In the Nov./Dec. issue of the Skeptical Inquirer columnist Robert Sheaffer announces that the MUFON people are going to look into the possibility of the existence of bigfoot. From what I read I get the impression that Mr. Sheaffer uses this news to reinforce his belief that the bigfoot can’t exist because of his belief that MUFON must be a crowd of fools.
The problem is one that has bedeviled science for ages. It was used against Copernicus, Darwin, and Wegener and is usually expressed as, “That’s not what I learned in school..” It is the belief that new information cannot contradict old, that older discoveries must always be true regardless of what we later learn.
Sheaffer also makes the mistake of forgetting this one thing; the truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its supporters. Copernicus’ insistence that the planetary orbits had to be perfect circles in contradiction to actual fact said nothing about his heliocentric view of the universe, it just confused matters until Kepler pointed out that that’s not how it works.
This is an example of “Not what we learned in school”. It has to do with physical geography and how we describe geographical features. As we learned in school the Bering Strait is a geographical feature and is the boundary between Asia and North America. The strait is indeed a geographical feature, but not the sort we were taught it is.
That is the Chersky Range, which constitutes the location of where Asia and North America butt up. It is known as a plate boundary, but as far as I can see it is actually the geographical boundary between the two for all intents and purposes. You get right down to it, the Bering Strait is nothing more than a flooded ditch located within North America and really has nothing to do with the continent’s boundaries. In other words, Russia still has territory in North America. It also means that Alaska and the Chukchi Peninsula are not separate bodies, but rather a land I’ll call Alukchi with the Bering Strait running through it.
The implication of this is, since Europe and Asia arre most often considered a single supercontinent — Eurasia, so then can we treat Eurasia and North America as a single supercontinent — Eurica.
Btw, in as much as the continent of Africa is moving north to merge with western Eurasia — Europe to you, in a few million years we’ll have a new supercontinent which I’ve decided to call Arica. 🙂
Back to Bigfoot
All that proceeded this is background to the question of does the bigfoot exist. To answer that we need to first determine that the animal can exist. Can it?
To be honest with you there is nothing that says it can’t. The Bering Strait hasn’t always existed, and as little as 20,000 years ago was dry land. The claim by some that primates can’t or don’t adapt to cold climates is contradicted by us. We are primates. Certain human populations have adapted to cold climates as witness the Inuit and others.
The snow monkey of Japan is another primate that lives in a cold climate; at least part of the year. As far as I can see, if two species of primate can live in the snow for at least part of the year, why no three or more?
But where would bigfoot come from?
Back some 9 million years ago lived a great ape we now call Gigantopitheus blacki. G. blacki was a giant ape, and considered the largest of the great apes. Descendants of Gigantopithecus include the gorilla, the chimpanzee, the bonobo, the yeti, the sasquatch, and us. As far as I can see, the six of us have a common ancestor in G. blacki.
But isn’t the Bering Strait in the way?
Not back then. The tyrannosaur got from Asia to North America when there was no Bering Strait. When the horse got from North America to Asia there was no Bering Strait. Hell, when we got from Asia to North America — at least in the very early days — there was no Bering Strait.
What this means
What this means is that the Sasquatch is not impossible. It has a possible ancestor—Gigantopithecus blacki, and a possible route to Asia to North America. It could exist. And my conclusion is that it does, and that I base on old film footage from 1967.
I link to the version above because the second video of the two gives the viewer the best picture of the animal. The first video is the footage as it originally appeared, the second is the cleaned up version. Based on what I see in the two, Patty was a living animal and no fake. She didn’t have to be.
I do disagree with some of the conclusions that Mr. Munn makes regarding what got filmed. Considering the range, the lens Patterson apparently used while filming, and the lighting, I rather doubt the film has anything like a clear picture of Patty’s eyes. It’s more like the Face of Mars—a region of Cydonia — which essentially amounts to a photographic blur; and in the case of Patty she’s not available for us to take sharper pictures of.
You get right down to it, the claims of Patty being somebody in a costume are nothing more than frauds.Frauds some people see as necessary because they can’t admit that bigfoot are possible, and from what evidence we do have do exist. There are bigfoot videos available at You Tube, but I have serious problems with the first one linked, for the set up is just too Blair Witch for my taste. The purported sasquatch is also rather scrawny in appearance — Patty was more broadly built, and it has a hump that is an obvious fake — no other sign of scoliosis apparent.
We have fake evidence because certain parties refuse to accept the possibility of bigfoot, and other parties play to that prejudice. I see no evidence that Patterson and Gimlin did do a fraud for I do accept the possibility that the Sasquatch exists and see no valid reason for why they should fake the footage.
Wasn’t what we learned? Neither was evolution or continental drift, which proved nothing regarding either subject. Do I believe in bigfoot or yeti? No, but I do accept the existence of both, for as far as I can see both are possible, and for bigfoot we do have evidence.