Evidence regarding Bigfoot From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evidence regarding Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch (the legendary ape-like animal said to live in North America), is contentious. Every piece brought forward as evidence has aroused both criticism and support.
Eyewitness reports
People generally report seeing Bigfoot in remote, wooded areas, some do originate from parks near major cities, such as Portland, Oregon.[1] Eyewitness reports in general are notoriously unreliable as the witness can both have seen events incorrectly as well as distorted the memory or them with time.[2] With only anecdotal evidence, there is no way to tell if a witness is describing events correctly or even trying to perpetrate a hoax. John Napier wrote that however accurate and sincere witnesses might seem, "eyewitness reports must be treated with considerable caution ... Although we don't always know what we see, we tend to see what we know."[3] He also adds, "without checking possible ulterior motivations, eyewitnesses cannot be acceptable as primary data."[4]
Critics of eyewitness reports suggest that people may have mistaken bears for Bigfoot, as the forests where sightings most often occur are inhabited by bears. Standing on their hind legs, bears roughly match the description of Bigfoot. Bigfoot advocates counter that witnesses include experienced hunters and outdoorsmen, who claim to be familiar with bears, and insist that the creatures they saw were entirely different. John Bindernagel, an advocate of Bigfoot, argues that the bear's snout and other body parts make it distinct from anything that would be identified as a Bigfoot.[5] However, these arguments assume that the witnesses had a good look at the creature. There are documented cases in which hunters have mistaken bears for Bigfoot.[6]
Proponents of Bigfoot claim that consistencies in the locations of reports support the hypothesis that they are caused by a real animal. The majority of Bigfoot reports are generated from areas having low human population densities. They often will occur near rivers, creeks, or lakes and from areas where annual rainfall exceeds 20 inches (510 mm).[citation needed] Bigfoot advocates claim that these common factors indicate patterns of a living species occupying an ecological niche rather than hoaxed sightings.[7][8] They also belive that Bigfoot is Black with a ton of fur.
[edit] Native American artifacts Legends and historical artifacts of the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast have been presented as circumstantial evidence for Bigfoot. The modern legend of Bigfoot has been suggested to descend from traditional Native stories.
Robert Pyle argues that "Certain artifacts suggest that some Amerindians were acquainted with something having the visage of an ape," specifically "several carved stone heads from the Columbia River basin," which Pyle believes depict "prognathous, chinless faces with heavy brow ridges and in at least one case a sagittal crest."[9] These stone carvings date to pre-Columbian times, According to B. Robert Butler these stone carvings date to the Wakemap Middle Period, circa 1500 BCE to 200 CE.[10] Pyle adds, "relics do not prove that Bigfoot exists or that [natives] had contact with apes, but they do raise some uncomfortable questions."[9]
These artifacts are discussed at length by anthropologist Roderick Sprague in Carved Stone Heads of the Columbia and Sasquatch. Dozens of similar stone heads were recovered and most depict common animals. Sprague examines seven carved heads, which he argues have distinctively primate-like features. Like Pyle, Sprague notes that this does not necessarily support Bigfoot's existence, but Sprague sees the question of what inspired the carved stone heads as intriguing and unresolved.
In The Tsimshian Monkey Masks and Sasquatch, the anthropologist and ethnologist Marjorie Halpin describes two wood facemasks that were collected from the Tsimshian and Nisga'a tribes near Prince Rupert, British Columbia. One was obtained by Lieutenant G. T. Emmons in about 1914, and the other was obtained by Marius Barbeau in 1927.[11][12] Emmons described the artifact as "a mythical being found in the woods, and called today as a monkey."[13] Halpin also reports that the physical anthropologist R.D.E. MacPhee examined the Emmons mask and noted that it had both primate-like features.[14] Halpin details the elaborate mask-related folklore and rites pertaining to a creature called pi'kis, which has both human and animal traits (especially connected to otters). He also describes the creature as occupying a "dangerously close intersection between human and animal" in native lore.[15] As with the carved stone heads, Halpin notes that these monkey-like masks alone do not prove that Sasquatch are real; rather, they are curious artifacts which warrant further investigation.
In the article On the Cultural Track of Sasquatch, Wayne Suttles offers a detailed examination of such legends, cited from various Pacific northwest tribes, including tales from the Salish, Lummi, Samish and Klallam peoples. Suttles confirms the often-repeated observation that none of the groups makes a "real/mythical or natural/supernatural dichotomy."[16] However, Suttles concludes that rather than being inspired by a real creature, "It seems more likely that these beliefs have grown out of several sources and have been maintained in several ways. One of the sources may have been a real man-like animal. But I must reluctantly admit that as I have presented data and organized arguments, I have found its track getting fainter and fainter."[17]
Some scientists[who?] have speculated that such evidence is, in fact, circular. Sasquatch statues and legends existed long before the modern Bigfoot sightings. Thus, it is speculated these legends reinforced the first modern-day "mysterious sighting" as "some kind of giant apelike creature", creating the Bigfoot legend. In other words, the legend of Sasquatch created the Bigfoot legend, and therefore cannot be used as evidence.[18][19]
[edit] Footprints Photographs or plaster casts of presumed Sasquatch footprints are often cited by cryptozoologists as important evidence. It is from that that Bigfoot received its most widely used name. They are typically 15 inches long. Advocates of Bigfoot claim that tracks provide enough evidence to determine whether a footprint is genuine or hoaxed without having a gold standard from which to work from (i.e. a cast made from a footprint that is universally agreed to have come from Bigfoot).[20] Coleman and Clark write that hoaxes are often clumsy in comparison to presumably genuine prints, which "show distinctive forensic features that to investigators indicate they are not fakes."[21] Notably, Krantz claimed to have two ways of determining if a footprint was genuine or a hoax. He did not reveal his two techniques due to concern that they would be used in future hoaxes. However, Krantz authenticated a known hoax sent to him using his two criteria.[22]
One of the features that Krantz argues suggests that footprints are due to a real creature rather than hoaxers is pressure ridges. These are small mounds of soil created "by a horizontal push of the forefoot just before it leaves the ground."[23] For normal human locamotion the main pressure ridge occurs near the front, but in some Bigfoot tracks the primary ridge occurs in the middle of the foot.[24] Krantz writes that "the push-off mound in midfootprint is one of the most impressive pieces of evidence to me," and argues that neither artificial wood nor rubber Bigfoot feet can create this feature, after trying to duplicate it.[23] However, anthropologists David Daegling and Dan Schmitt were able to creat many different patterns of pressure ridges by walking with a complaint gait.[25]
Another feature of Bigfoot tracks that is used in support by advocates is the spacing between prints. Krantz writes: "The comfortable walking step for humans is about half the individual's standing height, or a trace more. Sasquatch step measurements correspond, in general, to stature estimates that are reported from sightings."[26] Krantz also reports that reputed Sasquatch steps are "in excess of three feet",[27] arguing that this enormous step would be difficult or impossible for hoaxers to create artificially by wearing fake feet. Critics argue that proponents discount the ingenuity of hoaxers. Krantz, himself, reported an instance of a high-school hoaxer creating 8 feet (2.4 m) long Bigfoot strides up a steep slope by strapping fake feet on backwards and running down the slope.[28]
Bigfoot prints have a wide variety of features. In addition to the normal prints of a human-like foot with five toes, casts with anything between two and six toes have been attributed to Bigfoot.[29] Even among the standard type of footprint, variations occur in pressure ridges and toe position, which Krantz argues points to a real creature rather than a hoax.
In all bigfoot tracks they each are supposed to have whats called a midtarsal break. A midtarsal break occur when the foot bends before taking the next stride. These are common in most apes. Since humans can not produce such a break, if a track is found and put into plaster scientists would be able to determine whether there is a midtarsal break. [30]
[edit] Gaussian curve Henry Franzoni argues that the distribution of Bigfoot prints supports the hypothesis that they are caused by a real animal rather than hoaxers:
“ [W. Henner Farenbach] has studied a database of 550 track cast length measurements and has made some preliminary observations... The Gaussian distribution of the 550 footprint lengths gives a curve that is very similar to the curve given by living populations of known animals without much sexual dimorphism in footprint length. The standard error is very low, so additions to the database will not affect the result very much. It is not very likely that coordinated groups of hoaxers conspiring together for 38 years (the time span covered by the database of track measurements) could provide such a 'life-like' distribution in footprint lengths. Groups of hoaxers who did not conspire together would almost certainly result in a non-Gaussian distribution for the database of footprint lengths."[31] ”
The Gaussian distribution is found in many phenomena. A Gaussian distribution of hoaxed footprints is possible if hoaxers had a conception of roughly how big a Bigfoot print should be. This would result in a greater number of prints around the mean with the prevalence of larger and smaller prints falling off similarly to a Gaussian distribution.
[edit] Deformity A series of alleged Bigfoot tracks found near Bossburg, Washington, in 1969 appeared to show that the creature's right foot was affected by clubfoot. The deformed footprints are consistent with genuine disfigurement, and some[who?] argue that a hoax is unlikely. John Napier wrote of this case, "It is very difficult to conceive of a hoaxer so subtle, so knowledgeable; and so sick; who would deliberately fake a footprint of this nature. I suppose it is possible, but it is so unlikely that I am prepared to discount it."[32] Krantz declared that "analysis of the apparent anatomy of these tracks proved to be the first convincing evidence... that the animals were real."[33]
Rene Dahinden, Ivan Marx, and another investigator found the tracks shortly after encountering another vehicle parked by the side of the road. Marx pulled over, got out, and walked off, returning shortly and explaining that they had to leave immediately to retrieve his camera equipment since he'd just found tracks. Many have suggested that the track makers (whose car was parked by the road) simply weren't done leaving the fake trackway for the Bigfooters to "find." John Green regards the entire Bossburg episode to be a hoax.[citation needed]
[edit] Handprints As another argument offered for the existence of Bigfoot, Krantz cited two alleged Sasquatch handprints taken from northeastern Washington in the summer of 1970. He claims the prints were of a left hand, showing a very broad, flat palm (more than twice as broad as Krantz' own larger-than-average hands) with stubby fingers, lacking an opposable thumb. Krantz writes that the prints have "many irregularities ... which cannot be identified in terms of human anatomy."[34]
Another pair of alleged handprints was recovered in the late 1980s by Paul Freeman and given to Krantz for analysis; for similar reasons, Krantz judged them genuine.[35]
[edit] Fingerprints Several alleged Bigfoot hand and foot impressions said to contain dermal ridges (fingerprints) have been discovered; fingerprints are present only on humans and other primates.
Krantz reports that he offered casts of these prints to "more than forty" law enforcement fingerprint specialists across Canada and the United States for study. The reactions that he received ranged from "'very interesting' and 'they sure look real' to 'there is no doubt these are real.' The only exception was the Federal Bureau of Investigation expert who had said something to this effect, 'The implications of this are just too much; I can't believe it's real.'"[36]
Krantz offered these same casts to physical anthropologists and primatologists. Conclusions were similarly varied, with several ruling them hoaxes. Tim White, unlike most respondents, said there was "no good reason to reject them."[36] Opinion remains divided, however, with suggestions that the man who allegedly discovered the prints had confessed to other hoaxes.
One of the casts with visible fingerprints showed what Krantz took to be sweat pores. Krantz reports that "police expert Benny Kling ... commented that anyone who could engrave ridge detail of such quantity and quality should be making counterfeit money."[37] This same print showed dysplasia, a common minor irregularity. Krantz writes, "The late Robert Olson was particularly impressed with this irregularity, as was Ed Palma of the San Diego Police Department."[37]
[edit] Body cast The Skookum Body Cast was collected in the summer of 2000 after the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) set out fruit bait in a puddle near Skookum Meadows in the Gifford Pinchot National forest as part of a documentary for the now-cancelled Animal-X television series(Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization web site). Three U.S. primate anatomy experts with an interest in Bigfoot argued that the impression is the impression of a Sasquatch. Some members of the BFRO including Ron Schaffner pointed out that it strongly resembled an elk's resting impression, citing the abundance of elk hoofprints as further evidence of this interpretation. 325 pounds of casting material was used to capture a "half-body print" consisting of an imprint of what has been called either "a Sasquatch's butt, ankles, hip, thigh, left arm, and apparent hair on the body" or " cast of the impression made by the hindquarters of an elk."[21] Skookum according to Chinook Indian historian Joel Freeman, meant "powerful". [38]
Several of the scientists who have examined the Skookum Cast in person, including Dr. Jeff Meldrum (Anthropologist - Idaho State University - Pocatello), Dr. Daris Swindler (Anthropologist - University of Washington) and Dr. Esteban Sarmiento (Anthropologist - The American Museum of Natural History - New York City) have argued that the Skookum impression is not an elk impression.[citation needed] Grover Krantz declined to identify it as anything related to sasquatch.
In March 3, 2001, journalist Marc Hume wrote an article for the National Post in which he claimed he recognized, based on some photos of the cast, the tracks of an elk and described, "imprints left that would match perfectly with an elk's legs." In his opinion, the cast was "if anything, a cast of the impression made by the hindquarters of an elk."[citation needed] Hume never saw the cast in person, however, and was not aware that there were several elk tracks in the large slab cast. There were tracks of a least five different mammal species in the cast, including coyote, elk, and human (the finders of the impression almost stepped on it), but no sasquatch .[citation needed]
In July 2006, geologist Dr. Anton Wroblewski saw a replica of the cast at a museum in Texas. After examining the replica, Wroblewski wrote up an informal analysis which agreed with Hume's and others' including Ron Schaffner's, prior opinion about the cast representing an elk. His analysis disagreed with the few scientists (all anthropologists with no training in deciphering animal imprints) who examined the original cast and who claim to have ruled out elk as a cause. Wroblewski has training in ichnology, the study of animal imprints, a field that is particularly relevant to the study of mammals and their impressions.
[edit] Samples of hair and blood Hairs retrieved from a bush in 1968 near Riggins, Idaho were given to Roy Pinker, a police science instructor at California State University, Los Angeles. Pinker concluded that the hair samples did not match any samples from known animal species. Pinker also stated that he could not attribute them as being Bigfoot hairs without a bonafide Bigfoot hair sample for comparison.[39] Pinker's analysis did not use genetic fingerprinting, which was not developed until the 1980s. In "Analysis of Feces and Hair Suspected to be of Sasquatch Origin", anthropologist Vaughn M. Bryant Jr. and ecologist Burleigh Trevor-Deutch report the analysis of six alleged Bigfoot hairs recovered near Riggins, Idaho.[40] They examined several sets of hair samples and their results were inconclusive, but the samples appeared to be most similar to those from a black bear.[41]
Hair samples were also taken from a house located on the Lummi Indian reservation in Washington. Three more samples were retrieved from Maryland, Oregon and California. Forensic Anthropologist Dr. Ellis R. Kerley and Physical Anthropologist Dr. Stephen Rosen of the University of Maryland, as well as Tom Moore, the Supervisor of the Wyoming Game and Fish Laboratory, examined the hair samples and stated that all the hair samples matched in terms of belonging to a "non species specific mammal". They concurred in finding that the four sets matched each other, were similar to gorilla and human but were neither, and they did not match 84 other species of North American mammals. They found that the samples had primate, carnivore and ungulate characteristics. Rosen said if he had to choose he would guess it was an unknown primate.[citation needed] Blood associated with the sample from Idaho was tested by Dr. Vincent Sarich of the University of California and found to be that of a higher primate though Dr Sarich has suggested that the blood could possibly have been human. Like the Riggins samples above, these were not subjected to DNA tests.[citation needed]
Dr. Jeff Meldrum at Idaho State University has other hair and DNA samples that are clearly primate in origin, but from no known primate species.[citation needed]
The DNA tests used on somatic samples give very limited information as there is no known Bigfoot sample to compare it to. The process can only compare the unknown sample to a set of known samples, which necessarily lacks samples of all known animals.[42] Therefore, a hoaxer could obtain hair from a species that is not native to North America, which would have a high chance of not being included in the set of samples tested against. It would receive the same result as a genuine Bigfoot sample: inconclusive. Even if genuine hair could be found, it would have to be tested against every species of mammal on the planet just to make sure it is not a hoax.
[edit] Audio and visual evidence Analysis of purported Sasquatch vocalizations have been recorded and analyzed, leading bioacoustics expert Dr. Robert Benson of Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi to report that some recordings "left him puzzled", and helped alter his perspective somewhat, "from being a raving skeptic to being curiously receptive."[43]
See also: Patterson-Gimlin film There have been several alleged photos or motion pictures of Bigfoot. The best-known was filmed by Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin on October 20, 1967. This film has generated much discussion and debate.
[edit] See also
Eyewitness reports
People generally report seeing Bigfoot in remote, wooded areas, some do originate from parks near major cities, such as Portland, Oregon.[1] Eyewitness reports in general are notoriously unreliable as the witness can both have seen events incorrectly as well as distorted the memory or them with time.[2] With only anecdotal evidence, there is no way to tell if a witness is describing events correctly or even trying to perpetrate a hoax. John Napier wrote that however accurate and sincere witnesses might seem, "eyewitness reports must be treated with considerable caution ... Although we don't always know what we see, we tend to see what we know."[3] He also adds, "without checking possible ulterior motivations, eyewitnesses cannot be acceptable as primary data."[4]
Critics of eyewitness reports suggest that people may have mistaken bears for Bigfoot, as the forests where sightings most often occur are inhabited by bears. Standing on their hind legs, bears roughly match the description of Bigfoot. Bigfoot advocates counter that witnesses include experienced hunters and outdoorsmen, who claim to be familiar with bears, and insist that the creatures they saw were entirely different. John Bindernagel, an advocate of Bigfoot, argues that the bear's snout and other body parts make it distinct from anything that would be identified as a Bigfoot.[5] However, these arguments assume that the witnesses had a good look at the creature. There are documented cases in which hunters have mistaken bears for Bigfoot.[6]
Proponents of Bigfoot claim that consistencies in the locations of reports support the hypothesis that they are caused by a real animal. The majority of Bigfoot reports are generated from areas having low human population densities. They often will occur near rivers, creeks, or lakes and from areas where annual rainfall exceeds 20 inches (510 mm).[citation needed] Bigfoot advocates claim that these common factors indicate patterns of a living species occupying an ecological niche rather than hoaxed sightings.[7][8] They also belive that Bigfoot is Black with a ton of fur.
[edit] Native American artifacts Legends and historical artifacts of the Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast have been presented as circumstantial evidence for Bigfoot. The modern legend of Bigfoot has been suggested to descend from traditional Native stories.
Robert Pyle argues that "Certain artifacts suggest that some Amerindians were acquainted with something having the visage of an ape," specifically "several carved stone heads from the Columbia River basin," which Pyle believes depict "prognathous, chinless faces with heavy brow ridges and in at least one case a sagittal crest."[9] These stone carvings date to pre-Columbian times, According to B. Robert Butler these stone carvings date to the Wakemap Middle Period, circa 1500 BCE to 200 CE.[10] Pyle adds, "relics do not prove that Bigfoot exists or that [natives] had contact with apes, but they do raise some uncomfortable questions."[9]
These artifacts are discussed at length by anthropologist Roderick Sprague in Carved Stone Heads of the Columbia and Sasquatch. Dozens of similar stone heads were recovered and most depict common animals. Sprague examines seven carved heads, which he argues have distinctively primate-like features. Like Pyle, Sprague notes that this does not necessarily support Bigfoot's existence, but Sprague sees the question of what inspired the carved stone heads as intriguing and unresolved.
In The Tsimshian Monkey Masks and Sasquatch, the anthropologist and ethnologist Marjorie Halpin describes two wood facemasks that were collected from the Tsimshian and Nisga'a tribes near Prince Rupert, British Columbia. One was obtained by Lieutenant G. T. Emmons in about 1914, and the other was obtained by Marius Barbeau in 1927.[11][12] Emmons described the artifact as "a mythical being found in the woods, and called today as a monkey."[13] Halpin also reports that the physical anthropologist R.D.E. MacPhee examined the Emmons mask and noted that it had both primate-like features.[14] Halpin details the elaborate mask-related folklore and rites pertaining to a creature called pi'kis, which has both human and animal traits (especially connected to otters). He also describes the creature as occupying a "dangerously close intersection between human and animal" in native lore.[15] As with the carved stone heads, Halpin notes that these monkey-like masks alone do not prove that Sasquatch are real; rather, they are curious artifacts which warrant further investigation.
In the article On the Cultural Track of Sasquatch, Wayne Suttles offers a detailed examination of such legends, cited from various Pacific northwest tribes, including tales from the Salish, Lummi, Samish and Klallam peoples. Suttles confirms the often-repeated observation that none of the groups makes a "real/mythical or natural/supernatural dichotomy."[16] However, Suttles concludes that rather than being inspired by a real creature, "It seems more likely that these beliefs have grown out of several sources and have been maintained in several ways. One of the sources may have been a real man-like animal. But I must reluctantly admit that as I have presented data and organized arguments, I have found its track getting fainter and fainter."[17]
Some scientists[who?] have speculated that such evidence is, in fact, circular. Sasquatch statues and legends existed long before the modern Bigfoot sightings. Thus, it is speculated these legends reinforced the first modern-day "mysterious sighting" as "some kind of giant apelike creature", creating the Bigfoot legend. In other words, the legend of Sasquatch created the Bigfoot legend, and therefore cannot be used as evidence.[18][19]
[edit] Footprints Photographs or plaster casts of presumed Sasquatch footprints are often cited by cryptozoologists as important evidence. It is from that that Bigfoot received its most widely used name. They are typically 15 inches long. Advocates of Bigfoot claim that tracks provide enough evidence to determine whether a footprint is genuine or hoaxed without having a gold standard from which to work from (i.e. a cast made from a footprint that is universally agreed to have come from Bigfoot).[20] Coleman and Clark write that hoaxes are often clumsy in comparison to presumably genuine prints, which "show distinctive forensic features that to investigators indicate they are not fakes."[21] Notably, Krantz claimed to have two ways of determining if a footprint was genuine or a hoax. He did not reveal his two techniques due to concern that they would be used in future hoaxes. However, Krantz authenticated a known hoax sent to him using his two criteria.[22]
One of the features that Krantz argues suggests that footprints are due to a real creature rather than hoaxers is pressure ridges. These are small mounds of soil created "by a horizontal push of the forefoot just before it leaves the ground."[23] For normal human locamotion the main pressure ridge occurs near the front, but in some Bigfoot tracks the primary ridge occurs in the middle of the foot.[24] Krantz writes that "the push-off mound in midfootprint is one of the most impressive pieces of evidence to me," and argues that neither artificial wood nor rubber Bigfoot feet can create this feature, after trying to duplicate it.[23] However, anthropologists David Daegling and Dan Schmitt were able to creat many different patterns of pressure ridges by walking with a complaint gait.[25]
Another feature of Bigfoot tracks that is used in support by advocates is the spacing between prints. Krantz writes: "The comfortable walking step for humans is about half the individual's standing height, or a trace more. Sasquatch step measurements correspond, in general, to stature estimates that are reported from sightings."[26] Krantz also reports that reputed Sasquatch steps are "in excess of three feet",[27] arguing that this enormous step would be difficult or impossible for hoaxers to create artificially by wearing fake feet. Critics argue that proponents discount the ingenuity of hoaxers. Krantz, himself, reported an instance of a high-school hoaxer creating 8 feet (2.4 m) long Bigfoot strides up a steep slope by strapping fake feet on backwards and running down the slope.[28]
Bigfoot prints have a wide variety of features. In addition to the normal prints of a human-like foot with five toes, casts with anything between two and six toes have been attributed to Bigfoot.[29] Even among the standard type of footprint, variations occur in pressure ridges and toe position, which Krantz argues points to a real creature rather than a hoax.
In all bigfoot tracks they each are supposed to have whats called a midtarsal break. A midtarsal break occur when the foot bends before taking the next stride. These are common in most apes. Since humans can not produce such a break, if a track is found and put into plaster scientists would be able to determine whether there is a midtarsal break. [30]
[edit] Gaussian curve Henry Franzoni argues that the distribution of Bigfoot prints supports the hypothesis that they are caused by a real animal rather than hoaxers:
“ [W. Henner Farenbach] has studied a database of 550 track cast length measurements and has made some preliminary observations... The Gaussian distribution of the 550 footprint lengths gives a curve that is very similar to the curve given by living populations of known animals without much sexual dimorphism in footprint length. The standard error is very low, so additions to the database will not affect the result very much. It is not very likely that coordinated groups of hoaxers conspiring together for 38 years (the time span covered by the database of track measurements) could provide such a 'life-like' distribution in footprint lengths. Groups of hoaxers who did not conspire together would almost certainly result in a non-Gaussian distribution for the database of footprint lengths."[31] ”
The Gaussian distribution is found in many phenomena. A Gaussian distribution of hoaxed footprints is possible if hoaxers had a conception of roughly how big a Bigfoot print should be. This would result in a greater number of prints around the mean with the prevalence of larger and smaller prints falling off similarly to a Gaussian distribution.
[edit] Deformity A series of alleged Bigfoot tracks found near Bossburg, Washington, in 1969 appeared to show that the creature's right foot was affected by clubfoot. The deformed footprints are consistent with genuine disfigurement, and some[who?] argue that a hoax is unlikely. John Napier wrote of this case, "It is very difficult to conceive of a hoaxer so subtle, so knowledgeable; and so sick; who would deliberately fake a footprint of this nature. I suppose it is possible, but it is so unlikely that I am prepared to discount it."[32] Krantz declared that "analysis of the apparent anatomy of these tracks proved to be the first convincing evidence... that the animals were real."[33]
Rene Dahinden, Ivan Marx, and another investigator found the tracks shortly after encountering another vehicle parked by the side of the road. Marx pulled over, got out, and walked off, returning shortly and explaining that they had to leave immediately to retrieve his camera equipment since he'd just found tracks. Many have suggested that the track makers (whose car was parked by the road) simply weren't done leaving the fake trackway for the Bigfooters to "find." John Green regards the entire Bossburg episode to be a hoax.[citation needed]
[edit] Handprints As another argument offered for the existence of Bigfoot, Krantz cited two alleged Sasquatch handprints taken from northeastern Washington in the summer of 1970. He claims the prints were of a left hand, showing a very broad, flat palm (more than twice as broad as Krantz' own larger-than-average hands) with stubby fingers, lacking an opposable thumb. Krantz writes that the prints have "many irregularities ... which cannot be identified in terms of human anatomy."[34]
Another pair of alleged handprints was recovered in the late 1980s by Paul Freeman and given to Krantz for analysis; for similar reasons, Krantz judged them genuine.[35]
[edit] Fingerprints Several alleged Bigfoot hand and foot impressions said to contain dermal ridges (fingerprints) have been discovered; fingerprints are present only on humans and other primates.
Krantz reports that he offered casts of these prints to "more than forty" law enforcement fingerprint specialists across Canada and the United States for study. The reactions that he received ranged from "'very interesting' and 'they sure look real' to 'there is no doubt these are real.' The only exception was the Federal Bureau of Investigation expert who had said something to this effect, 'The implications of this are just too much; I can't believe it's real.'"[36]
Krantz offered these same casts to physical anthropologists and primatologists. Conclusions were similarly varied, with several ruling them hoaxes. Tim White, unlike most respondents, said there was "no good reason to reject them."[36] Opinion remains divided, however, with suggestions that the man who allegedly discovered the prints had confessed to other hoaxes.
One of the casts with visible fingerprints showed what Krantz took to be sweat pores. Krantz reports that "police expert Benny Kling ... commented that anyone who could engrave ridge detail of such quantity and quality should be making counterfeit money."[37] This same print showed dysplasia, a common minor irregularity. Krantz writes, "The late Robert Olson was particularly impressed with this irregularity, as was Ed Palma of the San Diego Police Department."[37]
[edit] Body cast The Skookum Body Cast was collected in the summer of 2000 after the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) set out fruit bait in a puddle near Skookum Meadows in the Gifford Pinchot National forest as part of a documentary for the now-cancelled Animal-X television series(Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization web site). Three U.S. primate anatomy experts with an interest in Bigfoot argued that the impression is the impression of a Sasquatch. Some members of the BFRO including Ron Schaffner pointed out that it strongly resembled an elk's resting impression, citing the abundance of elk hoofprints as further evidence of this interpretation. 325 pounds of casting material was used to capture a "half-body print" consisting of an imprint of what has been called either "a Sasquatch's butt, ankles, hip, thigh, left arm, and apparent hair on the body" or " cast of the impression made by the hindquarters of an elk."[21] Skookum according to Chinook Indian historian Joel Freeman, meant "powerful". [38]
Several of the scientists who have examined the Skookum Cast in person, including Dr. Jeff Meldrum (Anthropologist - Idaho State University - Pocatello), Dr. Daris Swindler (Anthropologist - University of Washington) and Dr. Esteban Sarmiento (Anthropologist - The American Museum of Natural History - New York City) have argued that the Skookum impression is not an elk impression.[citation needed] Grover Krantz declined to identify it as anything related to sasquatch.
In March 3, 2001, journalist Marc Hume wrote an article for the National Post in which he claimed he recognized, based on some photos of the cast, the tracks of an elk and described, "imprints left that would match perfectly with an elk's legs." In his opinion, the cast was "if anything, a cast of the impression made by the hindquarters of an elk."[citation needed] Hume never saw the cast in person, however, and was not aware that there were several elk tracks in the large slab cast. There were tracks of a least five different mammal species in the cast, including coyote, elk, and human (the finders of the impression almost stepped on it), but no sasquatch .[citation needed]
In July 2006, geologist Dr. Anton Wroblewski saw a replica of the cast at a museum in Texas. After examining the replica, Wroblewski wrote up an informal analysis which agreed with Hume's and others' including Ron Schaffner's, prior opinion about the cast representing an elk. His analysis disagreed with the few scientists (all anthropologists with no training in deciphering animal imprints) who examined the original cast and who claim to have ruled out elk as a cause. Wroblewski has training in ichnology, the study of animal imprints, a field that is particularly relevant to the study of mammals and their impressions.
[edit] Samples of hair and blood Hairs retrieved from a bush in 1968 near Riggins, Idaho were given to Roy Pinker, a police science instructor at California State University, Los Angeles. Pinker concluded that the hair samples did not match any samples from known animal species. Pinker also stated that he could not attribute them as being Bigfoot hairs without a bonafide Bigfoot hair sample for comparison.[39] Pinker's analysis did not use genetic fingerprinting, which was not developed until the 1980s. In "Analysis of Feces and Hair Suspected to be of Sasquatch Origin", anthropologist Vaughn M. Bryant Jr. and ecologist Burleigh Trevor-Deutch report the analysis of six alleged Bigfoot hairs recovered near Riggins, Idaho.[40] They examined several sets of hair samples and their results were inconclusive, but the samples appeared to be most similar to those from a black bear.[41]
Hair samples were also taken from a house located on the Lummi Indian reservation in Washington. Three more samples were retrieved from Maryland, Oregon and California. Forensic Anthropologist Dr. Ellis R. Kerley and Physical Anthropologist Dr. Stephen Rosen of the University of Maryland, as well as Tom Moore, the Supervisor of the Wyoming Game and Fish Laboratory, examined the hair samples and stated that all the hair samples matched in terms of belonging to a "non species specific mammal". They concurred in finding that the four sets matched each other, were similar to gorilla and human but were neither, and they did not match 84 other species of North American mammals. They found that the samples had primate, carnivore and ungulate characteristics. Rosen said if he had to choose he would guess it was an unknown primate.[citation needed] Blood associated with the sample from Idaho was tested by Dr. Vincent Sarich of the University of California and found to be that of a higher primate though Dr Sarich has suggested that the blood could possibly have been human. Like the Riggins samples above, these were not subjected to DNA tests.[citation needed]
Dr. Jeff Meldrum at Idaho State University has other hair and DNA samples that are clearly primate in origin, but from no known primate species.[citation needed]
The DNA tests used on somatic samples give very limited information as there is no known Bigfoot sample to compare it to. The process can only compare the unknown sample to a set of known samples, which necessarily lacks samples of all known animals.[42] Therefore, a hoaxer could obtain hair from a species that is not native to North America, which would have a high chance of not being included in the set of samples tested against. It would receive the same result as a genuine Bigfoot sample: inconclusive. Even if genuine hair could be found, it would have to be tested against every species of mammal on the planet just to make sure it is not a hoax.
[edit] Audio and visual evidence Analysis of purported Sasquatch vocalizations have been recorded and analyzed, leading bioacoustics expert Dr. Robert Benson of Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi to report that some recordings "left him puzzled", and helped alter his perspective somewhat, "from being a raving skeptic to being curiously receptive."[43]
See also: Patterson-Gimlin film There have been several alleged photos or motion pictures of Bigfoot. The best-known was filmed by Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin on October 20, 1967. This film has generated much discussion and debate.
[edit] See also
