Kosh

Was just wondering if anybody else caught this documentary on DSC last week and what you though of it? In short, they did some serious scientific analysis (well, serious compared to just interviews with jimmy-joe-jim-bob). In short:

1. Analysis of "fingerprints" from footprint castings by a CSI expert: Ridges appear to be authentic and would be unfakable. They are not human, but are not of any known primate either. He stakes his reputation that there is a large unknown north american primate

2. Analysis of 50's era film of Bigfoot (walking away). CGI overlay analysis (superimposing a skeleton on the footage) shows that it is not human anatomy, and that it has a strange gate where the knees swing inward and outward during the steps. Further inspection shows a "bulge" on the right lower quadracep indicative of a trauma which would be beyond the scope of amateurs to
fake.

3. Sound analysis of "bigfoot" recording: Inconclusive. Not mechanical, probably primate, could be human.

4. DNA of hair: Completely inconclusive, no recoverable DNA.

5. Statistical analysis of several ratios based on 100s of footprint molds: Ratios follow expected normal distribution (bell curve) as observed in nature on other species. They believe it is beyond the ability of multiple hoaxers over 10s of years to create this accurately.

So, the impression of the program is that there is good reason to believe there is something to legend. However, they didn't go into some key questions:

1. What size population would be needed for it to be viable?
2. Why no remains ever found?
3. What would they eat, and could the eco-system support such an animal?

comments?

cricket

More viewers that way.

Marduk

1. What size population would be needed for it to be viable?

I would guess a few hundred.

2. Why no remains ever found?

maybe they bury their dead.

3. What would they eat, and could the eco-system support such an animal?

Same stuff other apes eat, the Pacific NW is pretty big.

After all, it would just be another large primate, nothing really spooky about that, giant apes 10 foot tall did exist 70,000 years ago. The strange sounds recorded and the awful smell these critters are reported to have make me think this story might be at least plausible.

OCLonghorn

ASSUMING you are seriously considering that there is some truth to the Bigfoot Legend...

I hate to break it to you, but that the guy involved in the hoax died recently (in the Fall of 2002, maybe?) and his family came clean on his behalf.

The story is that he and a buddy put it together for a specific prank one time, but then it got more attention so they kept it up a little longer. At some point, they decided that it was too hard to continue planting evidence, but too risky to admit to (apparently, they found a way to make money off of it and were worried that they'd be sued, I guess).

The family of the sole survivor knew the whole time, but he made them promise not to tell until he died.

More interesting to me is the fact that the credibility of the story was "enhanced" by random details. In my past as an amatuer pathological liar (ie-teenage boy), I even used this tactic...hoping to throw the parental units off the track by inserting random details that I "obviously" wouldn't have included if it wasn't true...E.G. - "The car accident that made me late for curfew involved a car that looked exactly like Aunt Julie's...wierd!"

BTW - I'm no evolutionary biologist, but I've never heard of any 10 foot tall apes/primates, even 70K years ago. Details?

Even so, you're right...there's nothing "spooky" about a previously undiscovered species. More like exciting. But improbable, in this case.

Mageth

BTW - I'm no evolutionary biologist, but I've never heard of any 10 foot tall apes/primates, even 70K years ago. Details?

Gigantopithecus blacki

Mageth

5. Statistical analysis of several ratios based on 100s of footprint molds: Ratios follow expected normal distribution (bell curve) as observed in nature on other species. They believe it is beyond the ability of multiple hoaxers over 10s of years to create this accurately.

Umm, I'm not so sure about this. Ratios of hundreds of samples of just about anything with varying sizes would fall under a "normal" bell curve, I reckon. Many hoaxers are much more sophisticated than they're given credit for (I would hope they excluded casts of footprints that were obviously hoaxes, leaving the casts that are either from more sophisticated hoaxers or from bigfoots (bigfeet?)). I'm sure most hoaxers wouldn't make exactly 18" or exactly 20" (or exactly any other length) fake feet. They'd more than likely vary around a supposed "average" length for bigfoot big feet.

Pee Pee Poodle

Kosh

Actually, I'm quite skeptical. but...

The number and range of Bigfoot "sightings" far exceeded his ability and range of his hoax. In fact, the Bigfoot legend predates his hoaxes, going back as far as the local Native Americans, who called it "Sasquatch". One prank does not negate an entire claim.

In which case they'd be liable for fraud now, as I suggested in an earlier thread (in this forum) when the hoaxer died. This is the first I've heard that they actually profitted from it. If so, I doubt they would have come forward.

See Mageth's post, since he found it before I could.

Corey Hammer

The Emperor's New Clothes explains the sightings.

Kosh

I would disagree. The analogy you use is one of peer pressure. I don't think that factor comes into play in this case. Especially given the ridcule you can endure by making such a claim.