Seeing Bigfoot as real, is a foot in the mouth.

Seeing Bigfoot as real, is a foot in the mouth.

There is no such thing as even a universal agreement on what a Bigfoot is, looks like, or acts like, it changes by time, region and people. So right there one does not even have a good ontology for the thing in question. It’s not fixed as it is a myth until somehow proven in some way.

DNA Analysis Debunks Bigfoot but Points to an Unknown Bear Species

By Melissa Hellmann

The legend of the enormous creature variously known as a yeti, Bigfoot or Sasquatch has long been a source of mystery. But now a study of supposed Bigfoot hair samples has revealed that they actually derive from known mammals including bears, cows, dogs or horses. A team of scientists led by Bryan Sykes, a human genetics professor at the University of Oxford, analyzed DNA from 30 samples of Bigfoot hair donated by museums and enthusiasts. Although this may come as a blow to cryptozoologists — those who search for creatures whose existence is unproven — the analysis may herald the discovery of a new species of bear. Two hairs from India and Bhutan show an unknown species that could be a distant cousin of the polar bear or a hybrid of local species and a brown bear. “If these bears are widely distributed in the Himalayas, they may well contribute to the biological foundation of the yeti legend,” the authors said in the study published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Although the search for the illusive Bigfoot will likely continue, scientists hope believers will at least step up their game. “The techniques described here put an end to decades of ambiguity about species identification of anomalous primate samples and set a rigorous standard against which to judge any future claims,” researchers said in the study. DNA analysis even revealed that a clump of hair found in Texas actually belonged to a hairy human.

Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods?

Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods the rational conclusion using axiology

So how do we form rational conclusions? More importantly, how do we differentiate between the levels involved to establish a conclusions rational viability.

It takes axiology or the value judgment the worthiness or lack thereof in relation to the available reason and evidence.

So let’s start with the axiological viability of Bigfoots

There is no available evidence for Bigfoots.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

Always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as a primate/nonhuman hominid close to that of both humans and other nonhuman primates is not entirely outside all possibility of reason even though lacking all evidence. Therefore, belief is not warranted and the axiological worthiness of possibility is low enough to motivate disbelief.

The axiological viability of Unicorns (ie. a horse with a single horn on its head)

There is no evidence for Unicorns.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as by looking at the evolution of the horse not once was there a horn on any of the several stages of animals to the horse we know today. So it is relatively outside of possibility though as it is still only claiming non-fantastic attributes it is only somewhat ridiculous. Therefore, belief is not in any way warranted and the axiological worthiness is so low to highly support disbelief.

Now the axiological validity of Gods

There is no evidence for Gods.

But is their proposition outside of reason?

As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as never in the history of scientific research or investigation has any supernatural claims shown to be true. So it is completely outside of possibility and is utterly ridiculous. If a god anything was real and good it would not be the harmful world we have. Therefore, no god is good but as gods are often claimed as good so no such gods exist. This is an axiological atheist argument also called the argument from evil. As an Ignostic Atheist is, first prove the actuality of simple magic before you try to ask anyone about the possibility of some supreme magic. Ignosticism or igtheism, basically as a philosophic position concludes the belief in or a possibility of a supernatural being, ultimate or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible. Ignosticism questions the ideas in the god concepts themselves rather than allowing them to hold some presupposition (a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action) status in reality that they don’t actually have and that is required first to even take the three-letter term god or any created empty name that is offered instead as if theists think and some alow then m to think they can offer any manner of nonsense with no burden of proof at all. What needs to be questioned is what do you mean by god Evidence? First, what is a god and how can you claim to know this?I welcome the burden of proof and to me, fearing it may be that one lacks such proof, to begin with. Theism is proof of one’s failure to require valid and reliable justification to support any beliefs as worthy.Therefore, belief should be rejected as there are no warrants at all and it is axiologically unworthy to such a preponderance to demand disbelief.

“Isn’t ignosticism the idea that the word “god” has not been well enough defined to make a judgement regarding existence?” – Challenger

My response, Well it may be for some, and not others as you started right for me god claims are contradictions and make believe that ae expressed but offer nothing. If you can’t define something then it’s not even a valid hypothesis and just unjustified claims that attach to nothing are unworthwhile.

“But each god hypothesis is pretty well defined. There is little reason to bother describing non-god concepts or hypothetical god concepts.” – Challenger

My response, A definition of a leprechaun does not mean it’s a valid hypothetic in reality only that humans gave an idea anthropomorphic characteristics not valid qualities for a real ontology. You can make up all kinds of unreal non-defined in reality things there is only a limit on time to how many one could mentally conceive and not one of them is valid if not corresponding in and of reality. If I define for you what a square circle is like that would not add it to reality as it is a logical contradiction as reality has limits that we use to know that some things are impossible and only possible when the qualities match reality.

“The definition is the only thing that allows you to say that. It is a well defined non thing. Perhaps gods are just well defined non things.” – Challenger

My response, A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation. Mover, a hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into the current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. A null hypothesis is the name given to a hypothesis that is possibly false or has no effect. Often, during a test, the scientist will study another branch of the idea that may work, which is called an alternative hypothesis. During testing, a scientist may come upon two types of errors. A Type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. A Type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false, according to the University of California, Berkeley. So, what is this nothing none evidence god somethingism?

“God isn’t a scientific hypothesis. As are many things in our society.” – Challenger

My response, God-somethingism, like all proposed gods can’t pass the A Type II error so the null hypothesis is not rejected and thus god somethingism, like all proposed gods are false, god is nonsense.

“That is simply atheism. I agree there, but that doesn’t mean there are particularly good definitions for various gods. Like story books use great definitions about dragons and pixies. It is well defined nonsense. We aren’t lacking definition.” – Challenger

My response, Agnosticism, Ignosticism apatheism, secular humanism are all atheist, unless they have some belief. No belief is always atheism it’s a philosophical stance that occurs one need not actively choose it, but lack belief and atheism is occurring. I am an ignostic atheist. https://damienmarieathope.com/2015/11/17/i-am-an-ignostic-atheist/

My response, Agnosticism is a belief about knowledge built on folk logic and nonstandard philosophy it is not a true branch of the philosophy of knowledge at all, in fact, it is more connected to philosophical skepticism which is against asserting any firm knowledge claim. I hear people time and again asserting the 100% knowledge or truth claim that because they believe there is no such thing as asserting the 100% knowledge or truth claim that by default Every atheist is agnostic. Do you see the self-contradictory claim which would or I guess if one holds such a belief in the limits of knowledge, should refrain from making global affirming truth claims that one cannot make global affirming truth claims?

My response, What is Ignosticism, or igtheism position? If followed to its logical end it concludes that the entire question about a god’s existence is a non-question and that taking a yes, no or even ambivalent position is absurd. It is based on an expectation of strong critical rational analysis of any proposition including the existence of god(s). As with any topic, and especially in the realm of the supernatural and woo, the subject of any debate should be coherently defined. If one offers a clear definition of an entity, then in order to take a position whether it exists or not the definition of the entity must be one in which its existence can be falsified (there is a rational and logical method by which we can test the existence of the subject as it has been defined). Few theists ever offer a clear definition of god. The few who do offer a definition almost never offer one in which the existence of that god(s) could be tested. The rare falsifiable definition offered regarding a god’s existence is easily falsified. And so as with any subject (such as the existence of almost all supernatural entities) debate about the existence of god(s) is, for the far majority of such conversations, pointless.

Ignosticism goes further than agnosticism; while agnosticism states that “you can’t really know either way” regarding the existence or non-existence of gOD, ignosticism posits that “you haven’t even agreed on what you’re discussing, as its nothing”. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism

“I take an ambivalent position to most things. Statistically unlikely things happen. Logic is simply a normative tool for discussing things. As bad as this sounds, proving logic is a difficult thing, because it would be illogical to disprove it. Even multiple views of the same phenomena doing the same thing can lead to incorrect views. Language is equally normative. If something doesn’t make sense, we can’t rule out that the language in use (or any language) is sufficient to explain everything. Using language as a basis for possibility strikes me much the same as an ontological argument. It seems like a word game which attempts to define things into or out of existence. To be honest, there isn’t really a means of enquiry I trust, it’s just a bunch of hypothetical models to varying degrees of likelyhood. We might be right about stuff, but we have little way of knowing it. The last bit is part of why I’m atheist. If there was a god worth believing in and who wanted us to, we’d likely have the capacity to know.” – Challenger

My response, Faith is an invalid method to know the reality qualities of the world. Thus, every theory proposed from or with faith is equally invalid and since all gods and religions require faith at some point in the belief ownership process as or in place of evidence and/or valid reasoning about reality. Therefore, they are all automatically invalid due to the limitation of faith not being able to produce things into reality. To me, the origin of Logics is Naturalistic Observation:

Valid reasoning has been employed in all periods of human history. However, logic studies the principles of valid reasoning, inference, and demonstration. It is probable that the idea of demonstrating a conclusion first arose in connection with geometry, which originally meant the same as “land measurement”. In particular, the ancient Egyptians had empirically discovered some truths of geometry, such as the formula for the volume of a truncated pyramid. Another origin can be seen in Babylonia. Esagil-kin-apli’s medical Diagnostic Handbook in the 11th century BC was based on a logical set of axioms and assumptions, while Babylonian astronomers in the 8th and 7th centuries BC employed an internal logic within their predictive planetary systems, an important contribution to the philosophy of science. So, we have real-world origins such as sky observation in Babylonian astrology and land observation in Egyptian Geometry (from the Ancient Greek: geo- “earth”, -metron “measurement”). The field of astronomy, especially as it relates to mapping the positions of stars and planets on the celestial sphere and describing the relationship between movements of celestial bodies, served as an important source of geometric problems during the next one and a half millennia. In the classical world, both geometry and astronomy were considered to be part of the Quadrivium, a subset of the seven liberal arts considered essential for a free citizen to master. While the ancient Egyptians empirically discovered some truths of geometry, the great achievement of the ancient Greeks was to replace empirical methods by demonstrative science. The systematic study of this seems to have begun with the school of Pythagoras in the late sixth century BC. The three basic principles of geometry are as follows: Certain propositions must be accepted as true without demonstration; such a proposition is known as an axiom of geometry. Every proposition that is not an axiom of geometry must be demonstrated as following from the axioms of geometry; such a demonstration is known as a proof or a “derivation” of the proposition. The proof must be formal; that is, the derivation of the proposition must be independent of the particular subject matter in question. Fragments of early proofs are preserved in the works of Plato and Aristotle.

Where do these laws of logic come from? If we want to get a causal explanation of the origin of logical laws (apart from posting them as fundamental to the universe), the proper way to understand their origin IS as derivative on rationality as developed by non-rational evolutionary means.

Thus, in a way we could say laws of logic didn’t come from anywhere; these just are the rules of rationality as they can be articulated by explicitly rational beings. When rational beings came into existence by purely non-rational evolutionary processes, they came into being as following these rules. And then, at some later point in time, they became aware of themselves following these rules, and able to represent them explicitly.

When we see there as being implicitly logically-governed behavior in nature, we interpret nature in accordance with the way we understand ourselves as explicitly logical. We think of the behavior of entities of nature as if they represented their rational behavior like we do, it is our way of explicitly representing the norms of rationality. These non-rational entities of nature don’t have the slightest clue what the laws of logic are. But they behave as we do, and that’s how “we” see them. We can only make explanatory sense of how “we” have become explicitly aware of logical laws by showing how we are the result of beings that evolved an implicit awareness of these laws. And yet, we can only understand our natural ancestors as having an implicit grasp of logic once we’ve garnered an explicit grasp of logic. That’s the only way we can make sense of them as actually following the laws of logic.

The reason it is unproblematic for an explanation to conceptually (but not causally) presuppose that laws of logic is that we cannot hope to get out of these laws conceptually, since they just are, the bounds of sense. When sense-makers like us naturally evolve this just is the way in which we must make sense of things. It’s is the essential structure of sense-making, so to speak. And since the explanation is a sense-making enterprise, and any coherent explanation will conform to sense’s bounds—the things we’ve come to describe as the laws of logic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry https://absoluteirony.wordpress.com/2014/…/23/laws-of-logic/”

“Doubt is far superior. Go back to Heb 1:11. And have a good look at it and see the implications. It is utterly absurd.” – Challenger

My response, How do you not doubt “doubt itself” and thus are appealing to reason to decide this and not doubt, I mean not the presses of “doubt itself” as that is more a conclusion of the unworthy status for something or a realization of an uninformed/limited-informed if a thing in question is not so unsupported or unwarranted to debunk it at which pint doubt is then reassemble warranted to doubt is a process to conclude you should decide to doubt or see doubt as advised and this conclusion of a need to doubt is a secondary response to the use of reason/rationalism.

“You can’t doubt “doubt,” or what validity would the doubt you applied have?” – Challenger

“I reason and use critical thinking that is superior to just doubt and is not even listed in the description of critical thinking found at the critical thinking foundation:

My response, “A well cultivated critical thinker: raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.” http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

My response, Philosophical skepticism is distinguished from methodological skepticism in that philosophical skepticism is an approach that questions the possibility of certainty in knowledge, whereas methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects all knowledge claims to scrutiny with the goal of sorting out true from false claims.

“I’m a negativist. I prefer to assume we are probably wrong and look for other possibilities.” – Challenger

My response, Doubt or disbelief requires justification just like all other beliefs.

“I can easily justify doubt. The unreliable nature of all current methods of human enquiry (they’ve all made mistakes which have been later corrected, it is unlikely this just stopped happening). Add to that, when you are wrong, you normally don’t know you are wrong. Being doubtful of complete accuracy is prudent, and possibility highly pragmatic. For example, i dint debate evolution. Even if someone tries to bring it up, they normally aren’t arguing about biology, but something else, so there is no need to further muddy the waters with more evolution talk. I won’t commit to it. It is a neat model, pretty plausible, a decent amount of unanswered questions we are aware of (this is good, it is the questions we aren’t aware of that are the problem) but hey, nothing is perfect. I am an atheist independant of evolution. It took me a while to soften to after deconversion. I dont need to accept it or reject it as it has little affect on things i consider pragmatic. And where it might have influence, that influence will be there whether I am aware or not. This, so far as i would describe it is not believing evolution. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m just not passionate about the sibject and really don’t care that much. This turns out to be very handy as I dont get stuck trying to explain biology to a fellow layman who doesnt want it to be real. I get to talk about the god ideas instead, which is really the aim.” – Challenger

My response, Yes doubt can be justified by appealing to valid and reliable reason and/or observable/demonstrable evidence not doubt so that which is first is the best not the product of its use (doubt). So, which do you favor?” You are stating, “Doubt is far superior” is a truth claim and I would like to see you use doubt to justify that claim and you must stick with doubt to make the undoubted truth claim about doubt. To me stating doubt is super could only be reasoned by the elimination of doubt not the other way around so saying it as a universal is a contradiction. For once you believe it is superior you demonstrate it is not. Doubt, then, is the opposite of certainty see the problem, you must appeal to reason.

“Havent slept and it is 7am. I afriad I will have to come back when my mind is working.” – Challenger

My response, It’s cool, I enjoyed talking take care and have a good night.

“Damien, as a philosophical position, agnosticism is the only honest position……. but it fails when presented with physical evidence.. and so it is the middle way…” – Challenger

My response, What is a god to doubt? I don’t start my disbelief on the dilutions of god claims I assess are these claims warranted they are not so nothing to doubt so agnosticism starts with a presupposition of the term god to say they are unsure about thus to me making a thinking error as there is no presupposition god term to reality. I stand with ignosticism, roughly that the term god is given to much leeway as a valid offering of a possible real thing when no god claim if limited to only reality coherent attributes all add nonsense like supernatural things one of which at its simplest a being or at least a thinking thing with no physical mind but can think, an invisible thing and of courses an immaterial thing such as the no physical body in any way. And there we see the problem with accepting any god claim as even reality coherent as it is not. All claims must be coherent with or correspond to reality and just like many theological nonsense terms such as the soul. I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “soul” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, soul, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Similarly, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “god” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, god, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt.

Ignosticism or igtheism, basically as a philosophic position concludes the belief in or a possibility of a supernatural being, ultimate or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible.

Ignosticism or igtheism (desire a good, well defined and supported ontology), basically as a philosophic position (rationalism, if one is addressing a mental aspect or claim and empiricism, if one is addressing a real-world aspect or claim) concludes the belief in (Ignosticism in this lack of belief/disbelief is atheism) or a possibility of (Ignosticism in this lack of “a possibility of” is using an Ethics of Belief, justificationism, reliabilism and anti-agnosticism) a supernatural being, ultimate (gods) or otherwise as reality misinterpreted, reality confused, reality incoherent, and reality unintelligible.

I Am an Ignostic Atheist

Agnosticism No Thanks, I am Ignostic

Epistemically Rational with Beliefs?

Rationalist thinkers vs Skeptic thinkers

Incapable of making a decision on if there is or not a god?

Does atheism argue there is ‘something’ by accepting the term god, it is rejecting?

What is a god? Just a Empty Label.

I Am a Strong Atheist: “I am psychologically certain god(s) don’t exist”

Damien Marie AtHope’s Scale of Theistic and Nontheistic Assumptions

Bigfoot Hoaxes – The Museum of Hoaxes

As early as the 1830s European settlers reported seeing a large, hairy biped roaming the Pacific northwest. Even before that Native-American legends told of a “Sasquatch” (meaning a “hairy giant”) that lived in the region. However, no concrete evidence exists to suggest such an animal exists — “concrete” here meaning tangible physical proof such as a body, or body part. If a Bigfoot species did exist, it would seem likely that at some point one of them would die and leave a skeleton, or get run over by a car. But that apparently has never happened. What we have instead is a mountain of anecdotal evidence: eyewitness accounts, blurry photos, recordings of strange noises, and footprints. The problem with this anecdotal evidence is that much of it could have been faked. Even the most ardent Bigfoot believers admit that some of it was. Whatever wasn’t deliberately faked might be chalked up to wishful thinking.

Hoaxes (and suspected hoaxes) associated with Bigfoot

The Battle of Ape Canyon (1924)

A group of miners claimed that gorilla-like creatures (which they called “mountain devils”) attacked them in the woods near Mt. St. Helens. The miners retreated into a log cabin, but their attackers threw rocks down onto them throughout the night. The story was reported widely. However, a local game warden declared the story was “bunk.” A search party found no evidence of any gorillas or devils. The rocks may have been the work of teenagers at a nearby YMCA summer camp who had a tradition of throwing stones down the hill. Decades later, one of the miners, Fred Beck, wrote an account of the incident titled I Fought the Apemen of Mt. St. Helens. [wikipedia]

Abducted by Sasquatch (1957)

In 1957, with interest in Sasquatches growing on account of the Yeti crazi, a former logger, Albert Ostman, came forward with a strange story about how he had been abducted by a Sasquatch back in 1924. Ostman claimed that he had been on a prospecting holiday in Toba Inlet (British Columbia) when a Sasquatch carried him off and forced him to live with its family. Apparently the Sasquatch wanted to use Ostman for breeding purposes. After six days Ostman escaped. Ostman’s story stretches credibility, and the fact that he supposedly waited 33 years before telling it makes it even harder to believe. Even some prominent Bigfoot adherents dismiss his story as a tall tale.

The Birth of Bigfoot (1958)

While working on a rural road construction project near Bluff Creek, California, tractor-operator Jerry Crew found a series of massive footprints in the mud. Due to the size of the prints, the media began referring to the creature that created them as “Bigfoot.” The name stuck and soon became the most widely used term for North America’s legendary ape-man. However, it was suspected that Crew’s prank-loving boss, Ray Wallace, created the prints by strapping carved wooden feet to his boots and stomping around in the mud. Wallace’s family confirmed this after his death in 2002. More…

The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film (1967)

Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin emerged from California’s Six Rivers National Forest in Oct. 1967 with footage of what appeared to be a female Bigfoot. To this day, their short film remains the most famous evidence of Bigfoot’s existence. But skeptics immediately suspected a hoax. Scientists noted the creature’s anatomy was oddly mismatched (top half ape, bottom half human), as if it were a man in a suit. Other critics pointed out the remarkable coincidence that Patterson had been planning to make a film about Bigfoot, and then right away found a Bigfoot. There’s also evidence he had bought and modified a Bigfoot suit before shooting this footage. More…

The Minnesota Iceman (1968)

Showman Frank Hansen claimed to have a bigfoot-like creature frozen in a block of ice and was exhibiting it at carnivals throughout the Midwest. In 1968 the creature came to the attention of the cryptozoologists Ivan Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans, who became convinced the creature was real. Sanderson tried to get scientists interested in the “iceman,” and for a brief time the Smithsonian Institution expressed interest in acquiring it. But as pressure mounted on Hansen to let scientists examine the creature, he claimed that the original creature was gone and what was now in the ice was just a replica. It has since become clear the creature was a fake all along.

Bride of Bigfoot (1976)

When 23-year-old Cherie Darvell went missing while searching for Bigfoot in the forests of Humboldt County, police launched a massive search for her, at a cost of $11,613. A few days later, Darvell showed up screaming outside a Bluff Creek resort, claiming she had been abducted by a Bigfoot. She said the creature had scooped her up and carried her off, but that it had abandoned her unharmed during the night, after which she had wandered through the woods for several days. Sheriff Gene Cox dismissed her claim as a hoax, noting that she didn’t appear to have spent any time in the wilderness. Her clothes were clean and she smelled of perfume. More…

Bigfoot Crosses Highway (1977)

On the morning of May 15, 1977, a busload of people watched a Bigfoot cross Highway 7 east of Vancouver. But a few days later a trio of young men confessed that the Bigfoot was their work. It had taken them weeks to prepare, since they had fashioned resin-cast Sasquatch feet to make convincing footprints. They also planted a phony witness on the bus to see the Bigfoot first and get the other passengers excited. Strangely, the people on the bus described seeing a 7-foot Bigfoot with a strong smell. But 24-year-old Ken Ticehurst, who wore the gorilla suit, was only 5-foot-11 and weighed 165 pounds.

Bigfoot captured in Pennsylvania (1985)

Residents of Enola, Pa. reported seeing a “hairy creature” in the woods of nearby East Pennsboro Township. One man described the creature as being hairy, 6 ½-feet tall and with arms that extended below the knees. The report created an air of panic in the town. Residents locked their windows and many took up weapons. But the panic settled after police identified 24-year-old Craig A. Brashear as the creature. He had bought an ape-suit and mask with fangs then stood in an area where his furry body would be illuminated by headlights. He did so, the police chief said, in order to “stir up more activity, to make it seem like there was a creature out there.”

Bigfoot in a Freezer (2008)

Rick Dyer and Matthew Whitton claimed they had stumbled upon the dead body of a Bigfoot while hiking in the Georgia woods. The creature was large, measuring 7 feet 7 inches tall and weighing over 500 pounds. Nevertheless, they managed to haul it out of the woods and store it in a freezer. Their claim was met with widespread skepticism, even from Bigfoot believers, but during a press conference in Palo Alto they indignantly stood by their story. However, when the body in the freezer was finally examined, it turned out to be a halloween costume with roadkill remains dumped on top of it. [Bigfoot Encounters]

Bigfoot Run Over (Aug 2012)

On the night of Sunday, August 26, 2012, 44-year-old Randy Lee Tenley stepped out onto U.S. Highway 93, just south of Kalispell, Montana, wearing a “Ghillie” suit (the kind used by snipers for camouflage). He was promptly hit by a car in the southbound lane, and then was hit again by a second car. Tenley died from his injuries. His friends told the Highway Patrol that he was wearing the suit in order to “incite a sighting of Bigfoot, to make people think they had seen a Sasquatch.” It’s not known if this was Tenley’s first attempt at a Bigfoot hoax. However, dispatchers said they had received no recent reports of Bigfoot sightings. [nbcmontana.com]

Melba Ketchum’s Sasquatch DNA Project(Nov 2012)

Melba Ketchum, owner of a Texas veterinary laboratory, announced on Nov 24, 2012 that, after a 5-year study of purported Sasquatch tissue samples, she had determined that Sasquatch was a human hybrid species that arose approximately 15,000 years ago. But when the article with her data appeared 3 months later, it was underwhelming. Her article appeared in the Denovo Journal of Science which, it turned out, was owned by Ketchum. In fact, her article was the one and only paper ever published by the journal. Skeptics noted that it appeared Ketchum had simply analyzed contaminated samples of human DNA. [Skeptical Briefs]

Hank (2014)

Rick Dyer (the same Rick Dyer responsible for the 2008 Bigfoot in a Freezer Hoax) announced he had killed an 8-foot Bigfoot in Texas. He called it Hank. After declaring that a university had DNA-tested the creature and found it to be an unknown species, Dyer took the body of the creature on tour in early 2014, charging people to see it. But after a few months his tour encountered problems, and he posted a rambling confession on Facebook, revealing that Hank’s body was a prop made of latex, foam, and camel hair.

Why Bigfoot Is Fake: Bigfoot Debunked! By cryptid

This article is intended to debunk the Bigfoot myth and show proof that Bigfoot is fake. There is a lot of debate over whether this creature is real or not, and here you’ll read about compelling evidence that shows we’ve all been duped. Of course, those who consider themselves to have a highly rational mind don’t need to be told any of this. Without solid proof and evidence that shows the existence of Sasquatch no scientifically minded person would admit to a belief in the Big Guy. But deep inside I think we all like to believe there are still mysteries in this world, hidden from our view and awaiting discovery. Perhaps this is where myths like this take root, not in logic but in hope. The North American Great Ape? The most common theory about Bigfoot is that he is some kind of undiscovered species of primate, ape-like but more intelligent and more evolved than any we currently know of. Some researchers refer to it as the North American Great Ape, though the species is, of course, theoretical. But there is a problem with this idea. There are no other apes in the Americas, and no evidence that apes ever existed in the Americas. There are monkeys in South America, but they are very different from old-world monkeys, and have about 40-million years of evolution separating them. There is no evidence that indigenous apes or monkeys ever existed in North America. However, there is a concept called Bigfoot-Giganto Theory that explains how the creature evolved from an ancient ancestor in Asia and migrated to America. But even if this is true, where is the evidence? No fossils or bones have ever been found. Logic and the lack of available evidence suggest this is not a North American Ape. It’s equally illogical to assume it is some kind of human species. Neanderthal was the last human species on Earth, besides us of course, and the description does not match what we know about Neanderthal. The main issue with linking Bigfoot to any human species is one of intelligence. Even a very primitive human species would be using tools and weapons, building fires, constructing shelters, and leaving other evidence behind for us to find. In short, if something like Neanderthal was still out there, or any other species of primitive human, we would know it.

Gorillas are the largest apes, and native to equatorial Africa.

There is no evidence that there has ever been apes in the Americas.

Sasquatch and Native Americans

Anthropologists will tell you there is anecdotal evidence of Bigfoot among the tribes of North America. Many Native American cultures have a long oral tradition that includes tales of large, hairy, human-like creatures lurking in the forest. To some researchers, this is proof enough that the creature has been here at least as long as humans. But anthropologists (at least the ones interested in keeping their teaching tenures and grant money) will tell you something else: Many Native American stories are a mix of the real, the spiritual, and good, old-fashioned yarn spinning. Remember, these are cultures that kept their history by oral storytelling, not by writing it down in books. In some cases, this oral tradition may have spanned thousands of years, and included stories of animals that didn’t exist anymore, or existed in some part of the world where their ancestors had migrated from. These were also people who needed to make sense of a confusing and sometimes terrifying natural world. Religious beliefs and spiritual explanations for things they couldn’t understand played a big part. Some other Native American myths include lake monsters, shape-shifters, fairy-like creatures, and horned serpents. Is it all real? Or is it more logical to say Bigfoot is one facet of a very rich and complicated spiritual belief system and oral tradition?

The First Bigfoot Hoax?

Of course, Native Americans didn’t call it Bigfoot. That name didn’t come around until 1958 when logging company employees discovered massive footprints at a worksite near Bluff Creek, California. Obviously, some huge, bipedal creature had been tromping around during the night! The newspaper got hold of the story, invented the name, and the rest is history. But some people don’t realize that the first-ever Bigfoot story may also have been the first-ever hoax. The logging company site where the tracks appeared was owned by a man named Ray Wallace. Following the discovery of the tracks, Wallace went on to become an amateur researcher and somewhat of an oddball celebrity in the cryptozoology community. However, following his death in 2002, his own family revealed that he had hoaxed the prints using a pair of big, wooden feet. Not only that, but Wallace left other fake evidence for Bigfoot researchers to stumble over. It seems Ray Wallace was quite a prankster, and his joke reverberates to this day. Many serious researchers will tell you they didn’t take Wallace seriously anyway, and his shenanigans did nothing to impact the real work done on the Sasquatch phenomenon. Still, the Wallace story doesn’t help Bigfoot’s credibility in the eyes of the general public.

Prints and Casts

One of the problems with the Wallace tale is the way the public tends to generalize. When they hear some guy was out there faking evidence all of these years, they assume he is responsible for all of the interesting evidence collected over the years. That’s it: Bigfoot debunked. Logically, that just isn’t possible. Bigfoot footprints have been found all around the continent, many long after the years Wallace was active. Often they are in places where it doesn’t make sense for a prankster to venture, or expect anyone to find their work if they did. So, if all prints can’t be attributed to hoaxers, what explains them? Bear and other wild animal tracks. Surely even those who haven’t seen a bear track can tell the difference between bear and human-like footprints. But when a bear steps in its own footprint just right it creates what appears to be an elongated human foot. Add in degradation brought on by the elements and it’s easy to see how animals like bears could be making tracks that look like huge, human footprints. Bigfoot researchers say they know the difference, but how would they know if they were wrong?

Bear prints can look remarkably human, especially once eroded and/or seen individually.

Photos

Bigfoot pictures suffer from the same issues as video. Why can’t the guy stand still for a proper photo at least? There are plenty of supposed images floating around the web, notably the Jacobs Photos from Pennsylvania (which skeptics say is a black bear), the Silver Star Mountain pics (which skeptics say is another hiker) and a picture of what looks like a mangy Bigfoot shot by a Vermont trail-cam. What do they call have in common? You guessed it: None show a clear image of the subject in question, but instead, show it in shadow or contorted positions. However, there is one somewhat clear image of an alleged Bigfoot, shot by an unknown photographer circa the year 2000 in the Myakka River region of Florida. Sure it’s hiding behind a bush, but it looks like something that could be Bigfoot. Skeptics cite an escaped orangutan and an outright hoax as possible explanations. The Myakka Skunk Ape photo is definitely interesting, but I don’t think it counts as proof that the creature exists. Again, such things are just too easily faked. Bigfoot Video Evidence: Video evidence is among the most disputed evidence out there. On the surface, one would think clear video evidence showing Bigfoot in the wild would be bulletproof, and the critics would have to admit it is real once and for all. Of course, that never happens. The video is always grainy, out of focus, or shot in such an obscure way that the subject is hard to recognize. Was that Bigfoot running across the field, or a guy in an ape suit? Unless we can clearly tell what we’re looking at, video evidence amounts to pretty much zero. In some cases, video is hoaxed, such as with the famous Snow Walker Video. Now, in the age of YouTube, it’s all too easy for anyone to fake sensational sighting and post it for the world to see. The Patterson-Gimlin film, shot all the way back in 1967 using 16mm film, remains the most compelling piece of video evidence to date. But even this historic clip has its doubters. Several people have come forward over the years claiming the film is a hoax, including (allegedly) the guy in the ape suit and the company that made the costume. It’s also worth noting that the video was shot along Bluff Creek, the same Bluff Creek associated with Bigfoot hoaxer Ray Wallace. To date, nobody has been able to prove or refute the Patterson-Gimlin Film, and it remains a curious part of Sasquatch lore.

Firsthand Sightings

Bigfoot is spotted around the world. From Florida, to Alaska, and on over to Asia, people see large, hairy, bipedal creatures that they can’t explain. Australia has the Yowie, a Bigfoot-type beasty with roots dating all the way back to when the first humans arrived on the continent. Even South America has a Bigfoot kind of thing. The Mapinguari is more often thought of as an extant giant ground sloth, but some claim it resembles a large, bipedal ape. If Bigfoot is fake then it stands to reason that whatever all of these people think they are seeing, they must be wrong. Maybe they are victims of hoaxes, or perhaps they mistake known animals for something else. Maybe they are hallucinating, or so scared for some other reason that their mind is playing tricks on them. Perhaps they are lying. To me, this is the toughest part of the phenomenon to debunk. Certainly, some sightings are hoaxes or lies, some are mistaken identity and some are tricks of the mind. But to say all of them can be written off as such seems almost as unlikely as the existence of Bigfoot. So which makes more sense: Bigfoot really existing, or the thousands of people who claim to have seen him have gone screwy? Are they all wrong, confused, or deceitful?

Experiments Cast Doubt on Bigfoot ‘Evidence’

By Michael Dennett

Skeptical Briefs Volume 16.3, September 2006

Figure 1. Researcher Matt Crowley compares an alleged Bigfoot cast to a test cast he made.

Photos by Matt Crowley

One star of the Bigfoot community over the past decade has been latent-fingerprint examiner Jimmy Chilcutt.¹ A number of Sasquatch casts have been identified with what appears to be a series of dermal ridges and valleys, what on the fingers we call fingerprints. In numerous television appearances, Chilcutt has presented himself as an expert on both human and primate fingerprints. On a November 24, 1999, Salt Lake City television show, he pointed to what he calls the “pattern flow” of the dermal ridges on a Bigfoot cast, explaining they were not human nor primate but from “a species in itself.” Furthermore, he says, “whichever you call it-Bigfoot or Sasquatch-from [this dermal-ridge] evidence, I can tell [there is an unknown] animal in the Pacific Northwest.” In the documentary video Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, Chilcutt is prominently featured and is even more forceful. “I’ve come to the following solid conclusions,” he says. “Number one: there is a great ape living in North America, and number two: the friction ridges of this great ape are not human or of a known species. This conclusion may come as a shock to some people, but I stake my reputation on it.”² To my knowledge, other than a posting on the Internet,³ Chilcutt has published no papers on his findings,⁴ nor has anyone outside the Bigfoot community examined his claims or theories. Reporting by other Bigfoot enthusiasts, including Christopher Murphy, provides only cursory coverage of Chilcutt’s work. From what I have been able to ascertain, Chilcutt has identified three Bigfoot casts as exhibiting dermal ridges with the particular non-human and non-primate characteristics he alone has identified. The three specimens are known as Wrinkle Foot, Onion Mountain, and the Elkins cast. Two of these three tracks are problematic: the imprint from which the Elkins cast was made came from Georgia, an unlikely spot to find Bigfoot,⁵ and the Wrinkle Foot cast is one of many tracks “discovered” by the late D. Paul Freeman. To appreciate Freeman’s involvement with the Wrinkle Foot print, some background information is required. Freeman came to prominence within the Bigfoot community in 1982, when he allegedly saw a Sasquatch in the Mill Creek Watershed not far from Walla Walla, Washington. Casts were made of footprints near his sighting, and when examined, they revealed tiny dermal ridges and valleys in some parts of the imprint. Later revelations about Freeman and the tracks provided overwhelming evidence that the impressions were hoaxed. Longtime Bigfoot hunter Rene Dahinden called Freeman’s Mill Creek tracks “100 percent fakes, absolutely fakes.” Freeman later produced more than one set of Sasquatch hairs that turned out to be artificial fibers.⁶ Both Freeman’s Wrinkle Foot and the Georgia imprint came after the Mill Creek tracks, when dermal ridges became a major issue. Even Chilcutt recognized the possibility of faking dermal ridges (at least those looking like those of a human fingerprint), for in his television interview, he dismisses as worthless a track (looking suspiciously like one of the Mill Creek tracks), saying the “casting had been enhanced manually with a human fingerprint.” Because of the dubious authenticity of the two other tracks, the third footprint, know as the Onion Mountain cast, is of primary importance. Found by veteran Bigfoot researcher John Green in August 1967, it predates the first understanding of the dermal ridge topic by decades and presumably represents an historic example of the phenomena.

Figure 2. A test cast shows how casting artifacts can mimic dermal ridges. Photo by Matt Crowley

Recently, a Seattle man, Matt Crowley, obtained a copy of the Onion Mountain cast.⁷Crowley, a former pharmacist who now makes a living as an artist, conceived a series of experiments to try and duplicate the circumstances of the Onion Mountain cast. Working with painstaking detail, he tried to recreate the same hot, dry conditions of the original site. The result has been a series of test casts, which (as a product of the casting process) display virtually identical dermal-ridge-type surface characteristics (see figure 2). Crowley presented his findings at three Bigfoot conferences in 2005. The response from the Bigfoot community, so far, has been surprisingly positive. The Onion Mountain cast displays three distinct patterns. The most obvious of the three is a series of what do look like dermal ridges running along the outside of the track. These are the ridges Chilcutt is referring to when he identifies for the television camera his “flow pattern.” Crowley’s experiments clearly show that Chilcutt’s “pattern” is an artifact of the casting process, appearing in all of the tests. The other two details of the Onion Mountain print are an apparent skin crease across the center of the print (Crowley calls it a curved furrow) and more lines similar to human dermal ridges, but not characteristic of the “flow pattern.” Amazingly we can see these other dermal patterns, including an almost identical curved furrow in Crowley’s experimental casts-again, all artifacts of the process. So compelling are the Crowley experiments that Daniel Perez, who chronicles the search for Sasquatch in his Bigfoot Times newsletter, named Crowley his “Bigfooter of the Year.” Even Jeff Meldrum, the chief academic spokesmen for Sasquatch, has grudgingly conceded this piece of evidence for Bigfoot is lost. According to the December 2005 Bigfoot Times, Meldrum is quoted as saying, “However, I caution others not to extend the results of [Crowley’s] experiments beyond the conditions he has investigated, which apply to the Onion Mountain track site.” This is unnecessary, as Crowley has always maintained the Onion Mountain cast was a specific case and the results were the product of this particular set of conditions. But Meldrum is wrong. The Crowley experiments have a larger message: that seemingly impressive “evidence” for the Sasquatch monster can turn out to be no more than one man fooling himself. This is a lesson that is not confined to this specific track. Obviously, Bigfoot enthusiasts need to examine claims carefully. When I spoke with Chilcutt by phone, he mirrored this sentiment, saying, “Matt has shown artifacts can be created, at least under laboratory conditions, and field researchers need to take precautions.” Although Chilcutt admits Crowley’s work duplicated the friction ridges on the Onion Mountain cast, he maintains that the impression is of the foot of a real animal. He explains, “the Walla Walla [Wrinkle Foot] and Elkins casts display similar dermals to Onion Mountain.” Even the flow pattern appears in the Elkins impression, “although it is hard to see.” Besides, Chilcutt informed me, “John Green told me he saw the dermal ridges in the actual [Onion Mountain] track.” “Not true,” replies Crowley. “I contacted John Green and specifically asked about dermals in the original footprint. I e-mailed him the question and he confirmed by return e-mail he did not see friction ridges in the Onion Mountain track before a cast was made.”⁸ Crowley, who describes himself as a Bigfoot agnostic, has shown how one can present negative findings to a Sasquatch conclave without alienating the audience. He has maintained a nonaggressive, focused approach, and many within the Bigfoot community have responded warmly. (Skeptics should learn from his example.) For this observer of the people who search for Sasquatch, the general acceptance of Crowley’s experiments is a positive sign. I’m hopeful others will follow his lead in close examination of Sasquatch “evidence.” Perhaps Bigfooters will even begin to conduct experiments on tracks and other tangible items they believe to be from the Sasquatch monster. That is, if Crowley doesn’t get to them first.

Notes

Jimmy Chilcutt was for many years an officer and fingerprint examiner for the Conroe Police Department in Conroe, Texas. He is now retired.
Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. Directed by Doug Haijcek. 2002. Coon Rapids, Minnesota: Whitewolf Entertainment, Inc.
Chilcutt’s Internet item concerns his evaluation of what he sees as dermal ridges in what is known as the Elkins cast; see http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/elkins.html.
To be fair, there are limited opportunities for a scientific paper on Sasquatch dermal ridges.
The Elkins cast is identified in the Chilcutt Internet posting as being from Pike County, Georgia, circa 1997. Many Sasquatch sightings are from east of the Rocky Mountains. One researcher has compiled reports of 486 sightings of the Bigfoot in Maryland. The late Grover Krantz believed that a footprint from Indiana, later proved to be fake, provided strong evidence of Bigfoot in the central United States. Vermont, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas, to mention only some, are areas of frequent reports of Bigfoot.
For more about the Mill Creek tracks, see my article in the Skeptical Inquirer, Spring 1989, pp. 264-272.
Richard Noll, a longtime Bigfoot enthusiast, loaned Crowley his copy of the Onion Mountain print and allowed Crowley to make a copy of it.
Crowley supplied me with a copy of the e-mail exchange made in November 2005.

Michael Dennett

Michael Dennett, who headed the Seattle area skeptics group Society for Sensible Explanations for over two decades, died May 2, 2009; he was fifty-nine years old. He had been diagnosed with leukemia and hospitalized for several months. Mike was an investigative writer perhaps best known to Skeptical Inquirer readers for his research into Bigfoot, on which his first feature-length article was published in 1981. He was one of the first skeptical investigators to challenge Bigfoot claims, doing research into claims of dermal ridges (“Bigfoot fingerprints”) and hoaxed tracks. He was a meticulous researcher, a careful investigator, and a true skeptic who called out fakery and pseudoscience when he saw it but was careful not to belittle or criticize people for their beliefs. Dennett’s research went far beyond Bigfoot, and he wrote about topics as varied as fire-walking, the Bermuda Triangle, UFOs, the Salem witch trials, and psychics. He also contributed to Psychic Sleuths, The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal, The Outer Edge, and other books. Born June 20, 1949, Mike was a 1971 graduate of Norwich University and a former Army Captain, paratrooper, and Ranger. Though his day job was selling municipal water systems, his academic loves were history, skepticism, and writing alternative-history science fiction. He is survived by his wife, Lois. His final article, “Science and Footprints” (about contradictions in accounts of the 1967 Patterson/Gimlin film, the “best evidence” for Bigfoot), was published in the November/December 2008 Skeptical Inquirer. Experiments Cast Doubt on Bigfoot ‘Evidence’ – CSI

FALSE: ‘Breaking History: Bigfoot Captured’ – Snopes.com

By Dan Evon

No, a Bigfoot creature was not captured in the course of a History Channel program. The show was yet another fake “documentary” created for entertainment purposes.

CLAIM: The History Channel aired a documentary that showed a Bigfoot creature being captured.

EXAMPLE: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015]

Bigfoot Captured aired tonight on the history channel supposedly showing a Bigfoot in a cage that was caught by a team of people in the woods. Is this real?

ORIGINS: On 10 November 2015, the History Channel aired a special entitled Breaking History: Bigfoot Captured, a program that purportedly documented a successful hunt and capture of the legendary creature:

Bigfoot is America’s most legendary creature, and has always inspired more questions than answers. Could something resembling a massive man-ape really be roaming forests and hiding in the shadows undetected? Whether you believe in Bigfoot or not, there’s something provocative about the idea that we could be living with an unseen monster. But what if one day we did more than catch a glimpse of one? What if we captured the creature? This two-hour special, compiled by a director who traveled the world looking for proof Bigfoot actually exists, takes an unexpected turn when a Sasquatch capture is caught on camera. What happens when what most of us think is fiction becomes fact? And what does it mean for us all if the creature really is out there.

While the program started with a brief disclaimer stating that Breaking History: Bigfoot Capturedfeatured “some dramatization” and ended with credits listing various actors who pretended to be Bigfoot hunters, the episode was presented in documentary form and therefore fooled a number of viewers into believing that a Bigfoot creature had actually been captured during the process of filming.

This is not the case. The actors on “Bigfoot Captured” didn’t actually catch a Sasquatch or uncover a Bigfoot skeleton. According to the Idaho State Journal, the History Channel contracted Idaho State University’s Robotics and Communication Systems Engineering Technology program to create a skeleton of the mythical beast to be used in the show:

Because no actual Bigfoot skeletons have been unearthed, [ISU anthropology and anatomy professor Jeff] Meldrum had to reconstruct it based on what Bigfoot researchers believe the creature is related to.

Meldrum borrowed from the physical looks of extinct animals such as the Gigantopithecus blacki — an ancient ape that was twice the size of apes today — and the Neanderthal — a species of human that is said to have became extinct 40,000 years ago.

Meldrum took the Neanderthal skeleton, and technicians from the Idaho Virtualization Laboratory on ISU’s campus — under Meldrum’s guidance — digitally manipulated the skeleton to reflect the Bigfoot captured in the famous Patterson-Gimlin film.

“They made the shoulders much broader, the torso thicker, the arms longer, the legs the right proportion,” Meldrum said. “Then we took the Neanderthal skull away because it’s more human-like.”

In other words, Breaking History: Bigfoot Captured was not a documentary, but rather a fictional work created in fake documentary style for entertainment purposes, just like the fake Animal Planet “documentary” on mermaids and the fake Discovery Channel “documentary” about megalodon.

Seeing Bigfoot as real, is a foot in the mouth.

Bigfoots, Unicorns, and Gods?

Bigfoot Hoaxes – The Museum of Hoaxes

The Battle of Ape Canyon (1924)

Abducted by Sasquatch (1957)

The Birth of Bigfoot (1958)

The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film (1967)

The Minnesota Iceman (1968)

Bride of Bigfoot (1976)

Bigfoot Crosses Highway (1977)

Bigfoot captured in Pennsylvania (1985)

Bigfoot in a Freezer (2008)

Bigfoot Run Over (Aug 2012)

Melba Ketchum’s Sasquatch DNA Project(Nov 2012)

Why Bigfoot Is Fake: Bigfoot Debunked! By cryptid

Sasquatch and Native Americans

The First Bigfoot Hoax?

Prints and Casts

Photos

Firsthand Sightings

Experiments Cast Doubt on Bigfoot ‘Evidence’

Notes

Michael Dennett

FALSE: ‘Breaking History: Bigfoot Captured’ – Snopes.com

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Pages

Meta

Advertisement

Pin It on Pinterest