Skeptic Calling It Quits For Bigfoot

One of the biggest questions regarding the existence of a large bipedal ape in North America is where are the fossils? Skeptics like the point out the fact that there are no corpses found and suggest that there are no such things as Sasquatch. In a recent CharlotteObserver.com article by Brian Switek, author of the critically acclaimed "Written in Stone: Evolution, the Fossil Record, and Our Place in Nature," he writes that if Bigfoot were real, there would be ample evidence to support the existence of the creatures-- instead, all we have are questionable tracks and hair samples from amateur researchers:

If Bigfoot – also called Sasquatch – were real, there would be ways to detect the creature’s existence. For one thing, there would be a fossil record of large apes moving into North America, probably from Pleistocene Asia. But fossil nonhuman apes have never been found in North America.

Field biologists study elusive living species by using camera traps, analyzing genetic data from scat, and following footprints. There should be a wealth of compelling evidence from such sources – but all we have is an abundance of purported sightings.

Given the number that Sasquatch clubs busy themselves with, I should be able to look out my window each morning and see Sasquatch families raiding my trash cans for leftovers. Bigfoot aficionados protest that they have found tracks, hair and other evidence. But photos show nothing more than a lack of rational skepticism.

Since skeptics like to bring up the topic of the lack of evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot, we figure this would be a good time to bring up the great debate between a skeptic name Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods and Lord Matt Moneymaker of the BFRO. If you have never read it, it's an exciting read filled with smack talking and juggling of positions.

The repost from December 27, 2011 is below:

In August, we posted an article about an answer from the Yahoo Answers community debating the existence of Bigfoot. Yahoo Answers Top Contributor Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods racked up a ton  up-votes in the category, so we decided to re-post his answers along with the following rebuttal from president of the BFRO, Matt Moneymaker.

When Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods stumbled onto our article with his answers, he was a bit upset and wished we had warned him in advance before the ambush.

The next time you feel like posting something I have written on a site like this, I would like to know in advance so this can be an actual debate instead of an immature rant.

For Mr. Moneymaker's information, I am a 40 year old Licensed Nurse, with over twenty years experience in the woods and wilds. Anyone wishing to debate this matter intelligently can contact me via Lord_Bearclaw@yahoo.com.

Lord Brion Bearclaw

We're going to send Lord Brion Bearclaw an email along with this post and see if he will add anything else to the following debate from August 21, 2011:

Here's the question posted on Yahoo Answers:

Did we descend from the sasquatch?  its been disproved that we descend directly from apes as we still live along side them, and people often discount the possibility of the sasquatch. is it possible we descend from them, hence missing link, if they existed. this is all theory here with a lot of people, even though i do believe bigfoot existed and still COULD exist today even though science "disproves" it. so main question is, is it possible we descended from the sasquatch?

And here is skeptic Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods’ answer, along with Matt Moneymaker’s comments:

Skeptic: Bigfoot is not real. For any species of that size to actually exist requires shelter, food, and warmth.

A community of primates has to breed to continue their existence, and the numbers necessary for species viability preclude any single small community of Sasquatch. Such a species would need to breed in order to maintain population levels and to offset the death rate from age, sickness, accidental death, and even homicide.

MM: Correct, but if you believe that bigfoot researchers claim there is only one single small community of them, then you are engaging in your own fantasy, because no one makes that claim.

Skeptic: Such a large community would require massive amounts of food to sustain, and even if they were strictly vegetarian they would strain the resources of any given area within weeks and would be constantly on the move, foraging and gathering.

MM: This statement is copied from other ignorant skeptic claims, all of which all false. There are other large omnivores in North America too. None of them manage to strain the resources of a given area. They are all on the move, but most remain in the same 2 mile radius most of their lives.

Skeptic: Yet there is no forensic evidence of any kind of a nomadic primate tribe anywhere.

MM: On the contrary, there is loads of forensic evidence. Meldrum's lab is not full of annecdotal evidence.

Skeptic: Instead of finding one or two isolated “footprints” we would have come across whole trails of Sasquatch prints, and such trails would be stripped completely bare of any edibles, and would also contain piles of droppings and fur samples caught on the trees and bushes.

MM: It's extraordinary how ignorant most skeptics are. These statements exemplify that typically smug ignorance of most skeptics. Lines of tracks have found several times. Bushes and trees with berries or fruits are found systematically picked. Hair samples have been found and collected.

Skeptic: No such evidence has ever been found.

MM: Wrong. Those sorts of things have been found many times.

Skeptic: Supposed hair samples of “unknown origin” have been long held up as “evidence”, yet I cannot find one actual report from any scientific lab about such hair samples.

MM: That's right. You can't those reports, even though they do exist and have been mentioned in newspapers over the years. An analysis of a hair sample doesn't necessarily lead to a full blown "report" and notes about those analyses aren't necessarily published online. This skeptic makes loads of assumptions.

Skeptic: As for warmth, even a Sasquatch would find it difficult to stay warm in the Pacific Northwest during the rainy seasons. Even a core temperature drop of just three to four degrees can result in hypothermia and death.

MM: So by this same logic ... bear, deer, elk and humans could not have survived in North America without living in caves during the rainy seasons.

Skeptic: This would mean that any sizeable community would invariably seek shelter of some type during inclement weather, and any member of the community that died would have one of two things happen to their corpse: one, they would be left behind where they died, or two, if the community was carnivorous the corpse would simply be eaten. However, all stories indicate that such creatures would be vegetarian or omnivorous at best, and not aggressively carnivorous.

MM: These skeptical statements reveal a curious phenomena among skeptics. Some make authoritative-sounding statements that reveal a total lack of familiarity with the topic about which they pontificate. This one goes beyond that. It's totally deceptive. "All stories indicate that such creatures would be vegetarian" clearly demonstrates that this person is not familiar with any observations by witnesses, because many of them suggest a connection with deer and predation on deer.

Skeptic: The reason for this is because there are no attacks. A carnivorous community would doubtless find it much easier to raid a human dwelling and carry off the inhabitants for food, especially during winter.

MM: Again, the anonymous skeptic reveals an embarrassing lack of knowledge about North American ecology. There are mountain lions throughout the western mountains, yet attacks on humans are exceedingly rare, but by the logic of this ignorant skeptic, humans would be routinely killed by mountain lions, especially in Winter. The fact is ... those places where mountain lions reside have abundant natural food supplies. The same applies to bigfoots.

Skeptic: Such behavior would be on par with bear learning that it is easier to raid villages and garbage cans than to hunt for themselves. After all, it would be much easier to attack an isolated home than to run down deer through snow.

MM: That sure sounds logical, but it proves that this skeptic has no clue about wildlife populations, and especially predator populations, in North America.

Skeptic: The fact that there are absolutely no corpses found means only one thing: there are no such things as Sasquatch.

MM: Corpses don't remain corpses for very long, as any ecologist will tell you. A rare population would not leave behind many remains. There are no fossils of chimps or gorillas either.

Skeptic: We have already ruled out carnivorous disposal of deceased members, and such creatures would likely not “bury” their dead, as they could only dig with their hands and any such “grave” would be shallow at best.

MM: This "skeptic" is probably no more than 13 years old, judging by the laughable stupidity of his statements. To him it's a foregone conclusion that you need a shovel to dig a deep hole, and that shovels are the only tools that would allow someone to dig.

Skeptic: Such creatures would not be intelligent by any stretch of the imagination, at least not by human definitions, because even Cro-Magnon man made and used tools. Yet not one sample of a Stone Age tool has been found in the woods that isn’t an actual relic from the Stone Age, certainly nothing made in the last two hundred years that wasn’t easily identifiable as having Native American origins. No shovels, no hammers, no axes, no spears. So if they are not intelligent enough to use tools, then they are certainly not intelligent enough to completely conceal their existence or to dispose of their dead in such a manner as to preclude discovery of the corpse.

MM: These skeptical statements are so speculative and presumptive that they don't even deserve a response. Even well-read skeptics would find these statements absurd and amateurish.

Skeptic: With the numbers needed to maintain genetic viability of such a community, nutritional requirements, and the need for shelter as well as forensic evidence, it is flat-out impossible that we would not have found or captured a living Sasquatch by this time, especially with the sheer number of hikers, campers, hunters, ATV enthusiasts, forest rangers, Bigfoot “hunters”, people who live in homes deep in the woods, scientists, etc. etc. etc.

MM: Again, this skeptic is pretty clearly a child who is very unfamiliar with the topic, and unfamiliar with any of the related scientific disciplines, such as ecology and zoology.

Skeptic: There is only the flimsiest “evidence”, consisting mainly of easily faked photos and video footage, usually blurry and at a distance, and isolated “prints” again easily faked, that are never part of an actual trail. Any outdoorsman worth his salt would find it easy to track such a large creature, especially considering that in order to have survived all these millennia it would require a large community to maintain species viability.

MM: More ignorant spoutings by a frustrated child. The only thing it demonstrates is the lack of moderation on "Yahoo Answers". Anyone can post anonymously. That opens the door for amateurish claims such as those made by this pubescent poster.

Update: Lord Bearclaw responded in the comments section and we've moved his response here.

Interesting choice of a picture to post of me. That was taken at Pennsic War, an event held by the SCA and is simply me in armor prior to one of the large melee battles. For more information look up sca.org.

I will address each of Moneymaker's "statements of rebuttal" here and not include my initial statement as referenced above for brevity's sake.

MM: Correct, but if you believe that bigfoot researchers claim there is only one single small community of them, then you are engaging in your own fantasy, because no one makes that claim.

So you are inferring that most researchers believe there are multiple communities of Sasquatch with the numbers to maintain genetic viability? Again, where is the forensic evidence? If they are creatures of habit, there would be permanent dwellings with evidence going back thousands of years - after all, modern humanity has only been on this continent a relatively short time. If they are nomadic, then this would exponentially increase the number of encounters as well as the amount of forensic evidence left behind. 1 or 2 Sasquatch might move about relatively unobserved, but a genetically viable community of at least 50 - 100 individuals could not remain undiscovered for long. Comparison with species of gorilla in remote parts of Africa is not a valid comparison, as America is a nation of explorers, we hike, we hunt, we fish, we camp, we build, we crisscross this nation with roads, trails, etc.

MM: This statement is copied from other ignorant skeptic claims, all of which all false. There are other large omnivores in North America too. None of them manage to strain the resources of a given area. They are all on the move, but most remain in the same 2 mile radius most of their lives.

And none of these other large omnivores are maintaining large breeding communities, nor are they intelligent enough to do so. We can easily find forensic evidence of all these omnivores that is verifiable and proveable, and is part of the ecological record. The concept of Sasquatch is of a creature intelligent enough to somehow conceal its entire existence while residing in large communities, as inferred by Moneymaker above, but not strain the natural resources? Given the supposed size of the creatures they would need to eat a large amount of food daily just to satisfy metabolic needs. Multiply that by the numbers needed to maintain a breeding community and they would have to be constantly on the move to secure food. We have evidence of this from what we know archeologically about hunter/gatherers tribes. Any concept of Sasquatch as having agricultural technology is completely unsupported, so the hunter/gatherer society is the only valid option. And hunter/gatherers move and migrate, yet there is no forensic evidence of any sizeable population moving cross-country anywhere.

MM: On the contrary, there is loads of forensic evidence. Meldrum's lab is not full of annecdotal evidence.

You do understand the requirements of the scientific process, observation, research, experimentation, and documentation? Where is the independent third-party verification of any of this evidence from Meldrum that proves an origin from a heretofore zoologically undocumented species existing in numbers great enough to maintain genetic viability?

MM: It's extraordinary how ignorant most skeptics are. These statements exemplify that typically smug ignorance of most skeptics. Lines of tracks have found several times. Bushes and trees with berries or fruits are found systematically picked. Hair samples have been found and collected.

Lines of tracks, you say? I can follow a deer trail or bear spoor to their resting place and observe the animal at rest. If lines of tracks have been found, why hasn't anyone followed said trail back to their point of origin i.e. the creature making the trail? Once again, in the case of a large community with at least a semi-permanent camp, we would find radiating trails all leading back to the same originating point - hunter/gatherer groups invariably work in a "wheel" pattern, with the camp at the center.

MM: Wrong. Those sorts of things have been found many times.

Then again, I ask: where is the independent third-party verification from zoologists and anthropologists that conclusively proves an etiology from a previously unknown and zoologically undocumented species?

MM: That's right. You can't those reports, even though they do exist and have been mentioned in newspapers over the years. An analysis of a hair sample doesn't necessarily lead to a full blown "report" and notes about those analyses aren't necessarily published online. This skeptic makes loads of assumptions.

So there are no documentable reports outside of scientifically unverified newspaper articles? Reports and studies of new species appear in scientific journals at frequent intervals and are conclusively verified by zoologists and scientists. Yet there is no such documentation for any of these claims.

MM: So by this same logic ... bear, deer, elk and humans could not have survived in North America without living in caves during the rainy seasons.

Bear, deer, and elk are not primates. They have evolved specific ways of surviving in the climate, and humans adapted their environment to fit their needs by inventing clothing and making use of constructed shelter and the ability to make fire. The concept of a Sasquatch is again that of a primate, with the biological make-up of the species. A human attempting to survive a Pacific Northwest winter wearing nothing but a exterior fur coat will die.

MM: These skeptical statements reveal a curious phenomena among skeptics. Some make authoritative-sounding statements that reveal a total lack of familiarity with the topic about which they pontificate. This one goes beyond that. It's totally deceptive. "All stories indicate that such creatures would be vegetarian" clearly demonstrates that this person is not familiar with any observations by witnesses, because many of them suggest a connection with deer and predation on deer.

Ok. Once again, I ask: if they are meat eaters, and primates, explain how it would be easier to hunt deer with no tools than it would be to attack isolated human homes? Again, this goes back to the nutritional requirements needed to sustain a breeding community - at the projected size of a Sasquatch 1 deer should serve to feed 15 - 20 of them per day to maintain body weight. Minimal caloric requirements would be over 8000 calories per day.

MM: Again, the anonymous skeptic reveals an embarrassing lack of knowledge about North American ecology. There are mountain lions throughout the western mountains, yet attacks on humans are exceedingly rare, but by the logic of this ignorant skeptic, humans would be routinely killed by mountain lions, especially in Winter. The fact is ... those places where mountain lions reside have abundant natural food supplies. The same applies to bigfoots.

I take serious exception to being called "ignorant" and I believe an apology is in order from Moneymaker. Bipedal primates are not equipped the same way as a mountain lion is, nor can they hunt the same way. Most animals are able to be scared off by a determined human, with certain situational exceptions. A mountain lion will generally not attack a human if easier game is available, such as rabbit, squirrel, grouse, etc. They are quadrupeds, with claws and muscles designed for running down small to medium sized game. Sasquatch is a bipedal primate - no claws, no running muscles that sustain speed for long stretches. It would be far easier for a hunting band of Sasquatch to enter a human domicile and carry off the inhabitants than to run down game animals. As for abundant food supplies, I stand by my statement about dearth of forage in the winter and the amount of food necessary to sustain a breeding population.

his skeptic has no clue about wildlife populations

MM: That sure sounds logical, but it proves that t, and especially predator populations, in North America.

Again, please explain how a bipedal primate can sustain the running speed necessary to run down game when all "eyewitness accounts" indicate a lumbering bipedal gait?

MM: Corpses don't remain corpses for very long, as any ecologist will tell you. A rare population would not leave behind many remains. There are no fossils of chimps or gorillas either.

Again, I stand by my statements about hunter/gatherers - either they are establishing central camps or they are migratory nomads. Either way, unless they are cannibalistically eating their dead, there would be fossil/forensic remains. We can find deer, bear, elk, even human remains in the woods for even years after the decease date. Corpses are not always quickly subsumed into the ecological environment. If the population is that rare, then they would not have lasted all these thousands of years as a genetically viable species. In order to breed smaller groups would either have to live close together or live in traveling proximity in order to facilitate inter-tribal breeding. Such constant travel would have either brought them into undeniable and verified human contact, or would have necessitated establishment of permanent camps in order to ensure inter-tribal contact.

MM: This "skeptic" is probably no more than 13 years old, judging by the laughable stupidity of his statements. To him it's a foregone conclusion that you need a shovel to dig a deep hole, and that shovels are the only tools that would allow someone to dig.

Mr. Moneymaker is beginning to prove at this point that he will immediately jump to an unsupportable conclusion predicated on zero facts. How then can we take anything he postulates seriously? I am 40 years old, I live in West Virginia, and have hunted, hiked, fished, camped, canoed, and kayaked these mountains for over twenty years. A primitive hunter/gatherer tribe would in all likelihood not bury any dead, but any grave they would dig would again be shallow at best if for no other reason than conservation of caloric energy best used in food gathering.

MM: These skeptical statements are so speculative and presumptive that they don't even deserve a response. Even well-read skeptics would find these statements absurd and amateurish.

The insults continue. I really must ask for an apology from Moneymaker over this at this point.
I reiterate: where is the forensic evidence of any Stone Age level tools being found in North America that are not either of Stone Age era origin and can be carbon-dated to that time, or of obvious Native American origin?

MM: Again, this skeptic is pretty clearly a child who is very unfamiliar with the topic, and unfamiliar with any of the related scientific disciplines, such as ecology and zoology.

An apology is in fair order here. Moneymaker's entire credibility is pretty much shot with me from these immature insults. I reiterate: any community with the numbers to maintain genetic viability would have been discovered, documented, and verified as a new species by the scientific, anthropological, and zoological communities by now.

MM: More ignorant spoutings by a frustrated child. The only thing it demonstrates is the lack of moderation on "Yahoo Answers". Anyone can post anonymously. That opens the door for amateurish claims such as those made by this pubescent poster.

Moneymaker has proved by this point that he cannot rationally address valid arguments, only devolve into immature ranting and name-calling.

I stand by every point I have made.

Lord Brion Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods, as known on Yahoo Answers and in the Society for Creative Anachronism,

mundanely known as Brion Woods, LPN.