Editor’s Note: Jonathan Poulsen has been researching the Sasquatch since 2008, but really involved himself heavily in 2011. He has since devoted his life to the near impossible challenge of verifying the existence of the Sasquatch. Shawn refers to him as the Bigfoot encyclopedia.
'The Skeptic's Dictionary' by Robert Todd Carroll has a short section devoted to Bigfoot. After reading this segment, I was flabbergasted. How could anyone write such an absurd piece of so-called literature? In order to understand my frustration, I'll give you some examples of statements that are one-sided, opinionated, and just downright not true.
1.) "An ape-like creature reportedly sighted hundreds of times around the world since the mid-19th century".
No, there are not just hundreds, but 42,000 sightings and counting. Alleged sightings date back thousands of years. In North America, Leif Erickson claimed to have encountered hairy dark-skinned creatures in Newfoundland in 986 A.D. And in Asia, Alexander the Great's men fought against a very large group of Yeti's.
2.) "The evidence consists mainly of testimony from Bigfoot enthusiasts, footprints of questionable origin, and pictures that could easily have been of apes or humans in ape suits".
The great majority of eyewitnesses were not researching the subject of the Sasquatch prior to their sighting, and afterwards they don't involve themselves in the field either. The Patterson film could easily have been a human in an ape suit? That is indeed interesting. That's exactly what we're claiming them to be in the first place: apes.
3.) "There are no bones, no scat, no artifacts, no dead bodies, no mother's with babies, no adolescents, no fur, no explanation for how a species likely to be communal has never been seen in a family or group activity".
We have bones from the fossil hominid genus Gigantopithecus which is very similar to the Sasquatch. Scat was recovered on one of Tom Slick's expeditions. Artifacts? You mean like archaeological relics? Hundreds of accounts of dead bodies being found or hunters shooting them are on record (the most famous of these is the 'Minnesota Iceman' incident of 1968). In the Memorial Day footage, the creature is thought to be a mother with her young (also, Zana, the Russian Almas, gave birth to several children). In the Albert Ostman kidnapping, there were two adolescents; both a male and a female. Hair samples are recovered regularly, I have a possible hair sample myself. Again, in the Albert Ostman kidnapping there were 4 individuals; an adult male, an adult female, a young male, and a young female (also in Muchalat Harry's alleged 1928 kidnapping there were a total of 20 Sasquatch living together).
4.) "Of the few footprints available for examination in plaster casts, there is such a great disparity in shape and configuration that the evidence suggests many independent pranksters".
That is because the Sasquatch most likely has a flexible foot such as humans, and will not leave the exact same impression in every step. Also, with the consistency of the general shape, size, and depth of the footprints, one researcher suggests that there would need to be 25,000 full-time hoaxers if all the footprints are fake.
5.) "Over 30 years have passed, yet no cryptozoologist has found further evidence of the creature near the site except for one alleged footprint".
Bob Titmus located the site 9 days later and casted 10 additional tracks.
There are a few more such factual errors (or errors in cynical "logic"). The writer adds that he finds it odd that Bobbie Short didn't interview John Landis for his side of the story of John Chamber's alleged involvement of making the Patterson "suit". Why would this need to be done is Chambers already denied this allegation?