Big Foot tracks???

[stratoman]

I've been researching Bigfoot in Pennsylvania for 20 years. Last year I received info on sightings in the Levittown PA area. I found these prints (below) from the back of shopping center, near a dumpster. The tracks came from a creek area and went back to same creek area.

I followed the tracks for half a mile, no artificial prints seen. The measurement was about 15''. There were multiple tracks that went deep into the woods. This doesn't seem to be the place where someone would hoax Both my girlfriend and daughter were there as well.

-Stuart C.

nationalsigns@verizon.net

[RedskinsFanInTX]

Have the Lakers been there? Could be Shaquille O'Neal's print.

[codeorama]

Cool info, Bigfoot is one of the few "unexplained" things that interest me. While I'm sure that many of the reports are fake or misidentifications, there are many that have merit.

Most people don't realize that you never find dead bears in the woods or other large animals either and the fact that in some areas like the pacific northwest, there have been plane crashes that have never been found because the forests are so dense.

There was a show on Discovery called Bigfootville about an area in Oklahoma that has a huge number of sightings. It was interesting because several police officers had a sighting and they took a local camera crew back with them to the same area. Then rocks were thrown at their truck. The cops were armed, they had night vision etc... If it was a hoax, it was a dangerous one. There was also hair sample that were tested and came back identified as an unknown primate. Last time I checked, there were no monkeys running around the forests of oklahoma.

[@DCGoldPants]

They did this cool show on Discovery a few years ago.....and there is a Bigfoot type guy in China who they call "the Red man" or something because of his red fur.

Anyways, the area he could be in what HUGE.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Bufford T Justice

They did this cool show on Discovery a few years ago.....and there is a Bigfoot type guy in China who they call "the Red man" or something because of his red fur.

Anyways, the area he could be in what HUGE.

Yeah, I saw that one too... I think he was called the Yeren.

They had hair samples that couldn't be identified too.

Also, there is a cool show on Outdoor life called Mysterious Encounters that I tivo each week.

They go all over the place setting up infra red and night vision cameras and so on looking for bigfoot.

They have had a few enteresting encounters and a blurred picture that was pretty freaky.

They have also had some hair samples come up as unidentified primate and they have disproved a lot of evidence too. One hair sample was rabbit hair.

The most interesting thing I've seen on there was a video of a possible big foot that everyone wrote of as a hoax at first glance, but after further review, it looked like the creature picked up a smaller one and walked off. You could see the child like legs dangling. It was pretty creepy. If it was a hoax, they really went into serious detail.

There's an anthropologist named Grover Krantz that has analized some footprint casts and explained how the bone structure was present and could not have been faked.

On the bigfootville show, there was a fingerprint expert that has studied fingerprints, hand prints and such from all known primates.

He showed how a human footprint has dermal ridges that are either horizontal or vertical (I can't remember which) and primates have dermal ridges that are diagonal. Some of the bigfoot casts have dermal ridges present that are the opposite of the human prints and he has never seen any primate that has ridges like that.

Very interesting to say the least.

That being said, most people won't believe until a body is brought back.

[@DCGoldPants]

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/ASIA/CHINA/as_ch001.htm

[Om]

That being said, most people won't believe until a body is brought back.

Have I ever mentioned a certain book by Carl Sagan ... ?

Hey, just trying to keep the candle lit here.

[Om]

Screw the candle. Let's go with the halogen lamp.

*

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

Bigfoot at 50

Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence

The question of Bigfoot's existence comes down to the claim that "Where there's smoke there's fire." The evidence suggests that there are enough sources of error that there does not have to be a hidden creature lurking amid the unsubstantiated cases.

Benjamin Radford

Though sightings of the North American Bigfoot date back to the 1830s (Bord 1982), interest in Bigfoot grew rapidly during the second half of the twentieth century. This was spurred on by many magazine articles of the time, most seminally a December 1959 True magazine article describing the discovery of large, mysterious footprints the year before in Bluff Creek, California.

A half century later, the question of Bigfoot's existence remains open. Bigfoot is still sought, the pursuit kept alive by a steady stream of sightings, occasional photos or footprint finds, and sporadic media coverage. But what evidence has been gathered over the course of fifty years? And what conclusions can we draw from that evidence?

Most Bigfoot investigators favor one theory of Bigfoot's origin or existence and stake their reputations on it, sniping at others who don't share their views. Many times, what one investigator sees as clear evidence of Bigfoot another will dismiss out of hand. In July 2000, curious tracks were found on the Lower Hoh Indian Reservation in Washington state. Bigfoot tracker Cliff Crook claimed that the footprints were "for sure a Bigfoot," though Jeffrey Meldrum, an associate professor of biological sciences at Idaho State University (and member of the Bigfoot Field Research Organization, BFRO) decided that there was not enough evidence to pursue the matter (Big Disagreement Afoot 2000). A set of tracks found in Oregon's Blue Mountains have also been the source of controversy within the community. Grover Krantz maintains that they constitute among the best evidence for Bigfoot, yet longtime researcher Rene Dahinden claimed that "any village idiot can see [they] are fake, one hundred percent fake" (Dennett 1994).

And while many Bigfoot researchers stand by the famous 16 mm Patterson film (showing a large manlike creature crossing a clearing) as genuine (including Dahinden, who shared the film's copyright), others including Crook join skeptics in calling it a hoax. In 1999, Crook found what he claims is evidence in the film of a bell-shaped fastener on the hip of the alleged Bigfoot, evidence that he suggests may be holding the ape costume in place (Dahinden claimed the object is matted feces) (Hubbell 1999).

Regardless of which theories researchers subscribe to, the question of Bigfoot's existence comes down to evidence- and there is plenty of it. Indeed, there are reams of documents about Bigfoot-filing cabinets overflowing with thousands of sighting reports, analyses, and theories. Photographs have been taken of everything from the alleged creature to odd tracks left in snow to twisted branches. Collections exist of dozens or hundreds of footprint casts from all over North America. There is indeed no shortage of evidence.

The important criterion, however, is not the quantity of the evidence, but the quality of it. Lots of poor quality evidence does not add up to strong evidence, just as many cups of weak coffee cannot be combined into a strong cup of coffee.

Bigfoot evidence can be broken down into four general types: eyewitness sightings, footprints, recordings, and somatic samples (hair, blood, etc.). Some researchers (notably Loren Coleman 1999) also place substantial emphasis on folklore and indigenous legends. The theories and controversies within each category are too complex and detailed to go into here. I present merely a brief overview and short discussion of each; anyone interested in the details is encouraged to look further.

1. Eyewitness Accounts

Eyewitness accounts and anecdotes comprise the bulk of Bigfoot evidence. This sort of evidence is also the weakest. Lawyers, judges, and psychologists are well aware that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. As Ben Roesch, editor of The Cryptozoological Review, noted in an article in Fortean Times, "Cryptozoology is based largely on anecdotal evidence. . . . [W]hile physical phenomena can be tested and systematically evaluated by science, anecdotes cannot, as they are neither physical nor regulated in content or form. Because of this, anecdotes are not reproducible, and are thus untestable; since they cannot be tested, they are not falsifiable and are not part of the scientific process. . . . Also, reports usually take place in uncontrolled settings and are made by untrained, varied observers. People are generally poor eyewitnesses, and can mistake known animals for supposed cryptids [unknown animals] or poorly recall details of their sighting. . . . Simply put, eyewitness testimony is poor evidence" (Roesch 2001).

Bigfoot investigators acknowledge that lay eyewitnesses can be mistaken, but counter that expert testimony should be given much more weight. Consider Coleman's (1999) passage reflecting on expert eyewitness testimony: "[E]ven those scientists who have seen the creatures with their own eyes have been reluctant to come to terms with their observations in a scientific manner." As an example he gives the account of "mycologist Gary Samuels" and his brief sighting of a large primate in the forest of Guyana. The implication is that this exacting man of science accurately observed, recalled, and reported his experience. And he may have. But Samuels is a scientific expert on tiny fungi that grow on wood. His expertise is botany, not identifying large primates in poor conditions. Anyone, degreed or not, can be mistaken.

2. Footprints

Bigfoot tracks are the most recognizable evidence; of course, the animal's very name came from the size of the footprints it leaves behind. Unlike sightings, they are physical evidence: something (known animal, Bigfoot, or man) left the tracks. The real question is what the tracks are evidence of. In many cases, the answer is clear: they are evidence of hoaxing.

Contrary to many Bigfoot enthusiasts' claims, Bigfoot tracks are not particularly consistent and show a wide range of variation (Dennett 1996). Some tracks have toes that are aligned, others show splayed toes. Most alleged Bigfoot tracks have five toes, but some casts show creatures with two, three, four, or even six toes (see figure 1). Surely all these tracks can't come from the same unknown creature, or even species of creatures.

Not all prints found are footprints, though. In September 2000, a team of investigators from the Bigfoot Field Research Organization led an expedition near Mt. Adams in Washington state, finding the first Bigfoot "body print," which-if authentic-is arguably the most significant find in the past two decades. The Bigfoot, according to the team, apparently made the impression when it laid on its side at the edge of a muddy bank and reached over to grab some bait. This of course raises the question as to why the animal would make such an odd approach to the food, instead of simply walking over to it and taking it. As the log of the expedition reads, "One explanation is immediately apparent-the animal did not want to leave tracks. . . ." (BFRO 2000). This explanation fails on its own logic: If the Bigfoot (or whatever it was) was so concerned about not leaving traces of its presence, why did it then leave a huge fifteen-square-foot imprint in the mud for the team to find? (1)

3. Recordings

The Patterson Film

The most famous recording of an alleged Bigfoot is the short 16 mm film taken in 1967 by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Shot in Bluff Creek, California, it shows a Bigfoot striding through a clearing (see figure 2). In many ways the veracity of the Patterson film is crucial, because the casts made from those tracks are as close to a gold standard as one finds in cryptozoology. Many in the Bigfoot community are adamant that the film is not-and, more important-cannot be a hoax. The question of whether the film is in fact a hoax or not is still open, but the claim that the film could not have been faked is demonstrably false.

Grover Krantz, for example, admits that the size of the creature in the film is well within human limits, but argues that the chest width is impossibly large to be human. "I can confidently state that no man of that stature is built that broadly," he claims (Krantz 1992, 118). This assertion was examined by two anthropologists, David Daegling and Daniel Schmitt (1999), who cite anthropometric literature showing the "impossibly wide" chest is in fact within normal human variation. They also disprove claims that the Patterson creature walks in a manner impossible for a person to duplicate.

The film is suspect for a number of reasons. First, Patterson told people he was going out with the express purpose of capturing a Bigfoot on camera. In the intervening thirty-five years (and despite dramatic advances in technology and wide distribution of handheld camcorders), thousands of people have gone in search of Bigfoot and come back empty-handed (or with little but fuzzy photos). Second, a known Bigfoot track hoaxer claimed to have told Patterson exactly where to go to see the Bigfoot on that day (Dennett 1996). Third, Patterson made quite a profit from the film, including publicity for a book he had written on the subject and an organization he had started.

In his book Bigfoot, John Napier, an anatomist and anthropologist who served as the Smithsonian Institution's director of primate biology, devotes several pages to close analysis of the Patterson film (pp. 89-96; 215-220). He finds many problems with the film, including that the walk and size is consistent with a man's; the center of gravity seen in the subject is essentially that of a human; and the step length is inconsistent with the tracks allegedly taken from the site. Don Grieve, an anatomist specializing in human gait, came to the conclusion that the walk was essentially human in type and could be made by a modern man. Napier writes that "there is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind."

Other films and photos of creatures supposed to be Bigfoot have appeared, perhaps best-known among them the Wild Creek photos allegedly purchased by Cliff Crook of Bigfoot Central from an anonymous park ranger (see figure 3).

Bigfoot Voices

One of the more interesting bits of "evidence" offered for the existence of Bigfoot is sound recordings of vocalizations. One company, Sierra Sounds, markets a CD called "The Bigfoot Recordings: The Edge of Discovery." Narrated by Jonathan Frakes (an actor who also narrated a special on the infamous "Alien Autopsy" hoax), the recording claims to have captured vocalizations among a Bigfoot family. The sounds are a series of guttural grunts, howls, and growls.

The Web site and liner notes offer testimonials by "expert" Nancy Logan. Logan, their "linguist," apparently has little or no actual training (or degree) in linguistics. Her self-described credentials include playing the flute, speaking several languages, and having "a Russian friend [who] thinks I'm Russian." Logan confidently asserts that the tapes are not faked, and that the vocal range is too broad to be made by a human. She suggests that the Bigfoot language shows signs of complexity, possibly including profanities: "On one spot of the tape, an airplane goes by and they seem to get very excited and not very happy about it. Maybe those are Sasquatch swear words."

Here's what Krantz writes about Bigfoot recordings: "One... tape was analyzed by some university sound specialists who determined that a human voice could not have made them; they required a much longer vocal tract. A sasquatch investigator later asked one of these experts if a human could imitate the sound characteristics by simply cupping his hands around his mouth. The answer was yes" (Krantz 1992, 134). As for other such recordings, Krantz has "listened to at least ten such tapes and find no compelling reason to believe that any of them are what the recorders claimed them to be" (133).

4. Somatic Samples

Hair and blood samples have been recovered from alleged Bigfoot encounters. As with all the other evidence, the results are remarkable for their inconclusiveness. When a definite conclusion has been reached, the samples have invariably turned out to have prosaic sources-"Bigfoot hair" turns out to be elk, bear, or cow hair, for example, or suspected "Bigfoot blood" is revealed to be transmission fluid. Even advances in genetic technology have proven fruitless. Contrary to popular belief, DNA cannot be derived from hair samples alone; the root (or some blood) must be available.

In his book Big Footprints, Grover Krantz (1992) discusses evidence for Bigfoot other than footprints, including hair, feces, skin scrapings, and blood: "The usual fate of these items is that they either receive no scientific study, or else the documentation of that study is either lost or unobtainable. In most cases where competent analyses have been made, the material turned out to be bogus or else no determination could be made" (125). He continues, "A large amount of what looks like hair has been recovered from several places in the Blue Mountains since 1987. Samples of this were examined by many supposed experts ranging from the FBI to barbers. Most of these called it human, the Redkin Company found significant differences from human hair, but the Japan Hair Medical Science Lab declared it a synthetic fiber. A scientist at [Washington State] University first called it synthetic, then looked more closely and decided it was real hair of an unknown type. . . . Final confirmation came when E.B. Winn, a pharmaceutical businessman from Switzerland, had a sample tested in Europe. The fiber was positively identified as artificial and its exact composition was determined: it is a prod- uct known commercially as Dynel, which is often used as imitation hair." In his analysis, Winn (1991) noted that another alleged Bigfoot sign found at the site, tree splintering, had also been faked.

Hoaxes, the Gold Standard, and the Problem of Experts

Such hoaxes have permanently and irreparably contaminated Bigfoot research. Skeptics have long pointed this out, and many Bigfoot researchers freely admit that their field is rife with fraud. This highlights a basic problem underlying all Bigfoot research: the lack of a standard measure. For example, we know what a bear track looks like; if we find a track that we suspect was left by a bear, we can compare it to one we know was left by a bear. But there are no undisputed Bigfoot specimens by which to compare new evidence. New Bigfoot tracks that don't look like older samples are generally not taken as proof that one (or both) sets are fakes, but instead that the new tracks are simply from a different Bigfoot, or from a different species or family. This unscientific lack of falsifiability plagues other areas of Bigfoot research as well.

Bigfoot print hoaxing is a time-honored cottage industry. Dozens of people have admitted making Bigfoot prints. One man, Rant Mullens, revealed in 1982 that he and friends had carved giant Bigfoot tracks and used them to fake footprints as far back as 1930 (Dennett 1996). In modern times it is easier to get Bigfoot tracks. With the advent of the World Wide Web and online auctions, anyone in the world can buy a cast of an alleged Bigfoot print and presumably make tracks that would very closely match tracks accepted by some as authentic.

What we have, then, are new tracks, hairs, and other evidence being compared to known hoaxed tracks, hairs, etc. as well as possibly hoaxed tracks, hairs, etc. With sparse hard evidence to go on and no good standard by which to judge new evidence, it is little wonder that the field is in disarray and has trouble proving its theories. In one case, Krantz claimed as one of the gold standards of Bigfoot tracks a print that "passed all my criteria, published and private, that distinguishes sasquatch tracks from human tracks and from fakes" (Krantz 1992). He further agreed that it had all the signs of a living foot, and that no human foot could have made the imprint. Michael R. Dennett, investigating for the Skeptical Inquirer, tracked down the anonymous construction worker who supplied the Bigfoot print. The man admitted faking the tracks himself to see if Krantz could really detect a fake (Dennett 1994).

Krantz certainly isn't alone in his mistaken identifications. One of the biggest names in cryptozoology, Ivan Sanderson, was badly fooled by tracks he confidently proclaimed would be impossible to fake. In 1948 (and for a decade afterward), giant three-toed footprints were found along the beach in Clearwater, Florida. Sanderson, described as a man who "was extremely knowledgeable on many subjects, and had done more fieldwork than most zoologists do today" (Greenwell 1988), spent two weeks at the site of the tracks investigating, analyzing the tracks, and consulting other experts. He concluded that the tracks were made by a fifteen-foot-tall penguin.

In 1988, prankster Tony Signorini admitted he and a friend had made the tracks with a pair of cast iron feet attached to high-top black sneakers. J. Richard Greenwell, discussing the case in The ISC Newsletter (Winter 1988), summed the case up this way: "The lesson to be learned within cryptozoology is, of course, fundamental. Despite careful, detailed analyses by zoologists and engineers, which provided detailed and sophisticated mechanical and anatomical conclusions supporting the hypothesis of a real animal, we now see that, not only was the entire episode a hoax, but that it was perpetrated by relatively amateur, good-natured pranksters, not knowledgeable experts attempting, through their expertise, to fool zoological authorities."

The experts, however are only partly to blame for their repeated and premature proclamations of the authenticity of Bigfoot evidence. After all, other areas of science are not fraught with such deception and hoaxing; in physics and biology, light waves and protozoa aren't trying to trick their observers.

Even when there is no intentional hoaxing, "experts" have been fooled. In March 1986, Anthony Wooldridge, an experienced hiker in the Himalayas, saw what he thought was a Yeti (Himalayan Bigfoot) standing in the snow near a ridge about 500 feet away. He described the figure as having a head that was "large and squarish," and the body "seemed to be covered with dark hair." It didn't move or make noise, but Wooldridge saw odd tracks in the snow that seemed to lead toward the figure. He took two photos of the creature, which were later analyzed and shown to be genuine and undoctored. Many in the Bigfoot community seized upon the Wooldridge photos as clear evidence of a Yeti, including John Napier. Many suggested that because of his hiking experience it was unlikely Wooldridge made a mistake. The next year researchers returned to the spot and found that Wooldridge had simply seen a rock outcropping that looked vertical from his position. Wooldridge admitted his misidentification (Wooldridge 1987).

Smoke and Fire

Bigfoot researchers readily admit that many sightings are misidentifications of normal animals, while others are downright hoaxes. Diane Stocking, a curator for the BFRO, concedes that about 70 percent of sightings turn out to be hoaxes or mistakes (Jasper 2000); Loren Coleman puts the figure even higher, at at least 80 percent (Klosterman 1999). The remaining sightings, that small portion of reports that can't be explained away, intrigue researchers and keep the pursuit active. The issue is then essentially turned into the claim that "Where there's smoke there's fire."

But is that really true? Does the dictum genuinely hold that, given the mountains of claims and evidence, there must be some validity to the claims? I propose not; the evidence suggests that there are enough sources of error (bad data, flawed methodological assumptions, mistaken identifications, poor memory recall, hoaxing, etc.) that there does not have to be (nor is likely to be) a hidden creature lurking amid the unsubstantiated cases.

The claim also has several inherent assumptions, including the notion that the unsolved claims (or sightings) are qualitatively different from the solved ones. But paranormal research and cryptozoology are littered with cases that were deemed irrefutable evidence of the paranormal, only to fall apart upon further investigation or hoaxer confessions. There will always be cases in which there simply is not enough evidence to prove something one way or the other. To use an analogy borrowed from investigator Joe Nickell, just because a small percentage of homicides remain unsolved doesn't mean that we invoke a "homicide gremlin"-appearing out of thin air to take victims' lives-to explain the unsolved crimes. It is not that such cases are unexplainable using known science, just that not enough (naturalistic) information is available to make a final determination.

A lack of information (or negative evidence) cannot be used as positive evidence for a claim. To do so is to engage in the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance: We don't know what left the tracks or what the witnesses saw, therefore it must have been Bigfoot. Many Bigfoot sightings report "something big, dark, and hairy." But Bigfoot is not the only (alleged) creature that matches that vague description.

The Future for Bigfoot

Ultimately, the biggest problem with the argument for the existence of Bigfoot is that no bones or bodies have been discovered. This is really the 800-pound Bigfoot on the researchers' backs, and no matter how they explain away the lack of other types of evidence, the simple fact remains that, unlike nearly every other serious "scientific" pursuit, they can't point to a live or dead sample of what they're studying. If the Bigfoot creatures across the United States are really out there, then each passing day should be one day closer to their discovery. The story we're being asked to believe is that thousands of giant, hairy, mysterious creatures are constantly eluding capture and discovery and have for a century or more. At some point, a Bigfoot's luck must run out: one out of the thousands must wander onto a freeway and get killed by a car, or get shot by a hunter, or die of natural causes and be discovered by a hiker. Each passing week and month and year and decade that go by without definite proof of the existence of Bigfoot make its existence less and less likely.

On the other hand, if Bigfoot is instead a self-perpetuating phenomenon with no genuine creature at its core, the stories, sightings, and legends will likely continue unabated for centuries. In this case the believers will have all the evidence they need to keep searching-some of it provided by hoaxers, others perhaps by honest mistakes, all liberally basted with wishful thinking. Either way it's a fascinating topic. If Bigfoot exist, then the mystery will be solved; if they don't exist, the mystery will endure. So far it has endured for at least half a century.

Notes

1. The way in which the track was discovered raises questions as well. The expedition log gives an account of how "[Team member Richard] Noll notices an unusual impression in the transition mud at the edge of the wallow and suddenly figures out what caused it. [Team members] Fish and Randles note the shock on Noll's face and come over to have another look at what he's examining. The three observe and note the various parts of the impression, and the chunks of chewed apple core nearby. The base camp is alerted. Everyone comes to see the impression. All conclude the animal was laying on its side at the edge of the mud, reaching out over the soft mud to grab the fruit" (BFRO 2000). So what you have is a case where a group of people are looking for evidence of a Bigfoot. One observer believes he sees a pattern fitting what he's looking for in ambiguous stimuli (shapes in mud). Once the pattern is pointed out to others, they also agree that the pattern could match up to parts of a hominid form in a particular contortion. The rest of the group, who might never have decided on their own that the pattern fits a Bigfoot, then validate the initial observer's (possibly unwarranted) conclusion. This happens all the time, for example when a person recognizes a face or an image in clouds or stains or tortillas. As psychologists know, observers' expectations frequently color their interpretations.

References

Baird, D. 1989. Sasquatch footprints: A proposed method of fabrication. Cryptozoology 8: 43-46.

Betts, J. 1996. Wanted: Dead or alive. Fortean Times 93: 34-35, December.

BFRO. 2000. Account of the expedition. Bigfoot Field Research Organization. Available at www.bfro.net.

Big Disagreement Afoot. 2000. Associated Press report on ABCnews.com.

Bord, J., and Colin Bord. 1982. The Bigfoot Casebook. Harrisburg (Pa.): Stackpole Books.

Coleman, L. 1996. Footage furore flares. Fortean Times 91, October.

---. 1998. Suits you, sir! Fortean Times 106, January.

Coleman, L., and P. Huyghe. 1999. The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide. New York: Avon Books.

Daegling, D., and D. Schmitt. 1999. Bigfoot's screen test. Skeptical Inquirer 23(3), May/June: 20-25.

Dennett, M. 1989. Evidence for Bigfoot? An investigation of the Mill Creek 'Sasquatch Prints.' Skeptical Inquirer 13(3), Spring: 264-272.

---. 1994. Bigfoot evidence: Are these tracks real? Skeptical Inquirer 18(5), Fall: 498-508.

---. 1996. Bigfoot. In Stein, G. (ed.) Encyclopedia of the Paranormal. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus.

---. 2001. Personal communication, May 1.

Fahrenbach, W.H. 1998. Re: Interim statement on the Blue Mountain / Ohio hair. Available at Bigfoot Field Researcher's Homepage, www.bfro.net.

Freeland, D., and W. Rowe. 1989. Alleged pore structure in Sasquatch (Bigfoot) footprints. Skeptical Inquirer 13(3), Spring: 273-276.

Green, J. 1968. On the Track of the Sasquatch. Cheam Publishing Ltd. Agassiz, B.C.

---. 2000. Green says Skookum Cast may be proof. In BFRO press release.

Greenwell, J.R. 1988. Florida "Giant Penguin" hoax revealed. The ISC Newsletter. 7(4), Winter.

Hubbell. J.M. 1999. Bigfoot enthusiasts discredit film. Associated Press report, January 10.

Jasper, D. 2000. Bigfoot strikes again! Weekly Planet October 26-November 1.

Klosterman, C. 1999. Believing in Bigfoot. Beacon Journal (Akron, Ohio), March 24.

Krantz, G. 1992. Big Footprints: A Scientific Inquiry Into the Reality of Sasquatch. Boulder: Johnson Books.

Napier, J. 1973. Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co.

Roesch, B. 2001. On the nature of cryptozoology and science. Fortean Times online, March.

Winn, E. 1991. Physical and morphological analysis of samples of fiber purported to be Sasquatch hair. Cryptozoology 10: 55-65.

Wooldridge, A.B. 1987. The Yeti: A rock after all? Cryptozoology 6: 135.

Zuefle, D. 1999. Tracking Bigfoot on the Internet. Skeptical Inquirer 23(3), May/June: 26-28.

About the Author

Benjamin Radford has been to the area of Bigfoot and wildman sightings in North and Central America, and was interviewed on mysterious creatures for The Ultimate Ten Mysteries, which appeared on The Learning Channel. He is co-author of Hoaxes, Myths, and Manias: Why We Need Critical Thinking, to be published by Prometheus Books later this year.

[codeorama]

Om, interesting info, but IMO, when a guy who is a law enforcement officer and an expert in fingerprinting and primate hand and footprinting finds and identifies evidence that there is something different out there that has not been identified, I find that hard to ignore.

Most people fail to realize that each year, several new species of animals are discovered in the world each year.

These are animals that we didn't know existed previously.

I will definatley say however, that the majority of the reports are probably hoaxes and misidentifications. However, there is some credible evidence out there, it just gets dismissed because of the idiots that are trying to be funny.

[Om]

Code, you probably know by now that I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. I try to apply that approach not only to my spiritual life, but to my views on this kind of phenomena and the general approach to my life as well.

Until proven otherwise, to a reasonable scientific standard, I choose to remain a skeptic, and more to the point, I don't choose to believe something based solely on circumstantial, anecdotal or even clearly ambiguous physical "evidence."

I will not come out and say there IS no bigfoot. That would fly in the face of the very tenets of my life. That's why I won't come out and say definitively that there is no Loch Ness Monster either, or that there are not aliens hidden among us, or that the Giant Stone Balls of Costa Rica are not Marbles of the Gods, or even that Vinny Cerrato is not the gold standard among general managers.

One cannot prove a negative. I understand this, so I don't try.

But I continue to cling to the belief that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And that absent such, it is the more sensible approach to assume that the simplest explanation for something is probably the right one.

[codeorama]

Om, I totally know what you mean and I can relate.

I'm not willing to bet any amount of money that bigfoot does exist. However, just to say, I do believe that there is something out there that is leaving evidence in a percentage of these cases. But I'm not willing to commit and argue about it.

[WallyG3]

Maybe Sasquatch are also Jedi, and their bodies disappear when they die...

[codeorama]

Originally posted by WallyG3Slice

Maybe Sasquatch are also Jedi, and their bodies disappear when they die...

LOL....

[SittingBill]

Here it is:alcoholic

[Om]

If nothing else, check out the bolded part.

And here you thought Wally was kidding.

*

http://www.csicop.org/sb/2003-12/bigfoot.html

Scenes from a Bigfoot Conference

Rob Boston Many people associate Bigfoot, the mysterious eight-foot-tall man/ape creature of longstanding lore, with the Pacific Northwest, said to be the creature's traditional stomping grounds.

But some believers in the hairy hominid are convinced that the critter actually lives all over the United States and is equally at home in the swamps of the South, the farmlands of the Midwest, and even the rolling foothills of the East Coast. Could Bigfoot possibly inhabit the densely populated states of the East Coast? On September 27, about 200 Bigfoot enthusiasts gathered at an unlikely venue-a dim, cavernous nightclub above a restaurant in Jeannette, Pennsylvania, a tumbledown Rust Belt town-to consider that question. Sponsored by the Pennsylvania Bigfoot Society (PBS), the fifth Annual East Coast Bigfoot Conference/Expo gave believers a forum to swap ideas and information about the possibility of sasquatches living in their own back yards.

Location of the fifth Annual East Coast Bigfoot Expo.

Skepticism about Bigfoot's existence was in short supply at this conference. Speakers took it as a given that America's version of the abominable snowman does exist, though they differed on what exactly the creature might be.

Bigfoot enthusiasts these days tend to fall into two camps: those convinced that the creature is merely a flesh-and-blood animal yet unknown to science, and those who believe it is a paranormal entity. Both camps were represented at the conference, although a certain amount of tension between the two was apparent.

Longtime UFO researcher Stan Gordon, who led off after PBS Director Eric Altman's opening remarks, seemed to straddle both camps. Gordon noted that in the 1970s, western Pennsylvania was plagued with weird creature reports, including sightings of Bigfoots near UFOs. He conceded this is "a rarity" but added, "There's no doubt the evidence suggests there's something out there. We don't know what it is."

Like many researchers of the paranormal, Gordon is convinced that the federal government has a keen interest in his efforts. He told attendees that after he began studying Bigfoot, a "government agent" called him and requested to be notified if a body were found. Gordon said he later met with this agent, but would not name him or the government department the agent represented. He then told a rambling tale about three men who spotted a white Bigfoot and were later harassed by someone who claimed to be an FBI agent.

Gordon, who was pressed into service at the last minute to fill in for a speaker who couldn't make it, readily conceded that he's not a Bigfoot expert. These days he spends most of his time promoting his video about the "Kecksburg Incident"-western Pennsylvania's answer to the Roswell, New Mexico, UFO crash.

Paul Johnson, a chemistry professor at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, followed Gordon and offered his explanation for what lies behind the Bigfoot mystery. Johnson told the crowd that his original interest was in UFOs and admitted that he considered Bigfoot "silly." But a fellow researcher of the paranormal felt differently and pestered Johnson to take a closer look at reports of the creature. He was soon drawn into Bigfoot research.

Johnson then unveiled his startling theory: Bigfoot is a "quantum animal" that moves freely between the real world as we know it and a "quantum world" outside the reach of conventional physical laws.

"This creature does not always behave as a real animal," Johnson told the crowd. He noted that some people have claimed they could see through Bigfoot, or that Bigfoot seemed to transport across long distances in the blink of an eye. Others have fired guns at the creatures at close range, only to see them vanish.

"We've always ignored these things over the years," Johnson said. "I just decided not to ignore them."

Johnson claimed that in quantum physics, electrons do not obey the classical laws of physics. They can, for example, move through barriers, he said. When Bigfoot is in this quantum state, Johnson opined, the creature has no mass or weight and is "just a wave." Bigfoot's quantum nature, Johnson told attendees, may explain the lack of clear photos of the beast. "He probably communicates with cameras," Johnson said. "He knows when they are around. He won't let you take a picture."

Johnson acknowledged that his ideas are unconventional and pointed out that nothing in quantum physics supports the idea that an animal as large as Bigfoot could behave like an electron. He noted that many physicists would reject his ideas and even went so far as to say that, as a chemist, "I have no idea what I am talking about" when it comes to quantum physics.

Despite these disclaimers, some in the crowd were clearly bothered by Johnson's ideas. One Bigfoot hunter from Ohio angrily called out during the question period, "In other words, you're saying Bigfoot's an alien?" The man claimed to have captured Bigfoot howls on tape and demanded to know, "How could I record a mass of energy?" Johnson replied that when Bigfoot is in the real world, it smells, eats, growls, leaves droppings, and otherwise behaves like a conventional animal. Others in the audience seemed open to Johnson, and one man asked him if Bigfoot could possibly move between worlds by "vibrating dimensionally."

The next speaker, Timothy Cassidy, steered the discussion back to a more conventional course. Cassidy, who claims to have seen a Bigfoot in Indiana in 1996, rejected paranormal explanations for the creature: "I know Bigfoots have normal habits just like any other animal."

Cassidy, a former naturalist for Indiana's Department of Environmental Resources, spoke matter-of-factly about the routines of Bigfoot, telling attendees that they eat apples, rodents, fish, and deer and live in caves, deep-forest nests, and occasionally in abandoned buildings.

Bigfoot, Cassidy said, tends to be nocturnal. He estimated the Bigfoot population in the United States and Canada at about 4,000 and said the creatures can live anywhere there is an adequate water supply and about 30,000 acres of forest cover per Bigfoot family. Bigfoot is often portrayed as a gentle giant, but Cassidy regaled the crowd with a few horror stories. "There are instances of them being aggressive," Cassidy said. One case involved a man who could not stop in time when a Bigfoot ran in front of his car. He struck the creature, but it was only dazed and proceeded to get up and chase the man home, keeping pace with his car. The man somehow made it into his trailer, but the Bigfoot jumped on top of it, leaving huge dents. The man's insurance company, Cassidy explained, was not sure how to process the claim.

After a break for an auction of Bigfoot-related memorabilia-including some truly kitschy Bigfoot art-conference attendees heard from perhaps the most controversial speaker of the day. Janice Coy of Monroe County, Tennessee, claims that her family has been interacting with a family of Bigfoot since 1947.

Coy's speech was long, disjointed and rambling, but the gist was that her grandfather found an injured young Bigfoot fifty-six years ago, set its broken leg and gave it living space in a barn. Later, the creature's parents came and took it away. Intrigued, Coy's grandfather began leaving out food for the Bigfoot family. "Eventually," she said, "a relationship developed."

Coy, who was raised by her grandfather on the farm, said she grew up taking the creatures for granted. She claims that Bigfoot creatures can say a few words, though their speech is guttural. The Bigfoot family on her farm, led by an alpha male the family has named "Fox," remains wary of humans to this day but will accept food.

What solid evidence has Coy gathered in her nearly four decades of interacting with Bigfoot? None. She showed a series of photos at the conference, but they depicted only shadows and trees. (For a sampling of these photos, see Coy's Web site at www.angelfire.com/tn3/smoky_mtn_bigfoot/.) "It's not really clear because he does blend in," Coy said of one photo. "Some people see him, and some people don't." On another occasion, Coy said she got some good photos but, sadly, the local Wal-Mart overexposed the roll. "I don't know where my pictures went," she said, "but there wasn't anything on the film."

Coy claimed Bigfoot are smart enough to know when cameras are present. She claimed that researchers gave her a small field camera to set up outside near some food she had put out for the creatures. But the Bigfoot were wary and seemed to know something was up. They used sticks to get at the food, and one reached from behind the camera to grab its dinner.

At times, Coy's story was inconsistent as well as fantastic. She said her goal is to get some Bigfoot DNA to prove the creatures' existence so they can be protected. She talked about the creatures keeping their distance from humans, yet she also insisted that she has held baby Bigfoot in her arms. She did not explain why, when cradling a Bigfoot babe, she didn't simply yank off a few hairs to get the prized sample for science. And, despite the animals' legendary shyness, Coy claims to have observed them in enough detail to know how mama Bigfoot care for their young. Apparently it never occurred to her to invest in a telephoto lens and snap a few candids while doing her fieldwork. She also claimed that the Bigfoot family often brings her presents-bundles of sticks or bunches of flowers swiped from a nearby cemetery.

Coy's claims were incredible, and there was some low-level grumbling from a few audience members, but overall she was well received and subjected to no hard questioning.

The event also included a presentation by William Dranginis, a Virginia man who claims he saw Bigfoot in 1995. Dranginis has created a "Bigfoot Primate Research Lab"-basically a jazzed-up RV full of video and audio surveillance equipment. Free tours were offered.

Members of the PBS regularly undertake field trips to look for evidence of Bigfoot in Pennsylvania. They often focus on an area called Chestnut Ridge, between the western Pennsylvania cities of Latrobe and Johnstown, where several sightings have been reported. Director Altman told the crowd that several investigations are under way, some of which he could not discuss in detail due to promises of confidentiality. The group plans to meet again next year. For more information, see its Web site at www.pabigfootsociety.com.

About the Author

Rob Boston is a writer and editor who lives in Silver Spring, Maryland. He may be reached at sepr8@hotmail.com.

[codeorama]

Om, the indians have long said that Bigfoot is a magical creature or an interdimensional creature... I don't buy it, but that theory has been out there for a long time.

[Om]

I've heard that, Code. I just didn't come across any good Native American Sasquatch Lore sites on the first page of my Google search.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Om

I've heard that, Code. I just didn't come across any good Native American Sasquatch Lore sites on the first page of my Google search.

LOL

No WiFi in the TeePee

[72SKINS]

For those interested here is a website dedicated to "BIGFOOT"

research and finding's. there are some pretty interesting stories and sighting's.

http://www.bfro.net/

"HAIL TO THE REDSKINS"

[Mad Mike]

Does bigfoot now wear shoes?

Notice the straight line showing a distinct heal print? Rule number one. Straight lines are not natural. Now notice that the "toe prints" are not regular. Rule number two. Toe joints don't often change relative position while walking.

Conclusion: Looks to me like someone was wearing oversized boots with something loosely attached to create the toe prints. In other words, hoax.

[SkinsBry]

Levittown is on the eastern side of Pa. (close to N.J.). I have heard one or two stories about a New Jersey Devil. Were there any reports to prove that to be a hoax? Just curious since the locations are not that far apart.

[Mad Mike]

Were there any reports to prove that to be a hoax?

The better question would be is there anything that even remotly suggests it is real. :laugh: BTW. The answer is NO.

Come on people. It's the 21st century. We aren't cavemen gathering around a fire.

I would like to recomend that some of you read and apply the Scientific Method to your understanding of the world around you.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Then, for further clarity, or where experimentation and testing is not posible I recomend applying Occam's Razor which in so many words says that if you have two theories which both explain the observed facts then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along. The point is, if you have to keep adding posibilitys via speculation to prove a theory, then the theory is most likely wrong.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

The application of both methods will go far in finding the truth, be it the posibility of bigfoot or weeding through the gosip about your favorite football team.

[Jay Master Jay]

Good post a friend and I were just discussing Big Foot the other day.

[redman]

I once saw a show I think in Discovery that pretty conclusively debunked the Patterson film based upon technical and videographic data. The anecdotal evidence regarding his plans going out there and his profits are all interesting (I wasn't aware of them) but those kinds of things have never been conclusive for me. It would be awful hard to justify not making a boatload of money if I shot a remarkable film simply in the name of science.

[Leonard Washington]

i don't know if bigfoot exists or not but if it does, i hope we don't find him. we'll probably try to put them in zoos, probe and prod them or make them slaves.