The RELICT HOMINOID INQUIRY 1:87-92 (2012)

Video Review

Bigfoot and Other Wild Men of the Forest. By Eugenie Scott. San Fransisco: FORA.tv, episode 113, January 13, 2009. 84 min 55 sec. http://fora.tv/2009/01/13/Eugenie_Scott_Bigfoot_and_Other_Wild_Men_of_the_Forest

Something “must be seriously wrong”

FORA.tv presents the poorly tested medical and psychotherapeutic Web's largest collection practices.1 That a professional anthropologist of conference and event would make a serious address on such a videos drawn from top controversy-laden topic as is in itself conferences, universities, noteworthy, and for that Scott is to be and public forums. commended. However, as will be seen, the Among their listings is a inaccuracies, selectivity and superficiality of recording of a talk the content fall short of what might be delivered in the Ask a expected of such a scholarly presentation. Scientist lecture series. The series is an The title and emphasis of this review draw informative, entertaining, monthly event, held from the repeated statement by Scott that, “If at a San Francisco cafe. It was first launched these creatures [Bigfoot] exist, an awful lot of in 2003, by Juliana Gallin, a graphic designer what we know from other basic sciences must and native of San Francisco. In 2009, Dr. be seriously wrong. Given the probabilities, I Eugenie Scott delivered a presentation in the know what side I come down on.” She series titled, Bigfoot and Other Wild Men of implies that this is the crux of the matter at the Forest. Scott is the Director of the hand. This statement rests on two assumptions National Center for Science Education that I suggest cannot be ultimately justified. (NCSE; 1986-present). She is a physical The first is that what we (i.e. scientists) anthropologist by training and served as a past “know” is uniformly and unquestionably president of the American Association of reliable. Scientific knowledge is inherently Physical Anthropologists (AAPA; 2001- tentative and likely to be revised, elaborated, 2003), among her numerous accolades. For or altogether overturned in the light of new this presentation she was acting in the capacity revelations. A growing litany of editorials and of President of the Bay Area Skeptics. They articles decry the pervasive unreliability of describe themselves as a local interest group, many published scientific studies2. At the independent of all other organizations, striving to encourage and accuracy in 1 http://www.baskeptics.org/about. the media and in schools, particularly 2 Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published research regarding such topics as claims of the findings are false. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/ journal.pmed.0020124. paranormal, , and untested or

© RHI

88 culmination of a lengthy debate about the pros Afterward I confronted her and challenged and cons of peer-review conducted by Nature, the premise of that statement. Let me state that one of the premier multi-disciplinary journals, I teach a course on in my an editorial opined that “Scientists understand department; I recognize evolution as the that peer review per se provides only a explanation of the mechanism of the origin minimal assurance of quality, and that the and diversification of life through time; I public conception of peer review as a stamp of follow and support the activities of the NCSE; authentication is far from the truth.”3 but I also embrace the distinct role of faith and The second assumption implicit to this religion in addressing Aristotle’s final cause statement is that the potential existence of (i.e. metaphysics). I pointed out that her sasquatch has no reasonable context within statement rested upon the assumption of a modern scientific knowledge, whether particular concept of God and creation, i.e. fiat paleontological, bio-geographical, or creation; that she presumed to know how a ecological. This betrays both a bias of divinely authored creation would, or would preconception of the nature of sasquatch and a not, appear. How might one expect the divine handicap of misconception of the possible signature on the creative canvas to look to us context for such a species. Specifically posited today? What if in reality God operates through – Is the proposition of a large relict hominoid natural law, as held by many believing in North America so out of context as to persons, including a significant fraction of justifying its rejection a priori? I maintain that scientists? What if the “creation” unfolded it is not so. Offering a very different through the operation of natural processes that perspective, a fellow paleontologist once were bound to produce a suitable stage upon pointed out that one must wonder why there which life’s drama might proceed? She wouldn’t be a great ape in North America. acknowledged this alternate view as a Scott’s thinking here reminds me of a possibility. At a more recent symposium in conversation I had with her in 1998, at the which she made a similar presentation, held at AAPA meeting held in Salt Lake City. She the American Association for the had chaired a symposium on the teaching of Advancement of Science (Pacific Division) evolution and in public schools. In meetings, I recognized a much more tempered her introductory remarks she cautioned the and conciliatory attitude in this regard. attendees that they should be sensitive to their However the underlying mindset of the students’ beliefs and preconceptions. They former outlook is resurrected in the shouldn’t simply walk into a classroom and remarkable epistemological parallelism of the flatly state that God didn’t create the Earth statement, “If these creatures [Bigfoot] exist, and life on it. Rather, one might explain that it an awful lot of what we know from other basic certainly doesn’t appear that a deity was sciences must be seriously wrong.” responsible. In other words, she is suggesting This review waxes perhaps a bit – If God exists, then an awful lot of what we philosophical, but this is unavoidable when know in science about Earth’s natural history the organizers of the Ask A Scientist lecture is seriously wrong. (And given the series invited the sitting president of a skeptics probabilities, she knows what side she comes group to deliver an evaluation of the evidence down on). bearing on the question of sasquatch. Lacking familiarity with the primary evidence, she largely turns to philosophizing about the 3 Jennings, CG (2006) Quality and value: The true purpose of peer review. Nature doi:10.1038/nature nature of various kinds of evidence, rather 05032. than the merits of the specific evidence. Her

89 lack of acumen with the primary data is around the Earth, that the universe was betrayed by the numerous errors of fact and geocentric. Galileo’s telescopic observations misleading statements. For example: Roy didn’t fit the existing paradigm, were flatly Wallace should be Ray Wallace; Dale Wallace rejected, and yet were true. is Ray’s nephew, not his son; the Bossburg Against this standard, Scott professes to tracks come from Washington, not California, critically consider three aspects fundamental and are 17.5 inches long, not 13; she to any species’ adaptation and survival: incorrectly asserts there were no reports of size/scale, niche/habitat, and population size. Bigfoot before the 1950’s; she incorrectly While emphasizing an excessive height of asserts that few animal footprints have well- 12 feet (far above average reported estimates), formed toe impressions; she exhibits uncritical she criticizes the “awfully human-like” reliance on internet sources; she inaccurately appearance of descriptions of Bigfoot. Such an states that Meldrum “believes” Bigfoot exists; enormous animal would exhibit adaptations to she overstates the blurriness of the Patterson- its large size incontrast to human proportions. Gimlin film; she accepts that Roy [Ray] Height estimates more consistent with the Wallace told Patterson and Gimlin where to majority of sightings would be in the range of go to film; she states that hair identified as 7 – 9 feet. Bigfoots upright posture is the most bison came from Ontario, when in fact it came human-like characteristic other than those from the Yukon. There are other errors not shared generally with primates. Otherwise, directly relating to the sasquatch question, descriptions typically call attention to the such as stating that a basking shark is really a remarkable non-human features: hair cover, whale; that a plesiosaur is a dinosaur; that the immense bulk, muscularity, longer upper Middle Pleistocene was 4-5 million years ago. limbs, shorter lower limbs, short neck, etc. These may seem on the surface to be trivial The description does convey indications of faults, but they betray a pattern of adaptation of scale to its larger body mass. superficiality and lack of familiarity with the Furthermore, the footprints indicate a greater substance and specifics of the pertinent breadth to length ratio than that in humans, evidence. If you are going to allege that you providing greater surface area to scale with can’t put a square peg [i.e. Bigfoot] in a round larger body mass.4 hole [i.e. a scientific context], then you must Regarding habitat, she opines that Bigfoot have a realistic sense of the true shape of the are encountered “all over the place.” Unlikely peg and the dimensions of the hole. This is sources of credible encounter locations such precisely her stated objective, as she goes on as Nebraska and west Texas are repeatedly to inform her audience that the way to use given special mention and attention. In fact, science and to think critically is to ask this very few reports emanate from those question first and foremost – How does the seemingly unlikely areas, and those instances new information fit with what we already may have more in common with Elvis know in science? I question this premise and sightings, as she suggests, than with her apparent reliance on this standard of encounters with an unrecognized hairy upright evaluation. Rather than assess the evidence on primate. its own intrinsic merits, we are adjoined to assess its agreement with what we think we already know. 4 At the risk of sounding cliché, I am Meldrum DJ (2007) Ichnotaxonomy of giant hominoid trackways in North America. In: Lucas SG, reminded of Galileo’s apt experience. The Spielman JA, and Lockley, MG (eds) Cenozoic Vatican already “knew” that the Sun revolved Vertebrate Tracks and Traces. Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 42:225-231.

90

An abbreviated clip from this portion of the a reasonable number for a rare widely presentation was also posted by FORA.tv dispersed giant primate in North America. under the title Could Bigfoot Live in Texas?5 Scott next sifts from this rather theoretical Representatives of the Texas Bigfoot Research discussion of what sasquatch might be Conservancy (TBRC), Dr. Alton Higgins, a expected to be, to a brief assessment of biologist, and Daryl Coyer provided an examples of evidence, i.e. “prints, sightings, incisive response to Scott’s remarks recordings and samples.” concerning the state of affairs in Texas.6 They First, considering prints, Scott muses that point out rightly that east Texas, where the there is an “awful lot of stuff” as she shows a bulk of such reports emanate, is dominated by figure, taken from skeptic ’s dense forest, numerous lakes, rivers, and paper, juxtaposing a Honey Island swamp sloughs. Indeed, the vast majority of credible monster track beside a Patterson-Gimlin film encounters by skilled observers, or which are site track.9 This is intended to illustrate the corroborated by trace or physical evidence, disparity and inconsistency of the print has a reasonable ecological context, and they evidence, when the fact of the matter is, the are located in moist dense temperate forest Honey Island Swamp monster tracks are habitats with ample potential resources to known to be alligator tracks, plain and simple. support a large omnivorous primate.7 Even the She turns to the Cripple foot tracks and more unlikely cases in west were reported repeats Dr. David Daegling’s notion that the from riparian habitat along major river unusual proportions of an anatomically courses. accurate example of foot abnormality could be Turning to skepticisms concerning concocted by a hoaxer by simply enlarging a population size, she retreats to ambiguous and figure from a medical text of an infant’s largely unsubstantiated allusions to minimum deformity.10 She points to the claims of the sustainable numbers. The concept of a Wallace family that crude wooden feet could species’ minimum viable population (MVP) is be responsible for many of the tracks, a relatively elusive one, estimated through although no imprints have been conclusively simulations and based on assumptions about attributed to examples of the Wallace’s carved variables such as inbreeding pressure and feet. None of these arguments does justice to habitat degradation. Realistic determinations the data. She does acknowledge that even if for specific populations require extensive some of the tracks are fake, not all need to be genetic testing and decades of field fake. observations. An average MVP for terrestrial Turning to sightings, Scott denounces vertebrates has been given as 500 to 1000 eyewitnesses as generally unreliable, noting individuals.8 This minimum estimate would be that people are actually very poor observers, and often see what they want to see or expect

5 http://fora.tv/2009/01/13/Eugenie_Scott_Bigfoot_and planning and species conservation". Environmental _Other_Wild_Men_of_the_Forest#Could_Bigfoot_Live Management 8 (2): 167–176. doi:10.1007/BF01866938. _in_Texas. Thomas CD (1990) What do real population dynamics 6 http://texasbigfoot.com/index.php/news/news/146-ask tell us about minimum viable population sizes? -the-tbrc. Conservation Biology 4(3): 324–327. doi:10.1111/j. 7 Meldrum DJ and Mionczynski J. (2007) Footprint 1523-1739.1990.tb00295.x. 9 evidence for an unrecognized hominoid in the forest Radford B (2002) Bigfoot at 50: Evaluating a half- habitats of the Pacific and Inter-Mountain West. Idaho century of Bigfoot evidence. 26(2): Chapter of the Wildlife Society pp. 33-34. 29-34. 8 10 Lehmkuhl J (1984). "Determining size and dispersion Daegling D (2002) Cripplefoot hobbled. Skeptical of minimum viable populations for land management Inquirer 26(2):35-38.

91 to see. Given the fundamental role of familiar with the primary data, but is relying observation in science, this seems a rather on poor quality copies. double-edged indictment. Indeed, careful In her dismay over the lack of success observation is more involved than a mere employing camera traps, she fails to recognize visual registration. Sherlock Holmes said the likely rarity of the creatures, there famously, “You see, Watson, but you do not potential intellect in contrast to other common observe.”11 Documentation is a critical forms of wildlife, and the growing evidence element of scientific observation and I must documenting camera trap avoidance by some agree that uncorroborated eyewitness accounts wildlife species.13 The lack of such have minimal impact. To illustrate her point photographs is indeed a lack of evidence, but she played a BBC PSA video clip, in the spirit it is not necessarily an indictment of the of the murder-mystery board game Clue. As possibility of the existence of Bigfoot. the camera point-of-view at the crime scene As for “samples,” a single published shifted, props were surreptitiously swapped, negative result for alleged Bigfoot hair was e.g. a stuffed bear mount was replaced with a cited.14 A sample of hair thought to have been suit of armor. There were 21 alterations in all, associated with a witness encounter in Yukon, but very few are noticed by even the attentive Canada, was submitted for DNA analysis. It on-looker. The moral – “It’s easy to miss was identified as bison. From this the something you are not looking for.” Ironically, conclusion was implied by Scott that hair this very admonition might just as rightly be samples allegedly from Bigfoot generally directed at the scientific community, which on “turn out to be similar to something known.” the whole is not “looking for” evidence of In spite of this selectively negative example, sasquatch. samples of hair that defy identification as Particular emphasis was placed on one known species of wildlife continue to sighting – the Patterson-Gimlin film. accumulate.15 Their distinctive morphology Disappointingly, Scott again muses that it makes is very unlikely that they will “looks like a person in a gorilla suit.” This is a eventually be attributed to known wildlife common superficial retort by skeptics, which through DNA analysis. pales when one actually compares the film In summary, this episode of Ask a Scientist subject to a person in a gorilla suit. In a acknowledges the continuing public interest in documentary production that I participated in, the question of Bigfoot or sasquatch. To her Dr. Jessica Rose and Dr. James Gamble, of credit, Dr. Scott undertakes to provide a Stanford University, who literally “wrote the reasonable and critical evaluation of the book” on human walking and gait analysis,12 came to the latter conclusion after careful 13 examination of the film alongside a costumed Sequin, E.S., Jaeger, M.M., Brussard, P.F., & actor in a relatively sophisticated Bigfoot suit. Barrett, R.H. (2003). Wariness of coyotes to camera traps relative to social status and territory boundaries. Never mind that photogrammetric studies USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Staff indicate that the film subject was well in Publications. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Can. J. excess of seven feet tall. Here again, Scott’s Zool. 81: 2015-2025. emphasis on her impression of the blurriness 14 Coltman D and Davis C (2005) Molecular of the film image indicates that she is not meets the Sasquatch. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:60–61. 15 2011 Gragg K, Meldrum J, Fahrenbach, H (2011)

11 Analysis of hair attributed to an unidentified species of A Scandel in Bohemia. primate. Proceedings of the Pacific Division, American 12 Rose J and Gamble JG (eds). Human Walking. 2nd Association for the Advancement of Science, Vol. 30, p. edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1994. 151.

92 claims and issues rather than the knee-jerk because she is, in her own estimation, “an outright rejection of the subject so generally optimist”). In spite of a clearly superficial and characteristic of many scientists and skeptics. often erroneous grasp of the details of the Unfortunately, she selectively, and frankly primary data, she by default presupposes the rather misleadingly, emphasizes the negative evidence is wholly unconvincing. results and/or lack of conclusive data, while I have always maintained that the evidence trivializing or blatantly omitting the is inconclusive, but that ultimate technicality substantive and/or reasonably suggestive is different from judging the evidence entirely evidence that, while admittedly inconclusive, without merit. Scott’s assessment provides no is never-the-less very indicative that there may justification for her position that if Bigfoot be an existing but uncatalogued mammal at exists, then an awful lot of what we already large. She feigns to adopt the posture of know is seriously wrong. In reality, it is this suspending judgment, and pronounces that skewed assessment of the evidence and its scientists should be willing and ready to make misleadingly argued context that is seriously the admission – “I don’t know yet.” However wrong. when pressed on the matter, she publically declares that she concludes that there is less Jeff Meldrum, Ph.D. than a 5% probability of such a creature Idaho State University existing (and that much is allowed only Pocatello, Idaho