http://dsc.discovery.com/news/slideshows/bigfoot.html

Didn't know if anyone saw this yet.

1.) The Empty Fossil Record
When two Georgia men declared they were storing the body of Bigfoot in a freezer -- and that they had its DNA -- more than a few skeptics cried foul.

Is the legend of Bigfoot (a.k.a. Sasquatch) little more than a stubborn myth? For the dirt on the doubters, Discovery News contacted Benjamin Radford, managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, who was more than happy to rattle off the top 10 reasons Bigfoot is bogus.

First on his list: the fossil record. Why, he asked, would a legacy of large mammals reported to exist throughout North America (and beyond) simply disappear from the same soil that has preserved everything from the dinosaur bones pictured here, to wooly mammoths, to tiny marine crustaceans?

"There's no fossil record of anything fitting the description" of Bigfoot, said Radford. "There's simply nothing there."

2.) Forget Fossils, Where Are the Bodies?
Putting aside paleontology, Radford points out that today, if Bigfoot exists, it must disappear when it dies. "There's no hard evidence in the form of bones. There are no hair samples, there are no live or dead specimens," he said.

Bigfoot believers argue that the soil in areas where the creatures live -- such as the region surrounding Bellingham, Wash., seen here -- is acidic and quickly breaks down the bones. Nonsense, says Radford: "There's nothing to that, because Bigfoot has been reported in every state but Hawaii."

3.) Where Do Bigfoot Babies Come From?
Even for mammals that are relatively rare in global terms, such as the chimpanzee, it takes a decent population size to maintain a species. "If Bigfoot is a zoological reality," said Radford, "there has to be a breeding population."

For that population to be big enough to account for even a fraction of the sightings, there would need to be tens of thousands of the creatures in North America alone. "Think about that for a second. Tens of thousands of Bigfoot, living, breathing, doing what they do. Where are they? Why don't they get hit by a car?" asked Bradford. "The numbers just simply don't add up."

4.) Your Lying Eyes
The majority of "evidence" for Bigfoot, says Radford, consists of eyewitness accounts. Yet as psychologists and schooled juries know, such accounts are famously inaccurate.

What's more, says Radford, "the problem is, that's not evidence, it's an anecdote....It's interesting and you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand, but it's not evidence."

5.) The Ever-Mysterious Blobsquatch
This black-and-white image was taken in 1977 by a man named Frank White, near Bellingham, Wash. "I'd call it a North American ape," White told reporters at the time. "You can call it a Sasquatch or anything you like."

Radford calls it a Blobsquatch. Aside from eyewitness reports, blurry images like this are what most Bigfoot believers rely on.

But it's no proof, said Radford: "These photos show something that is probably alive, it's probably dark, it's not a cat, it's not a camel. It could be a Bigfoot, or it could be a deer or it could be a guy in a suit."

"Ultimately," he concludes, "it's a two-dimensional image. It's pixels."

6.) Doctor Who?
For Radford and other skeptics, the only acceptable standard of proof is the scientific one. Why, when there are countless researchers probing the far corners of every continent, is there no rigorous, documented, peer-reviewed evidence for Bigfoot? Only one answer makes sense, says Radford: Bigfoot isn't real.

Attendees of the Texas Bigfoot Conference, pictured here, might disagree. The annual event draws hundreds of people -- including Bigfoot enthusiasts, amateur researchers, historians, and tourists -- but few if any academic scientists.

7.) The Case of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker
Speaking of science, Bigfoot believers sometimes complain that funding for Sasquatch Studies is hard to find. But scientists are notoriously good note-takers, Radford points out, even about subjects they aren't directly studying.

Consider this league of biologists scouting for the elusive ivory-billed woodbecker in Arkansas' White River National Wildlife Refuge, an area where Bigfoot sightings have been made.

"There was a huge, hardcore investigation. They were well-equipped, well-funded and made a sustained search," noted Radford. "What I found interesting was, what didn't they find? They didn't find Bigfoot."

8.) This Katydid Couldn't Hide
Dozens of new species, previously unknown to science, are discovered each year. But for the most part, they are tiny: microorganisms and insects such as the newly discovered katydid pictured here. Could Bigfoot really hide in such a peopled world?

"The last large animal to be found was probably the giant panda, and that was 100 years ago," said Radford. "There has not been a single new creature that doesn't fit the recognized taxonomy discovered in the last century, there just simply hasn't."

9.) If It Walks Like a Hoax ...
This ruddy strand, about 70 micrometers in diameter, could be taken as a hair. But it isn't -- it's a carpet fiber.

A similar thread was once claimed to have fallen from Bigfoot's back. Later, it was shown to be synthetic Dynel fiber, said Radford. An alleged vial of Bigfoot blood once turned out to be transmission fluid, and many Bigfoot sightings, in the end, are admitted fakes.

"There is no category of Bigfoot evidence that doesn't have a string of hoaxes attached to it," said Radford. "If you're studying a subject in which virtually all the evidence either comes down to being inconclusive or a hoax, something's wrong."

10.) The Case of the Missing Footprint
This picture shows Al Hodgson, a volunteer guide at California's Willow Creek-China Flat Musuem, holding up a plaster cast believed by some to be a Bigfoot imprint.

Authentic or not, footprints and other physical artifacts are meaningless scientifically, says Radford, when there is no standard to measure them by.

"Some of the footprints have three toes, some have four toes, and some of course have five," he noted. "Even if I'm certain a certain track wasn't made by anything else, how do I know it's Bigfoot? You can't."

The same goes for DNA. Scientists make a positive identification by comparing an unknown sample to a known one. There is no such standard for Bigfoot, says Radford. Even an educated guess about the giant footprint pictured here or a Blobsquatch gone wild is, at best, a shot in the dark.

Benjamin Radford is the co-author of "Lake Monster Mysteries: Investigating the World's Most Elusive Creatures."

--Sarah Goforth

Coleman has asked people to respond to the article's fallacious point number 8 where Radford claims, "The last large animal to be found was probably the giant panda, and that was 100 years ago."

There has not been a single new creature that doesn’t fit the recognized taxonomy

... he is singling out discoveries of creatures, which had no related, previously classified species.

Perhaps APEMAN, could clarify, but I think that Gorillas were discovered long before the Mountain Gorilla was discovered in the early 1900's, but I don't think that there were any previous discoveries of creatures similar to the Great Panda.

Just like if Bigfoot WERE to be discovered there may not be any related classified species that have been discovered.

I wouldn't presume to know what Radford meant if it was indeed something other than what he appeared to say. The giant panda certainly would NOT meet the interpretation you suggest, since bears were previously known.

Ailuropoda is an ursid genus containing five species of giant pandas[1]. Only one species, the Giant Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) currently exists; the other four species are prehistoric chronospecies. Despite its taxonomic classification as a carnivore, the panda has a diet that is primarily herbivorous, which consists almost exclusively of bamboo.

Ursus is a genus in the family Ursidae (bears) that includes the widely distributed brown bears, the polar bear, and black bears. The name is derived from the Latin ursus, meaning bear.

So this guy says their are no hair samples?

Haven't their been countless over the years, all tested, all coming back with the same repetitive conclusion? Like a humans, but not...like a apes also, but not.

Vocalizations and blood also has been found and recorded several times...

Radford is undereducated about #8. He's right that most new species of animals described since 1950 have been tiny, but there are several notable exceptions, including new species described in the last 20 years: http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/species.html.

Of course, fairly large herbivores from the understudied and only recently accessible jungles of Vietnam make a poor case for the probability of a very large species inhabiting land areas that have been trapped, logged, hunted, mined, etc. by white settlers for at least the past 200 years . . .

whaaa?
columbus discovered america and ten minutes later ground was broken for a superwalmart and a subway sub shop.

gee whiz, who writes these histories?
jk
does the new dolphins count?

Discovery should let someone like Meldrum or Bindernagle write a response.

whaaa?
columbus discovered america and ten minutes later ground was broken for a superwalmart and a subway sub shop.

gee whiz, who writes these histories?
jk
does the new dolphins count?

In a nutshell, until every 10 foot of land in the US has a human being standing on it at the same exact time, it really doesn't take much brain power to realize that yes, its entirely possible for a BF to exist in North America. If BF doesn't exist, then there certainly are alot of delusional people in the world.