Bigfoot - Conclusion - Encyclopedia II

Skeptics:

Mainstream scientists and academics generally "discount the existence of Bigfoot because the evidence supporting belief in the survival of a prehistoric, bipedal, ape-like creature of such dimensions is scant" [8]. Furthermore, the issue is so muddied with dubious claims and outright hoaxes that many scientists do not give the subject serious attention. Napier wrote that the mainstream scientific community's indifference stems primarily from "insufficient evidence ... it is hardly unsurprising that scientists prefer to investigate the probable rather than beat their heads against the wall of the faintly possible" (Napier, 15). Anthropologist David Daegling echoed this idea, citing a "remarkably limited amount of Sasquatch data that are amenable to scientific scrutiny." (Daegling, 61) He also suggests mainstream skeptics should take a proactive position "to offer an alternative explanation. We have to explain why we see Bigfoot when there is no such animal" (ibid 20). While he does have some pointed criticism for mainstream science and academia, Krantz concedes that while "the Scientific Establishment generally resists new ideas ... there is a good reason for it ... Quite simply put, new and innovative ideas in science are almost always wrong" (Krantz, 236). A species cannot exist as a single individual, there must be enough numbers for a breeding populatiion. Every remote area of California is thorougly examined by prospectors, hunters, dogs, loggers, biologists, fishermen, and so on. A real population of creatures this size would have had a lot more contacts with people.

Believers:

Although most scientists find current evidence regarding Bigfoot unpersuasive, a number of prominent experts, however, have spoken out on the subject, offering sympathetic opinions.

In a 2003 Denver Post article, Jane Goodall said, "People from very different backgrounds and different parts of the world have described very similar creatures behaving in similar ways and uttering some strikingly similar sounds ... As far as I am concerned, the existence of hominids of this sort is a very real probability" [9]. The same article cites several other prominent scientists who have expressed at least a guarded interest in Sasquatch reports: George Schaller, Russell Mittermeier, Daris Swindler and Esteban Sarmiento.

Prominent anthropologist Carleton S. Coon wrote "Why the Sasquatch Must Exist" during his life, but was published after he died. He wrote, "Even before I read John Green's book Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, first published in 1973, I accepted Sasquatch's existence" (Markotic and Krantz, 46). Coon examines the question from several angles, stating that he is confident only in ruling out a relict Neanderthal population as a viable candidate for Sasquatch reports.

As noted above, Napier generally argued against Bigfoot's reality, but he also argued that some "soft evidence" (eyewitnesses, footprints, hair and droppings) is compelling enough that he advises against "dismissing its reality out of hand" (Napier, 197).

Krantz and others have argued that a double standard is applied by many academics to Sasquatch studies: "When a claim is made or evidence is presented alleging that Sasquatch is genuine, enormous scrutiny is applied to the claim or evidence, as well as it should be. Yet when individuals claim to have hoaxed Bigfoot evidence, their claims are often quickly accepted, though they typically lack corroborative evidence."

In 2004, Henry Gee, editor of the prestigious Nature, wrote of an unexpected discovery. "The discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as Yetis are founded on grains of truth ... Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold" [10].

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Conclusion", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page