Evidence regarding Bigfoot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evidence regarding Bigfoot (also known as Sasquatch) is highly contentious. Seemingly every piece touted as evidence has aroused its share of criticism and support.

Contents 1 Eyewitness reports 1.1 Problems with eyewitness reports 2 Native American culture 2.1 Stone heads 2.2 Face masks 2.3 Problems with Native American culture as evidence 3 Physical evidence 3.1 Footprints 3.2 Gaussian curve 3.3 Deformity 3.4 Handprints 3.5 Fingerprints 3.6 Body cast 3.7 Hair and blood 3.8 Problems with physical evidence 3.8.1 Absence of fossil evidence 3.8.2 Inconclusive evidence 4 Audio and visual evidence 4.1 Audio 4.2 Visual 5 References 5.1 Notes

[edit] Eyewitness reports

The majority of Bigfoot reports are generated from areas having low human population densities, but some do originate from parks near major cities, such as Portland, Oregon,^[1]. In addition, most sightings are near rivers, creeks or lakes, and from areas where annual rainfall exceeds twenty inches (500 mm). Researchers point out that these common factors indicate patterns of a living species occupying an ecological niche, as opposed to hoaxed sightings.^[2] The late Grover Krantz noted these same data, and offered a detailed proposal for Bigfoot ecology and social behavior (Krantz, 158-171).

Critics suggest people may have mistaken bears for Bigfoot, as sightings are sometimes near habitats of bears. However, the witnesses include experienced hunters and outdoorsmen, who claim to be familiar with bears, and insist that the creatures they saw were entirely different. Biologist John Bindernagel argues there are marked differences between bears and Sasquatch reports that make confusion unlikely: "In profile, the bear's prominent snout is markedly different from the Sasquatch flat face. In frontal view, the Sasquatch squarish shoulders contrast with the bear's tapered shoulders. The Sasquatch has relatively long legs that allow for a graceful stride, in contrast with the short-legged shuffles of a bear when it walks on its hind legs. A bear's ears are usually visible, while those of the Sasquatch are apparently hidden under long hair."^[3] Krantz made similar arguments (Krantz, 5).

[edit] Problems with eyewitness reports

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" (Napier, 19). He also adds, "without checking possible ulterior motivations, eyewitnesses cannot be acceptable as primary data" (ibid, 198).

[edit] Native American culture

There are various Native American artifacts presented as circumstantial evidence for the existence of Sasquatch.

[edit] Stone heads

Pyle writes, "Certain artifacts suggest that some Amerindians were acquainted with something having the visage of an ape," and adds: "several carved stone heads from the Columbia River basin" (Pyle, 146). Pyle also notes that prominent paleontologist Othniel Charles Marsh wrote in 1877, "Among the many stone carvings (from the Columbia) were a number of heads, which so strongly resemble those of apes that the likeness at once presents itself" (ibid). Furthermore, the stone carvings are prehistoric (a conclusion supported by B. Robert Butler, who determined the heads as dating from Wakemap Middle Period, 1500 BC to 200 AD (Halpin and Ames, 299), depicting "prognathous, chinless faces with heavy brow ridges and in at least one case a sagittal crest." Pyle adds, "relics do not prove that Bigfoot exists or that [natives] had contact with apes, but they do raise some uncomfortable questions" (Ibid, 146).

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 monkey- or ape-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.

[edit] Face masks

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.

Emmons described the artifact as "a mythical being found in the woods, and called today as a monkey" (Halpin and Ames, 211). Halpin also reports that the physical anthropologist R.D.E. MacPhee examined the Emmons mask and noted that it had both monkey- and ape-like features, but could not match it exactly to any recognized species (ibid, 212). 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 (ibid, 225). 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.

[edit] Problems with Native American culture as evidence

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 "real/mythical or natural/supernatural dichotomy" (Sprague and Krantz, 43). 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" (ibid, 71).

[edit] Physical evidence

Bigfoot researchers make numerous claims that there is physical evidence for the creature's existence. Such evidence has seen, at best, minimal and scattered interest from mainstream experts, and is regarded as far from conclusive.

Disputed science: Bigfoot/Sasquatch
Disciplines:	Cryptozoology
Core tenets:
There exists a secretive great ape native to North America which has evaded detection in remote areas of California and the Pacific Northwest, in contrast to the mainstream view that no such creature exists.
Year proposed:	1920s
Original proponents:	J. W. Burns
Current proponents:	John Bindernagel and others

[edit] Footprints

Photographs or plaster casts of presumed Sasquatch footprints are often cited by cryptozoologists as important evidence. Krantz writes that "the push-off mound in midfootprint is one of the most impressive pieces of evidence to me" (Krantz, 36). This is a small mound of soil created "by a horizontal push of the forefoot just before it leaves the ground", present in some alleged Sasquatch tracks (ibid). Krantz argues that neither artificial wood nor rubber Sasquatch feet can create this convincing feature, as he discovered after many attempts. Most representations of these footprints would be around a US size 23.

Krantz notes, "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" (Krantz, 22). Krantz also reports that reputed Sasquatch steps are "in excess of three feet" (Krantz, 21), arguing that this enormous step would be difficult or impossible for hoaxers to create artificially.

Coleman and Clark write that there are some footprint hoaxes, but argue that they are often clumsy in comparison to presumably genuine prints, which "show distinctive forensic features that to investigators indicate they are not fakes" (Coleman and Clark, 42). Similarly, Krantz notes, "Toe positions can and do vary from one imprint to another of the same foot. We have several clear examples of this. It is my impression that sasquatch toes are more mobile than those on civilized human feet," and that hoaxing this detail would require detailed anatomical knowledge, as well as dozens or hundreds of different casts for each set of Bigfoot tracks, making a hoax unlikely (Krantz, 23).

[edit] Gaussian curve

Researcher Henry Franzoni writes:

“

A strong piece of evidence which suggests that the footprints are not due to a hoax or hoaxers is from Dr. W. Henner Farenbach. He 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."[4]

”

Similarly, in Population Clines of the North American Sasquatch as Evidenced by Track Length and Average Status, anthropologist George Gill writes, "The preliminary results of our study support the hypothesis that Sasquatch actually exists ... not only seem to exist, but conform to ecogeographical rules" (Halpin and Ames, 272).

[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 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."^[5] Krantz declared that "analysis of the apparent anatomy of these tracks proved to be the first convincing evidence... that the animals were real" (Krantz, 54).

[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" (Sprague and Krantz, 118).

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 (Krantz, 47-51).

[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'" (Krantz, 71).

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" (ibid). 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" (Krantz, 77). 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" (ibid).

[edit] Body cast

The so-called Skookum Body Cast was collected in the summer of 2000 after the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) "set out fruit in and around a 'mud trap' they'd constructed to catch some Bigfoot tracks' (Coleman, Bigfoot!, 20-21). Researchers argue that the impression left in a muddy patch could be the impression of a Sasquatch. 325 pounds of casting material was used to capture a "half-body print" consisting of an imprint of what has been called "a Sasquatch's butt, ankles, testicles, hip, thigh, left arm, and apparent hair on the body" (Coleman, op. cit). Prominent primate expert Daris Swindler said, "In my opinion the impression is not made by a deer, a bear or an elk nor was it made artificially. The Skookum body cast is that of an unknown hominoid primate". Skookum is the Native American Chinook word for Bigfoot or Sasquatch and according to Joel Freeman, a Chinook Indian historian, "Skookum" simply meant "powerful" (Coleman, 18).

[edit] 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 to compare to. (Halpin, M. & Ames, M. [eds.] Manlike Monsters on Trial, p. 296. University of British Columbia Press). Pinker's analysis did not use DNA testing, which was not developed until years afterwards. 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. (Halpin & Ames, pp. 191-200.). 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.^[6]

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. ("The Bigfoot Evidence", pp22-29, Frontiers of Science Magazine, Vol. III, no.3, May 1981). Blood associated with the sample from Idaho was tested by Dr. Vincent Sarich of the University of California and found to be that of an unknown higher primate. ("The Bigfoot Evidence", pp22-29, Frontiers of Science Magazine, Vol. III, no.3, May 1981). These were not subjected to DNA testing, which was not available for years afterwards.

[edit] Problems with physical evidence

[edit] Absence of fossil evidence

Critics think it significant that the fossil record provides no support for Sasquatch. There is ample fossil evidence in North America of prehistoric species of bear, cougar, moose and mammoth. Yet, aside from clearly human remains, there is no evidence of a prehistoric hominid or any other North American primate. A skeleton, or even a bone of a huge primate, if discovered, could not be mistaken as coming from any other North American mammal. Additionally, no one has found coproliths (fossilized dung) from a Bigfoot.

Bigfoot researchers argue that the absence of fossilized evidence is not evidence of fossil absence. Sasquatch is not represented in the fossil record, but neither are gorillas nor chimpanzees. Coleman and Patrick Huyghe note that "no one will look for such fossils, if the creatures involved are not thought to exist in the first place. But even with recognized primates, fossil finds are usually meager at best" (Coleman and Huyhge, 162). However, it is worth noting that gorillas, chimpanzees and most other primates live in tropical rain-forests where conditions are unsuitable to create fossils, and in areas where few or no archeological studies were undertaken. In contrast, there are thousands of known remains of native American mammals and humans.

As to the lack of Bigfoot remains, Krantz suggested that this alone is not a valid argument against the creature's actuality. Noting that most animals hide before they die and are then quickly lost to scavengers, he writes, "I have yet to meet anyone who has found the remains of a bear that was not killed by human activity." (Krantz, 10) Fossilization also requires "ideal" conditions, such as being covered by a landslide, mudslide, or other deposit soon after death so that mineralization can take place on an undisturbed carcass.

It is also possible that if Sasquatch remains were ever found, they might have been assumed to have been a large human. Unusually large American Indian remains (sizes greater than six and a half feet) have been found in Ohio, Utah, and Tennessee throughout the 1800's. One such account was recorded by author John Haywood in his book, The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee. In this account Haywood described skeletons found in White County, Tennessee, in 1821 which averaged at least 7 feet in length.

[edit] Inconclusive evidence

Most scientists find that the physical evidence, cited as supporting the existence of Bigfoot, has been ambiguous at best, or hoaxes at worst. There have been no dead bodies, bones or artifacts. There have been reported samples of fur and feces, but aside from the hair analysis by Dr. Rosen, none have been ruled conclusively (or by multiple authorities) as originating from any unknown animal. Some reputed Bigfoot samples, studied using DNA testing, were judged to have come from common animals. One such case earned press attention in mid-2005 when the alleged Bigfoot hairs were identified by University of Alberta geneticist David Coltman as originating from a bison.^[7] Other hair samples did not contain hair follicles, so DNA analysis was impossible.

[edit] Audio and visual evidence

[edit] Audio

Analyses 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 change his opinion "from being a raving skeptic to being curiously receptive."^[8]

[edit] Visual

Main article: 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, even into the present decade.

[edit] References

[edit] Notes