It’s been a bit since I’ve internet bigfooted, so here I go with a shiny new video that came out very recently. First the video, so you can know what my comments are on.
So, epic blob-squatch in a picturesque setting. The clip is nothing of interest to anyone, including bigfooters, who can’t even verify what’s in the video, let alone that It’s an undiscovered creature. Even worse is that there is no reason for the man to have been filming that waterfall.
I also wonder about the apparent container of some sort (maybe a bucket or suitcase) that the “creature” is carrying. Could it be an indication that it’s some innocent fisherman distorted by a low quality camera into a budget blob-squatch?
Why this video is making the rounds I don’t understand. It’s epically unexciting.
This is slightly old news, but I like to examine vocals because I know the noise of the wild, including noises other people who “know the wild” seem not to know… So first… The clips!
[symple_column size=”two-thirds” position=”last”]
The first vocalization isn’t anything that I can’t write off as wolf or coyote. Perhaps human. It’s long, bellowing, and to me reads as either wolf or human-imitating-wolf. Given the lack of concrete other evidence, I can’t call it anything but “creature that is known to exist in the area”. I’m sorry, Mr. Sherman. If it’s not a man hoaxing you, it’s a large predator. Your incredible claim (you heard the sound of a bigfoot) isn’t provable because all you have is the noise. You have no other evidence that even indicates the animal to posit was where you are.
The second section on this first video is far more interesting. It’s definitely something I can’t write off immediately. My first instinct, based off the call, is not bigfoot. This call makes me think Birdwatchers, and I believe that ruling out animals that are unusual but present is the first route to take. Mr. Sherman: My recommendation as an Internet Bigfooter is that you have this clip reviewed by a few birding clubs /without priming/ (don’t tell them you think it’s bigfoot) challenging them to identify the source of the sound. If the local bird-obsessed can’t figure out a bird that matches it, then we can talk Bigfoot.
[/symple_column]
[symple_column size=”two-thirds” position=”last”]
I would like to thank Mr. Sherman for the time he spends actually presenting his evidence.
Sadly, though, I once again don’t agree with his assessment. It sounds like a juvenile wolf to me. One that’s not great at getting his voice going and has to spend some time “warming up” so to speak. Perhaps joined by one of his elders? This video features a wolf doing long, low wails that lack the ululation that is commonly associated by those who’ve only heard a few howls on TV. He even dips down and plays in the “whoop” range that I hear associated with bigfoot.
[/symple_column]
Sasquatch shouldn’t be anybodies first guesses with these. Call in a wolf expert. Learn about the pack(s) that live where you are. Investigate with experts in proven animals first, so that you can remove everything that’s even questionably another species.
And don’t give me that crap about them hiding their vocals in those of other animals. You want proof, not guesses. Until you bring me video of a Sasquatch vocalizing on camera, you can’t prove they do it. Start looking for PROOF. Not evidence that can’t be verified. It’s worthless.
I continue to be amazed by the stubborn way the hard-cores in bigfooting cling to the idea that their initial decision, regardless of any scientific results, that whatever they want to be of bigfoot origin.
Ketchum responded (via Facebook, because that’s where all reputable scientists respond to questions to their work) claiming that the references were demanded by reviewers and that she “had not felt had any place in our manuscript and were not included originally“. I say this, Ketchum: If the references had no place in your paper and were related only to “so-called folklore”, then why were they not presented in the paper as such, and referenced in the text of the paper as “other scientific evidence lending credence to the existence of Sasquatch“?
I’m with idoubtit that Ketchum likely believes in her work, and is not maliciously perpetrating a hoax. But this does not change the fact that, even if she has proof, she’s rushed her paper to publish in a journal with no credibility, and with little to know scientific review, or even review of her paper on her part. This is why reputable journals wouldn’t publish. This is why the scientific publishing review process exists!
I’ve been dragging my feet before I write anything about Melba Ketchum’s Bigfoot Genetics paper because I was trying to hold out for Monster Talk to come out with an episode on it, in hopes that they’d interview Dr. Todd Disotell again.
Since time is dragging on, and the paper is thrown into less and less positive of a light as time goes on, I’ve decided to put together this new roundup on the topic, highlighing what are currently some of the best stories on the subject in hopes of at least giving the matter some coverage here before it’s forgotten completely.
What do geneticists think of the Bigfoot paper? – Thursday, February 14, 2013 // SciGuy As it turns out they think it’s a big pile of poorly made baloney. Disotell said “I’ve only read the abstract and conclusion and neither makes any sense“.
Ketchum Sasquatch DNA is being analyzed by others – February 15, 2013 //By idoubtit, Doubtful News
This is the only exciting part of the story at this time. Ketchum is releasing the DNA to others for independent corroboration. I’m waiting with baited breath to find out who and how and what. But until her data is independently verified, it’s meaningless. I hope it really does end up on GenBank, so that scientists I trust with this sort of thing (like Disotell) can review it.
