SkepticblogSkepticblog logo banner

top navigation:

Sasquatch: The Quest

by Brian Dunning, Sep 01 2011

I saw a tweet the other day from our compadre in skepticism who specializes in monsters, Blake Smith of Monster Talk, that alerted me to the existence of The Erickson Project. It’s a sasquatch hunting project founded by a gent by the name of Adrian Erickson. On his web site, I found an FAQ page about sasquatch. The answers to the questions irked me a bit, and I felt they needed a bit of science-based commentary.

To me, it seems like it should be hard to authoritatively answer questions about a cryptid that is only hypothesized to exist (and then only by the fringe of the fringe), and of which there are no specimens; indeed no proof that it exists at all. But The Erickson Project found it quite easy. Here are their FAQs and the answers they offer:

Q: Why have there not been sasquatch bodies or bones discovered?

A: For the same reason no one discovers the body or bones of most predators that have died of natural causes. When ill or nearing death they hole up in very secluded areas, and die there. Their carcass is eaten by other predators and the remaining bones are consumed by porcupines and other rodents.

This is not true. There is no example, that I know of, of an extant animal whose remains have not been discovered in the wild. Corpses of all large land animals in North America are found frequently. Carcasses of all North American bears, mountain lions, and wild canids are found all the time, and who met their ends without humans present. Their ancestors are also known by extensive examples in the fossil record. The true expectation is that if the animal did exist, its remains would have been found many times by humans.

Q: How many sasquatch exist in North America?

A: Extremely difficult to quantify, sightings indicate sporadic populations in nearly all heavily wooded areas of Canada and the U.S. The sasquatch is known to occupy a range larger than that of the black bear. Our estimate is a minimum of 4000, and likely many more.

I do not buy that this estimate was arrived at by actually counting sasquatch, or by any other method that might give us a good count. Instead, I believe it is the result of backwards reasoning. There are science-based estimates of how many individuals you’d need for a viable breeding population. Dr. Jeff Meldrum, the closest we have to a science-based sasquatch researcher, estimates 500-750 individuals; and according to famed cryptozoologist Loren Coleman, other researchers and groups put the number somewhere in four figures. 4000 is a pretty good median of these estimates. The Erickson Project is not answering the question that was asked — how many sasquatch are there — they are answering how many they think there would have to be if it did exist. This is like me saying I would have to weigh 1 ounce in order to fly holding two eagle feathers. It doesn’t make it so.

Q: Do they have their own language?

A: Yes, we believe they do. Our own experiences and those of others suggest they have language.

Certainly not unprecedented in nature. A number of species use forms of communication. Whales vocalize, insects use scents, other animals use precocious displays of colors or feathers. We know this because it’s been observed, documented, studied, reproduced, to such a degree that it is widely considered a fact of zoology.

Sasquatch language, on the other hand, has only the “belief” of believers. What few recordings exist are poorly documented anecdotes. They are inconsistent with one another, and better represent the variances expected among unrelated recordings than they do the complexities of language.

Q: Why has no sasquatch been trapped or shot?

A: The sasquatch is an extremely cunning and elusive creature.

If the lack of evidence equals evidence that it is cunning and elusive, then Sauron is similarly cunning, elusive, and extant. Unfortunately, the scientific method does not permit us to go from “We haven’t found a sasquatch” to “Therefore they exist, and have the property of elusiveness.”

…Their senses are beyond human, especially their incredible night vision.

How was this established without a specimen to examine? This cannot be logically asserted, unless they are simply designing an imaginary creature based on their own creativity. This trait is not an observation, it is merely what seems consistent with the believers’ impression of sasquatch.

…In human populated areas they operate almost strictly nocturnally.

They do? Not a single more creature has been documented to exist at night than has been documented during the day. I do not know these researchers’ opinion on the Patterson-Gimlin film, widely considered by many Bigfoot enthusiasts to be the best evidence, but it was shot during the day. This is a poorly supported supposition.

…We know of two sasquatch that were mistakenly shot by hunters decades ago. In both cases, upon discovery, the men ran off, afraid to tell anyone until many years later.

These researchers should know better than to accept such stories as if they constitute evidence. I can only repeat the old axiom “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Q: How tall are they?

A: Our experience and those of other reports indicate a mature male ranges from seven to over nine feet tall. Females average from six to seven and a half feet tall, however it is the muscle bulk of the sasquatch that is so impressive.

I am left to wonder what method was used to sex and measure these specimens that were neither captured nor photographed. How many specimens were needed to establish these averages? These numbers may well represent good averages of anecdotal reports, but anecdotes are not data, and responsible researchers should not present them as such.

Q: Why have they never officially been studied by scientists?

A: Scientists in general are not risk-takers. Because a sasquatch is so much like a human they can be hoaxed. Scientists are afraid to make a mistake. As a result it has been safer for most of them to steer clear of the phenomenon.

It is hardly possible to be more wrong about scientists than this. Every professional researcher I know would want nothing more than to find something new and exciting. “Steering clear” of new discoveries is a good way for a scientist to lose his job; not to keep it. Scientists are not employed in the hope that they will discover nothing. A better reason that so few scientists have dedicated time to sasquatch research is that there is no good evidence that the creature exists; thus it would be a waste of resources that could be better applied to fields more likely to produce results.

There is a lot of poor evidence that sasquatch exists; but lots of poor evidence does not aggregate into good evidence. Instead, mounds of bad evidence aggregate into a pretty strong indicator that the null hypothesis is true. As I often say: You can stack cowpies as high as you want; they won’t turn into a bar of gold.

So I say, strike 6 out of 6. I’m not hostile to sasquatch research, but I am hostile toward the use of bad science to beguile the innocent into accepting your point of view. I invite the members of The Erickson Project to take another pass at answering these questions, and this time, tell us what we actually know; or if they prefer to tell us what they believe or what their hunch is, within the context of no supporting evidence, to make that clear.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.8/5 (43 votes cast)
Sasquatch: The Quest, 4.8 out of 5 based on 43 ratings

Recommended Reading

122 Responses to “Sasquatch: The Quest”

  1. Other Paul says:

    “I invite the members of The Erickson Project to take another pass at answering these questions”

    I think you may possibly be too generous.

    As the journalist in the 1978 Australian film, Newsfront, says after refusing to sell film stock to some folk with an agenda of their own – “I’ll go further – I’m inviting you to bite your bum.”

  2. Max says:

    “mounds of bad evidence aggregate into a pretty strong indicator that the null hypothesis is true”

    Time for Bayesian Inference 101:
    H0 = null hypothesis
    H1 = alternative hypothesis
    P(H1)/P(H0) = prior odds
    P(evidence given H1)/P(evidence given H0) = Bayes factor
    prior odds * Bayes factor = posterior odds

    If P(evidence given H1) > P(evidence given H0), then Bayes factor > 1, so the evidence shifts the odds in favor of H1.

    I think it’s safe to say that a bigfoot sighting is slightly more likely if bigfoot exists than if bigfoot doesn’t exist, so it shifts the odds slightly in favor of bigfoot’s existence, and mounds of sightings shift the odds even more.
    On the other hand, mounds of failures to find good evidence like bones shift the odds in favor of the null hypothesis, because failure to find bigfoot bones is more likely if bigfoot doesn’t exist than if it exists.

    • Sheila says:

      What are the chances that another type of dinosaur hasn’t been discovered yet?

    • Sandra Cowdrick says:

      So, you’re honestly using multiple lines of shall I say ‘creative algebraic expression’ to state that simply because something is said to have been sighted, it is more likely than not to be real? The true equation is much more simple, and I would LOVE an unknown hominid or even N.American ape to be discovered, BUT-

      Large mammals are even more frequently sighted and consistently reliably recorded in purported Bigfoot habitats, but Bigfoot are strongly lacking in compirable evidence= evidence for null hypothesis

      Remains are frequently found in purported Bigfoot areas of other large Mammals, and even Human remains are rarely found, but not Bigfoot= evidence for null hypothesis

      When the number of EXPECTED reliable sightings/carcasses/evidences of typical area Animals far exceeds the produced evidence of the said animal that is essentially a negative number of sightings/evidence, making it less likely the creature exists.

      But then again, science does continue to surprise us.

      Sandy

  3. Trimegistus says:

    I’ve often wondered if we should fight fire with fire. This Erickson Project has utterly unconvincing reasons . . . so let’s tell people it’s just a cover-up for something! Since the Squatch sightings are all Pacific Northwest, I think we should start claiming this “Erickson Project” is a front for the sinister World Government types operating HAARP to send almost-undetectable earthquakes and mild hurricanes against President Obama.

    It can work in reverse, too! The next time someone starts going on about Project HAARP manipulating the weather, we can just look wise and say “That’s just what they want you to think. It’s really a cover story for the Sasquatch breeding program. The Erickson Project’s behind it all.”

  4. tmac57 says:

    Q: Where do Sasquatch babies come from?

    A: It is believed that it requires up to 5 storks to deliver one Sasquatch baby.

  5. John Myste says:

    So, you wrote an article refuting the notion of Big Foot.

    It requires a great deal of skepticism. I can honestly say that if I thought they existed, no argument would change my mind.

  6. Guy Edwards says:

    Great work Brian. At BigfootLunchClub.com we have always appreciated your even-handed approach to the Bigfoot phenomena. The questions you raise are healthy for the bigfoot community. At the very least it offers an opportunity for introspection.

  7. steelsheen11b says:

    Ah Bigfoot fever, I’ve been wondering where you got off to. Roughly every 3-5 years during the 70′s, 80′s and early 90′s Sasquatch fever would break out somewhere in Washington state. The fever usually coincided with the start of summer and broke out in some picturesque town in the woods or mountains. Everybody and their brother would show up claim to find hair that doesn’t belong to any known animal in Washington state or mistake an elk wallow for a Sasquatch camp or some such nonsense.

    Those silly buggers were a shot in the arm for the economy so in that regard there was a conspiracy involved, it didn’t have any scientist excluding maverick researchers, it involved the local chamber of commerce trying to drum up tourism.

  8. “Scientists in general are not risk-takers” – Ahhhhhhhh…I needed a good laugh.

    • David H. says:

      Taking risks leaves them baffled.

    • Max says:

      Looking for bigfoot at this point would be high-risk high-payoff, so if scientists avoid it, then they’re avoiding risk.

      • But really, scientists are avoiding risk by not dropping everything and spending full-time focusing happy thoughts on making a pile of gold bullion appear on their table. Imagine the high payoff there.

      • Max says:

        Ok, that’s an example of avoiding an even more ridiculously high risk.
        Looking for new and exciting discoveries may make a scientist open-minded, but it’s not risky if it’s in a field where such discoveries are likely.

      • What field are you referring to?

        I’d be the first to volunteer and raise my hand wander through the forest in search of something new and previously unknown to man. I’ll bring the marshmellows and twizzlers.

      • Max says:

        In Brian’s words, “fields more likely to produce results” than sasquatch research.
        I’m just saying if you opt for a field that’s more likely to produce results than another field, then almost by definition you opt for lower risk.

      • Phea says:

        If there were juicy grants available, you can bet your ass there would be plenty of scientists out there looking for Bigfoot.

  9. Ed Seedhouse says:

    “Q: Why has no sasquatch been trapped or shot?
    A: The sasquatch is an extremely cunning and elusive creature.”

    So are people who escape from prison. But quite a few of them get trapped and shot.

    • Sheila says:

      Let’s not forget D. B. Cooper.

      • tmac57 says:

        So what’s your point? If there were enough ‘D. B. Coopers’ out there to constitute a flourishing species,then wouldn’t you think that at least one of them would eventually be caught/killed ,given enough time? Or are you implying that there has only been one bigfoot to be seen/found?

      • Sheila says:

        My point is if something doesn’t want to be found, it won’t. There are so many areas of untouched wilderness…but since you live in the city you’re probably unaware of this?

      • mike says:

        Are you kidding me? The “wilderness” is large enough to completely hide all traces of approximately 4,000 300lb foraging mammals?

      • Scott says:

        According to the most recent numbers I could find, you’re never more than 115 miles from a McDonald’s from any point in the continental US. I don’t think there’s as much wilderness as you might imagine. The fact that there is no specimen, either in the fossil record or in modern day, brings the plausibility down quite a bit.

      • Sheila says:

        And maybe lower that number of yours just a tad.

      • Sheila says:

        Keep in mind Mike, there are still draft dodgers hiding out in the northwestern states.

  10. rob says:

    being from ireland i most likely will never get to see a bigfoot. i’ll have to make do with leprechaun spotting a much harder thing to do as your average leprechaun is only 30 to 35 cm tall.

  11. Kenneth Polit says:

    Bigfoot may just be a myth, but the movie “Harry and the Hendersons” was on TV the other day and I still enjoyed watching it.

  12. David H. says:

    Why the photo of the gorilla?

  13. Loren Petrich says:

    I’m reminded of a paper that Jeff Lozier et al. had published:

    Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modelling, Journal of Biogeography, Volume 36, Issue 9, pages 1623–1627, September 2009, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02152.x

    They took sightings of Sasquatch and correlated them with various ecological variables, thus finding an estimated range. This range had a very good match with that of the American black bear, so they concluded that Sasquatch sightings were most likely sightings of bears.

  14. tom naff says:

    I have faith that the truth will be revealed someday. I live in the PNW, and have never seen, heard, or smelled one. But I know they exist. I have done the research, met people who have had encounters, and there is no question in my mind that we have an undiscovered bipedal giant that roams the forests of North America.

    • Sheila says:

      And don’t let these quasi scientists tell you any different.

      • Nick says:

        It is so ironic when people like Tom and Sheila come to a website called “skepticblog” when they apparently have no idea of what the word skeptic means. Sheila: Do you actually have the ability to posit an argument, or do you simply enjoy typing a few hit and run non sequitors?

      • Sheila says:

        Come on Nick let’s argue. What do you have to say for yourself?

      • Sheila says:

        It’s quite obvious you’re nothing more than a chicken shit. But doesn’t scientist and chicken shit go hand in hand?

      • Scott says:

        I think a healthy debate is good for both sides, as debate is a discussion based on evidence and the opinions that evidence produces. But arguing gets us nowhere. And, certainly, calling names has the opposite of the intended effect, as the accuser ends up resembling the insult more than the accused. I believe Nick is trying to solicit some evidence from you. And, this being Skepticblog, I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request.

      • Sheila says:

        No Scott, he’s not trying to solicit evidence, he is only accusing me of not being a sceptic. But he has no evidence of that and now he’s too scared to say anything.

  15. Tim Gowan says:

    The reason that Bigfoot is so elusive is because he is a master of Ninjitsu.

    Evidences:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sARqCa5Cqu4

    • Scott says:

      I think this explanation is more plausible.

      • Phea says:

        I’m thinking maybe they’re an alien species down here on field trips to gather data… that explains why we don’t find any remains, and how there could be just a few. That one was simple.
        There is however a question that I’ve been struggling with for quite some time now. How can we definitively tell the difference between ghosts and angels when they appear?

      • Scott says:

        It’s difficult as they’re both hallucinations.

  16. Rob Jase says:

    Not so fast, you claim that the corpses of canids are found in the wild.

    You’re confusing dogs with chupacabras whose corpses are constantly turning up, especially in areas hard hit by mange.

  17. Iron15 says:

    The creature they call big foot is nothing more than a Demonic entity ancient manuscripts call them “The Hairy One” Just like the little Aliens that some encounter. The sin of some Fallen Angles was so great that God took away the one thing they cherished most, their beauty.

    • John Greg says:

      Iron15 said:

      “The sin of some Fallen Angles was so great that God took away the one thing they cherished most, their beauty.”

      Ah, yes. And would that be the beauty of a fallen 45 degree angle, or the more percusive beauty of a fallen 90 degree angle?

  18. Jon Rosen says:

    Brian said, “…thus it would be a waste of resources that could be better applied to fields more likely to produce results.” We know, I mean we believe, that Sasquatch is much more likely to wander through woods than through fields. So, naturally, resources could be better applied to woods and forests more likely to produce results. Stated with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

  19. Ken says:

    How was this established without a specimen to examine?

    Monster Manual, 3rd edition?

  20. Sheila says:

    Oddly I know of two credible people who saw Sasquatch and neither one is willing to go to any “organization” to tell their story. So that must mean that all the credible stories never see the light of day?

  21. JR12 says:

    Brian…I completely agree with your rebuttals to the Erickson Q&A’s! They make the mistake that most BF researchers do…State things that they believe are true, and pawn them off like absolute fact. That’s a definite no-no when there isn’t any evidence to back their claims. I, however, work in the wildlife field, and can tell you with absolute certainty that Sasquatches are real! As crazy as it seems to most people, they are out there, and I’d imagine it will only be a matter of time until Dr. Ketchums DNA study is submitted to the scientific journal, and we will at least have evidence of an unknown hominid that we have sequenced DNA for.

  22. Mike Nichols says:

    Good analysis of the FAQ’s. One minor correction – Meldrum claims more if you include the entire North American continent.

    In 2006, in Florida I found convincing evidence of either an extremely well done hoax or an undocumented bipedal non-human. After 5 years of attempting to document other evidence resulting from eye-witness accounts and much time in the field, I concluded that hoaxing, misidentification and imagination/fear were responsible for most of the sightings.

    The biggest problem with the concept of the existence of bigfoot is that increasing technology and field time by mostly lay researchers, along with some professionals, and/or camera traps has yielded no increasing frequency of quality photographic evidence. In deed, no compelling photographic evidence has been collected or at least publicly released to date that establishes a non-human primate or hominin fitting the description which at least for some individuals is said to be outside the range of human proportions.

    Further, the most compelling of all photographic evidence to date (Patterson Gimlin Film) has been clearly demonstrated to be within human proportions. In fact, it is within the proportions of one Bob Heironimus who claims to have been the person in the suit. Further still, there is no sound scientific documentation connecting the casts made of the alleged trackway to the subject in the film.

    One of the few scientists who openly claim their existence, by fiat as a matter of fact, Dr. John Bindernagel provides 2 lines of evidence for such a claim: 1) casts of footprints outside of human proportions and 2) eye-witness accounts. I personally documented both lines of evidence as insufficient and unreliable due to hoaxing and systemic problems associated with eye-witness testimony. Much can be said here but sincerity of eye-witness accounts as mentioned in a recent article is not a substitute for quality of evidence. Many have been demonstrated to be sincerely wrong.

    My prediction on the Erickson Project is that it will eventually be found to be the result of hoaxing whether knowingly or unknowingly or misidentification of known animals.

    • Sheila says:

      I guess you’ve never spoken to anyone who has come face to face with one.

      • Scott says:

        “After 5 years of attempting to document other evidence resulting from eye-witness accounts and much time in the field, I concluded that hoaxing, misidentification and imagination/fear were responsible for most of the sightings.”

        Actually, it sounds like he has spoken to those claiming to have had encounters. And probably quite a few if he spent 5 years doing the research.

      • Sheila says:

        Yes it sounds like he interviewed many people looking for 15 minutes of fame. Which brings me to my original point that many true sightings have never been reported.

      • Scott says:

        I don’t understand that logic at all. If you witnessed something that you were convinced was a large, undiscovered primate, why would you not report it? At the very least to a bigfoot researcher? You could even do anonymously.

      • Sheila says:

        Are you kidding me? The majority of people when confronted with the unknown, will say nothing to any authorities because they don’t want to make themselves look weird or have anyone question their mental capacities. That is human nature. But they will tell their family and friends.

  23. The Shrike says:

    I appreciate you taking the Erickson Project to task Brian, and by doing little more than asking the obvious questions. The bigfoot realm is loaded with things like this – speculations stated as fact about what bigfoots do, how many there are, their anatomy, etc. What I’d like to see from believers, and especially from bigfoot “researchers” like Jeff Meldrum who really should know better, is a similar policing of their own. Guys like Meldrum, Bindernagel, and Fahrenbach like to cast themselves as legitimate scientists who happen to be brave and open-minded enough to study bigfoot, yet they turn a blind eye to so much rampant nonsense like this in bigfootery. If they want to impress me with their objectivity, the place to start is by calling out the chicanery, just as you’ve done.

    • Sheila says:

      Sure, from the guy that hasn’t stepped away from his desk in years, but is somehow an authority?

      • The Shrike says:

        To which “guy” are you referring?

      • Sheila says:

        You. Have you ever tried to sneak up on a Sasquatch?

      • The Shrike says:

        I am a field biologist with a lifelong interest in bigfoot. I routinely conduct wildlife surveys and field investigations of wildlife/habitat relationships, very often in mature forest environments that most would consider “bigfoot habitat” and in counties where there are alleged encounters listed in the BFRO database. After 30+ years of field work, I haven’t seen a scrap of evidence of such creatures to convince me that there’s anything to sneak up on. Have you ever tried to sneak up on a unicorn?

      • Sheila says:

        Apparently you’re not a bigfoot magnet. How far away from a city are you conducting your investigations?

      • Max says:

        LOL, there’s a big foot in Sheila’s mouth.

      • Sheila says:

        Well Max if you were any kind of a scientist you’d realize that isn’t physically possible.

  24. John Greg says:

    Surely Sheila deserves the troll-so-stupid-it-burns award of the month?

    Oh, you don’t do that here?

    Snap!

  25. Agro says:

    There seems to be a lot of unbridled arrogance in the comments here. As JR12 says, the Ketchum independently scientific reviewed results will tell us one way or the other whether there is a “new species” or not. Until then I suggest that the skeptics just hold their breath and wait, because they seem to me to be even worse in their lack of scientific rigour that many on the other side. The Erickson project may have some interesting results but we will not know until their work is released. For skeptics to comment adverely on something about which they have few facts, is the same height of ignorance of which they accuse the other side. It certainly does their cause no justice. I might point out that many of the recently discovered “new” species of primates and other animals were well known to indigenous peoples long before scientists “discovered” them. When it comes the Orang Pendek, Bigfoot or other bipedal animal around the world, a little bit of dignified dicussion might go a long way to discovering more about our unknown species. It might also save face if you find yourselves on the wrong side of the facts in the not too distant future. As for attacking the person rather than the facts, both sides here are guilty and need to calm down just a little.

    • Oddly enough, the animals that have been “discovered” and have been classified as a “new” species have done so because people have followed protocols that qualify them as such. What protocols do advocates of Bigfoot follow? if there is a serious side to chasing people dressed in gorilla suits through the woods then it’s been tainted by people who…well…dress in gorilla suits and run through the woods.

      I’m not saying Bigfoot doesn’t exist. I’m saying that there is no credible proof that it does. Therefor, no one can say it doesn’t exist and you can’t have a negative tone toward those who ask for proof it does. Now, for those who claim there is such a thing, the onus of proof is on you.

      Proof/evidence needs to qualify as such. This means no blurry photos, allegations of bigfoot in a freezer or people in gorilla suits.

      I think Bigfoot is blurry, that’s the problem. It’s not the photographer’s fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that’s extra scary to me. There’s a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he’s fuzzy, get out of here – Mitch Hedberg

      • Agro says:

        I am a scientist and I am intrigued by the collective volume of anecdotal recordings, for well over 200 years, of unusual and unexplained sightings of large hairy pipedal animals around the world by indigenous peoples and a huge range of professional (eg park rangers, other scientists etc) people as well as non professional citizens. That is how scientific investigations start. Proper investigations into the existence of such creatures relies on establishing a forensically verifiable chain of evidence from sightings to collection of biological material and any subsequent dna analysis. That is part of the protocol you ask for and work is progressing on that basis. From the little that is in the public domain, the Ketchum work is based on such a process and we will see what we will see in due course. I agree that visual sightings, video and sound recordings and casts of footprints do not in themselves constitute sufficient evidence. However, I would point out that the scientific existence of many things in science that cannot be actually seen and touched is often proved by establishing the effects that those things cause. I can think of many such examples in physics, geology, astronomy, molecular biology and other sciences. On the flip side, we do NOT require a body to establish that a new species exists. Science has actually progressed well past the point of requiring a dead specimen to establish that a new species exists. Sure, it would be nice to have some remains, but it is NOT required. Many skeptics arguments and assertions use some very tenuous logic which often seems to rely on the premise that science knows everything there is to know. Any scientific discovery requires a prepared open mind and a slow and rigorous investigation. I believe we are close to some interesting results. On a last point,to denigrate all who claim to have encountered such creatures, without a proper investigation, destroys the credibility of the “doubting Thomas’s” more than it does of the reporting person. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions. What they are not entitled to is their own facts. As for idiots running around in gorrilla suits; they do nothing other than provide an amusing distraction.

  26. Sheila says:

    John Greg deserves the moron scientist of the month award because he’s too weak to add anything to this thread.

  27. nick says:

    It’s simple. No evidence. No bigfoot. Your telling me that over all these years, with all the hunters and woodsmen that we have in this country, there hasn’t been an instance where a bigfoot was shot and killed? Or possibly an instance where the remains of a dead one were found? I live in rural Oklahoma and I can tell you that the carcass of even a small animal isnt gone over night. What with all these organizations and people that dedicate their lives to bigfoot research surely there should be some shred of evidence. But there isnt. So again it’s simple. No evidence.
    NO BIGFOOT!!

  28. I like you Sheila. You make me giggle.

  29. Ben says:

    Great article, great comments. I am left wondering one thing after reading this page though……What exactly is Sheila’s problem? Why the shitty attitude?

    • Scott says:

      It’s the typical stand of believers. When the onus of proof is on the ones making the claims, and no proof exists, their only option is to be louder than the skeptics.

    • Mark says:

      It’s a troll. Ignore it.

    • Sheila says:

      Shitty attitude you say? When 99.5% of posters on this blog have never talked to anyone who has ever seen a sasquatch, but seem to think they are the authority? LOL
      I am sceptical of the skeptics because they base their information on what they’re read on the internet, without ever having got off their asses to do their own research. Ask me again, why I have a shitty attitude about skeptics.

      • Scott says:

        Why do you have a shitty attitude concerning skeptic? Sorry…

        No one here is pretending to be an authority. Though the notion of an authority on bigfoot is kind of silly and sad. It’s like that co-worker that’s an authority on Harry Potter. They’re both make-believe. And we are going on exactly the same “evidence” you are, which is all anecdotal. A story, either relayed second hand or seventh hand, has the same value in the scientific process. Without hard, testable evidence there is no reason to think that a large hominid species is living alongside humans in North America, or any other part of the world for that matter.

      • Frying Dutchmen says:

        Why do proponents of the paranormal always think that you have to do your own research? Knowledge is built on standing on the shoulders of giants not having everyone continuing researching the same material. Also no one has seen a bigfoot

  30. JiggyPotamus says:

    The majority of answers given in Erickson’s FAQ’s are based on eyewitness accounts and experiences, much of that firsthand experience. How is gathering data and making hypotheses not scientific? I think this is about as scientific as an amateur can get when dealing with a creature that academics will not investigate.

    As an example, the FAQ’s claim that Sasquatch have great night vision, yet you attempt to tear down this hypothesis. This hypothesis was established based on data. The data says that there are just as many Sasquatch sightings at night as during daylight hours, and given the restrictions on human observation at night, it can be concluded this is when the creature is most active, since the sightings are relatively equal. The inference can then be drawn that for them to be so active at night, they must have good night vision.

    Their eyes also shine at night when hit with light, which shows that the physiological makeup of their eyes is adapted for nighttime activities and night vision. Sasquatch have also been known to avoid IR beams, as there is virtually zero evidence obtained via trail cameras. This is of course more of a stretch than anything else hypothesized thus far.

    Your claim that Sasquatch vocalizations are few and inconsistent is just plain wrong. There are numerous recordings of vocalizations, many of which are extremely consistent. There are similar, even identical howls, cries, and most importantly, chatter. This chatter resembles that of an ape, with the barking of a dog. It is very unique, and very well documented.

    Just because academics and skeptics make the claim that there is no evidence does not make it so. And realistically that is what is going on. There is plenty of evidence, from eyewitness reports to DNA and hair samples. Denying the existence of this material just perpetuates the lies so many without knowledge are apt to believe.

    Saying that the animal doesn’t exist is rather insulting to those of us who KNOW they exist. Telling us what we saw was a bear, or our imagination is simply ludicrous. My testimony in a court of law could get someone executed, but for some reason my observational skills aren’t good enough to tell you that what I saw wasn’t a bear, but a two-legged, hairy, apelike person.

    If I had more time and space I could systematically debunk every one of your claims, and I really wish I could, since I already know that someone in your state of mind will not seek it out themselves. You will continue to skew the facts to fit your agenda. I know this because of what you have written thus far.

    • My claims? Such as?

    • If you believe there is DNA evidence supporting the existence of sasquatch, present it. It will be warmly welcomed here (and throughout the world of science). The burden of proof is on you to do so, not on me.

      Also, I have never said that whatever you saw was a bear or your imagination. I don’t know you, don’t know anything about your experience, and can’t possibly have the slightest idea what you might have seen. Yours is the most obvious kind of straw man argument against my post.

      And I doubt that the strength of evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot is enough to get someone executed. I believe there is some reasonable doubt on that point… for example, the lack of any testable evidence that could pass the Daubert standard in the Federal Rules of Evidence.

    • bluefishblitz says:

      Hey Jiggy, just what do you mean by “Sasquatch have also been known to avoid IR beams”? IR beams? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Night vision displays objects that reflect visible light, while thermal imaging displays the heat signature of objects with no regard to visible light. These use semiconductor materials to DETECT objects…it’s not a frigging laser gun, but why let a little science get in the way of a smart sounding explanation. Brian Dunning’s shredding of the Erickson Project FAQ’s is sensible and reasonable. If there is anyone out there who claims to have come face to face with bigfoot is either 1) mistakenly identified a known creature 2) trippin on serious acid 3) a flat out liar. Most bigfoot “researchers” fall under #3.

  31. Doofus says:

    Q. Have these creatures discovered intoxicants? There are plenty of magic mushrooms, fermented fruit and marijuana growing in the PNW. Do they partake? Do they know when it’s the weekend?

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE