Thursday, June 30, 2016

Scientific American Article Takes A Close Look At Bigfoot Evidence

credit: Darren Naish

Scientific American takes a look at the Bigfoot evidence collected in the form of tracks, vocalizations, and DNA. Will it live up to their scrutiny?

Regular readers of Tet Zoo – and of certain of the things I’ve published (Conway et al. 2013, Naish 2014) – will be familiar with the idea that cryptozoology overlaps extensively with speculative zoology. Bigfoot might not be a genuine undiscovered primate species (so far as we can tell, right now)… but what if it was? In this article, and perhaps in one or two others that might appear in future, I’d like to play a game and ponder things pertaining to the Bigfoot evidence, such as it is. It is, after all, great fun to wonder what the existence of Bigfoot would mean for field biology and ecology in North America, for conservation and wildlife management, for our understanding of primate evolution and diversity, and for the relationship we have with the rest of the natural world. I’m not about to write about all of those hypotheticals right now, but, yes, they’re entertaining things to think about. In fact, I’d love to see some speculative fiction written along those lines… oh, to be fair, there is some stuff out there like that already: I’m only familiar with Lee Murphy’s books.

Read the full article here. 

7 comments:

  1. Oh boy. Stay away from the full article joe.. er ikatomo .ekotami what ever. They pretty much shot your ass out of the water.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd fancy it if a bloke shot my arse out of the water !

      Joe

      Delete
  2. 1. Biologically consistent, homogenous vocalisations would be documented across North America;
    http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf

    http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/mkdavis-discusses-audio-compilation-of.html?m=0

    http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/listen-to-these-top-10-bigfoot-sounds.html?m=0
    ... And I could have gone on, and on, and on...

    2. Bigfoot tracks would be easy to find by people who know what they’re doing;
    Did the author of this actually just say that?
    Eyewitness #1 – “I found a Bigfoot track”.
    Pseudosceptic – “no you didn’t”.
    Eyewitness #2 – “I found a Bigfoot track”.
    Pseudosceptic – “no you didn’t”.
    Eyewitness #3 – “I found a Bigfoot track”.
    Pseudosceptic – “no you didn’t”.
    Eyewitness #4 – “I found a Bigfoot track”.
    Pseudosceptic – “no you didn’t”.
    Eyewitness #5 – “I found a Bigfoot track”.
    Pseudosceptic – “no you didn’t”.
    Eyewitness #6 – “I found a Bigfoot track”.
    Pseudosceptic – “no you didn’t”.
    Eyewitness #7 – “I found a Bigfoot track”.
    Pseudosceptic – “no you didn’t”.
    Eyewitness #8 – “I found a Bigfoot track”.
    Pseudosceptic – “no you didn’t”.
    Eyewitness #9 – “I found a Bigfoot track”.
    Pseudosceptic – “no you didn’t”.
    Eyewitness #10 – “I found a Bigfoot track”.
    Pseudosceptic – “no you didn’t”.
    … Pseudosceptic – “If these creatures were real, Bigfoot tracks would be easy to find by people who know what they’re doing!”
    Iktomi – (Sigh)

    3. Bigfoot tracks would be more ‘biological’;
    Nothing more biological than forensic details...
    http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

    4. There would be Bigfoot DNA all over the place;
    That's if you prefer a newly classified bipedal gorilla for what is widely being reported. "Bigfoot" are human.

    It's the most cringe-worthy thing in the world when some of these perversely naive people try and make a buck out of trying to keep kids sleep better at night.
    (Sigh)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Piss off dorks, hypotheticals,lmao,these beings were here before the Natives arrived, why bother looking for them ,to appease skeptics,ha ha,that's absurd.

    ReplyDelete