Are BFRO expeditions a money-making scheme?

Below is a post I published on BFRO's discussion board. I posted it twice, and each time it was deleted by an administrator within a minute or less. Then they deleted my account and barred me from posting! Are they trying to hide something?

Here's the post:

"I've noticed the BFRO charges people $300 to attend one of their expeditions. First off, why is it so expensive? Attendees are required to provide their own camping equipment, transportation, and food. The $300 is supposedly for overhead costs, but at $300 a person and 20-40 people are attending, that's $6,000-$12,000! They'd have to be extremely inefficient to have outrageous overhead for each "expedition."

And second, the BFRO bills itself as a research organization, but no one can seriously claim that taking 30-40 people out into the woods for a weekend constitutes a scientific investigation.
So, what's really going on? Is this a money-making scheme?"

Asking Bob Gimlin

Has there ever been any pressure put on Bob Gimlin to take a polygraph (lie-detector) test? If not, I think its imperative. The Patterson-Gimlin video is obviously the most substantial evidence to date. If the video is really a hoax, and Gimlin is lying, then that information would be of huge importance to bigfoot researchers.

However, my impression is that the bigfoot community is head over heels in love with Gimlin, and it seems unlikely that anyone has really held his feet to the flame, so to speak.

What are your thoughts?

Bigfoot body

There's been a lot of commotion lately after some alleged pictures of a dead bigfoot surfaced in the internet. Read the CNN article here. Supposedly, some dubious characters, one of them a police officer, claim to have found a dead bigfoot in Georgia. They are holding a press conference this Friday (Aug. 15) at noon PST to display more photos and present DNA analysis. However, there are many reasons to think this is just another hoax.

If it is a hoax, I wonder how they'll get themselves out of the hole they've dug. After all, they'll have to explain why they were unable to display the body to the general public, or at least to some reputable scientists. My guess is that they'll either claim 1) they sold it to an anonymous buyer, 2) it was stolen or lost in transport, or 3) they selflessly destroyed it in order to protect bigfoot from being exploited.

I've had the misfortune of seeing the videos these guys posted on You Tube, and they seem like a couple of half-wits to me. I'd hate to live in a community where someone like that is a police officer and has authority over other people. If the bigfoot is real and they've discovered it, it is sad that fortune smiled on these guys and not someone more deserving (or someone who would handle the situation with more dignity, reservation, and intelligence).

We wait just a few more hours to see how this whole thing plays out.

The Problematic Secrecy of Bigfoot

Summary of Points

1) What motivates bigfoot to avoid humans?
2) If bigfoot has special behavior to avoid humans and covers its own tracks, then this would require constant vigilance on their part, requiring significant energy and limiting their movements.
3) From an evolutionary perspective, its seems dubious that bigfoot would evolve such intricate behavior to avoid humans because their are no significant, fitness-reducing effects of encountering humans.

Many bigfoot proponents believe that bigfoot actively avoids contact with humans. Even more remarkable, many believe that bigfoot will go to great lengths to avoid leaving tracks, even covering or obscuring tracks. If this is true, it would require extreme vigilance for bigfoot - they would have to be acutely aware of every movement they made, by making sure they weren't stepping in soft substrate that would leave a print, constantly scanning the horizon to make sure no human is around the corner, etc. This phenomenal behavior would require a fair amount of energy, and more importantly, it would result in significant opportunity costs, i.e., it would surely limit where bigfoot could go to forage, find mates, and how fast they could travel.

As would be true for all wildlife, such a unique and energy intensive behavior must be beneficial to the organism, and it must be subject to evolutionary principles, including natural selection. For a trait to evolve and persist, there must be a natural, selective force that reinforces the beneficial nature of the trait. For example, imagine a mouse that has evolved a special trait that causes the mouse the suddenly jump the moment a snake strikes. Mice that have this jumping trait survive more snake attacks, live longer, and reproduce more - in other words they are more fit. As long as snake attacks persist, evolution will favor the mice with the jumping trait. But if snakes suddenly become extinct, then the trait no longer provides a benefit to the mouse and natural selection no longer favors them over non-jumping mice. In fact, if the jumping trait requires the mouse to devote more energy to muscle development and sensory perception, then this energy is wasted and the mouse becomes less favorable in the eyes of natural selection. In that case, the theory of evolution tells us the jumping trait will gradually vanish from the population.

In the case of bigfoot, one has to wonder what evolutionary force is maintaining their special, secretive behavior over thousands of years. For bigfoot to evolve a trait that makes them spend significant effort avoiding humans, then there must be some detrimental cost of encountering a human. But what is that detrimental cost? We don't hunt or otherwise kill bigfoot. We don't harass or maim them. There are no historical accounts of Native Americans hunting or harassing bigfoot. And because we hardly ever even glimpse them, let alone come in close contact with them, I can't think of any routine, negative effect that would maintain such a complicated and energetically costly behavior. And while we can envision that potential encounters between humans and bigfoot could be costly to them, this doesn't mean that bigfoot can make the same conclusion since to date there are no negative costs to human-bigfoot encounters. Simply put, from an evolutionary perceptive, there is no basis for bigfoot to take such drastic actions to remain secretive.

I'm not arguing that bigfoot doesn't exist, I'm merely contradicting those that claim that bigfoot goes to great length to remain hidden from humans. The more likely explaination for the scarcity of bigfoot sightings is that they are extremely rare and prefer isolated, wilderness habitat.

Yeti Hair To Be Tested

Scientists in England are testing some hair allegedly belonging to a yeti. So far, microscopic analysis is inconclusive, so now the hair is off to the lab for genetic analysis. Will this finally be the breakthrough we're looking for, or simply another disappointment? Check out the news story here and let me know what you think.

Does bigfoot get sick?

If we assume that bigfoot is a mammal, then we can conclude that the species is susceptible to parasites and diseases that are common among other mammals. Some common mammalian diseases include rabies, hemorrhagic fever, and the plague (yes- the plague still exists and cases are reported yearly in the the US). The presence of such diseases increases the odds of finding bigfoot that are acting abnormally (such as being conspicuous), that are severely weakened, or have died in unusual and obvious places. Of course, its doesn't guarantee that we will observe any of this, but it does improve the odds.

I'll let the reader draw their own conclusions from this tidbit of information.

A Note About the Patterson Film

Summary of points

1) The famous Patterson footage of bigfoot is hotly debated, but two aspects, considered separately from other aspects of the film, indicate that the film is not a hoax. These two aspects involve the bigfoot looking into the camera and the filmmakers firsthand accounts of the bigfoot.


So far my blogs have all been about the lack of evidence for the existence of bigfoot. But now I'd like to address the most famous piece of evidence, the "Patterson film". If you don't know it by name, you'd know it by sight. The Patterson film is the most widely played footage of bigfoot and offers the best glimpse of this supposed creature. The brief film, which was shot in the 1960s, shows a bigfoot walking briskly away from a stream bed and into the surrounding forest. The characteristic moment is when the creature turns it's head and looks into the camera for a brief moment.

There are two aspects surrounding the film that are intriguing and suggests to me that this film isn't a hoax. First, as I mentioned before the footage is defined by the brief moment when the bigfoot turns and looks directly into the camera. It is this look that strikes me as odd. If this film was a hoax, this would be a terrible directing call. The most obvious part of the costume would be the face. In other words, it seems that the face and head would be the hardest part to make authentic. By looking directly into the camera, the costumed creature would be exposing the weakest, or most easily scrutinized, aspect of the costume. Why would hoaxers choose to do this? I don't think they would, unless the look was an unscripted act on the part of the person in the costume.

Another aspect surrounding this film relates to statements made by the two people who made the film. When asked to give their impression of the stature of the beast, one said it was only about 6 feet tall and maybe 350 pounds. If the film was a hoax, wouldn't we expect them to say the creature was larger, since it is popularly believed be 8 -10 feet tall and about 800 lbs? Wouldn't they want to dispel any notion that it was a human in a suit? By admitting that the creature was only 6 foot and about 350 lbs, they're leaving open the possibility that it is a human. However, maybe the filmmakers realized that forensic analysis of the film could accurately describe the true height of the creature, thus they told the truth to retain credibility.

Regardless, these are two interesting aspects of this film that I haven't heard anyone discuss before. Considering just these two aspects, the film seems credible, unless the filmmakers were just careless.

New Feature

I've decided to add a "summary of points" at the beginning of each essay/blog, including the blogs already posted. I thought that having a concise summary at the beginning can give readers a heads-up on what to expect and hopefully pique their interest. Additionally, I hope the summary can help readers remember the important point when formulating their own comments. Enjoy!

Do hoaxers not like the snow?

Summary of Points

1) Tracking elusive animals is easier in the winter because tracks are easily made and seen in snow. Why don't we find any snow prints of North American bigfoot?

2) Is the lack of bigfoot tracks in the snow because hoaxers can't fake tracks in the snow?

3) From a biological viewpoint, it's unlikely that bigfoot hibernates through the winter. However, if it does hibernate through winter, it would likely leave snow prints in late fall/early winter and at the onset of spring.

Why doesn't bigfoot leave tracks in the snow?!?

Any tracker can tell you that animals prints are easier to identify and follow in the snow. For this reason, many scientific studies of elusive and rare creatures like wolverines and lynx occur during winter when tracks are obvious and can be followed for long distances. Considering this, why is it that all or most tracks of North American bigfoot (non-yeti) are found in normal substrate (dirt, mud) and not in snow? If we're able to find bigfoot tracks in dirt, shouldn't we find twice as many or more in the snow?

By way of comparison, think about how many snowshoe hare tracks can be found during the summer. You'd have to look hard and carefully to find many tracks. However, during the winter you'd be hard pressed not to find tracks within a few minutes time! The point here is that the amount of tracks found during the summer (in dirt) is a small ratio of the amount of tracks found during the winter. Applying this to bigfoot, since we find a modest handful of tracks in the dirt during spring, summer, and fall, we should find many times that number of tracks during winter. The reason being that tracks in the snow are easier to make, they are easier to locate and identify, they can last longer, and the surface conditions are more uniform making long sets of tracks available. The fact that bigfoot snow tracks are never found,or mostly never, appears contrary to what would logically be expected. In other words, if bigfoot does exist we should find significantly more tracks in the snow than in dirt or mud.

One explanation could be that bigfoot hibernates during the winter, which would subsequently mean that they are not out-and-about while snow is on the ground. However this seems unlikely for a few reasons: 1) many animals enter hibernation after first snow fall and leave hibernation before the snow melts, meaning that they would still leave some tracks in the snow, and 2) hibernation (or more correctly, 'torpor') is a special behavioral/physiological adaptation that, from what I know, has not evolved in primates. However, the argument could be made that bigfoot independently evolved such an adaptation, but such a major adaptation as hibernation does not come easily - the body's whole physiology needs to be rewired to allow the tissues and organs to survive at significantly lower body temperatures (think about how easily humans can die from hypothermia). So, while it is theoretically possible that bigfoot have independently evolved hibernation behavior, the odds are against it. But for the sake of argument let's say that they are physically able to hibernate, they would still leave prints in the snow at the beginning of winter and the onset of spring.

An alternate reason why we don't find bigfoot prints in the snow is because its much more difficult to fake tracks. This assumes that bigfoot is not real and all foot prints are faked. Let's consider what it would take to fake a believable set of tracks in the snow. First, the set of tracks would have to be fairly long and the point of origin and termination would have to seem plausible. Second, the hoaxer would also have to conceal their own tracks, including how they got there and how they left. This is a very formidable challenge and would prevent fake tracks from being left in the snow.

Tracking animals in the snow is one of the best ways for biologists to track rare and elusive species. The fact that we don't find bigfoot tracks in the snow is very suspect and strongly suggests that bigfoot may not exist.

Bigfoot Ecology

Summary of Points

1) Bigfoot isn't supernatural , it has the same biological urges and requirements as any other animal. One urge is to eat, and bigfoot would be expected to spend significant time finding and consuming food to support their high mammalian metabolic rate and large size. Therefore, evidence like scat and disturbed vegetation should give us physical evidence of their existence.

2) It is suspicious that we don't find bigfoot hair more frequently. Being a large creature that lives in areas with cold winters, we should expect an annual molt like other mammals, and thus large tufts of hair being shed.

3) If we assume that bigfoot is a primate, then we would expect them to be intensely social like other primates. However, all or most physical evidence is of single, solitary bigfoot.

4) How does such a rare and elusive species find one another to breed?

If bigfoot exists, then it must be similar to every other animal in that it has certain biological and ecological requirements, i.e., it must forage, breed, and its physiology and behavior must be adapted to its environment. From this simple premise, one would expect to find tell-tale evidence even if the creature itself was not directly witnessed.

For example, a large animal like bigfoot must not only eat a lot of food, it must spend a lot of time finding that food and consuming it. It must also leave behind a lot of excrement. So why don't we see evidence of bigfoot browsing behavior, such as large sites of disturbed vegetation? Where are the big piles of scat? Mountain gorillas, by way of comparison, must sit and eat for a large part of the day, leaving behind obvious areas of disturbance. Moose are constantly browsing for forage, trampling meadows and dredging through ponds. If bigfoot was real, we should find more evidence of this type and with greater frequency.

It would also be reasonable to come across bigfoot hair more frequently - certainly more often than visual sightings. Like most mammals living in areas with cold winters, bigfoot would surely molt to insure the quality of their pelage (fur) and thus have an effective layer of insulation to last through each winter. With such a large animal, there would surely be a relatively large amount of fur to find, and not just a hair or two, but clumps of it. The lack of more hair as evidence is, in my view, particularly troubling.

And the last point I want to make for now involves the issues of breeding, mating systems, and social structure. We know that primates, especially apes, are intensely social. So why is it that a majority of tangible bigfoot evidence ( (footprints, photo/video) is of a single, solitary individual? Wouldn't it be logical to expect bigfoot to be social like other primates, and therefore shouldn't most evidence involve multiple bigfoot? If bigfoot did indeed exist, we may have to conclude that it is not a primate; this may also be a conclusion to the following paragraph.

A question also arises about how bigfoot find potential mates for breeding. It is known that primates have a drastically reduced sense of smell and instead rely heavily on sound and binocular vision. This is a result of a flattened face (reduced rostrum) which leaves them morpho-physiologically incapable of detecting odors to the extent that most other mammals can. The sense of smell is so reduced in primates that ovulation in females is said to be "hidden" due to the fact that males are unable to detect sexual pheromones and other olfactory clues associated with it. Most mammals can detect ovulation through smell, but not primates, which is why females baboons have evolved the brightly colored butts, which is a visual clue to advertise their reproductive status. So without a highly developed sense of smell, how does a rare and seemingly solitary species find potential mates? The answer would have to be through sight and sound, which leaves us to anticipate that bigfoot vocally communicate over large distances, use traditional or communal breeding grounds (like a lek), or have other distinct visual or auditory systems that would provide us with observable evidence of their existence. However, there is no convincing evidence supporting this.

The basic impulse of all life forms is to obtain energy and nutrients to stay alive with the purpose of breeding. These impulses to stay alive and breed cannot be avoided for any normal (non-neurotic) animal. The point is that no matter how bad bigfoot may want to avoid detection, it would still need to spend considerable time and effort in the search for food, mates, and suitable habitat. This simple fact means that there should be more physical evidence of its existence.

This old blog

Hello all,

I have decided to write this blog - having never blogged before - because I feel compelled to begin a discussion on certain aspects relating to the search for bigfoot. I have become more interested in this issue over the last few years, and after cruising some of the websites and reading some of the recent books on this subject, including Dr. Meldrum's book, "Sasquatch: legend meets science" and Dr. Daegling's "Bigfoot Exposed," I fell that many important issues have been neglected. If the search for bigfoot is to be taken seriously, and if we ever hope to find the creature if it does exists, then these neglected issues will surely have to be considered.

I hope to use this blog to share my thoughts on this phenomenom and hopefully spark some intelligent, thoughtful, and science-based discussion. The search for the truth is the goal, even if this means that bigfoot doesn't exist.