Excellent Coast to Coast AM interview with Dr. Jeff Meldrum, hosted by Ian Punnett.
Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum
Books
Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science
Biography:
Dr. Jeff Meldrum is an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology at Idaho State University. He is also an Affiliate Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Idaho Museum of Natural History and Affiliate Curator of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization. Dr. Meldrum has been investigating the ways monkeys, apes and human ancestors get around, or locomote, for nearly fifteen years. Some of his research has focused on the way in which the human foot has adapted to the habit of walking on two feet (bipedalism).
Source:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/meldrum-dr-jeffrey-/6792
Related Posts:
Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film- Analysis by Bill Munns and Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Obsessive Debunking Disorder (ODD)?
Are Hardcore Skeptics and Debunkers Actually Brain Deficient? Their Own Beloved 'Hard Science' Might Well Suggest Many Are.
Posted by Thomas Sheridan on April 15 2013
Along with this, their intuition and 'background awareness' are likewise diminished. Can you see where this is going? For all their obsession with brain functionality and brain size, as well as their entrenched (and completely unproven) notion that all human consciousness resides in the brain, the debunkers and hardcore skeptics are only using one half of their brain.
EVOLUTION AND THE CORPUS CALLOSUM
Despite what one would assume, the further we get from our hunter-gatherer ancestors, the thickness of the corpus callosum has actually increased. Pushing both halves of the human brain further apart rather than removing it. This presents Darwinists with a problem; as we move further away from the dangers of the natural world, there should be an on-going lateralisation and symmetry of the two brain hemispheres. Another problem is presented here; in that it has now been shown that people of higher intelligence and IQ are much easier to hypnotise and mind control than more creative individuals, and even people with lower IQs are less likely to be mesmerised than formally educated persons with advanced degrees. This would go a long way to explaining why the most absurd flying saucer cults are populated with PhDs and other highly qualified people waiting for the 'space brothers' to arrive. The over-dependence upon and submission to the left hemisphere of the brain leads to just as much delusion and risk of being deceived as the flighty and poetic over-stimulated right hemisphere.
A COGNITIVE AWARENESS STRANGLED BY STATISTICAL INFORMATION AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
All the great scientific discoveries were 'eureka' moments. They were not developed in the labs by white coats working for corporations and foundations. Scientific discovery was not gained by piling sequential 'certainties' upon previous 'certainties'. They were intuitive insights which were validated through the Scientific Method of measurement and constant re-testing. The Western system of education has created a kind of trial separation between the left and right hemispheres of the human brain. Therefore, similar to a stroke patient who is not aware that one side of his or her body is paralysed until they attempt to get out of bed, the deeply entranced hyperactive left brain debunker and hardcore skeptic is simply unable to grasp how the rest of us see the world and experience life. Unable to see the wood from the trees, they do not comprehend intuition and noetic insights. They are cognitively blinded to these experiences and the rest of us trying to explain to them how some official announcement or world event—does not "feel right"—is a human experience that they are completely unaware of. This is why you cannot explain an alternative viewpoint of view to them. Humans need both sides of their brain working in tandem in order for their consciousness to synthesise a more complete and richer understanding of the world as well as human and social dynamics.
THE JOURNEY INTO ORTHODOXY MADNESS
This can be seen as a kind of self-induced schizophrenia, resulting from over-hyperactivity in the left hemisphere of the brain. There is too much information being processed, and the intense devotion to the analytical leads to a kind of overload in the 'here and now' dominant cognitive rationalisation based on statistical data, while neglecting the right hemisphere of the brain and the 'background awareness'.
Much of this has to do with how our minds process ideas and concepts through visual thought forms, and how this is then expressed in language and the written word. By neglecting the right hemisphere, extreme stress is then placed on the left hemisphere, and the results can be catastrophic. Philo Farnsworth, the Utah farm boy who invented the modern television system and then went on to develop over 150 patents in television and broadcast technology, ended up drinking himself to death due to—according to his family—being unable to shut his mind down and live a normal life. His initial discovery was a result of a 'eureka' moment, when as a teen, he observed how the plough lines behind his tractor represented the ideal method for transmitting images by radio waves; however, his obsession with formulae and endless analytical pursuits literally blew his mind. Farnsworth is not unique in this respect.
When one becomes completely entrenched within the left brain and obsessed with an exclusively analytical lifestyle (which then becomes a belief package to be defended), there is a loss of cognitive functioning and behavioural control. This explains why there is so much anger and hostility among debunkers and hardcore skeptics. The bullying aspect of their narcissistic left brain creates a superiority complex, in that they come to believe they know all and see all, when in reality, they are running half-empty with one aspect of their human experience essentially missing. This part of the human experience where intuition, hunches, insight and social intelligence of the most subtle and intricate forms are a complete mystery to them. To the skeptical debunker, things—'either are or they are not'—there is no grey area, as they are ironically not fully utilising their own grey matter to its full potential.
Stress is then incurred upon their left hemisphere cognitive functioning and behavioural deficiencies result. They are not calling people 'morons' and 'retards' as a general insult or standard Internet 'courage'—the debunkers and hardcore skeptics are deeply frustrated and near hysterical to the point where they see anyone who is open-minded and willing to indulge the mysterious as being akin to an alien life form. They simply cannot relate to the rest of us. We are 'irrational', 'lacking reason' 'lost in woo'. Their experience of being human and how they describe it through crude metaphors whereby 'we are just DNA robots' and there is nothing else going on—is not how the rest of us experience our lives. We know there is much more to the human experience than these left-brained internees of the hardcore skeptic and debunker faction assume. Much, much more.
So the next time you find yourself confronted with a hardcore skeptic or debunker, do not even bother to try and make your argument or present your point of view to them, as you are throwing 100% of a human experience in 50% of a self-repressed cognitive understanding. It's not their fault they are the way they are. They are victims of an educational system which began in Prussia in the eighteenth century and which has led humanity into one scientific genocide and meat grinder after the next.
Craig Woolheater – who has written 1826 posts on Cryptomundo.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad
Posted by Thomas Sheridan on April 15 2013
We have
all encountered them. The men and women of 'reason'. The
self-appointed guardians and vanguards of materialist dogma along with
their absolute faith and belief in official government and corporate
press releases. The debunker, the hardcore skeptic—how they love to
compulsively ridicule and mock all they deem 'pseudoscience' and
'conspiracy theory'—while also declaring anyone who thinks outside the box
or questions the prevailing orthodoxy, a "moron" and a "tard". Matters
not how solid the evidence you present them with is, nor how flimsy
their own state-sanctioned 'hard science' which they smugly offer up as
their rebuttal; they are driven by a messianic compulsion to root out
unscientific 'idiots' with all the zeal and fanaticism similar to that
of a Dominican or Jesuit charging through southern France in the twelfth
century seeking out 'heretics' for the burning. Irony does not even
come into their myopic worldview—unless of course a government,
corporate or university press office states this. Then it becomes an
undisputed fact. Thanks to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christoper
Hitchens, these Internet-bound warriors of rationality see
'Creationists' and 'hidden Christians' around every corner and seek to
root them out and expose them as part and parcel of their own peculiar
secular witch hunt mentality.
The reality is that apart from their own kind—other self-proclaimed non-'idiots'—most people find such arrogant and obnoxious debunkers and hardcore skeptics to be strangely angry and boorish, and often confrontational to the point of hysterical. So many of them seem to lack basic social and behavioural skills when 'debating' with their 'kook' of choice. Their absolutism can be staggering at times. Yet, despite all this, they have somehow come to consider themselves 'cool' and even 'sexy' within the last decade. This is simply a lack of critical thinking on their behalf; a distorted worldview where only they are right and everyone else is an idiot.
However, when you strip down their whole mandate into its constituent parts, one soon finds that most of these 'scientifically' minded crusaders have no actual accredited scientific background, and the entire thrust of their endeavours remains nothing less than unconditional servitude and unquestioned devotion to authority figures and the status quo. They seek entrenched orthodoxy, not exploration and wonder. They see an open-minded individual as being akin to a brain being infected with a disease, or the mark of a witch. They act as if Creationists are a real danger to human survival, as if the US Bible Belt has extended beyond its absurd boundaries. Creationists are about as much danger to the advances made by scientists in the last two hundred years as Graneda was to Ronald Reagan back in the early 1980s.
It is only fair to point out that there are also healthy skeptics who genuinely do look at anomalies and unexplained phenomena within the natural and unseen cosmos with a cautious eye. They will at least indulge a novel or radical opinion and look at the evidence before taking a stance—often it is an arbitrary position—based on using the Scientific Method coupled with Carl Sagan's "extraordinary evidence". They are generally polite and only moderately condescending at worst.
The debunker and the hardcore skeptics, on the other hand, will even attack these open-minded Materialists, similar to how a flying saucer cult will have very public witch hunts of so-so members who have not shown their unconditional devotion to the messages sent from the 'space brothers'. The irony is that many of the open-minded skeptics that they attack often have a scientific or engineering background, and these folks are being attacked by debunkers whose sum total of their own quest for reason and logic rarely extends beyond procuring a 'Mythbusters' DVD box set or having a poster of Richard Dawkins on their wall. Any Reductionist fence-sitters will be treated with ridicule and contempt—even fascistic vitriol and vicious insults.
The reality is that apart from their own kind—other self-proclaimed non-'idiots'—most people find such arrogant and obnoxious debunkers and hardcore skeptics to be strangely angry and boorish, and often confrontational to the point of hysterical. So many of them seem to lack basic social and behavioural skills when 'debating' with their 'kook' of choice. Their absolutism can be staggering at times. Yet, despite all this, they have somehow come to consider themselves 'cool' and even 'sexy' within the last decade. This is simply a lack of critical thinking on their behalf; a distorted worldview where only they are right and everyone else is an idiot.
However, when you strip down their whole mandate into its constituent parts, one soon finds that most of these 'scientifically' minded crusaders have no actual accredited scientific background, and the entire thrust of their endeavours remains nothing less than unconditional servitude and unquestioned devotion to authority figures and the status quo. They seek entrenched orthodoxy, not exploration and wonder. They see an open-minded individual as being akin to a brain being infected with a disease, or the mark of a witch. They act as if Creationists are a real danger to human survival, as if the US Bible Belt has extended beyond its absurd boundaries. Creationists are about as much danger to the advances made by scientists in the last two hundred years as Graneda was to Ronald Reagan back in the early 1980s.
It is only fair to point out that there are also healthy skeptics who genuinely do look at anomalies and unexplained phenomena within the natural and unseen cosmos with a cautious eye. They will at least indulge a novel or radical opinion and look at the evidence before taking a stance—often it is an arbitrary position—based on using the Scientific Method coupled with Carl Sagan's "extraordinary evidence". They are generally polite and only moderately condescending at worst.
The debunker and the hardcore skeptics, on the other hand, will even attack these open-minded Materialists, similar to how a flying saucer cult will have very public witch hunts of so-so members who have not shown their unconditional devotion to the messages sent from the 'space brothers'. The irony is that many of the open-minded skeptics that they attack often have a scientific or engineering background, and these folks are being attacked by debunkers whose sum total of their own quest for reason and logic rarely extends beyond procuring a 'Mythbusters' DVD box set or having a poster of Richard Dawkins on their wall. Any Reductionist fence-sitters will be treated with ridicule and contempt—even fascistic vitriol and vicious insults.
There
is simply no grey areas within the concrete consciousness of the
debunker or the hardcore skeptic; instead, only a kind of scientific
idealism—and idealism, both secular or otherwise, is really just a nice
way of saying 'fascism'.
So what gives? How come they behave the way they do? A complete lack of social intelligence? An inability to debate, share interesting banter and listen to what another person is saying which might be at odds with their own beliefs? Surprisingly, their own beloved science might well provide the answer to these questions. It may well be an over-stimulation of the left hemisphere of their brains leading to a kind of self-induced schizophrenia whereby the right hemisphere of their brain has been switched off. Hence, why they place no value on other forms of non-lateral intelligence: noetic wisdom and intuition.
THE LEFT RIGHT BRAIN—MYTHOLOGY AND FACT
During the 1960's and well into the following two decades, a branch of pop psychology developed which began to make some very speculative assumptions about the specific roles the two hemispheres of our brain play in our cognitive awareness and functioning. The general understanding developed that the left hemisphere of the brain was essentially analytical and concerned with processes and quantitative evaluation, while the right hemisphere of the human brain was where the artists and dreamers resided. This is a very simplistic understanding; and in recent years, imaging research has shown that both hemispheres share more or less the same attributes, and both can equally process the same cognitive functionality. However, and this is crucial, there is a level of redundancy in both hemispheres.
The growing speculation for the need for two (asymmetrical) brain hemispheres is to perform two acts of awareness. The left brain is devoted to specific tasks and objectives, while the right brain acts as a kind of peripheral awareness. There has to be a kind of background seeing, as well as immediate attention to the task at hand. Think of an early human on the side of a riverbank trying to spear a salmon—the left brain would be devoted to this task. In order to maintain awareness of the environment and possible dangers therein, the right hemisphere of the human brain is 'looking' out for predators such as a saber-tooth tiger seeking an easy meal in the form of a prehistoric human who is completely concentrated on catching a fish. Hence, why the right brain is often associated with insight, intuition and noetic realisations. Which is why artists tend to have an ability to see changes in their environment and social conditions before the rest of the population. Their 'background vision' is more highly developed due to them using both hemispheres of their brain for the purpose they were intended.
The left brain, on the other hand, has been shown to be highly narcissistic and with an inflated sense of its own worth and status. The left hemisphere sees no problem with itself, and this has been shown in stroke patients who lost the use of the right hemisphere of their brain. Operating in left-brain mode only, they assumed they were perfectly fine until they attempted to get out of bed only to discover they were paralysed on one side.
So what gives? How come they behave the way they do? A complete lack of social intelligence? An inability to debate, share interesting banter and listen to what another person is saying which might be at odds with their own beliefs? Surprisingly, their own beloved science might well provide the answer to these questions. It may well be an over-stimulation of the left hemisphere of their brains leading to a kind of self-induced schizophrenia whereby the right hemisphere of their brain has been switched off. Hence, why they place no value on other forms of non-lateral intelligence: noetic wisdom and intuition.
THE LEFT RIGHT BRAIN—MYTHOLOGY AND FACT
During the 1960's and well into the following two decades, a branch of pop psychology developed which began to make some very speculative assumptions about the specific roles the two hemispheres of our brain play in our cognitive awareness and functioning. The general understanding developed that the left hemisphere of the brain was essentially analytical and concerned with processes and quantitative evaluation, while the right hemisphere of the human brain was where the artists and dreamers resided. This is a very simplistic understanding; and in recent years, imaging research has shown that both hemispheres share more or less the same attributes, and both can equally process the same cognitive functionality. However, and this is crucial, there is a level of redundancy in both hemispheres.
The growing speculation for the need for two (asymmetrical) brain hemispheres is to perform two acts of awareness. The left brain is devoted to specific tasks and objectives, while the right brain acts as a kind of peripheral awareness. There has to be a kind of background seeing, as well as immediate attention to the task at hand. Think of an early human on the side of a riverbank trying to spear a salmon—the left brain would be devoted to this task. In order to maintain awareness of the environment and possible dangers therein, the right hemisphere of the human brain is 'looking' out for predators such as a saber-tooth tiger seeking an easy meal in the form of a prehistoric human who is completely concentrated on catching a fish. Hence, why the right brain is often associated with insight, intuition and noetic realisations. Which is why artists tend to have an ability to see changes in their environment and social conditions before the rest of the population. Their 'background vision' is more highly developed due to them using both hemispheres of their brain for the purpose they were intended.
The left brain, on the other hand, has been shown to be highly narcissistic and with an inflated sense of its own worth and status. The left hemisphere sees no problem with itself, and this has been shown in stroke patients who lost the use of the right hemisphere of their brain. Operating in left-brain mode only, they assumed they were perfectly fine until they attempted to get out of bed only to discover they were paralysed on one side.
Between
the left and right hemispheres of the human brain is the corpus
callosum, which is a thin membrane of nerve fibers which separates the
two halves and has now been shown that rather than being a communicative
link between the two brain halves, it acts more like a buffer, with
the left brain in Western people having a desire to literally switch
off the neural activity in the right hemisphere. This is one meme which
Betty Edwards was correct about in her book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain—the
left hemisphere is a bully. In overly logical and analytical
individuals, fMRI scans have shown the left brain actually inhibits the
right brain—via the corpus callosum nerve fibers—from offering its
contribution to the entire cognitive process. This state of right
hemisphere nullification is where the debunker and the hardcore skeptics
are trapped and can never leave—in their intolerant and highly
narcissistic left hemisphere—using the two percent of neural wiring into
their right hemisphere in order to shut it off. Ordering the right
hemisphere to cease activity while the left side of the brain saves the
world from 'morons' who dare question official government press
releases or the mandates from any authority figure or bureaucratic
institutions.
Along with this, their intuition and 'background awareness' are likewise diminished. Can you see where this is going? For all their obsession with brain functionality and brain size, as well as their entrenched (and completely unproven) notion that all human consciousness resides in the brain, the debunkers and hardcore skeptics are only using one half of their brain.
EVOLUTION AND THE CORPUS CALLOSUM
Despite what one would assume, the further we get from our hunter-gatherer ancestors, the thickness of the corpus callosum has actually increased. Pushing both halves of the human brain further apart rather than removing it. This presents Darwinists with a problem; as we move further away from the dangers of the natural world, there should be an on-going lateralisation and symmetry of the two brain hemispheres. Another problem is presented here; in that it has now been shown that people of higher intelligence and IQ are much easier to hypnotise and mind control than more creative individuals, and even people with lower IQs are less likely to be mesmerised than formally educated persons with advanced degrees. This would go a long way to explaining why the most absurd flying saucer cults are populated with PhDs and other highly qualified people waiting for the 'space brothers' to arrive. The over-dependence upon and submission to the left hemisphere of the brain leads to just as much delusion and risk of being deceived as the flighty and poetic over-stimulated right hemisphere.
A COGNITIVE AWARENESS STRANGLED BY STATISTICAL INFORMATION AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
All the great scientific discoveries were 'eureka' moments. They were not developed in the labs by white coats working for corporations and foundations. Scientific discovery was not gained by piling sequential 'certainties' upon previous 'certainties'. They were intuitive insights which were validated through the Scientific Method of measurement and constant re-testing. The Western system of education has created a kind of trial separation between the left and right hemispheres of the human brain. Therefore, similar to a stroke patient who is not aware that one side of his or her body is paralysed until they attempt to get out of bed, the deeply entranced hyperactive left brain debunker and hardcore skeptic is simply unable to grasp how the rest of us see the world and experience life. Unable to see the wood from the trees, they do not comprehend intuition and noetic insights. They are cognitively blinded to these experiences and the rest of us trying to explain to them how some official announcement or world event—does not "feel right"—is a human experience that they are completely unaware of. This is why you cannot explain an alternative viewpoint of view to them. Humans need both sides of their brain working in tandem in order for their consciousness to synthesise a more complete and richer understanding of the world as well as human and social dynamics.
THE JOURNEY INTO ORTHODOXY MADNESS
This can be seen as a kind of self-induced schizophrenia, resulting from over-hyperactivity in the left hemisphere of the brain. There is too much information being processed, and the intense devotion to the analytical leads to a kind of overload in the 'here and now' dominant cognitive rationalisation based on statistical data, while neglecting the right hemisphere of the brain and the 'background awareness'.
Much of this has to do with how our minds process ideas and concepts through visual thought forms, and how this is then expressed in language and the written word. By neglecting the right hemisphere, extreme stress is then placed on the left hemisphere, and the results can be catastrophic. Philo Farnsworth, the Utah farm boy who invented the modern television system and then went on to develop over 150 patents in television and broadcast technology, ended up drinking himself to death due to—according to his family—being unable to shut his mind down and live a normal life. His initial discovery was a result of a 'eureka' moment, when as a teen, he observed how the plough lines behind his tractor represented the ideal method for transmitting images by radio waves; however, his obsession with formulae and endless analytical pursuits literally blew his mind. Farnsworth is not unique in this respect.
When one becomes completely entrenched within the left brain and obsessed with an exclusively analytical lifestyle (which then becomes a belief package to be defended), there is a loss of cognitive functioning and behavioural control. This explains why there is so much anger and hostility among debunkers and hardcore skeptics. The bullying aspect of their narcissistic left brain creates a superiority complex, in that they come to believe they know all and see all, when in reality, they are running half-empty with one aspect of their human experience essentially missing. This part of the human experience where intuition, hunches, insight and social intelligence of the most subtle and intricate forms are a complete mystery to them. To the skeptical debunker, things—'either are or they are not'—there is no grey area, as they are ironically not fully utilising their own grey matter to its full potential.
Stress is then incurred upon their left hemisphere cognitive functioning and behavioural deficiencies result. They are not calling people 'morons' and 'retards' as a general insult or standard Internet 'courage'—the debunkers and hardcore skeptics are deeply frustrated and near hysterical to the point where they see anyone who is open-minded and willing to indulge the mysterious as being akin to an alien life form. They simply cannot relate to the rest of us. We are 'irrational', 'lacking reason' 'lost in woo'. Their experience of being human and how they describe it through crude metaphors whereby 'we are just DNA robots' and there is nothing else going on—is not how the rest of us experience our lives. We know there is much more to the human experience than these left-brained internees of the hardcore skeptic and debunker faction assume. Much, much more.
So the next time you find yourself confronted with a hardcore skeptic or debunker, do not even bother to try and make your argument or present your point of view to them, as you are throwing 100% of a human experience in 50% of a self-repressed cognitive understanding. It's not their fault they are the way they are. They are victims of an educational system which began in Prussia in the eighteenth century and which has led humanity into one scientific genocide and meat grinder after the next.
Use
your intuition and ignore them. You do not need their validation and
approval, as they are only interested in what the men in the white coats
tell them that which is a 'fact'. Be polite and continue to follow
your own field of study and knowledge path, and then see where it leads
you. This may lead you nowhere, but so what. The journey is often more
important than the destination. Your life will be more rewarding,
creative and enriching for allowing your right brain to take part in the
imagination of yourself within this five-sense reality we call human
existence.
Further Resources:
Left Brain, Right Brain: Perspectives From Cognitive Neuroscience by Sally P. Springer and Georg Deutsch
The Master and his Emissary by Iain McGilchrist
Right Hand, Left Hand by Chris McManus
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, by S.B. Kaufman
Further Resources:
Left Brain, Right Brain: Perspectives From Cognitive Neuroscience by Sally P. Springer and Georg Deutsch
The Master and his Emissary by Iain McGilchrist
Right Hand, Left Hand by Chris McManus
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, by S.B. Kaufman
Source:
This post was written by
Craig Woolheater – who has written 1826 posts on Cryptomundo.Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad
Why isn't there more footage of a sasquatch?
Many critics of the sasquatch phenomenon point to
the scarcity of photographic or video evidence as a reason to doubt the
existence of the species. Although no one has ever debunked the best
footage that is available, skeptics continue to question why sasquatch
images are so rare. Quick logic suggests there should be miles of
footage if the animals really do live in our forests, especially
considering how much footage there is of other large North American
mammals.
It is possible to obtain footage/photos of these particular animals, but the odds of this happening randomly are sharply reduced by particular factors:
-- Sightings of sasquatches are unpredictable. They occur only in rural areas. Very few people in rural areas keep a decent camera handy at all times.
-- Witnesses consistently describe initial confusion and/or fear during their sighting.
-- Sightings typically last only a few seconds. A camcorder's auto-focus, by itself, takes a few seconds to adjust.
-- Very few people go out looking for these animals for the purpose of photographing them. Most bigfoot researchers are "arm chair" researchers.
-- Sasquatches seem to be on the move most of the time, following deer/elk herds like nomadic predators, or hunter-gatherers. There are no dens or nests that are occupied continuously or predictably. Their temporary dens and nests are quickly abandoned when approached by humans, so there's no easy way for wildlife paparazzi to catch them at home.
-- The only practical opportunities for footage or photos with everyday cameras are situations where a sasquatch is observed out in the open, in the day time, from a distance, for several minutes. Those situations are rarely described.
-- The typical habitats are dense, brushy, quiet forests, where human intruders can be heard well before they get within visual range. In those environments a person can be completely invisible to someone standing less than 10 feet away.
-- Sasquatches are likely nocturnal. Hunters and fisherman almost never hunt after dark without a flashlight or lamp.
-- Sasquatches are likely intelligent. Just as their bodies are much larger than humans', so, apparently, are their heads, and presumably their brain cavities as well. They don't live like humans, but they are certainly more complex than other ape species.
-- They may be the most elusive land mammal species of all, yet they receive the least amount of effort or attention from the government.
Although a handful of short blurry or inconclusive film clips *may* depict real sasquatches, neither the Patterson/Gimlin footage nor any of the lesser clips possess the quality that viewers have come to expect from commercial wildlife footage.
Commencing with the fifteen-minute telecast “The Nature of Things” (1948-1954), natural history documentaries significantly impacted common perceptions regarding wildlife photography. Popular programs such as “Marty Stouffer’s Wild America” and, in more recent years, “The Crocodile Hunter” contributed to the belief that any terrestrial (land) animal can be located, followed, and filmed in the wild by naturalists and professional cameramen without too much difficulty. With that in mind, it is hard for the general public to accept the premise that any large species can consistently elude determined film makers. While these conclusions may appear to be logical enough, most people are simply uninformed about the elements involved.
In addition to the failure of professional wildlife cinematographers to film a sasquatch, critics also emphasize the fact that millions of people live near or visit purported sasquatch habitat. Many of these people are armed with cameras. It stands to reason, according to the argument of skeptics, that sheer chance alone dictates that someone should see and photograph a sasquatch. As with the odds of a random hunter killing a sasquatch, there are many unique and unusual factors to consider when evaluating a random photographer’s odds for success.
The term "random photographer" is used here to describe someone toting a camera who is not specifically looking for a sasquatch. A random photographer's odds must be analyzed differently than the odds of someone who is specifically looking for a sasquatch.
The vast majority of people who have cameras or camcorders with them in forests are tourists and vacationers, not professional wildlife photographers. Tourists and vacationers are usually found in places where there are lots of other tourists and vacationers. This class of photographer rarely gets far away from crowds and is typically found along well kept trails and roads in popular destinations such as Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon National Park, etc.
Adventurous nature tourists may occasionally don backpacks and join smaller groups headed to less crowded locations, but those trips still take place along marked trails or down rivers that endure relatively heavy and consistent human traffic. Safety concerns keep most backpackers close to marked and maintained trails. More experienced backpackers may venture into wilder mountainous or densely forested areas, but even here they generally stick to some kind of established footpath.
Elusive woodland or wilderness animals such as predators, on the other hand, do not generally use or rely on these same trails. Such creatures know the routes used by other animals and humans. If a bear or mountain lion were to travel along a trail frequented by people, it would normally use the trail at night, a time when it is less likely to have a surprise encounter with a human. In those rare instances when an unanticipated encounter occurs along a road or a maintained trail, animals like cougars, wolves and bears usually slip back into the woods within a few seconds, before a backpacker can get a camera ready to shoot a single frame.
Most nature tourists, even backpackers, carry cameras for the purpose of photographing themselves, fellow travelers, and landscapes. Cameras are brought to preserve vacation memories, not to photograph quick moving animals. Tourists do not usually hold cameras in their hands until they reach a place where they know they are going to take a photograph, and many people keep cameras safely secured inside backpacks. Many seconds may elapse before the average tourist is able to remove a backpack, fish a camera out of the bag, deal with the lens cap, try to focus the camera, find the subject in the view finder, and take the shot.
The desire or ability to photograph a large dangerous looking wild animal always depends on the comfort level of the tourist. Photographing a group of large hungry polar bears poses no threat when the tourist is seated safely inside a large heated bus designed specifically for the purpose of thwarting large hungry polar bears. Similarly, photographing "park bears" eating from a garbage dump in Yellowstone is not an uncomfortable situation because lots of other people are also standing around taking pictures.
The situation is totally different when a backpacker observes a large dangerous looking animal while hiking through a forest. Encountering a bear or mountain lion in a remote area can be a very frightening experience, even if the animal turns and runs away. When a surprise confrontation occurs, the observer is usually very concerned about his or her safety. The observer does not think about taking pictures at that moment, even if he or she has a camera in hand. This physiologically derived response can be likened to the "Drive-by Shooting Effect."
Drive-by shootings were a nightly occurrence in Los Angeles during the 1980s and early 1990s. Dozens of people were killed each year. There were, collectively, hundreds of witnesses to these incidents.
There is only one piece of video footage documenting an actual drive-by shooting. This astounding fact appears to defy superficial logic, considering that Los Angeles is one of the media capitals of the world. Many Angelenos own cameras and try to make a buck with them.
The one piece of footage was obtained by a free-lance TV crew. The crew was taking a break between stories and testing its gear in a dark downtown neighborhood when the incident quickly unfolded in front of them. The crew dove for the floor of the van while the camera continued rolling.
They got the footage, but it happened unintentionally. The camera happened to be sitting on a tripod, with tape rolling, and pointed in the direction of the gas station where the shooting happened.
If the crew had somehow gotten advance warning that a shooting was going to occur, the camera would not have been sitting on a tripod outside the vehicle. It would have been on a camerman's shoulder. He would have likely taken cover when the shooting started, and he would have missed getting footage of the shooting.
An unexpected sense of extreme danger will interfere with any mission or desire to take pictures or shoot video.
For a sasquatch to be an easy target for casual photographers, it would have to wander repeatedly into the open, in daylight, and in predictable places frequented by humans. But sighting patterns indicate that sasquatches prefer to remain in thick forests, venturing out only after nightfall.
Because viewing opportunities are exceedingly rare to begin with, especially in daylight, the odds of a random person photographing a sasquatch during the daytime are almost negligible.
The odds of a "sasquatch photographer" have to be analyzed differently.
A person dedicated to the goal of photographing a sasquatch is likely to be more mentally prepared to handle the surprise of an encounter and has undoubtedly played out possible scenarios many times over. The photographer knows the sasquatch may dash off quickly, so the camera is more handy for a fleeting opportunity. Even with the given advantages, a sasquatch photographer must still overcome special challenges.
Before addressing some of these special challenges, it is important to note that very few experienced photographers intent on documenting a sasquatch actually get into the field on a regular basis.
Many skeptics assume there must be hundreds, or at least dozens, of active bigfoot hunters in the field at any given time. In reality, only a dozen or so investigators get into the field consistently for at least a few days each month. Nearly every equipped "bigfoot hunter" has a day job, or a family, or both. So they are rarely able to remain in the field for more than a few days at a time.
The present quantity of wildlife photographers who are employed full time for the purpose of obtaining sasquatch footage/photos:
Zero (0).
As surprising as it may sound, no television wildlife production company, or wildlife magazine, has ever put a professional wildlife photographer in the field for more than a few days, in an attempt to obtain photographs, film, or video footage of these specific animals.
Production companies that do produce programs dealing with sasquatches typically focus their attention on sasquatch researchers and witnesses, rather than trying to get original footage of these animals.
Part of the problem is that production companies do not have the luxury of planning for long-term projects with uncertain odds of success. It is much more financially feasible to spend a few days or weeks tagging along with folks who call themselves bigfoot researchers, and interviewing them, and asking cliche questions, and showing stock footage.
One practical long term plan for a sasquatch photographer would be to analyze geographical patterns of sighting reports and pinpoint promising areas to patrol on horseback, at least a few times each year for several days at a time.
Would-be sasquatch photographers almost never have the time or resources to conduct those kinds of repeated, extended, horsepacking trips. In fact, the last people who actually did this over the course of a few years were Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. They were able to approach the photography challenge from this angle because their jobs were seasonal. They were also experienced backwoods hunters, and they had access to specially-trained trail horses.
Patterson and Gimlin also had a decent communications network (by 1960's standards) in the northwest that enabled them to stay abreast of the most recent sightings and track finds in the region.
In 1967 sasquatch tracks started turning up along logging roads that were being constructed in a remote part of Northern California called Bluff Creek. Patterson and Gimlin got wind of the track finds and set out on horseback to explore the area. They scouted for days throughout the vast watershed. On horseback they could travel long distances and easily scout areas that were rarely visited by humans.
By a fortuitous twist of fate, the winding canyon bottom of Bluff Creek was quite open in late 1967. A major storm had caused massive flooding earlier that year. The brushy creek bed had been transformed into sand bars, mud flats, and piles of logs and other flood debris.
The stream continued running down the middle of the devastated canyon bottom, fully exposed to view. For months after the floods, animals had to venture out into the open, and cross the mud flats and sand bars, to get to the stream to drink. This rare circumstance allowed Roger Patterson to film the sasquatch as it retreated from the stream back to the tree line.
The Patterson footage site now looks very different. Trees and brush have grown back with a vengeance. Today Patterson and Gimlin would not have spotted the figure from where they first spotted it in 1967, nor would they have the unobstructed view they had as the animal retreated.
There were other unique circumstances in the 1960's and 1970's that contributed to the rise in sightings and track finds across North America during that period, particularly the construction of new logging roads into remote mountainous areas.
Patterson and Gimlin themselves were the product of a western cowboy culture that could endure for weeks on horseback in the mountains. They were the type of guys would be unphased by a surprise confrontation with an animal -- unphased even if a panicked horse suddenly fell back on top of one of them and pinned him to the ground.
Patterson was also mentally and physically prepared like a western quick draw gun fighter, to whip out a movie camera from a saddle bag in order to document a fleeting encounter.
No one has matched Patterson and Gimlin’s feat since then -- in terms of the footage obtained, or in terms of the long-term deep-reach effort required to obtain that footage.
The unique hindrances to obtaining daylight footage of these animals stems mainly from their elusive lifestyles and behaviors.
Almost any other type of terrestrial animal is easier to locate and photograph than sasquatches, not merely because there are larger numbers of every other type of large mammal.
Sasquatches are somewhat nomadic and mainly nocturnal. Their food requirements may force them to move from place to place on a frequent basis, and in unpredictable patterns, within a very large home range.
Elusive predators such as wolves, cougars and bears have more predictable territories and circuits, making it much easier to trap or shoot them.
Captive animals can be relocated to settings designed with the needs of the wildlife image market in mind. As a prominent wildlife photographer related, "An animal such as a cougar is virtually never photographed in the wild unless it is hounded by dogs first. All of the images on calendars, in magazines and books are taken in captivity - even if they don't look like it. There is a whole industry around the photography of difficult predators. Photo tours to game farms such as the Triple D in Montana are big business and a reliable resource for documentary film makers."
These facilities, offering expansive natural-looking settings, make it very easy for filmmakers to locate their subject. They create the impression that the animal has been skillfully tracked and carefully approached among wild habitat. Much of wildlife videography is "staged" in this way.
The nocturnal habits of sasquatches create special challenges. Sasquatches retreat quickly from bright illumination in the woods at night, as if bright lights in the darkness are painful to their eyes.
The deterrent effect of bright lights makes the photography effort much more costly, because special equipment is required. Camera-grade 3rd-generation night vision scopes, and thermal cameras allow photographers to film from a distance in the dark, but those devices cost thousands of dollars, putting them well out of reach from most photographers.
---------------------------
With more sighting reports becoming available to the public via the Internet, and with unmanned trail cameras becoming more affordable, new people will undoubtedly try to obtain trail camera photos in areas with a history of sightings.
The emergence and dispersion of high-output "true infrared" motion-sensing trail cameras (such as the Reconyx RC60-HO) will inevitably lead to some unprecedented images of sasquatches. These particular devices will allow professional and non-professional photographers to overcome most of the limitations inherent with hand-held devices, in the context of this unique pursuit.
Source:
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=412
Related Posts:
Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film- Analysis by Bill Munns and Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Corroborating Evidence Makes Strong Case for the Authenticity of the Bigfoot Footage of Paul Freeman
It is possible to obtain footage/photos of these particular animals, but the odds of this happening randomly are sharply reduced by particular factors:
-- Sightings of sasquatches are unpredictable. They occur only in rural areas. Very few people in rural areas keep a decent camera handy at all times.
-- Witnesses consistently describe initial confusion and/or fear during their sighting.
-- Sightings typically last only a few seconds. A camcorder's auto-focus, by itself, takes a few seconds to adjust.
-- Very few people go out looking for these animals for the purpose of photographing them. Most bigfoot researchers are "arm chair" researchers.
-- Sasquatches seem to be on the move most of the time, following deer/elk herds like nomadic predators, or hunter-gatherers. There are no dens or nests that are occupied continuously or predictably. Their temporary dens and nests are quickly abandoned when approached by humans, so there's no easy way for wildlife paparazzi to catch them at home.
-- The only practical opportunities for footage or photos with everyday cameras are situations where a sasquatch is observed out in the open, in the day time, from a distance, for several minutes. Those situations are rarely described.
-- The typical habitats are dense, brushy, quiet forests, where human intruders can be heard well before they get within visual range. In those environments a person can be completely invisible to someone standing less than 10 feet away.
-- Sasquatches are likely nocturnal. Hunters and fisherman almost never hunt after dark without a flashlight or lamp.
-- Sasquatches are likely intelligent. Just as their bodies are much larger than humans', so, apparently, are their heads, and presumably their brain cavities as well. They don't live like humans, but they are certainly more complex than other ape species.
-- They may be the most elusive land mammal species of all, yet they receive the least amount of effort or attention from the government.
Although a handful of short blurry or inconclusive film clips *may* depict real sasquatches, neither the Patterson/Gimlin footage nor any of the lesser clips possess the quality that viewers have come to expect from commercial wildlife footage.
Commencing with the fifteen-minute telecast “The Nature of Things” (1948-1954), natural history documentaries significantly impacted common perceptions regarding wildlife photography. Popular programs such as “Marty Stouffer’s Wild America” and, in more recent years, “The Crocodile Hunter” contributed to the belief that any terrestrial (land) animal can be located, followed, and filmed in the wild by naturalists and professional cameramen without too much difficulty. With that in mind, it is hard for the general public to accept the premise that any large species can consistently elude determined film makers. While these conclusions may appear to be logical enough, most people are simply uninformed about the elements involved.
In addition to the failure of professional wildlife cinematographers to film a sasquatch, critics also emphasize the fact that millions of people live near or visit purported sasquatch habitat. Many of these people are armed with cameras. It stands to reason, according to the argument of skeptics, that sheer chance alone dictates that someone should see and photograph a sasquatch. As with the odds of a random hunter killing a sasquatch, there are many unique and unusual factors to consider when evaluating a random photographer’s odds for success.
The term "random photographer" is used here to describe someone toting a camera who is not specifically looking for a sasquatch. A random photographer's odds must be analyzed differently than the odds of someone who is specifically looking for a sasquatch.
The vast majority of people who have cameras or camcorders with them in forests are tourists and vacationers, not professional wildlife photographers. Tourists and vacationers are usually found in places where there are lots of other tourists and vacationers. This class of photographer rarely gets far away from crowds and is typically found along well kept trails and roads in popular destinations such as Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon National Park, etc.
Adventurous nature tourists may occasionally don backpacks and join smaller groups headed to less crowded locations, but those trips still take place along marked trails or down rivers that endure relatively heavy and consistent human traffic. Safety concerns keep most backpackers close to marked and maintained trails. More experienced backpackers may venture into wilder mountainous or densely forested areas, but even here they generally stick to some kind of established footpath.
Elusive woodland or wilderness animals such as predators, on the other hand, do not generally use or rely on these same trails. Such creatures know the routes used by other animals and humans. If a bear or mountain lion were to travel along a trail frequented by people, it would normally use the trail at night, a time when it is less likely to have a surprise encounter with a human. In those rare instances when an unanticipated encounter occurs along a road or a maintained trail, animals like cougars, wolves and bears usually slip back into the woods within a few seconds, before a backpacker can get a camera ready to shoot a single frame.
Most nature tourists, even backpackers, carry cameras for the purpose of photographing themselves, fellow travelers, and landscapes. Cameras are brought to preserve vacation memories, not to photograph quick moving animals. Tourists do not usually hold cameras in their hands until they reach a place where they know they are going to take a photograph, and many people keep cameras safely secured inside backpacks. Many seconds may elapse before the average tourist is able to remove a backpack, fish a camera out of the bag, deal with the lens cap, try to focus the camera, find the subject in the view finder, and take the shot.
The desire or ability to photograph a large dangerous looking wild animal always depends on the comfort level of the tourist. Photographing a group of large hungry polar bears poses no threat when the tourist is seated safely inside a large heated bus designed specifically for the purpose of thwarting large hungry polar bears. Similarly, photographing "park bears" eating from a garbage dump in Yellowstone is not an uncomfortable situation because lots of other people are also standing around taking pictures.
The situation is totally different when a backpacker observes a large dangerous looking animal while hiking through a forest. Encountering a bear or mountain lion in a remote area can be a very frightening experience, even if the animal turns and runs away. When a surprise confrontation occurs, the observer is usually very concerned about his or her safety. The observer does not think about taking pictures at that moment, even if he or she has a camera in hand. This physiologically derived response can be likened to the "Drive-by Shooting Effect."
Drive-by shootings were a nightly occurrence in Los Angeles during the 1980s and early 1990s. Dozens of people were killed each year. There were, collectively, hundreds of witnesses to these incidents.
There is only one piece of video footage documenting an actual drive-by shooting. This astounding fact appears to defy superficial logic, considering that Los Angeles is one of the media capitals of the world. Many Angelenos own cameras and try to make a buck with them.
The one piece of footage was obtained by a free-lance TV crew. The crew was taking a break between stories and testing its gear in a dark downtown neighborhood when the incident quickly unfolded in front of them. The crew dove for the floor of the van while the camera continued rolling.
They got the footage, but it happened unintentionally. The camera happened to be sitting on a tripod, with tape rolling, and pointed in the direction of the gas station where the shooting happened.
If the crew had somehow gotten advance warning that a shooting was going to occur, the camera would not have been sitting on a tripod outside the vehicle. It would have been on a camerman's shoulder. He would have likely taken cover when the shooting started, and he would have missed getting footage of the shooting.
An unexpected sense of extreme danger will interfere with any mission or desire to take pictures or shoot video.
For a sasquatch to be an easy target for casual photographers, it would have to wander repeatedly into the open, in daylight, and in predictable places frequented by humans. But sighting patterns indicate that sasquatches prefer to remain in thick forests, venturing out only after nightfall.
Because viewing opportunities are exceedingly rare to begin with, especially in daylight, the odds of a random person photographing a sasquatch during the daytime are almost negligible.
The odds of a "sasquatch photographer" have to be analyzed differently.
A person dedicated to the goal of photographing a sasquatch is likely to be more mentally prepared to handle the surprise of an encounter and has undoubtedly played out possible scenarios many times over. The photographer knows the sasquatch may dash off quickly, so the camera is more handy for a fleeting opportunity. Even with the given advantages, a sasquatch photographer must still overcome special challenges.
Before addressing some of these special challenges, it is important to note that very few experienced photographers intent on documenting a sasquatch actually get into the field on a regular basis.
Many skeptics assume there must be hundreds, or at least dozens, of active bigfoot hunters in the field at any given time. In reality, only a dozen or so investigators get into the field consistently for at least a few days each month. Nearly every equipped "bigfoot hunter" has a day job, or a family, or both. So they are rarely able to remain in the field for more than a few days at a time.
The present quantity of wildlife photographers who are employed full time for the purpose of obtaining sasquatch footage/photos:
Zero (0).
As surprising as it may sound, no television wildlife production company, or wildlife magazine, has ever put a professional wildlife photographer in the field for more than a few days, in an attempt to obtain photographs, film, or video footage of these specific animals.
Production companies that do produce programs dealing with sasquatches typically focus their attention on sasquatch researchers and witnesses, rather than trying to get original footage of these animals.
Part of the problem is that production companies do not have the luxury of planning for long-term projects with uncertain odds of success. It is much more financially feasible to spend a few days or weeks tagging along with folks who call themselves bigfoot researchers, and interviewing them, and asking cliche questions, and showing stock footage.
One practical long term plan for a sasquatch photographer would be to analyze geographical patterns of sighting reports and pinpoint promising areas to patrol on horseback, at least a few times each year for several days at a time.
Would-be sasquatch photographers almost never have the time or resources to conduct those kinds of repeated, extended, horsepacking trips. In fact, the last people who actually did this over the course of a few years were Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. They were able to approach the photography challenge from this angle because their jobs were seasonal. They were also experienced backwoods hunters, and they had access to specially-trained trail horses.
Patterson and Gimlin also had a decent communications network (by 1960's standards) in the northwest that enabled them to stay abreast of the most recent sightings and track finds in the region.
In 1967 sasquatch tracks started turning up along logging roads that were being constructed in a remote part of Northern California called Bluff Creek. Patterson and Gimlin got wind of the track finds and set out on horseback to explore the area. They scouted for days throughout the vast watershed. On horseback they could travel long distances and easily scout areas that were rarely visited by humans.
By a fortuitous twist of fate, the winding canyon bottom of Bluff Creek was quite open in late 1967. A major storm had caused massive flooding earlier that year. The brushy creek bed had been transformed into sand bars, mud flats, and piles of logs and other flood debris.
The stream continued running down the middle of the devastated canyon bottom, fully exposed to view. For months after the floods, animals had to venture out into the open, and cross the mud flats and sand bars, to get to the stream to drink. This rare circumstance allowed Roger Patterson to film the sasquatch as it retreated from the stream back to the tree line.
The Patterson footage site now looks very different. Trees and brush have grown back with a vengeance. Today Patterson and Gimlin would not have spotted the figure from where they first spotted it in 1967, nor would they have the unobstructed view they had as the animal retreated.
There were other unique circumstances in the 1960's and 1970's that contributed to the rise in sightings and track finds across North America during that period, particularly the construction of new logging roads into remote mountainous areas.
Patterson and Gimlin themselves were the product of a western cowboy culture that could endure for weeks on horseback in the mountains. They were the type of guys would be unphased by a surprise confrontation with an animal -- unphased even if a panicked horse suddenly fell back on top of one of them and pinned him to the ground.
Patterson was also mentally and physically prepared like a western quick draw gun fighter, to whip out a movie camera from a saddle bag in order to document a fleeting encounter.
No one has matched Patterson and Gimlin’s feat since then -- in terms of the footage obtained, or in terms of the long-term deep-reach effort required to obtain that footage.
The unique hindrances to obtaining daylight footage of these animals stems mainly from their elusive lifestyles and behaviors.
Almost any other type of terrestrial animal is easier to locate and photograph than sasquatches, not merely because there are larger numbers of every other type of large mammal.
Sasquatches are somewhat nomadic and mainly nocturnal. Their food requirements may force them to move from place to place on a frequent basis, and in unpredictable patterns, within a very large home range.
Elusive predators such as wolves, cougars and bears have more predictable territories and circuits, making it much easier to trap or shoot them.
Captive animals can be relocated to settings designed with the needs of the wildlife image market in mind. As a prominent wildlife photographer related, "An animal such as a cougar is virtually never photographed in the wild unless it is hounded by dogs first. All of the images on calendars, in magazines and books are taken in captivity - even if they don't look like it. There is a whole industry around the photography of difficult predators. Photo tours to game farms such as the Triple D in Montana are big business and a reliable resource for documentary film makers."
These facilities, offering expansive natural-looking settings, make it very easy for filmmakers to locate their subject. They create the impression that the animal has been skillfully tracked and carefully approached among wild habitat. Much of wildlife videography is "staged" in this way.
The nocturnal habits of sasquatches create special challenges. Sasquatches retreat quickly from bright illumination in the woods at night, as if bright lights in the darkness are painful to their eyes.
The deterrent effect of bright lights makes the photography effort much more costly, because special equipment is required. Camera-grade 3rd-generation night vision scopes, and thermal cameras allow photographers to film from a distance in the dark, but those devices cost thousands of dollars, putting them well out of reach from most photographers.
---------------------------
With more sighting reports becoming available to the public via the Internet, and with unmanned trail cameras becoming more affordable, new people will undoubtedly try to obtain trail camera photos in areas with a history of sightings.
The emergence and dispersion of high-output "true infrared" motion-sensing trail cameras (such as the Reconyx RC60-HO) will inevitably lead to some unprecedented images of sasquatches. These particular devices will allow professional and non-professional photographers to overcome most of the limitations inherent with hand-held devices, in the context of this unique pursuit.
Source:
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=412
Related Posts:
Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film- Analysis by Bill Munns and Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Corroborating Evidence Makes Strong Case for the Authenticity of the Bigfoot Footage of Paul Freeman
Comment on: The Bigfoot are Really Just Misidentified Bears Argument
Steve W. writes:
A really excellent post that brings out the value of witness observations. They are ridiculed so many times but you have to weigh what was seen in context.
I think the key thing is that the circumstances of the sightings, the details, rule out mundane explanations. This is the same with UFO sightings.
Debunkers claim people are poor witnesses, but in reality they are often good witnesses and poor interpreters.
I think the thing that witnesses get wrong are minor details. Obvious events are remembered and seen for what they are. If a car crashes into a tree the witness will not say it’s a truck or a plane. There might be some differences in the colour that people remembered, but they will not mistake that they saw a car crash. Your video of Bigfoot versus Bear illustrates the differences that people could not make such easy mistakes.
Great post.
Don't Close The Door On Bigfoot Yet
- By Michael Goodspeed
Thunderbolts.info
10-8-4 - Debunkers of the unexplained insist that human testimony is inherently unreliable. In addition to their relentless dishonesty, members of the general public suffer from wishful thinking and overactive imaginations. Interview 10 witnesses to the same event, and you'll hear 10 wildly disparate and contradictory accounts. Objective facts tell the truth, but people can only be trusted to lie.
- But this assertion of self-styled skeptics is apparently a one-way street. While these folks relentlessly reject A PRIORI all testimony that conflicts with their worldviews, they do not hesitate to endorse all anecdotal claims that purportedly debunk the "paranormal."
- Take, for instance, the reaction of the "skeptical" community (and their cohorts in the elite news media) to Greg Long's recent book, "The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story." Long claims to have solved the mystery of the Patterson film -- that famous (or infamous) footage from 1967 of a large, upright walking, hairy beast. A 63-year old man named Bob Hieronimus says that he was the "star" of the film, and the original Bigfoot "costume" was traced by Long to a man named Phillip Morris, who has "confessed" to his role in the purported hoax. The evidence presented by Long (which includes the testimony of many others, as well as legal documents signed by Patterson) has been more than enough for most members of the media to declare "case closed!" not only on the Patterson film, but the entire Bigfoot mystery.
- On October 7, 2004, the Yakima Herald-Republic published an article with the bold title, "Bigfoot Hoax Goes in Halls of Hooey."
- ( Source: http://www.yakima-herald.com
- /?storyid=281619770695670)
- Journalist Leah Beth Ward makes numerous statements which seem to endorse Hieronimus and Morris as truthful. She writes, "The Yakima man who made history and legend 37 years ago by walking in Bigfoot's flat feet donned the costume again this week to put the hoax firmly in the halls of hooey."
- Ward continues, "Patterson, see, was a prankster who thought he could make a million dollars by distributing the Bigfoot film nationally. Enough audiences saw the image of the hairy primate that it became an object of mythic proportions for some and gargantuan sarcasm for others."
- This statement seems to imply that the Bigfoot phenomenon did not exist prior to the Patterson film, but was a "myth" born of media sensationalism. This is patently false, and I will demonstrate this as I continue.
- Ward concludes her report by asking, "Will all this truth-telling spell the end of Bigfoot?" I'm not sure what psychic ability Ward possesses that enables her to categorically label these Bigfoot "confessions" as "truth-telling." I'm curious as to how this reporter would react if I told her I was the little green man in Ray Santili's Alien Autopsy video. I could parade around in a rubber alien suit from my local costume outlet, and the next day's headline would read, "ET Sent Home! Existence of Aliens Disproved!"
- Let me make it clear that my goal here is neither to attack the investigation of Greg Long, nor to defend the deceased Roger Patterson. But I've always been leary of skeptics who try to limit Bigfoot discussions to this one controversy. Generally, people who characterize the film as the "best evidence" of Bigfoot are debunkers with no real breadth of knowledge of the issue. Everyone knows that film and video evidence can be faked, and it is certainly possible, perhaps even likely, that Long's investigation has revealed the truth. That is why evidence like the Patterson film can never provide more than one small piece of a very large puzzle.
- Before we completely write off Bigfoot as a product of modern hysteria and wishful thinking, we should remember the enormous body of data, some anecdotal and some physical, that has been accumulated on the alleged creature over many decades.
- Unbeknownst to most, people have been seeing Bigfoot-like creatures since long before the Patterson film. One of the earliest published accounts of a possible Bigfoot was found by cryptozoologist Loren Coleman, in a newspaper report from the mid-19th century.
- From the May 9th, 1851 edition of the Memphis Enquirer: "During March last, Mr. Hamilton of Greene county, Arkansas, while out hunting with an acquaintance, observed a drove of cattle in a state of apparent alarm, evidently pursued by some dreaded enemy. Halting for the purpose, they soon discovered as the animals fled by them, that they were followed by an animal bearing the unmistakable likeness of humanity. He was of gigantic stature, the body being covered with hair and the head with long locks that fairly enveloped his neck and shoulders. The 'wildman', for we must so call him, after looking at them deliberately for a short time, turned and ran away with great speed, leaping from twelve to fourteen feet at a time. His foot prints measured thirteen inches each.
- "This singular creature has long been known traditionally in St. Francis Green and Poinsett counties. Arkansas sportsmen and hunters having described him so long
- as seventeen years since. A planter, indeed, saw him very recently, but withheld his information lest he should not be credited, until the account of Mr. Hamilton and his friend placed the existence of the animal beyond cavil." (END EXCERPT)
- (Source: www.bfro.net/GDB/
- CNTS/AR/GE/ar_ge001.htm )
- This remarkable report describes eyewitness accounts of a "wild-man" dating back to the 1830's. The author of this piece even describes the existence of the animal as "beyond cavil," or beyond doubt. Remember, this was reported more than a hundred years before the Patterson film, and the alleged birth of the modern Bigfoot "myth."
- Bigfoot characteristics described in this early account are found consistently in the most recent sightings. I've interviewed a number of Bigfoot eyewitnesses, including paranormal investigator Jason Valenti. Valenti was driving with a business partner on a road bordering Appalachicola state park in Florida, when he spotted an "animal" standing nearly seven feet tall, with a face something like a "chimp and a pit-bull's," female, and possessing pendulous breasts. Like the creature described in the Arkansas account, this Bigfoot reportedly had the ability to leap enormous distances. Valenti writes, "(The passenger in the car) told me that a few seconds after we passed her, as he was looking back through the window, he witnessed her leaping from a standing position apprxoimately 20 to 30 feet horizontal, 10 to 15 feet vertical and then landing into a full blown sprint through the sand pine forest."
- Like many others who claim to have encountered Bigfoot face to face, Valenti says that his entire belief system was "completely shattered" as the result of his experience.
- Also fascinating are the many accounts of the Yeti (or Abominable Snowman) from around the globe, particularly in the Himalayas. The most compelling Yeti encounter I have ever come across was written by Slavomir Rawicz in his critically acclaimed biography, The Long Walk. Rawicz conveys the harrowing tale of his escape from a Soviet labor camp in Siberia in 1941, and subsequent 2 year journey through China, the Gobi Desert, Tibet, and over the Himalayas to British India. It was in the Himalayas that Rawicz and his companions encountered a "family" of alleged Yetis.
- Rawicz described the "Yetis" as over seven feet in height, and covered with fur similar to that of apes in the orange-outang species. He writes of his and his fellow travelers' futile struggle to rationalize the creatures' bizarre appearance: "We decided unanimously that we were examining a type of creature of which we had no previous experience in the wild, in zoos or literature. It would have been easy to have seen them waddle off at a distance and dismissed them as either big bear or big ape of the orange-outang species. At close range they defied description. There was something both of the bear and the ape about their general shape but they could not be mistaken for either."
- The path of Rawicz and his companions was blocked by the "Yetis," so they (the humans) observed the creatures for one hour, even throwing rocks at the beasts in an attempt to frighten them off. The "Yetis" did not seem to mind. One gentleman remarked, "It occurs to me they might take it into their heads to come up and investigate us. It is obvious they are not afraid of us. I think we had better go while we are safe."
- Rawicz sums up his tale, writing: "What were they? For years they remained a mystery to me, but since recently I have read of scientific expeditions to discover the Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas and studied descriptions of the creature given by native hillmen, I believe that the five of us that day may have met two of the animals.."
- This account is terribly fascinating because of the tremendous sincerity and credibility of Rawicz' entire tale, but also because of the off-hand, almost incidental manner in which the author shared his experience. The Long Walk was praised by the Los Angeles Times as "a book filled with the spirit of human dignity and the courage of men seeking freedom," and the Chicago Tribune called it "One of the most amazing, heroic stories of this or any other time."
- (To read the full excerpt from the Long Walk, visit
- http://www.rense.com/general29/191.htm )
- Of course, skeptics contend that eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot and other unusual phenomena are meaningless without corroborative physical proof. What, if any, physical evidence is there of Bigfoot's existence?
- A number of alleged "Bigfootprints" have been subjected to analysis over the years, with mixed results. One person to conduct such analysis was police fingerprint technician Jimmy Chilcutt, a bona fide skeptic who purportedly sought to debunk so-called Bigfoot plaster castings.
- In 1995, Chilcutt began the novel task of analyzing the prints of primates to "find primordial characteristics that would unlock hidden information in human fingerprints." (Source: thehoustonchronicle.com) By 1998, he had amassed over 1,000 primate prints, and was one of only four or five researchers in the world studying the prints of animals. Chilcutt states that he has discovered characteristics which enable him to distinsguish between species, and locate different traits within species.
- In December of 1998, Chilcutt contacted Bigfoot researcher Jeff Meldren, associate professor of anatomy at Idaho State University. Meldren has a collection of over one hundred alleged Bigfoot plaster castings, and Chilcutt was given free roam to analyze each casting. Chilcutt had this to say about his conclusions: "What I actually found surprised even me."
- "The print ridges on the bottoms of five castings -- which were taken at different times and locations -- flowed lengthwise along the foot, unlike human prints, which flow from side to side," he said.
- "'No way do human footprints do that -- never, ever.
- "The skeptic in me had to believe that (all of the prints were from) the same species of animal," Chilcutt said. "I believe that this is an animal in the Pacific Northwest that we have never documented.'" (END EXCERPT).
- (Source: http://www.rense.com/politics6/fing.htm? ):
- Interestingly, I attempted a word search of "Jimmy Chilcutt" on numerous skeptical websites, including csicop.org, and randi.org, and could not find any matches. Have these people even HEARD of Chilcutt's research? This appears to be in keeping with the standard practice of so-called skeptics who habitually IGNORE and/or BURY evidence which does not fit with their a priori assumptions.
- It is obvious that the Bigfoot mystery is a great deal more complex than most of the media would have us believe. Irrespective of the Patterson controversy, we have more than enough data to warrant further investigation by mainstream science.
- We must also remember that it is erroneous to label Bigfoot as a "paranormal" phenomenon. Science is discovering new species of animals all the time, including exotic primates - nothing paranormal about that. As recently as 2003, a new "mystery ape" was discovered in the heart of Africa which is said to have characteristics of both the gorilla and the chimpanzee. The as-yet-to-be classified ape is also said to have feet over 14 inches long, more than 2 inches longer than a typical gorilla's. Most unusually, it was discovered thousands of miles from the nearest documented ape habitat. One primatologist who examined the beasts at an Omaha zoo said, "I can't speculate yet as to what they are. Their behavior is so unusual. It's a puzzle....The possibility is there that this is a new species due to isolation....I feel like Dr. Doolittle in the land of Oz."
- (Source: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news
- /techinnovations/2003-08-14-mystery-apes-tested_x.htm ).
- Noted skeptic Michael Shermer once wrote: "It is the fate of the paranormal and the supernatural to be subsumed into the normal and the natural. In fact, there is no paranormal or supernatural; there is only the normal and the natural--and mysteries yet to be explained." (Source: http://aetheronline.com/mario/
- Heretic/God%20on%20the%20Brain.htm)
- One can only hope that the world's skeptics will learn to leave the door open to life's mysteries a bit longer.
- Related Posts:
- Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film- Analysis by Bill Munns and Dr. Jeff Meldrum
- A Mythbusters Challenge Never Met
A Mythbusters Challenge Never Met
1/25/2006
Mythbuster Challenge: Debunk the Bigfoot Debunkers
There’s a major ripple going through the bigfoot community (people who try to keep track of the latest BF knowledge) caused by the Mythbusters promo that's currently being aired on TV. You’ve probably seen it... a guy in a sasquatch suit speaking with a French Canadian accent reporting that no myth is safe (including him.) In case you haven’t seen it:
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/videogalleries/promo_02.html?clik=fsmain_bannerleft
The BFRO contends that the Mythbusters will NOT attempt to debunk bigfoot, but they are shamelessly furthering another myth with the promo: The myth that bigfoot has been proven to be a hoax.
The program centers on two Hollywood special FX types who systematically test various myths or apocryphal tales by using technology and scientific experiments that either debunk or authenticate the “myth” of the week. They pretty much stay away from tales involving animal sightings because its pretty difficult to prove a negative. (And even if a particular photo of Nessie or Bigfoot is proven fake, the existence of the animal remains possible.)
But in the case of bigfoot evidence, there IS a current myth that has been perpetrated by a number of individuals via the sloppy work of the media. The fact is that the Patterson/Gimlin Film has never been debunked, even though a number of pretenders have made claims to the contrary, and the press has been remise in pointing this out. This is the single best piece of evidence for bigfoot and it is this footage (along with hundreds of footprints) that has gotten science to take a second look at the subject of sasquatch.
So here’s a challenge to the Mythbusters that is “well suited” to their techniques (pun intended). All they have to do is get a 1967 vintage gorilla suit and attempt to “recreate” the P/G Film by modifying the costume utilizing Patterson’s skill set and the tools and techniques available to him at the time the film was shot. (Don’t make a state-of-the-art 2006 Bigfoot suit and have a guy walk with an exaggerated arm swing and say that’s a match.) When they try to recreate what Patterson is supposed to have done 38 years ago, and fail, they’ll put and end to the “Its a man in a suit” myth once and for all. What’s more, with a tiny bit of research they can easily come up with evidence to debunk the Wallace and Chambers claims as well.
Source:
http://hairybiped.blogspot.com/2006/01/mythbuster-challenge-debunk-bigfoot.html
Related Posts:
Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film- Analysis by Bill Munns and Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Sunday, August 25, 2013
The 'Bigfoot are Really Just Misidentified Bears' Argument
As an anonymous hunter sums it up:
On that note, here are some videos featuring police officers and hunters offering up their sighting reports and other evidence. The remark that it couldn't have been a bear is heard time and time again.
Here is an account of two fisherman who first saw a grizzly bear before sighting a Sasquatch that scared it off.
Here is an account of two fisherman who first saw a grizzly bear before sighting a Sasquatch that scared it off.
Two police officers are featured in this clip from the Travel Channel Documentary "Bigfootville."
Les Stroud (b. October 20, 1961, in Mimico, Ontario is a Canadian musician, filmmaker, and survival expert best known as the creator, writer, producer, director, cameraman and host of the television series Survivorman. After a short career behind the scenes in the music industry, Stroud became a full-time wilderness guide, survival instructor and musician based in Huntsville, Ontario. Stroud has produced survival-themed programming for The Outdoor Life Network, The Discovery Channel, The Science Channel, and YTV. The survival skills imparted from watching Stroud's television programs have been cited by several people as the reason they lived through harrowing wilderness ordeals - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Stroud
More police testimony including "a look into a 1976 Bigfoot sighting in upstate New York where several police officers encountered a creature known as the 'Monster of Whitehall' that still haunts the area to this day."
To wrap things up with a little humor, here is a Bigfoot wrestling a bear, can you tell who is who?
Related:
Bigfoot Bear Comparison
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Sasquatch Believers vs. The Skeptics by the late Dr. Grover S. Krantz, Ph.D.
"Sasquatch Believers vs. The Skeptics"
by the late Dr. Grover S. Krantz, Ph.D.
Krantz discusses in this paper the view of scientists and non-scientists. He reproaches the former for refusing to be interested in the Sasquatch phenomenon, while at the same time he argues against the latter, and true believers for not examining the stories and data with a more rigorous method.
There are many people who believe there is a species of giant, hairy hominid living wild in the forested mountains of western North America. There are also many who are equally convinced that no such animal exists except in some people's imaginations. I am here going to alienate almost everybody by attacking both positions. With only a few exceptions, those who hold a firm opinion on this matter, either for or against the existence of this animal, are doing so without adequate knowledge.
The scientific establishment is overwhelmingly on record as denying any reality to the Sasquatch. This is not surprising. Science is generally not in the business of investigating the unknown, but rather it is working out minor details of principles that are already accepted. The Sasquatch, if proven, would certainly be something new and previously "unknown." Science has a vested interest in its own infallibility. So, to find out it has completely missed something as big and potentially important, as the Sasquatch would be to admit a certain degree of failure. It is easier to deny the existence of such creatures than to look for them. Having denied their existence, science then becomes obligated to refuse to look for them and can no longer avoid the issue by claiming it didn't know about the situation.
The scientific establishment is made up of scientists, their accumulated knowledge, and their institutional traditions. The individual scientists often have open minds, but many have as much faith in their discipline as religious people have in theirs. To suggest that their discipline is guilty of a major oversight, compounded by a deliberate effort to ignore the matter, is to threaten the foundations of their scientific faith. Small wonder many scientists actively oppose the Sasquatch investigation. Its successful conclusion would leave many of them without their infallible rock of faith to hang onto. Few scientists have enough self-confidence to stand against the accepted doctrines of their discipline.
Many major scientific breakthroughs are made by amateurs or by those who are only marginally involved in the field in question.
These new ideas are first regarded as heresy by the establishment, but eventually many of them become accepted when more authorities look at them with open minds, or a generation passes. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the vast majority of new ideas do not turn out to be true. We read about those few new ideas, which worked, but our history books say little about the 99% that were, and still are, foolishness. One of the tasks of the scientific establishment is to weed out these incorrect ideas and to accept only those few, which are true. The trouble is that after debunking 99 silly ideas it's easy to get into the habit and then to miss the next one that may be right.
The more unlikely a new thing may seem to be, the more proof is required for its acceptance by science. This is only reasonable. The Sasquatch is certainly more unexpected, hence presumably more unlikely, than a new species of chipmunk, for instance. The proof required in this case is an actual specimen, nothing less will suffice. The scientific establishment rightly demands that this proof be produced before it can be taken seriously. But the establishment also refuses to look for this specimen and even goes so far as to actively discourage those who would look for it. Research funds are given to projects, which are certain to produce usable results. Unfortunately, Sasquatch hunting works against extreme odds, and here negative results are of no value.
There is a large amount of real and imaginary evidence presently available which supports the existence of the Sasquatch. Unfortunately much of it is not reproducible because it is in the mind of the observers. For example, I have examined two sets of tracks and interviewed 31 people who claim to have seen Sasquatches. Any scientist could have gathered the evidence I have, but every scientist could not. After 50 or 100 people have looked over a set of footprints they are destroyed in the shuffle of human feet and fingers. Photographs and plaster casts can record these footprints, but they are then one more step removed from the original, and their authenticity can and should be questioned. Eyewitnesses to the Sasquatch can be interviewed, cross-examined and their motives studied by only a handful of curious scientists before they decide to shut up or else to change their stories. After that, all accounts are again one more step away from reality. A taped interview is not good evidence because it could easily exclude the parts where the participants were laughing over their hoax.
Few scientists have been willing even to look at or listen to the available information. Of those who are willing, only small fractions have had the opportunity to see the footprints or talk to witnesses. Mostly this is because they fear their scientific reputations would be damaged if it became known that they were even interested in such things, let alone investigating them. This is a reasonable fear, as could be illustrated from my own personal experience. Upon questioning, most of the established authorities will assert they have never seen any evidence that even remotely supports the existence of Sasquatch. Obviously, those scientists who know nothing about the matter ought to honestly admit that, and not present an uninformed opinion as though it had some validity. Expertise in one field does not make one an authority across the board.
The true believers are also generally as uninformed as the skeptics. Reading a few books and articles presenting a favorable view hardly qualifies one as being knowledgeable on the subject. Sasquatch enthusiasts are notorious for the way they accept and repeat stories without any attempt at verification. I know one investigator who insists on two accounts of each sighting, but is satisfied if both of them heard about it from the same source! My own experience suggests that the probability of truth of each account is cut in half for every human it passes through. What a direct eyewitness tells me is only 50% probable; if I hear it from an intermediary its likelihood drops to 25%, third person accounts are wrong seven times out of eight, and so on. Many believers pay no attention to this problem of lowering probability of truth.
Some people have gathered stories about bipedal, hairy monsters from almost all parts of the world, evidently under the mistaken impression that this strengthens the argument for their existence. Actually it does just the opposite--the more widespread a land animal is claimed to be, the less likely it is to be real. A truly worldwide distribution occurs only for man, his parasites, and his domesticates. This does not prove a worldwide Sasquatch does not exist, but it makes one wonder. Some reputable scientists would study a possible primate in North America and parts of Eurasia, but when you throw in South America, Africa, and Australia just for good measure they will back off. The possibility of multiple species of such animals might avoid this problem, but it only serves to raise another. For science to have missed one large species of unknown primate is difficult enough to swallow. To claim there are still more of them only strains to the breaking point whatever credibility there may have been.
Much potential support from individual scientists is lost when the enthusiasts bring in irrelevancies or downright impossibilities. I am reminded of an otherwise excellent newspaper article on the evidence for Sasquatch that was utterly destroyed by the writer's reference to a large "petrified heart" he had examined. Many hair samples have been collected and some could not be identified, but this just means they could be from some part of the pelt of a known animal that has not been analyzed. Fecal samples can also be studied, but these can never prove a new animal exists. I have been shown many photographs, purporting to be of Sasquatches, which are in fact just chance combinations of light and shadow in vegetation. If even half of these pictures were real, the Sasquatch must be a very common wild animal in North America. An enlargement of the Patterson movie (which I accept) supposedly shows teeth, but the specks seen are actually grains in the film and are also beyond the resolving power of the lens of that camera. Faked footprints need no further comment. In my opinion, people who push for acceptance of the above kinds of "data" have lost their credibility and one might well be suspicious of any kind of information they have.
Certain conservationists have taken up the cause of protecting the Sasquatch and speak in favor of extending the various laws that prohibit shooting one. These local laws are intended mainly to protect innocent bystanders including farmers, cows, and lawmen, rather than the Sasquatch itself. If and when a specimen is taken, and the existence of the species is proven, then serious legislation might be considered.
Some have argued that we are dealing with an endangered species, and that killing just one specimen might lead to their extinction. If they become extinct without ever becoming known, what difference would it make? If that sounds crass, the reader ought to think about it for a moment. In any case there is no reason to think Sasquatch numbers are declining and there is some evidence to suggest they are increasing. If there is some ecological danger from human activities at present, proving the Sasquatch's existence by killing one specimen might lead to investigations, which would eventually save the species. General public acceptance at this time without an actual specimen is not realistic; you may recall that Medieval Europeans believed in unicorns. By this reasoning we should also protect gremlins, werewolves, leprechauns, fairies, goblins, trolls, etc. Public officials will not presently act on behalf of the Sasquatch and it is unreasonable to expect them to do so.
Many Sasquatch investigators have started their intentions to provide sufficient proof without killing a specimen. These people are in keen competition with each other for this success. The scientific establishment will simply take over (assuring us they knew all along the creatures were real), and will exclude all amateurs from further investigations. Anyone who seriously thinks a Sasquatch should not be taken does not really want their existence to be proven.
At this point the burden of proof is still on the believers. Until a specimen is produced the skeptics will continue to hold the field. It is possible to prove something exists by producing it. The reverse is not possible--one does not prove a nonexistence with positive evidence. The failure to produce a specimen continues to be strong evidence against the Sasquatch.
The skeptics deny the existence of the Sasquatch because they see no evidence for it. The fact that they refuse to look at what evidence there is available, and try to discourage the gathering of more data, seems not to bother them at all. The believers act as though the case has already been proven and the Sasquatch should be accepted and protected right now. It is interesting that many of them also oppose bringing a definitive proof in the form of a body. It is almost as though the sides are drawn and neither one really wants the issue settled--they would rather fight than find out. Both sides are getting a lot of mileage out of the existence of the opposing side. Each side has a group of people it can criticize and make fun of. A concerted effort might prove one side wrong-perhaps neither side wants to risk that.
Unfortunately both sides argue strongly from what they want to be true rather than by what they know. Wanting something to be true may be a good reason to investigate it. But wanting something to be true does not constitute any evidence that it is true. That works only in children's games and religion. As it stands now, most of the people on one side of this argument, and all (in my judgment) of those on the other side, have not thoroughly investigated both sides of the issue. They would be a lot more reasonable if they would just honestly admit they don't know for sure. But who expects reason in a subject like this?
© Dr. Grover S. Krantz, Ph.D.
Source:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/believers.htm
Krantz discusses in this paper the view of scientists and non-scientists. He reproaches the former for refusing to be interested in the Sasquatch phenomenon, while at the same time he argues against the latter, and true believers for not examining the stories and data with a more rigorous method.
There are many people who believe there is a species of giant, hairy hominid living wild in the forested mountains of western North America. There are also many who are equally convinced that no such animal exists except in some people's imaginations. I am here going to alienate almost everybody by attacking both positions. With only a few exceptions, those who hold a firm opinion on this matter, either for or against the existence of this animal, are doing so without adequate knowledge.
The scientific establishment is overwhelmingly on record as denying any reality to the Sasquatch. This is not surprising. Science is generally not in the business of investigating the unknown, but rather it is working out minor details of principles that are already accepted. The Sasquatch, if proven, would certainly be something new and previously "unknown." Science has a vested interest in its own infallibility. So, to find out it has completely missed something as big and potentially important, as the Sasquatch would be to admit a certain degree of failure. It is easier to deny the existence of such creatures than to look for them. Having denied their existence, science then becomes obligated to refuse to look for them and can no longer avoid the issue by claiming it didn't know about the situation.
The scientific establishment is made up of scientists, their accumulated knowledge, and their institutional traditions. The individual scientists often have open minds, but many have as much faith in their discipline as religious people have in theirs. To suggest that their discipline is guilty of a major oversight, compounded by a deliberate effort to ignore the matter, is to threaten the foundations of their scientific faith. Small wonder many scientists actively oppose the Sasquatch investigation. Its successful conclusion would leave many of them without their infallible rock of faith to hang onto. Few scientists have enough self-confidence to stand against the accepted doctrines of their discipline.
Many major scientific breakthroughs are made by amateurs or by those who are only marginally involved in the field in question.
These new ideas are first regarded as heresy by the establishment, but eventually many of them become accepted when more authorities look at them with open minds, or a generation passes. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the vast majority of new ideas do not turn out to be true. We read about those few new ideas, which worked, but our history books say little about the 99% that were, and still are, foolishness. One of the tasks of the scientific establishment is to weed out these incorrect ideas and to accept only those few, which are true. The trouble is that after debunking 99 silly ideas it's easy to get into the habit and then to miss the next one that may be right.
The more unlikely a new thing may seem to be, the more proof is required for its acceptance by science. This is only reasonable. The Sasquatch is certainly more unexpected, hence presumably more unlikely, than a new species of chipmunk, for instance. The proof required in this case is an actual specimen, nothing less will suffice. The scientific establishment rightly demands that this proof be produced before it can be taken seriously. But the establishment also refuses to look for this specimen and even goes so far as to actively discourage those who would look for it. Research funds are given to projects, which are certain to produce usable results. Unfortunately, Sasquatch hunting works against extreme odds, and here negative results are of no value.
There is a large amount of real and imaginary evidence presently available which supports the existence of the Sasquatch. Unfortunately much of it is not reproducible because it is in the mind of the observers. For example, I have examined two sets of tracks and interviewed 31 people who claim to have seen Sasquatches. Any scientist could have gathered the evidence I have, but every scientist could not. After 50 or 100 people have looked over a set of footprints they are destroyed in the shuffle of human feet and fingers. Photographs and plaster casts can record these footprints, but they are then one more step removed from the original, and their authenticity can and should be questioned. Eyewitnesses to the Sasquatch can be interviewed, cross-examined and their motives studied by only a handful of curious scientists before they decide to shut up or else to change their stories. After that, all accounts are again one more step away from reality. A taped interview is not good evidence because it could easily exclude the parts where the participants were laughing over their hoax.
Few scientists have been willing even to look at or listen to the available information. Of those who are willing, only small fractions have had the opportunity to see the footprints or talk to witnesses. Mostly this is because they fear their scientific reputations would be damaged if it became known that they were even interested in such things, let alone investigating them. This is a reasonable fear, as could be illustrated from my own personal experience. Upon questioning, most of the established authorities will assert they have never seen any evidence that even remotely supports the existence of Sasquatch. Obviously, those scientists who know nothing about the matter ought to honestly admit that, and not present an uninformed opinion as though it had some validity. Expertise in one field does not make one an authority across the board.
The true believers are also generally as uninformed as the skeptics. Reading a few books and articles presenting a favorable view hardly qualifies one as being knowledgeable on the subject. Sasquatch enthusiasts are notorious for the way they accept and repeat stories without any attempt at verification. I know one investigator who insists on two accounts of each sighting, but is satisfied if both of them heard about it from the same source! My own experience suggests that the probability of truth of each account is cut in half for every human it passes through. What a direct eyewitness tells me is only 50% probable; if I hear it from an intermediary its likelihood drops to 25%, third person accounts are wrong seven times out of eight, and so on. Many believers pay no attention to this problem of lowering probability of truth.
Some people have gathered stories about bipedal, hairy monsters from almost all parts of the world, evidently under the mistaken impression that this strengthens the argument for their existence. Actually it does just the opposite--the more widespread a land animal is claimed to be, the less likely it is to be real. A truly worldwide distribution occurs only for man, his parasites, and his domesticates. This does not prove a worldwide Sasquatch does not exist, but it makes one wonder. Some reputable scientists would study a possible primate in North America and parts of Eurasia, but when you throw in South America, Africa, and Australia just for good measure they will back off. The possibility of multiple species of such animals might avoid this problem, but it only serves to raise another. For science to have missed one large species of unknown primate is difficult enough to swallow. To claim there are still more of them only strains to the breaking point whatever credibility there may have been.
Much potential support from individual scientists is lost when the enthusiasts bring in irrelevancies or downright impossibilities. I am reminded of an otherwise excellent newspaper article on the evidence for Sasquatch that was utterly destroyed by the writer's reference to a large "petrified heart" he had examined. Many hair samples have been collected and some could not be identified, but this just means they could be from some part of the pelt of a known animal that has not been analyzed. Fecal samples can also be studied, but these can never prove a new animal exists. I have been shown many photographs, purporting to be of Sasquatches, which are in fact just chance combinations of light and shadow in vegetation. If even half of these pictures were real, the Sasquatch must be a very common wild animal in North America. An enlargement of the Patterson movie (which I accept) supposedly shows teeth, but the specks seen are actually grains in the film and are also beyond the resolving power of the lens of that camera. Faked footprints need no further comment. In my opinion, people who push for acceptance of the above kinds of "data" have lost their credibility and one might well be suspicious of any kind of information they have.
Certain conservationists have taken up the cause of protecting the Sasquatch and speak in favor of extending the various laws that prohibit shooting one. These local laws are intended mainly to protect innocent bystanders including farmers, cows, and lawmen, rather than the Sasquatch itself. If and when a specimen is taken, and the existence of the species is proven, then serious legislation might be considered.
Some have argued that we are dealing with an endangered species, and that killing just one specimen might lead to their extinction. If they become extinct without ever becoming known, what difference would it make? If that sounds crass, the reader ought to think about it for a moment. In any case there is no reason to think Sasquatch numbers are declining and there is some evidence to suggest they are increasing. If there is some ecological danger from human activities at present, proving the Sasquatch's existence by killing one specimen might lead to investigations, which would eventually save the species. General public acceptance at this time without an actual specimen is not realistic; you may recall that Medieval Europeans believed in unicorns. By this reasoning we should also protect gremlins, werewolves, leprechauns, fairies, goblins, trolls, etc. Public officials will not presently act on behalf of the Sasquatch and it is unreasonable to expect them to do so.
Many Sasquatch investigators have started their intentions to provide sufficient proof without killing a specimen. These people are in keen competition with each other for this success. The scientific establishment will simply take over (assuring us they knew all along the creatures were real), and will exclude all amateurs from further investigations. Anyone who seriously thinks a Sasquatch should not be taken does not really want their existence to be proven.
At this point the burden of proof is still on the believers. Until a specimen is produced the skeptics will continue to hold the field. It is possible to prove something exists by producing it. The reverse is not possible--one does not prove a nonexistence with positive evidence. The failure to produce a specimen continues to be strong evidence against the Sasquatch.
The skeptics deny the existence of the Sasquatch because they see no evidence for it. The fact that they refuse to look at what evidence there is available, and try to discourage the gathering of more data, seems not to bother them at all. The believers act as though the case has already been proven and the Sasquatch should be accepted and protected right now. It is interesting that many of them also oppose bringing a definitive proof in the form of a body. It is almost as though the sides are drawn and neither one really wants the issue settled--they would rather fight than find out. Both sides are getting a lot of mileage out of the existence of the opposing side. Each side has a group of people it can criticize and make fun of. A concerted effort might prove one side wrong-perhaps neither side wants to risk that.
Unfortunately both sides argue strongly from what they want to be true rather than by what they know. Wanting something to be true may be a good reason to investigate it. But wanting something to be true does not constitute any evidence that it is true. That works only in children's games and religion. As it stands now, most of the people on one side of this argument, and all (in my judgment) of those on the other side, have not thoroughly investigated both sides of the issue. They would be a lot more reasonable if they would just honestly admit they don't know for sure. But who expects reason in a subject like this?
© Dr. Grover S. Krantz, Ph.D.
Source:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/believers.htm
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Interview: John Green Weighs in on Debunkers
Interview: John Green
"The famed sasquatch chronicler
weighs in on debunkers, the media, the best evidence
to date, and the need for a bigfoot body (or not)." - http://bigfootproject.com/
Excerpt on debunkers:
JG: Well, the media reaction certainly does. We've gone over the years
through a phase where anything about this was news to where anyone who
was doing something about it was news to where the only news nowadays is
when people claim to have proven it's all a hoax.
BIP: Yes, I was going to ask you about that -
 |
|
Graphic
from Denver Post article "Bigfoot
Believers". Click on the image for a ridiculously
large
version (GIF, 1.4MB)
|
JG: Oh, I missed one phase. There was a phase there when any scientist
who showed an interest was news. We've now reached the extreme where some
of the world's very top people in the relevant fields are very interested
and are saying publicly that there should be proper investigation and this
is not news. The only thing that's news is that the whole thing has proved
to be a fake. The demonstration of that is very clear when this absolute
nonsense story about Ray
Wallace faking all the foot prints went all around
the world in exactly the same time period the Denver Post ran a major
article and sidebars on these key scientists who were saying it should be investigated,
the Associated Press wouldn't even carry the story. It never went anywhere
beyond Denver. To me as a newspaper man, this is absolutely shocking. I
tried to contact some of those at Columbia University's long-established
graduate school of journalism who keep a tab on the press and the response
was, "Nobody here is interested in taking this up." In other
words, for 40 years we've been butting our heads against a barrier manned
by the scientists saying there can't be any such thing. Now they're stepping
away from the ramparts and the media is stepping up to take their place.
Absolutely fascinating. The media is seeing to it that this heresy does
not get to the public.
BIP: It seems to be the case when you can bet that someone who has bigfoot
living up in that attic would get more press than something like the Skookum
cast would.
JG: Well...
BIP: They seem to want to relegate this to the tabloids and that's where
the story stays.
JG: For example, right now, we
have the proof - absolute and indisputable
- that the Patterson film is genuine. The newspapers refuse to carry anything
of that. It can't be sold so therefore they're not going to be taken in
therefore they're not going to run the story. As a result of this silly
book where people are claiming that they were involved in making the film
we've gone back to looking at the film and realize that, although you can't
establish beyond dispute the size of anything, you can establish the relative
size of things that are right there in the same film frame. This creature
has an intermembral index - the comparison of the length of the arms to
the length of the legs - that is totally outside the human range so it
cannot be a human in a suit, but it is also totally outside the range of
any other known primate of any size at all. Therefore, it has to be an
unknown primate. This can only be ignored, it cannot be argued against.
All you can do is say, "Well, you can't measure properly on the film." Well,
you can't measure precisely, but the difference is so slight that it doesn't
matter. The human intermembral index is around 70, all of the great apes
are over 100, this thing is in the high 80's. The question of the angle
of this segment of the arm to the camera and so on, if you look at enough
frames, you've got to be able to get to it. And on top of that, we have
a forensic animator who worked on the "Legend Meets Science" DVD.
He says that they established beyond any question the relative length of
where the joints were as the thing was moving and the intermembral index
was pretty close to 90. This is a man who says when he was hired to work
on the film he took it for granted it was a man in a suit.
BIP: Mr. Long and his
book. People have read the book -
JG: Not many people have.
BIP: I haven't read it myself,
but those who have say it is a mass of contradictions.
JG: Yes.
BIP: It befuddles your mind
at times trying to see how he weighs his information and where he gets
his information from and how it's all added together. I wanted to ask you
what kind of an effect does this latest attack on the Patterson/Gimlin
film have on the bigfoot community in general? Or does it have an effect?
JG: Well...it's very annoying. [Laughs] It would have had a very bad effect
if it had been treated in the press the way that the Wallace thing was.
Fortunately, that hasn't happened.
BIP: They pretty well ignored The
Making of Bigfoot.
JG: Yes, they pretty well have.
BIP: Ignore it and maybe it'll go away.
JG: Well, it pretty much has. There is now an article in the Skeptical
Enquirer, but I don't know how much circulation that has. That magazine
is linked to the publishers of the book. Of course, the public doesn't
know that. Other than that, there's been just minor publicity and a few
local TV things. They did get one network TV exposure, but it wasn't favorable
to them.
BIP: No, and isn't that amazing. It seems that anything about sasquatch
that is picked up by the media is not favorable.
JG: Well, the host on the program is on our side like so many people not
prepared to say so.
Full interview can be read here:
Corroborating Evidence Makes Strong Case for the Authenticity of the Bigfoot Footage of Paul Freeman
Photoshopped picture of Jeff Meldrum holding a Paul Freeman cast -
Paul Freeman (August 10, 1943 – April 2, 2003) was an American Bigfoot hunter who claimed to have discovered Bigfoot tracks showing dermal ridges. The plaster casts Freeman subsequently made were convincing enough to be considered critical pieces of evidence by anthropologists Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum (Idaho State University), who both put considerable time and resources into studying them.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Freeman_%28cryptozoologist%29
Meldrum is an expert on foot morphology along with locomotion in primates (monkeys, apes and hominids.). - http://www.is-bigfoot-real.com/jeff-meldrum/
Meldrum is more academically qualified than most to examine and analyze alleged Bigfoot tracks and photographs. - http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/11/drmeldrum-backs-3-year-old-bigfoot.html
Dr. Meldrum was quoted by the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, "I’d been given an earful by people about Paul’s reputation, and it was bad. I went into it very skeptical."...
Meldrum began following the tracks, far beyond where Freeman’s boot tracks ended, and found additional sets of footprints coming and going. Whatever had made the tracks had apparently come down the Mill Creek drainage, using the brush along an empty irrigation ditch as cover, possibly to raid the apple and plum orchards further below.
“At that point it was clear Paul had read the whole circumstance completely backward,” Meldrum says. “So the thought occurred to me: Well, if he’s responsible for this hoax, why would he portray it so incorrectly on the chance I would read it differently?” - http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2009/01/today-in-bf-history-jan-06.html
An interesting cast from the same trackway showing the toes sliding back in the mud.
The forepart of the foot impressed deeply as it slid. This view
dramatically illustrates the flexibility of the midsection of the foot.
So far no one has shown a side-by-side comparison, with the Freeman footage on one side, and a human wearing a similar "costume" next it. As with the Patterson figure, it is not easy to duplicate the Freeman figure.
Paul Freeman was a man of small means. He would not have been able to construct a Hollywood-caliber "costume". - Source: http://www.bfro.net/REF/bfmedia.asp
So far no one has shown a side-by-side comparison, with the Freeman footage on one side, and a human wearing a similar "costume" next it. As with the Patterson figure, it is not easy to duplicate the Freeman figure.
Paul Freeman was a man of small means. He would not have been able to construct a Hollywood-caliber "costume". - Source: http://www.bfro.net/REF/bfmedia.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)