The two sides of the coin provide a compelling argument that some 42 years after-the-fact, the subject in the P/G film is most likely a real animal.  It is also likely that the animal is the creature many others have reported seeing, whose tracks, hair and scat have been collected and found to be inconsistent with any known primate.

While we still cannot objectively confirm its’ existence from a scientific perspective, we should realize we have more than adequate data to begin serious scientific debate among mainstream science. If you were not fortunate enough to see the program, it is worth looking for repeat times – National Geographic Channel -  “American Paranormal: Bigfoot”

Mura's saddleback tamarin

It is 240 mm (9.4 inches) tall, colored gray and brown and weighs 213 grams (0.47 lb).  The tail is larger than the body at 320 mm or 12.6 inches.  Fabio Rohe, the lead author of the study confirming the new discovery was quoted in the Reuters article: “This newly described monkey shows that even today there are major wildlife discoveries to be made”.

Discoveries like this are probably not all that shocking to the average American today.  Finding a new small monkey in the deep forests of the Amazon may seem almost trite.  Considering the possibility of finding an eight (8) foot bipedal ape on the North American continent on the other hand must appear more like science fiction.

Yet, in spite of the near-ridiculuous notion of such a reality, there is mounting evidence for just such a shocking discovery.  Keep tuned in for information in the coming months about some new scientific data that begins to advance the possiblity of a new species of ape right here in the United States of America.

What is amusing is not so much the fossil – it is an amazing discovery.  It is the process of the study and conclusions about its significance.  Secretly studied according to news reports (see SkyNEWs for example), for two years it undergoes open discussion in of all places, the public and media.  A wonderfully preserved specimen indeed.  A wonderful example of a lemur.  The link that ties us to this? Somehow the evidence is simply in the eyes of the beholder.

The authors of the paper should take lessons from Mr. Munns.  If it really is what they claim, and there is news that one of the researchers has issues with the conclusions being promulgated, then let the evidence be subject to objective scrutiny.  The truth is, what we have is a fossil of an early lemur, a 47 millon year old lemur if you can accept the number, that appears but for some minor differences, much like modern lemurs.

Call me a skeptic, but I find the best science is the science done in the open, subjected to various tests and scrutiny minus the media and celebrities to over-hype the data.

Stay tuned for more and see the Patterson-Gimlin tab above for the link to download a pdf of the report.

Bill Munns with His Famous Giganto Model

Public Domain

As many celebrate the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birthday – this marks 200 years since his birth, the nation stands at a crossroads in acceptance of the implications of his interpretations of the myriad of mysteries discovered by him and his Beagle in the Galapagos so many years ago.

Before you dismiss this article as another religious viewpoint on the issue of how life originated on this planet, let me suggest that openness to scientific principles is not what has brought us to this point.  Recent trends in sociological patterns and cultural development seem to indicate that we are digressing as a result of anti-intellectualism where emotions rather than intellect tend to dominate and shape public policy.  I would say that we need a new renaissance to emerge, an enlightenment where decisions based on facts and solid foundations and goodwill among differing parties can occur.

For example, we are currently letting our elected officials battle for our very existence over whether we spend another $900 billion or so we don’t have at the same time attempting to support entitlement programs with an increasing elderly population and a decreasing working (taxable) population.  Irrational problem solving is prevailing in the clear face of our own destruction.

Similarly, we debate a whole host of items from a bully pulpit standpoint rather than a rational, logical thinking framework and then when one side doesn’t get their way, off to court it goes for a judge to decide. Emotions rule, logic is chucked out the window.  How else can you explain, regardless of your viewpoint, how a court could render a decision on the “right” of an individual to kill an unborn child when the clear unambiguous language of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? (EDIT 4/11/09 – Ok so it is not the clear language of the Constitution, but rather the Declaration of Independence.  Nonetheless, the Constitution’s language is clearly on the side of the protection of innocent life).

It is no different when it comes to the issue of evolution.  Emotions rule not on both sides but on all sides because this is an issue that requires patience and persistence to understand what science has actually shown to be true and what implications these truths have in understanding the past.   Science has given us some extraordinary information regarding population changes and how natural selection plays a role in this, but contrary to what many experts may suggest on various sides of the debate, there is much to be tested, discovered and understood before a pronouncement is made to the likes of climate science where one man by fiat pronouncement renders a decision – “the science is settled”.

It ain’t settled folks.  And neither is bigfoot. We need clear thinking, rational and cordial dialogue amongst scientists of different persuasions and good science to guide us.  In the current atmosphere where the biggest, loudest voices dictate, this isn’t happening.  Pray for a change.  Real change.

 There is a fellow who posts numerous photographs shot at random (actually there are several people doing this) in areas where either sightings or other evidence has supposedly been collected and intimates that the shadows seen are actually juvenile and adult bigfoot.  There is another fellow who is using some of this information to produce a documentary further suggesting these illusions produced by the combination of  shadows and out of focus vegetation are bigfoots.  The first person I presume to not have a working knowledge of interpretation of photographic evidence; the second person, a college professor, should certainly know better.

I notice some people have a sort of laissez faire attitude about these folks and could care less whether the shadows are actual bigfoot or whether they are just shadows because to them it represents a diversion from the ordinary.  It becomes a source of entertainment much like the so-called mediums who rake in big bucks to make you think they are communicating with your lost loved ones by a trial and error guessing game where they use probability and genetic hints to their advantage (and to your disadvantage since they take your money and lie to you at the same time) and for your entertainment.

But no matter they say, truth and error are relative anyway.  So no harm done.  So they think.

I have yet to meet a person who is happier and better off after knowing he or she has been cheated.  But that is exactly what these frauds are doing by giving you an illusion of one thing when something else entirely is going on.  It is called taking advantage of someone by using their knowledge over your ignorance in a particular area.

Frauds, we should all expose them for who they are.  Harmless they are not.

As far as the game cam photo – that appears to have been some harmless fun probably by some courageous or drunken teenagers.   Harmless that time at least, since the guy or gal in the suit apparently wasn’t shot.  With all the bigfoot hunters out there these days, the next guy may not be so fortunate.

There are numerous reports of loud screams, howls and other ape-like sounds associated with bigfoot encounters.  There are also reports of rock or wood throwing incidents and wood knocking.  There is however, at present no validated photographs or video of a large hairy, bipedal animal making sounds, throwing objects or using a club or stick to bang on a tree or anything else for that matter.

On the other hand, there are numerous examples of bigfoot encounters with physical evidence left in the form of a track or trackway.  Prints, in other words. Footprints. Large footprints. If you suspect an encounter or have been told of an encounter with a large hairy bipedal hominoid, one of the first signs you should look for are prints or other signs of its trackway.  Here is a story that involves the recording of a large hairy bipedal hominoid on surveillance video tape: Oklahoma Sasquatch Re-enactment For a complete account of the story see: Bipcast 4 Follow up investigations by a well known biologist studying the bigfoot phenomenon revealed large foot prints and a lengthy trackway in the immediate vicinity.  Further a “Class A” sighting occurred after flushing a hiding hominoid from its cover.

Whether real or not, the alleged story of the now missing surveillance tape of the assumed sasquatch was accompanied by other evidence of its presence including foot prints and a trackway.  Just what you would expect from a large bipedal hominoid.

Source: ABC News.com

When was the last time Osama has been seen and confirmed to be alive?  Better yet.  Why hasn’t the U.S. or our allies captured or killed bin Laden in these seven (7) years since the events of September 11?  They don’t know where to look? They haven’t really been trying?  We don’t have enough troops?  We lack the technological sophistication or intelligence?  All of these, at least as explained by the U.S. government are not the answers.

So just what exactly is the obstacle that has frustrated the most technologically competent entity on the face of the planet for seven (7) whole years? Get this – “the rugged and inaccessible” terrain of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area and get this – “the fact that bin Laden has worked to avoid detection”.

Now, assuming you believe this – and I have no good reason to doubt that it may in fact be true – is it so remarkable that there may be a creature who like bin Laden travels “rugged and inaccessible” areas and “works to avoid detection” such that it has remained unclassified to modern science?

As hard as bin Laden has been to flush out even with unprecedented technology, funding and skilled special forces, bigfoot is seemingly just as hard.  But really has there been anything close to a concerted, well equipped, well funded, adequately staffed, long term scientific research project conducted to prove its existence?  Is it any wonder, really, if a creature resides in places where most people don’t, is intelligent and skillful enough to see before being seen, and is deemed a scientific impossibility, that we haven’t yet captured our “man”?

Something to ponder.

Further, because of the distance from the thermal imager and vegetative cover hiding most of the figure, no details as to limb lengths or other features appear to be discernible which could be subject to various types of analysis.

Finally, an expert thermographer has done an initial analysis indicating that the subject is most likely a human (edited – with or) without clothes and is thus, clearly a hoax.  Is this surprising to anyone?

Example of Thermal Image Obtained from Google Search

But assuming there is more to the story which would provide additional data ruling out a human (edited – either clothed or) in his or her birthday suit, wouldn’t it be wise, given the current climate of the subject of bigfoot to hold one’s tongue until verifiable data would rule out the obvious?

If bigfoot “researchers” want to be taken seriously, they should at least provide enough data that could be independently verified by various experts in appropriate fields of study that could lend supportive or corroborative details, prior to the publishing of such claims.

Assuming media attention is the motive for making such premature claims, it is rather amazing that rigorous scrutiny and accompanying documentation remain absent. It is almost certain in this climate, barring that documention, that the obvious goal – media attention – will remain as elusive as the supposed juvenile sasquatch.  Fool me once shame on you…

It is an interesting hypothesis.  However, it is anything but interesting science.  Oh, not that it might not be true in some or in many cases.  But in all?  How could you possibly know?  Simply because it does not match your idea of what the world ought to look like?  Granted, if we had a body or if we had fossil evidence we wouldn’t have this dilemma would we?  It would be identified and we would know of its existence.  And we would feel good and safe and comfortable because after all, we would know that we have explored all of this North American Continent and would be content in our understanding of its’ vast wilderness areas.  Which of course would mean we know all there is to know.

I don’t mind people writing on the subject.  In fact, I probably agree with them more than I disagree.  What I find disturbing is not the skepticism.  That, in proper dosages is downright healthy.  It is the cavalier attitude that taints their writings by the assertion that so many people -thousands, in fact – many of impeccable character, over a period of hundreds of years, having reported seeing a similar thing, must ALL be sorely mistaken.  It would be one thing if that one thing they were reporting was some tiny creature that was so reclusive and rare that no one could get a good look at it.  Or if it was something always viewed at a great distance where its form might easily be confused with something else.

The problem is that this is entirely different – in many cases there are multiple witnesses with corroborating details.   In others, there are clear, close views, sometimes in broad daylight, other times through the assistance of a rifle scope or field glasses.  All having a suite of similar characteristics.  A couple of which stand out like a sore thumb – 6 to 8 feet (or taller), hairy creature walking or running on two legs.

Science cannot prove a negative, especially this kind of negative.  Sure, there is a place and scientists have a right, no an obligation, to attempt to explain why a persistent phenomena appears to be so widespread.  But science also has a right, rather an obligation to go where the evidence leads.  Absolutely there is mis-identification of known animals, faulty judgment and bad memory that can come into play. Bad evidence should be rejected.  But some evidence does seem to be good evidence and does tell a consistent story.

Let me offer an alternative hypothesis to the hardened skeptics who claim moral superiority by declaring ALL the witnesses wrong.  May I suggest that bigfoot is an actual entity and that those who cling to their dogmatic assertion of the negative, have proven their emotional rather than scientific investment in the subject and are therefore in fact, those whose psychological need has been revealed.  I can’t say what that need is – I don’t pretend to be a psychologist.  But it wouldn’t surprise me to find it has something to do with a need to not have something bigger than oneself exist in the world.

My plea to my colleagues and to the scientific community at large is to strive to cultivate an atmosphere of on-going discovery and inquiry keeping a proper amount of skepticism so that science may venture further into the unexplored realms of our physical universe.  In so doing, we will taste the rewards of the expansion of our limited understanding and knowledge and gain a greater appreciation and fascination of this wonderful world.

What a Wonderful World