously a case of the pot presuming to call the kettle black, even were the contention justified. Here again sources are misrepresented. In a footnote to a reference evaluating a purported vocalization, Daegling states “these authors could not rule out that the various sounds were prerecorded.” In fact the abstract of the reference he cites clearly states “They [the authors] also conclude that the tape shows none of the expected signs of being prerecorded or rerecorded at altered speed and hence diminish the possibility of a hoax.”
His exasperation is only equaled by that of the informed reader when he concludes with the resignation that “Stinking like a landfill, hirsute beyond confusion, and impossible to miss at 8 feet tall, Bigfoot plods through our backyards pressing the feeble soil clear through to the mantle, and yet our luck is so astonishing, incomprehensibly bad that we just miss it day after day, year in and year out.” Spoken like a true arm-chair skeptic.
Chapter 9. The Eyewitness Problem rises somewhat above the muck of the preceding chapters and offers a more thoughtful, if still condescending discussion of the weal and woes of dealing with eyewitness accounts. Here Daegling finally broaches the relevance of Native American world views and Wildman traditions world-wide.
Chapter 10. The Bardin Booger. In this chapter Daegling indulges an aside to recount the story behind Florida’s Bardin Bugger, presumably a local iteration of the more popularized Skunk ape, to illustrate the life history of a local legend. It apparently constitutes his field research supporting the assertion that Bigfoot is simply a “local legend” born of frequenting “local taverns.”
Chapter 11. The Phenomenon. Here Daegling concludes with an argument that sasquatch is a mythological figure. This is self-evident to anyone. The advocates do not deny the mythological element. But only the uninitiated and uninformed will be swayed by the arguments presented in the preceding chapters to accept the premise that this is the exclusive explanation for the phenomenon. Rather than inform with discrimination this book routinely perpetuates misconceptions and disinformation. It is cut from the same cloth as the pretentious skeptical sources Daegling relied so heavily upon, professional cynics who would vainly wrap themselves in a hijacked banner of science and critical thinking. In the end, it is a notable contribution precisely because it so plainly illuminates the dismissive tactics that are too common in anthropological and zoological academia regarding this subject.
Jeff Meldrum
Departments of Biological Sciences and Anthropology
Idaho State University
Anthropometric Source Book. NASA Reference Publication 1024. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Technical Information Service.1978.
Gingerich, PD (1977) Correlation of tooth size and body size in living hominoid primates, with a note on relative brain size in Aegyptopithecus and Proconsul, Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 47: 395-398.
Gingerich, PD, BH Smith, and K Rosenberg (1982) Allometric scaling in the dentition of primates and predictions of body weight from tooth size in fossils. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 58:81-100.
Meldrum, DJ (2004) Midfoot flexibility, fossil footprints, and sasquatch steps: New perspectives on the evolution of bipedalism. Journal of Scientific Exploration 18:65-79.
Nelson, H and R Jurmain. Introduction to Physical Anthropology, 4th edition. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1988, p. 352.
"Why as yet no living or dead specimen or a part of its body? The shortest answer is that too little time has passed since the birth of hominology. It is a newborn science, devoid of recognition and funding"
What does hominology have to do with it? We're talking accidental finds by hunters, or accidental kills by car drivers or hunters, or just a hiker coming up on a dead BF that died of natural causes. If sightings are common, then finding bodies should at least happen periodically.
What does hominology have to do with it? We're talking accidental finds by hunters, or accidental kills by car drivers or hunters, or just a hiker coming up on a dead BF that died of natural causes. If sightings are common, then finding bodies should at least happen periodically.
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 09:36 PM)
There may be reasons why the existence of bigfoot in the America is impossible.
Impossible, or improbable? So if it's impossible for them to exist, what ARE people actually seeing, sometimes 10 feet from their own eyes?
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 09:36 PM)
1. Lack of food supply. Despite counterarguments that they could live off nuts, berries and tree bark and the like , large great apes with big brains need a big diet of protein and fat - more than you can find in the woods in Indiana or forests of California.
How do you know that? 'More' than you can find. Based on what?
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 09:36 PM)
2. Bare feet - a real problem in cold climates, because the feet have no protection from the cold like other cold weather mammals have. Unless bigfoot wears shoes, its feet are going to freeze in the winter.
Do we actually know the anatomy of their feet so well, as to determine that that is true? I don't think so.
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 10:03 PM)
This still does not answer the problem of bare feet on cold ground.
I don't know. Why don't you ask the monkey with the snowball how he manages?
Click to view attachment
QUOTE(Judaculla @ Feb 15 2007, 10:11 PM)
I don't know. Why don't you ask the monkey with the snowball how he manages?
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Let's see how well you do with bare feet on cold ground. Let me know the results.
Why are other large primates confined to the tropics?
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 10:03 PM)
1. I think they included meat in their diet, please show me documentation of a bigfoot that eats meat.
2. Just going by the "supposed" bigfoot footprints, which clearly show toes, heel, etc., i.e. a "bare" foot.
"The Japanese Macaque (the monkeys you've likely seen pictures of hanging out in natural hot springs during a snow storm...darn cute) survives winter temperatures as low as 5 degrees Fahrenheit."
This still does not answer the problem of bare feet on cold ground.
2. Just going by the "supposed" bigfoot footprints, which clearly show toes, heel, etc., i.e. a "bare" foot.
"The Japanese Macaque (the monkeys you've likely seen pictures of hanging out in natural hot springs during a snow storm...darn cute) survives winter temperatures as low as 5 degrees Fahrenheit."
This still does not answer the problem of bare feet on cold ground.
" Just going by the supposed Bigfoot foot prints", in my opinion is not good enough to make that assumption.
There are many sighting reports that would make one conclude that Bigfoot eats meat, but I'm sure I already know what your opinion of eyewitness reports are, my argument would be a wast of time.
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 10:19 PM)
Let's see how well you do with bare feet on cold ground. Let me know the results.
Why are other large primates confined to the tropics?
Why are other large primates confined to the tropics?
Answer: They can't get passports.<?>
Of course, the serious answer would be, that we're assuming they ARE primates.
QUOTE(GuyInIndiana @ Feb 15 2007, 10:36 PM)
Answer: They can't get passports.<?>
Of course, the serious answer would be, that we're assuming they ARE primates.
Of course, the serious answer would be, that we're assuming they ARE primates.
The more serious answer is, why assume they exist at all. Why not assume woolly mammoths still exist in the frozen north and we just haven't spotted them, or giant beavers in Alaska who somehow miss our detection. There is actually fossil evidence of these creatures from the past.
WE assume they are NOT there because we don't see any bodies, bones, or decomposed parts.
Such should be the same with bigfoot.
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 10:09 PM)
"Why as yet no living or dead specimen or a part of its body? The shortest answer is that too little time has passed since the birth of hominology. It is a newborn science, devoid of recognition and funding"
What does hominology have to do with it? We're talking accidental finds by hunters, or accidental kills by car drivers or hunters, or just a hiker coming up on a dead BF that died of natural causes. If sightings are common, then finding bodies should at least happen periodically.
What does hominology have to do with it? We're talking accidental finds by hunters, or accidental kills by car drivers or hunters, or just a hiker coming up on a dead BF that died of natural causes. If sightings are common, then finding bodies should at least happen periodically.
You quoted Daegling, did you not expect an answer like his? (Sierra4)
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 10:19 PM)
Why are other large primates confined to the tropics?
Maybe bigfoot likes to vacation in the PNW.
Where exactly are these cold-weather bigfoot roaming around, the arctic? And, speaking of the arctic, how do polar bears keep their feet from freezing?
RayG
smallfoot - as to your concerns that the California Forest's don't have enough vegetation to support a large ape, I assure you as a anthropologist with the U.S. Forest Service in California, there is plenty of resources here today (and in the past) to sustain a primate population.
Native Americans have been living in the PNW without the benefit of agriculture for thousands of years. More than 75% of their calories come from gathered plants, insects, and small rodents with the remaining 25% coming from larger game (deer, elk, etc.). The vast majority of the plants used as food (and of course, there are many more plants who's only use was for ceremonial or medical purposes) needed no further work other than to "pick it" (no need for processing and/or cooking). In fact, the resources in PNW were so vast and abundant, gathering only took up a few hours a day and like many agricultural societies, the native cultures here were able to develop complex "leisure" activities such as rock art, baskets, etc. The plants and their nutritional value are very well documented.
Now I'm sure your next question would be winter survival without hibernation...and the answer would be migration to lower elevations (and yes, I would assume migration because clearly if bigfoot is real, he walked here over the land bridge, so migration would be easily accomplished).
I am always very astonished about comments about bones and hidden populations. I find that these comments come from people who have no idea how vast a landscape there is out there. In the PNW alone, there are over 100 million acres of federal lands (BLM, Forest Service, Park Service). Why don't you put 2,000 of anything of your choice, randomly, out there and see who finds what. There are entire plane wrecks out there still missing...plane wrecks...not intelligent creatures with the ability to move and hide.
Native Americans have been living in the PNW without the benefit of agriculture for thousands of years. More than 75% of their calories come from gathered plants, insects, and small rodents with the remaining 25% coming from larger game (deer, elk, etc.). The vast majority of the plants used as food (and of course, there are many more plants who's only use was for ceremonial or medical purposes) needed no further work other than to "pick it" (no need for processing and/or cooking). In fact, the resources in PNW were so vast and abundant, gathering only took up a few hours a day and like many agricultural societies, the native cultures here were able to develop complex "leisure" activities such as rock art, baskets, etc. The plants and their nutritional value are very well documented.
Now I'm sure your next question would be winter survival without hibernation...and the answer would be migration to lower elevations (and yes, I would assume migration because clearly if bigfoot is real, he walked here over the land bridge, so migration would be easily accomplished).
I am always very astonished about comments about bones and hidden populations. I find that these comments come from people who have no idea how vast a landscape there is out there. In the PNW alone, there are over 100 million acres of federal lands (BLM, Forest Service, Park Service). Why don't you put 2,000 of anything of your choice, randomly, out there and see who finds what. There are entire plane wrecks out there still missing...plane wrecks...not intelligent creatures with the ability to move and hide.
1."If Bigfoot is a real animal, why have we found no bodies or bones for scientists to study?"
How many times must this dragon be slayed? this has been answered time and time again so I won't waste any keystrokes here. Look it up, every decent book on the subject addresses this issue.
2. "How can a breeding population of 1,000 pound primates live on the well-populated West Coast of the United States without occasionally (or even frequently) being killed by a hunter or struck by an automobile?"
How do you know it's a 1,000 pound primate? Where did you get that number? What if it's a 300 pound primate?
Only about 7% of the landmass of the US has been developed. You do the math, errr... maybe you can't and that's why you're asking? So let me help you, 93% of the US consists of undeveloped wilderness. There are many places in this country and even more in British Columbia and Canada where no hunters hunt and automobiles don't exist. Not isolated places, huge landmasses. Look at Google Earth some day and get a clue.
3. "If there's a breeding population of large animals amid a human population well equipped with camcorders and picture phones, why haven't we gathered much more and much better photographic evidence in the last 40 years?"
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I challenge you to go out and bring us back a picture of a wild fox, coyote, wolf, cougar or rabit, your choice, with your own camera. You obviously have never tried, you armchair skeptic!
If you don't believe me it's extremely difficult and want to have a good laugh, look up the case of the ivory billed woodpecker and the dorky scientists who thought they could bag one easily. They spent millions and months, where are the photographs of the ivory billed woodpecker?
:laugh:
How many times must this dragon be slayed? this has been answered time and time again so I won't waste any keystrokes here. Look it up, every decent book on the subject addresses this issue.
2. "How can a breeding population of 1,000 pound primates live on the well-populated West Coast of the United States without occasionally (or even frequently) being killed by a hunter or struck by an automobile?"
How do you know it's a 1,000 pound primate? Where did you get that number? What if it's a 300 pound primate?
Only about 7% of the landmass of the US has been developed. You do the math, errr... maybe you can't and that's why you're asking? So let me help you, 93% of the US consists of undeveloped wilderness. There are many places in this country and even more in British Columbia and Canada where no hunters hunt and automobiles don't exist. Not isolated places, huge landmasses. Look at Google Earth some day and get a clue.
3. "If there's a breeding population of large animals amid a human population well equipped with camcorders and picture phones, why haven't we gathered much more and much better photographic evidence in the last 40 years?"
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I challenge you to go out and bring us back a picture of a wild fox, coyote, wolf, cougar or rabit, your choice, with your own camera. You obviously have never tried, you armchair skeptic!
If you don't believe me it's extremely difficult and want to have a good laugh, look up the case of the ivory billed woodpecker and the dorky scientists who thought they could bag one easily. They spent millions and months, where are the photographs of the ivory billed woodpecker?
:laugh:
QUOTE(RayG @ Feb 15 2007, 10:47 PM)
Where exactly are these cold-weather bigfoot roaming around, the arctic? And, speaking of the arctic, how do polar bears keep their feet from freezing?
RayG
RayG
The same way most cold-weather mammals do, their feet are totally insulated, they have paws, not "bare" feet. Take a look at the bottom of your feet to see what primate soles look like.
QUOTE(Judaculla @ Feb 15 2007, 10:11 PM)
I don't know. Why don't you ask the monkey with the snowball how he manages?
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
QUOTE(smallfoot)
Let's see how well you do with bare feet on cold ground. Let me know the results.
Smallfoot -
What are you talking about?
There are also some reasons why they're existence IS possible. Tracks that match in scar tissue and dimension that were cast 20 years apart and hundreds of miles away. Single hair strands that have been scrutinized by different experts and found by all to be of an ''unknown primate''. Enormous piles of dung containing various vegetation and berries. Look into biologist John Bindernagel's study of a potential habitat in the pacific northwest where he listed thirtysomething edible and plentiful items on the menu. This is not even to mention deer, elk, or any other forest critters. This doesn't nessecarily have to be a great ape. Maybe something between ape and man but closer to man. The Sierra sounds vocalizations, also very well scrutinized, and even with the latest technology have not been debunked by experts to this day. These were recorded in the early 70's, and show that at times they sound more like man than ape. As far as frozen feet go, tracks have been found IN the snow. I would think something of this size and strength could gather some brush in a hurry and crawl into the pile for a quick shelter. If deer and many other animals survive the winter without hibernating why couldn't these creatures? If they have hands like a man they'd be capable of constructing a shelter. Also there ARE sightings and footprints of smaller or juvenile bigfoot. See the very end of the Freeman footage, its a baby squatch jumping off a stump into the arms of its parent. What's ***hole high to a 9 foot saquatch? A 4 and a half foot juvenile LOL. As far as finding bones, not until last year did they find the first set of bones of a chimpanzee in Africa where we know they have thrived for centuries. If this is all a hoax, it has spanned hundreds of years and is a worldwide phenomena. This to me is more unbelievable than the phenomena itself. IMO.
QUOTE(gigantor @ Feb 15 2007, 11:01 PM)
1."If Bigfoot is a real animal, why have we found no bodies or bones for scientists to study?"
How many times must this dragon be slayed? this has been answered time and time again so I won't waste any keystrokes here. Look it up, every decent book on the subject addresses this issue.
2. "How can a breeding population of 1,000 pound primates live on the well-populated West Coast of the United States without occasionally (or even frequently) being killed by a hunter or struck by an automobile?"
How do you know it's a 1,000 pound primate? Where did you get that number? What if it's a 300 pound primate?
Only about 7% of the landmass of the US has been developed. You do the math, errr... maybe you can't and that's why you're asking? So let me help you, 93% of the US consists of undeveloped wilderness. There are many places in this country and even more in British Columbia and Canada where no hunters hunt and automobiles don't exist. Not isolated places, huge landmasses. Look at Google Earth some day and get a clue.
3. "If there's a breeding population of large animals amid a human population well equipped with camcorders and picture phones, why haven't we gathered much more and much better photographic evidence in the last 40 years?"
:
See #2 above. But just as an aside, where are the photographs of the ivory billed woodpecker?
How many times must this dragon be slayed? this has been answered time and time again so I won't waste any keystrokes here. Look it up, every decent book on the subject addresses this issue.
2. "How can a breeding population of 1,000 pound primates live on the well-populated West Coast of the United States without occasionally (or even frequently) being killed by a hunter or struck by an automobile?"
How do you know it's a 1,000 pound primate? Where did you get that number? What if it's a 300 pound primate?
Only about 7% of the landmass of the US has been developed. You do the math, errr... maybe you can't and that's why you're asking? So let me help you, 93% of the US consists of undeveloped wilderness. There are many places in this country and even more in British Columbia and Canada where no hunters hunt and automobiles don't exist. Not isolated places, huge landmasses. Look at Google Earth some day and get a clue.
3. "If there's a breeding population of large animals amid a human population well equipped with camcorders and picture phones, why haven't we gathered much more and much better photographic evidence in the last 40 years?"
:
See #2 above. But just as an aside, where are the photographs of the ivory billed woodpecker?
1&2. Again with the insults. And how many times must skeptics say you have NOT debunked this argument. With all the wide-ranging sightings of these supposed BF, over a long period of time it is statistically certain a body would be found. I don't believe there is a BF, 300 or 1000 pounds.
3. Anybody with a cellphone can take a picture now, we should be getting lots of good material if BF really exists.
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 11:04 PM)
The same way most cold-weather mammals do, their feet are totally insulated, they have paws, not "bare" feet. Take a look at the bottom of your feet to see what primate soles look like.
Your kidding? So again your asking me to conclude that because my feet are not insulated in a way to deal with extreme cold, than the feet of a possible Bigfoot must also be the same.
This is your basis for the foot argument? Again I say you do not have enough evidence to make this assumption.
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 11:11 PM)
1&2. Again with the insults. And how many times must skeptics say you have NOT debunked this argument. With all the wide-ranging sightings of these supposed BF, over a long period of time it is statistically certain a body would be found. I don't believe there is a BF, 300 or 1000 pounds.
Dude, people have bear sightings all the time and there are no bear "bodies" found, why?
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 11:11 PM)
3. Anybody with a cellphone can take a picture now, we should be getting lots of good material if BF really exists.
Huh? because people have cell phones with cameras means they'll be rushing to uninhabited wilderness to take BF pics? please explain.
I think smallfoot is ignoring me....cause I am actually an anthropologist and he can't refute what I have to say! Fortunately, my feelings aren't hurt.... my soles are thick... :smile:
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Feb 15 2007, 11:34 PM)
I think smallfoot is ignoring me....cause I am actually an anthropologist and he can't refute what I have to say! Fortunately, my feelings aren't hurt.... my soles are thick... :smile:
I'm glad you got here when you did.
Well done Sierra 4 on earlier reply's. I saw Daegling on national geographics' Is It Real:Bigfoot and its easy to see the resemblance how skeptics view the subject with blinders on while ignoring facts. When Daegling and another nitwit ''tried'' to duplicate the gait and strides of the Patterson subject, it was quite comical. About this tired argument of not finding bones yada yada yada. I've been out in the woods in new england many times and I have never found bones of any animals, not even a squirrel yet I know they are out there.
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 10:03 PM)
This still does not answer the problem of bare feet on cold ground.
Thick fat pads. Geez.
QUOTE(LAL @ Feb 16 2007, 12:31 AM)
Thick fat pads. Geez.
Regardless, even humans can adapt to cold environments and remain barefooted. Charles Darwin reported on his trip to Tierra del Fuego that the indigenous population was scantily clad and barefooted in snow and cold. If someone wants to hunt for the reference in The Voyage of the Beagle, be my guest.
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 15 2007, 10:09 PM)
"Why as yet no living or dead specimen or a part of its body? The shortest answer is that too little time has passed since the birth of hominology. It is a newborn science, devoid of recognition and funding"
What does hominology have to do with it? We're talking accidental finds by hunters, or accidental kills by car drivers or hunters, or just a hiker coming up on a dead BF that died of natural causes. If sightings are common, then finding bodies should at least happen periodically.
What does hominology have to do with it? We're talking accidental finds by hunters, or accidental kills by car drivers or hunters, or just a hiker coming up on a dead BF that died of natural causes. If sightings are common, then finding bodies should at least happen periodically.
I think that if you would stop and read the posts made by Judaculla and Sierra4 you will find good answers to your questions.
I get the impression that your just pulling chains and not taking advantage of the wealth of info in those posts from members I've listed above and those from Hairy Man?
I wonder why you don't respond to these members?
Why do people assume that an alleged BF has to eat/behave like a gorilla or other large primate? Why should there be some universal law that it can't eat meat? We know chimps do.
Daegling made some serious errors in his book - off the top of my head, I think he tried to claim Patty was a hoax because of the sagital (sp?) crest being only on males when in fact it is based on the size of the animal. I think he had some measurment issues with Krantz that Meldrum was able to prove that he (Daegling) had wrong.
I have stated that I'm on the fence on BF's existence -- all I want to know is if it is real or not. If the evidence collected so far can be proven to be phoney, then do it. If someone out there can out debate Meldrum or other experts and prove them wrong, do it. But don't sit back with half-assed quips about it being "impossible to have a viable population" and "because we haven't found a body" and "they can't live off the land." Quit yapping about what "should have happened by now" because there isn't any more evidence to make those conclusions than there is for BF. The animal (or whatever it may be) could possibly be intelligent enough to elude detection -- why is that so hard to imagine? If this is a totally unkown species, then it doesn't have to play by the rules of others.
Daegling made some serious errors in his book - off the top of my head, I think he tried to claim Patty was a hoax because of the sagital (sp?) crest being only on males when in fact it is based on the size of the animal. I think he had some measurment issues with Krantz that Meldrum was able to prove that he (Daegling) had wrong.
I have stated that I'm on the fence on BF's existence -- all I want to know is if it is real or not. If the evidence collected so far can be proven to be phoney, then do it. If someone out there can out debate Meldrum or other experts and prove them wrong, do it. But don't sit back with half-assed quips about it being "impossible to have a viable population" and "because we haven't found a body" and "they can't live off the land." Quit yapping about what "should have happened by now" because there isn't any more evidence to make those conclusions than there is for BF. The animal (or whatever it may be) could possibly be intelligent enough to elude detection -- why is that so hard to imagine? If this is a totally unkown species, then it doesn't have to play by the rules of others.
'Why haven't we found any bodies yet?'
Cripes. I give up. This argument is so dead in the water that I am amazed everytime somebody brings it up. It's absolutely ridiculous. There are hundreds of thousands of bears in North America, and carcasses are NEVER FOUND!! Fossil evidence is a different matter,
but how do people honestly keep asking the SAME question over and over? I don't mean to sound like a jerk but it borders on moronic. Hundreds of thousands of blackbears and bodies are never found (unless shot). Less than 2,000 sasquatch in North America (estimated) and people expect to find a body.
Laughable. This horse has been beat to death by skeptics over, and over, when it is really the weakest argument against Bigfoots existence.
Cripes. I give up. This argument is so dead in the water that I am amazed everytime somebody brings it up. It's absolutely ridiculous. There are hundreds of thousands of bears in North America, and carcasses are NEVER FOUND!! Fossil evidence is a different matter,
but how do people honestly keep asking the SAME question over and over? I don't mean to sound like a jerk but it borders on moronic. Hundreds of thousands of blackbears and bodies are never found (unless shot). Less than 2,000 sasquatch in North America (estimated) and people expect to find a body.
Laughable. This horse has been beat to death by skeptics over, and over, when it is really the weakest argument against Bigfoots existence.
QUOTE
Another good question. Some counter arguments have been. that other creatures or even small groups of man have gone unnoticed in some area. However, these have always been very limited in range, and people in general weren’t “looking” intensely for the creatures or beings in question. Bigfoot sightings have come from all over, thus it becomes statistically quite likely that SOMEWHERE, SOMEONE would stumble across a body, or accidently (or purposely) killed a bigfoot. Thus we are left with no current hard evidence that a bigfoot creatures still survives.
There are several reports of a Sasquatch being killed on accident or odd bones being found, for the latter check out Alleys book. Here is one excellent report of a man accidently killing a Sasquatch in the past.
QUOTE
1. I think they included meat in their diet, please show me documentation of a bigfoot that eats meat.
No need to think that, they did. There are many, many accounts of Sasquatch eating meet, I'd read Dr. Bindernagels books on this subject as he goes into in detail.
If Sasquatches have eluded detection all these years, then why is it we have thousands of eyewitness reports, hundreds of prints, and at least one clear video? A better word would be "uncatalogued."
As for the lack of good photographic evidence, which is arguable, how many clear images taken by amateurs (who just happen to have their camera ready) of bears, pumas, and wolverines? The latter being a rare omnivore as well. The kind of pictures you fing in National Geographic are taken by well trained and funded pros, sometimes even taken in captivity. Why would Sasquatch magically be the exception and be having its picture clearly taken by campers with their cell phones?
I once tried several times to take a nearby squirrels picture with my cell phone with no success, I can't even imagine capturing a quick moving animal in the forest at a distance with it. I would have at the very least another great blobsquatch...
QUOTE(gigantor @ Feb 15 2007, 09:01 PM)
So let me help you, 93% of the US consists of undeveloped wilderness. There are many places in this country and even more in British Columbia and Canada where no hunters hunt and automobiles don't exist. Not isolated places, huge landmasses. Look at Google Earth some day and get a clue.
Here here!!!
It's not just Bigfoot skeptics who need to hear this, but MOST people on this planet. Our notion that mankind inhabits every corner of the Earth is something that really needs corrected...
QUOTE
If sightings are common, then finding bodies should at least happen periodically.
If by 'common' sightings you mean one in 10 million people?
What a joke. No matter how sensible people attempt to sound stuff like this displays a huge lack of logic.
fredsneakers/david;
You make good points in your argument but I believe the member who's post/statements you quoted discounts all eyewitness reports. I seem to recall it being referred to as "falsifiable evidence".
You make good points in your argument but I believe the member who's post/statements you quoted discounts all eyewitness reports. I seem to recall it being referred to as "falsifiable evidence".
fred,
The story about Peter in Manitoba is one that I have never read before. Thanks for posting it. I really enjoyed it and found it to be very credible.
The story about Peter in Manitoba is one that I have never read before. Thanks for posting it. I really enjoyed it and found it to be very credible.
"fredsneakers/david;
You make good points in your argument but I believe the member who's post/statements you quoted discounts all eyewitness reports. I seem to recall it being referred to as "falsifiable evidence"." (In quotation marks because the botton wasn't working."
I know, I was responding soley to the "No bodies have been seen" statement.
I tried to start a thread on reports of this nature, it was sort of side tracked but here it is.
Slewfoot, yeah I think it's a really cool website. The woman who does it I think used to post here, I find her work very impressive.
You make good points in your argument but I believe the member who's post/statements you quoted discounts all eyewitness reports. I seem to recall it being referred to as "falsifiable evidence"." (In quotation marks because the botton wasn't working."
I know, I was responding soley to the "No bodies have been seen" statement.
I tried to start a thread on reports of this nature, it was sort of side tracked but here it is.
Slewfoot, yeah I think it's a really cool website. The woman who does it I think used to post here, I find her work very impressive.
QUOTE(Hairy Man @ Feb 15 2007, 08:34 PM)
I think smallfoot is ignoring me....cause I am actually an anthropologist and he can't refute what I have to say! Fortunately, my feelings aren't hurt.... my soles are thick... :smile:
He must've got cold feet....
QUOTE(Squonksquatch @ Feb 16 2007, 01:13 PM)
I think he had some measurment issues with Krantz that Meldrum was able to prove that he (Daegling) had wrong.
Even before Meldrum:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...#39;s++Errments
I don't have the book on hand so I can't give the page #, but the one that got me was the idea that hoaxers were communicating dermal ridge pattern information by long distance telephone. :doh:
"I think he tried to claim Patty was a hoax "
Speaking of the Patterson hoax, the people that would know, i.e. film special effects and costume makers all say it's a man in a fake suit.
Another point not often made is that the supposed BF in the film looks around at the camera and makes no CHANGE whatsoever in its gait, and has no reaction to the filming.
If BF are so squeamish about men, you would think it would have run off, or at least had some reaction of terror. However, if its a man in a suit, he probably COULDN'T change his stride because of the stiffness of the suit.
Speaking of the Patterson hoax, the people that would know, i.e. film special effects and costume makers all say it's a man in a fake suit.
Another point not often made is that the supposed BF in the film looks around at the camera and makes no CHANGE whatsoever in its gait, and has no reaction to the filming.
If BF are so squeamish about men, you would think it would have run off, or at least had some reaction of terror. However, if its a man in a suit, he probably COULDN'T change his stride because of the stiffness of the suit.
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 16 2007, 08:20 PM)
"I think he tried to claim Patty was a hoax "
Speaking of the Patterson hoax, the people that would know, i.e. film special effects and costume makers all say it's a man in a fake suit.
Speaking of the Patterson hoax, the people that would know, i.e. film special effects and costume makers all say it's a man in a fake suit.
And yet they can't duplicate it, how strange!
Remember, this film is from 1967, not much to speak of in the way of special effects back then.
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 16 2007, 08:20 PM)
"I think he tried to claim Patty was a hoax "
Speaking of the Patterson hoax, the people that would know, i.e. film special effects and costume makers all say it's a man in a fake suit.
Speaking of the Patterson hoax, the people that would know, i.e. film special effects and costume makers all say it's a man in a fake suit.
Wow... that's just one of those kind of statements that just begs the question, "Could you please back that up with facts? Please cite special effects experts (by name), and costume makers who have made those statements."
Thanks.
BTW... I also found a reference to an Iranian indigenous group: the Bakhtiari. Before his fame with King Kong, Merian Cooper filmed a documentary in 1925 depicting the migration of the tribe over the Zagros mountains. Fifty thousand people walk barefoot in snow and on glaciers over the highest peak, Zard Kuh.
The documentary is called "Grass: A Nation's Battle for Life."
Here's a link to the wikipedia entry for the Bakhtiari.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhtiari
You may want to re-think this point.
The documentary is called "Grass: A Nation's Battle for Life."
Here's a link to the wikipedia entry for the Bakhtiari.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakhtiari
QUOTE
Famous Documentary "Grass: A Nation's Battle for Life" (1925) tells the story of the migration of Bakhtiari tribe between summer quarters Chahar-e-Bakhtiari to winter quarters in Khuzestan. This film also tells the story of how these people crossed the river Karun with 50,000 people and 500,000 animals. The documentary "People of the Wind" (1975) retraces this same journey, 50 years later. As of 2006, the migration still takes place, although the livestock are now transported in trucks, and the shepherds no longer walk barefoot in the snow between provinces.
You may want to re-think this point.
QUOTE
A point about bigfoot feet:
All larger primates have bare feet, at least on the bottom, which means that tramping around on frozen or cold terrain would be quite uncomfortable and would lead to frostbite. This means that large primates must either:
Live in tropical climates where having bare feet is not a problem.
Cover up their feet with socks and shoes like homo sapiens, if living in cold climates.
If bigfoot is leaving tracks with clear toe prints, it's feet are bare enough to feel the cold. We’re supposed to believe that we have a large primate running around in the cold climates of North America with its bare feet, leaving tracks, without it suffering any ill effects of frostbite or discomfort. This seems illogical, and does NOT fit in with the patterns of any other large primates. And please don't tell me bigfoot wears shoes in the winter.
All larger primates have bare feet, at least on the bottom, which means that tramping around on frozen or cold terrain would be quite uncomfortable and would lead to frostbite. This means that large primates must either:
Live in tropical climates where having bare feet is not a problem.
Cover up their feet with socks and shoes like homo sapiens, if living in cold climates.
If bigfoot is leaving tracks with clear toe prints, it's feet are bare enough to feel the cold. We’re supposed to believe that we have a large primate running around in the cold climates of North America with its bare feet, leaving tracks, without it suffering any ill effects of frostbite or discomfort. This seems illogical, and does NOT fit in with the patterns of any other large primates. And please don't tell me bigfoot wears shoes in the winter.
Janos Prohaska, greatest of the time, did not think it was a man in a costume.
QUOTE
Janos Prohaska, greatest of the time, did not think it was a man in a costume.
That's not possible LAL, as smallfoot stated.
QUOTE
..film special effects and costume makers all say it's a man in a fake suit.
This kind of fallacious reasoning occurs when a person mistakes presumption for knowledge. A person doesn't cite sources and begins to think and speak oversimplistically. That's a hallmark of logical fallacies of presumption (and there are many).
The false dilemma (either/or fallacy) is another classic logical fallacy of presumption. It can either be A or B presumes that there are only two choices.
Either
Choice 1: Primates live in warm climates.
Choice 2: Primates who live in cold climates wear shoes.
The Japanese macaque and the Bakhtiari of old lived in cold climates. Neither wore shoes. The choices to which smallfoot restricted himself--sounding absolutely logical--are absolutely false.
Other hallmarks of various fallacies of presumption are linguistic terms: all, never, would, should. Smallfoot's writing is chock full of those kinds of terms. A person using those words is thinking about reality they way they understand it or want it to be. It shows very limited flexibility in thought and doesn't require any data or sources other than a persons own ramblings. However, it *sounds* smart and intelligent--it's just all superficial.
Some folks just don't know what they don't know.
I should have added a smilie or special formatting to my own use of "all." It was intentional.
"The Japanese macaque and the Bakhtiari of old lived in cold climates"
The macaque is only distantly related to large apes. Find me a large ape that has padded feet, and loves the cold, and I'll believe you.
The macaque is only distantly related to large apes. Find me a large ape that has padded feet, and loves the cold, and I'll believe you.
QUOTE(smallfoot @ Feb 17 2007, 11:11 AM)
"The Japanese macaque and the Bakhtiari of old lived in cold climates"
The macaque is only distantly related to large apes. Find me a large ape that has padded feet, and loves the cold, and I'll believe you.
The macaque is only distantly related to large apes. Find me a large ape that has padded feet, and loves the cold, and I'll believe you.
Boy, you get something in your noggin and it sticks like glue, doesn't it?
Of all the arguments against BF, this is one of the most inconseqential I've heard. Why is it so hard to fathom that possibly this large primate has adapted to its environment? Why does it have to play by the rules of other primates in tropical locations?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.