Kid asked distinguished professor of anthropology: Is Bigfoot Real?
 |
| Question: Is Bigfoot real? |
Binghamton University partnered with the Press & Sun Bulletin to provide “Ask a Scientist,” a section that appears Sundays on their website, where area school children could ask BU experts scientific questions. This week's question was answered by Michael A. Little, a distinguished professor of anthropology. Read below.
Question: Is Bigfoot real?
Answer: It is exciting to think about the discovery of a new or unusual creature, especially one that may be related to humans in its general form. “Bigfoot” or “Sasquatch” is the name for a human-like or ape-like animal that some believe walks upright and appears to inhabit wooded areas in many parts of the United States and Canada. People in Asia have claimed to observe similar creatures that are called the “Yeti” or “Abominable Snowman.”
Michael A. Little
This whole class of animals is called “cryptids,” or animals that are regarded by scientists as highly unlikely to exist. (The Loch Ness Monster is identified by many as a cryptid.) Support for the existence of Bigfoot is indirect and very limited. There is a very blurry film from California (Patterson-Gimlin film); footprints, some of which have been identified as hoaxes; and other indirect evidence, including numerous claimed sightings. But this evidence is sufficient for many individuals to encourage them to keep looking for this unusual creature. There is even an organization called The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization that identifies itself as “The only scientific research organization exploring the bigfoot/sasquatch mystery.” They have a whole series of field expeditions planned for 2012 to search for Bigfoot.
I am what is called a skeptic about Bigfoot and other cryptid species. There are several reasons for my lack of belief in these creatures: First, all of the evidence is indirect — no one has captured or killed the creature and all specimens of hair or hide have been shown to be from animals that we know. Second, if this creature were a close relative to the apes or humans, then it has persisted in the U.S. and Canada for hundreds of years without being closely observed or captured. Third, we have no prehistoric or fossil evidence that human-like or genuine apes have existed in North America for millions of years. Fourth, some people are prone to imagine having seen animals that look like monsters or humans, and other people are likely to carry out hoaxes to fool others who may be quite gullible.
Finally, any real animal must live among a population of like creatures, with males and females and young, and these animals must be able to reproduce themselves. If the population is very small, as Bigfoot might appear, then the likelihood of it living undisturbed for hundreds or thousands of years is very small or zero. It is certainly fun to imagine what it would be like to find such a creature as Bigfoot, but I am afraid that we never will.
[via www.theithacajournal.com]
he didn't even need to think about the answer, same old same old...and those w/o any real investigation say that over and over..like a mantra...
ReplyDeleteand so inaccurate!
It won't happen over night will it? But the BF community could do so much better given what organizational attempts are in the past, etc...
Maybe though, it's just the way it's meant to be.
"I am what is called a skeptic about Bigfoot and other cryptid species. There are several reasons for my lack of belief in these creatures: First, all of the evidence is indirect — no one has captured or killed the creature..." This is why bigfoot enthusiasts need to STOP EVERY OTHER FORM OF EVIDENCE COLLECTING and concentrate solely on how to capture or kill a sasquatch. I would love to see the smarty pants scientific community skeptics have to eat their words about the existence of bigfoot when one is captured or killed.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if this professor knows that we have NO fossil evidence of Chimps, Gorillas, or Orangs? Maybe he should look into this fact.......
ReplyDeleteI think chimp fossils were retrieved in 2005.
ReplyDelete@anon your comment proves my point.It doesn't appear you have investigated deeply the known and fairly reliable evidence. It's pretty deep.
start here: www.bigfootencounters.com non-commercial, longtime, reliable site and a newsletter signup...not to take away from Shawn's site at all, I am enjoying the continually updated posts! the other a bit different format/target audience.
I don't mean to fan the flames, but you are wrong about Gorilla fossils. I am not sure about the other apes you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteI wish people would lighten up a bit about the skeptic position. I don't believe that it is is the goal of skeptics to be contrarian. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion. Sasquatch evidence SHOULD be held to a high level of scrutiny. To be truly open minded we must acquaint ourselves with all arguments available.
One component of critical thinking is being careful not to invest in an idea simply because you like it. For better or for worse, science is about testing in order to arrive at the truth. Bitterness and self righteousness do not help the process. We cannot trumpet our belief when science validates us, then cry foul when it does not support our cherished beliefs. Just sayin'
I take it back...gorilla and chimpanzee teeth have been found.
ReplyDeleteI do believe skeptics play a pivotal role in bigfoot evidence discussions. One can look to the right and probably discount 75% of the videos over there...
ReplyDeleteBut in my opinion I actually value first hand, detailed eyewitness reports from people who are acknowledged skeptics or choose to remain anonymous ABOVE video/photo evidence. After you read enough of these reports commonalities start to jump out at you. Often times the witness is someone who spends/lives significant amounts of their time in the wild. The witness has nothing to gain and in fact faces much to lose in terms of ridicule. The witness is often a nonbeliever but can not explain what was seen as anything but a sasquatch. Remarkable consistencies in behavior that suggest a behavioral repertoire of a species are reported.
After reading multiple encounters (again, we are not even talking video/photo here) one is faced with the dilemma of explaining away all of these detailed eyewitness accounts by people who have nothing to gain by participating in the bigfoot circus...
While there no doubt is a burden of proof needed to prove the existence of a creature like bigfoot I maintain there is also a burden of proof on the part of the skeptic to explain what people are reporting witnessing in the wilder regions of north america.
Elaborate hoaxers??? Mass pyschosis??? Father issues???
When an explanation of the phenomena becomes more elaborate than the original idea for the phenomena I take the most parsimonious route...
And ask yourself this, why would you value the opinion of an academic type (i.e. fancy degree, lives in major city) over someone who lives, works, hunts/fishes in wild habitat and claims to have witnessed bigfoot (but might be lacking in higher education).
There is a custom among fishers/hunters to ask the locals about the native animals. But in the case of sasquatch the locals often fall under the category of "redneck" or "hillbilly" and their testimonial (althogh they have lived, worked, hunted these locales) is generally not valued as much as the "learned, opinion" of an armchair scientist.
The issue of eyewitness veracity in bigfoot eyewitness accounts really speaks to a larger cultural bias/prejudice in our society against country/rural populations.
A true scientist will ere on the side of caution about any undiscovered species, regardless of the evidence. That is until one is actually collected.
ReplyDeleteI know the sasquatch exists. I saw/heard one several times. Until these experiences, I did not believe the idea of bigfoot was possible either.
" I maintain there is also a burden of proof on the part of the skeptic to explain what people are reporting witnessing in the wilder regions of north america "
ReplyDeleteThis is circular logic at its worst.
The burden of proof lies with the person reporting the incident. Period.
If someone reported a murder but there was no evidence to support it, no body, no blood, no weapon, no suspect, would you just convict the first random person you saw because they were in the area described?
There is no doubt people are seeing something they don't understand. But it's not up to science to explain or prove it...
That's not saying BF doesn't exist. It's saying there is no physical evidence to support its existence.
The rest of your straw-man argument about "armchair scientists" vs the homespun knowledge of country folk is little more than silly semantics best described like this:
When delusion becomes reality, facts become insults.
The reality and facts are: No fossil evidence, no bones, no teeth, no hair, not one clear picture or video.
Any ONE of those things would blow the BF phenomenon wide open. I hope and pray every time I come here for someone to have found something... But instead, its always the same vague sitings, strange sounds in the night, a random footprint, a hazy video and insults to anyone who questions the 'evidence'
Wish as one may, the existence of BF will not be proven by first person accounts. It will come from hard evidence.
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYou said, "I would love to see the smarty pants scientific community skeptics have to eat their words about the existence of bigfoot when one is captured or killed."
This is rather antagonistic. I consider myself a skeptic. A really good skeptic loves to be proven wrong. Of course, this is not always the case because skeptics are people and people are often arrogant. I admit to the trait in myself. I admit I need to work on being less of a pain in the ass. :)
I've heard Richard Dawkins tell this story many times and it still inspires me:
"I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--'My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.' We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that. In practice, not all scientists would. But all scientists pay lip service to it as an ideal--unlike, say, politicians who would probably condemn it as flip-flopping. The memory of the incident I have described still brings a lump to my throat." -Richard Dawkins
Prove me wrong, please. :)
@Atheist- Awesome story. If we could all put our egos aside... if just for an appropriate moment. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteLittle does my colleague know (pun intended).
ReplyDeleteI too am an anthropologist. Perhaps, not as distinguished as Dr. Little, but I do have a BA and a Masters degree in the field and have recently retired after a long and distinguished career as a professional archaeologist.
As an undergraduate student in the early 1970's I studied human evolution and the fossil record. When in my studies, I came across the evidence of Gigathopithecus in the anthropological literature, it was easy for me to make the link between the fossil evidence and the yeti. I'll never forget the epiphany that I had thinking that there was scientific proof that fossil evidence existed for a ancestor of the yeti.
That said, I've never voiced these thoughts before to anyone, much less to anyone in the field of anthropology fearing browbeating and ridicule. As someone who wanted to be taken seriously as an up and coming anthropologist and later as professional archaeologist with 30+ years of experience in the field, the answer that Dr. Little gave was very much along the lines of what I would have said in the same circumstance.
Now that I'm retired, I can say what I really think (although I am doing this anonymously via comment on a blog).
The young lady asked a good question. It's a question that I too asked myself back in the 1960's when I was her age. It was about that time when Argosy Magazine published photos of the Bigfoot in the Patterson-Gimlin film. I admit that it certainly sparked my interest and I've been interested in the question ever since.
I am thrilled to see the big up-tick in both professional and amateur field research attempting to answer the question once and for all.
Granted there seems to be more hoaxes associated with the search that have only reinforced the skeptics point-of-view and also on the light side of things there seems to be more humor about these creatures on both sides of the fence. I like the humor, but not the hoaxes.
For what it's worth, here's my opinion. Given the increased interest combined with all of the new technology from thermal imaging cameras to DNA analyses not to mention the popularity of of TV shows like Finding Bigfoot and websites like bigfootevidence.com, it is just a matter of time before indisputable proof will finally come along that finally moves it out of the realm of fantasy to reality. Until such time, it is safer for scientists for the sake of the careers to be skeptics.
Once that happens, I hope that the search turns from "Are there Bigfoots?" to the search for knowledge of who they are and how they live. I myself would like to learn more about our relatives on our family tree and look forward to a time when I can read anthropological studies on the subject matter.
The Chinese have an old saying that says the smartest animal is the one that is still undiscovered by Man. If that's true, maybe we can learn a thing or two from our distant relatives with big feet.
Good to see an anthropologist being so direct. Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeti are figments of the human imagination.
ReplyDeleteThe sole "evidence" is poor quality film/photos/video, obvious hoaxes et cetera. Real animals leave traces of their interaction with the environment, imaginary ones don't.
Couch potato, city dwelling "scientist" but he believes in Evolution so don't touch him. Don't criticize him.
ReplyDeleteLick his boots.
Serve him a expresso.
Deliver to him his newspaper - the NYTimes, of course.
No one claimed it, so ... FIRST, RUSH RULES!
ReplyDeleteI have seen the tracks in dust on dirt roads and in snow. More recently I have had a aggressive territorial encounter that made me move my campsite from fear. When you hear a huge, bipedal creature bellowing like a bull and breaking trees circling around you like I did you will become a believer. Go spend years of your life in the forest like I have and have a few experiences and your skepticism will evaporate.
ReplyDelete