Yeah, I admit it; I am caught up in the “Finding Bigfoot (Discovery Channel)” thing like many others right now. It is the latest of the pseudo-science premised shows (re: Ghost Hunters, Decoded, etc.) that has become the dear of the wannabe intellectuals. Well, I hate to do it, but I guess someone has to, (because there is no public discussion board for this sponsored by the Discovery Channel in which to post good, public observations) so, I will post my observations here to show just how off the mark they are.

Faulty Syllogisms

For the most part the show revolves around a set of faulty syllogisms. A faulty syllogism is a form of broken symbolic logic. It’s broken because the logic does not hold up to immediate scrutiny. Here is an example of proper syllogism:

a) {Major Premise} all mammals are warm blooded.
b) {Minor Premise} all bears are mammals.
c) {Conclusion} all bears are warm blooded.

Here is an example of the type of faulty syllogism that is often used on Finding Bigfoot. Note the level of assumptions used unlike the above example which uses FACTS to form a conclusion:

a) {Major Premise} The object in the photo is not a bear.
b) {Minor Premise} The object in the photo is very large.
c) {Conclusion} The object in the image is a Bigfoot.

Can you see the glaring problems in the above statement? They haven’t really ruled out a bear, the exclusion is based on an opinion, not fact, so it could still be a bear but one observed at an odd angle and thus not readily identified. Next they usually judge the size against that of a bear, assuming a bear is the largest mammal in the area… ever see a moose? Thus, having “excluded a bear” and “any other large mammal” that means it must be a Bigfoot. Really? If I was walking in the dark in a dark parka and someone was to shoot a picture of me they may very well call me a Squatch.  Apply this type of reasoning to most of their “facts” and you see quickly that most of the statements they say are full of Yeti Poo. How do I know it’s Yeti Poo? Well, what else could it be?

Quick Debunks

1) Bigfoot knocks on trees to alert other Bigfoots in the area. Really? Has ANYONE ever witnessed this behavior? The answer is of course not, since no one has hard proof that a Bigfoot even exists. This knocking assumption comes from the observation that something that sounds like knocks happens when they go looking for a Squatch. It couldn’t be falling branches in a forest or even a large animal moving through a thicket, that wouldn’t fall into their assumption that there are Bigfoots nearby.
2) Bigfoots throw rocks to scare people off. Really? Once again has ANYONE ever witnessed this behavior? No; but it could be some animal jarring loose a rock from a nearby ridge or stream bank. Since it is so simple to come up with other possible explanations, to take as a starting point a totally unproven Bigfoot really disproves the statement from the beginning favoring ANY other explanation other than being a rock thrown by a Bigfoot.
3) Bigfoots like the smell of bacon. Well, so do every other animal in the woods and so do I, so really, can this be a Bigfoot fact?
4) Bigfoots are more likely to approach women. Since we do not know that they exist how can we make a meaningful observation like this. There can be no confirmed statistical information to base this on. Again it is just an assumption, and we all know what they say when you assume.

Sighting Hotspots

One of the techniques BFRO (Bigfoot Field Research Organization) uses to “identify” places to look for the elusive Bigfoot is to ask in town meetings where locals have had their encounters. This takes a little more thought to debunk, but once you see it you will plainly see this method of “hot spotting” is fallacious as well. I will use the glaringly obvious example of the “Appalachian Trail”. When BFRO asked the people of a town fairly close to the trail where their sightings were it was not surprising that they focused around the Appalachian Trail. Why not surprising? Well, that’s where the people are. Let’s say for the sake of argument there is a real hot spot 20 miles into the woods and in fact a Bigfoot goes there every day. Now let’s say one hiker saw what he thought was a Squatch there and reports it. Well, this is one report off in the middle of nowhere and no one pays attention to it because only one person saw it. Now we find a spot along the Appalachian Trail where people see things and report them as Bigfoots. In fact it’s far more likely someone’s 6’8” cousin Jerome in a parka that likes to grab road kill. Well, this gets reported a bunch of times so it must be where the action is but in fact it is just where the people are. In a way the hot spot is just another faulty syllogism.

The Only Logical Fact BFRO Uses

The members of BFRO use the term “Squatchy Area” in almost every area. A “Squatchy Area” is one that usually has protected game animals in the area and an abundance of water and edible plants. This is a totally reasonable statement knowing that a large omnivore must live in the area. But this is just good observation of the environment, and while the statement is valid it is valid only insofar as you believe there are Bigfoots in the area, and that little fact remains unproven.

Some Bigfoot facts

- FACT: No one has ever had a confirmed kill of a Bigfoot
- FACT: No one has ever found a dead Bigfoot (damn those porcupines)
- FACT: No one has ever found Bigfoot spore/stool
- FACT: No one has ever found Bigfoot DNA
- FACT: No one has ever found Bigfoot DNA in, on or about a porcupine
- FACT: Of the possible millions of “trap cameras” just in and around the United States, NONE has ever been reported as tripped by a Bigfoot (yes, I qualify this one as I must)
- FACT: No one has ever found a dead animal killed by a Bigfoot
- FACT: Fur found high up telephone poles has never been from a Bigfoot (bear and moose usually, they use the telephone poles as scratching posts)
- FACT: Aside from the Patterson film in 1967 there has not been a single clear picture of a Bigfoot of any age, and even the Patterson film is not very clear and open to interpretation

Some OTHER Bigfoot “Facts"

- Bigfoots hang out in cemeteries
- Bigfoots like haunted area and may be why areas are considered haunted
- Bigfoots will use mattresses when available
- Bigfoots will sleep in barns or even haylofts on cold nights
- Bigfoots like to eat fresh water muscles (of course the calories it would take to pound one open would be more than the BF would get from eating it.)
- Bigfoots are peeping toms
- Bigfoots live in family units
- Bigfoots have a language of their own
- Bigfoots are eaten by porcupines when they die and thus we can never find their bones
- Bigfoots come in an array of colors and sizes (like people)
- Here’s a good one; if you have a Bigfoot encounter and DON’T see a Bigfoot it is more likely that you have had a Bigfoot encounter. (Why, because Bigfoot is SO elusive. Love that logic.)
- Bigfoots are as smart if not smarter than people (look at how well they hide)
- On the up side, Bigfoot has never had anyone’s baby (use any configuration you want)

These “Other Bigfoot Facts” are of course a small list of anecdotal facts BFRO drop in from time to time to add more flavor to the show. They are totally unproven and in some cases cannot be proven but that doesn’t stop the “true believers” from accepting them hook, line, and sinker; except for the last one, I made that up but would bet some tabloid has reported this.

The Investigations

If you can call them investigations, they tend to be three or four day jaunts to places where they have a primary sighting, maybe backed up with a photo or even video. From there they try to determine the size of the Bigfoot and maybe the speed of the Bigfoot. In most cases they eliminate the eyewitness evidence right then and there. This high scrutiny of evidence gives them an appearance of real investigator but it becomes obvious when the methods they use are usually just eyeball guestimates using Bobo as a stand-in for the Bigfoot. Of course all the initial investigations get ruled out as Bigfoot sightings, but they inevitably feel that if they stick around they will find something. At this point the group splits; one person camps out in the area and attempts to have a solo encounter (always with no confirmable results) and the rest of the group heads to the closest town and holds a town meeting to get more anecdotal evidence. From this they make a hotspot map and do a simple investigation of two or three “good” sightings. The group then gets back together and holds a night investigation somewhere near their hotspot and then leave without results. The upshot is a lot of talk and many “maybe” pieces of evidence (none confirmed) and on to the next episode.  One could get bored if it weren’t for the exuberance which they go after the “Elusive Bigfoot”. This is also where the phrase “all these maybe events are adding up to a probably for me” (usually said by Matt Moneymaker, BFRO founder) and from a logic standpoint this makes no sense whatsoever.
It quickly becomes apparent that none of these people have any training in performing a real investigation. There are no forensic skills to be seen and even if they were to come across something that has a strong chance of being related to a Bigfoot I have never seen them break out latex gloves, swabs or any kind of specimen collecting paraphernalia. The equipment they do have is off the self and there is never talk of calibrations so anything they do get from the equipment is immediately questionable. But what do you expect from “true believers”.

The Cast

Matt Moneymaker is the Founder of BFRO (Bigfoot Field Research Organization) and is credited (self-accreditations) for most of the techniques the group uses. He also has several pieces of “evidence” that he claims are authentic but have never been proven forensically. He is quick to jump to conclusions and uses the default position that anything not immediately explained MUST be a Sasquatch. It is truly hard to believe anything he has to say with that default position. He also claims to have attended UCLA but does not list degrees or fields of study. His bio on Animal Planet mentions a conference at Rutgers University on Cryptozoology but not that he has a specialty in Cryptozoology.
Cliff Barackman is the “data” guy of the group and claims a large collection of Bigfoot track castings. He has some college but as with Matt there is no evidence he ever finished college and again there are no fields of study listed. He claims to have a strong interest in the physical evidence but on the show does not display any forensic ability. He is like Matt in that his default position of anything not immediately explainable MUST be a Sasquatch.
Ranae Holland is a research biologist and holds a BS degree from the school of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington. She also works with NOAA and other scientific research firms. Of all the cast members it is her that I would hope brings a sense of stability to the group, but this is seldom the case. You would think she should be pointing out the logical issues the group runs into all day, but for all this her scientific mind is relegated a back seat. She does not believe in Bigfoot and is not technically a BFRO member, but a long time interest in the area of Bigfoot compels her to want to have that Bigfoot sighting she can believe is real. It still hasn’t happened.
James “Bobo” Fay is the one true believer in the group. While the others say they believe you can feel his belief coming through the screen. He is also one to dismiss more sightings than Matt or Cliff and dismisses more “maybe” sounds and evidence during investigations. But over the years he has become a stockpile of anecdotal information and that ends up making him more endearing to the viewers than you would suspect. In investigations he is usually the Bigfoot stand-in being that he is a large guy and his strong suit is not along forensic lines. He shines when he does see or hear something “Squatchy” and his energy makes the show interesting.

Will the Real Bigfoot Please Stand Up...

From what we see from BFRO and Finding Bigfoot they are very unlikely to ever find a Bigfoot or even capture one on film, video or even any provable audio. The reason is simple, they are hit and run investigators and if Bigfoot is out there and SO rare just hanging around areas that are supposed hotspots (but aren’t) will never yield results. It’s as if Sasquatches are magic, and camera and recording devices always seem to malfunction around them. No one ever chases the Bigfoot sighting even though we have no report that a Bigfoot has ever hurt someone (if they exist at all), so why not chase. There are so many reasons to think there may be Bigfoots but not one shred of solid evidence in favor of his existence. It is like chasing UFO (which you would think with all the time these guys spend outdoors at night they should have come across as well), there is no firm starting point and thus no way to know you are getting anywhere. But maybe they could up their odds…

How I would investigate...

This Bigfoot mystery is going to be solved only with a LARGE amount of funding. First, research the most likely place a Squatch would be. Take anecdotal evidence at face value and use some real biodiversity analytics be your guide. You are probably looking for a dense forest area restricted from game hunting with year round water, plentiful edible plants and maybe easy access to shelter. Once the place is located consider your hunt area is something with a healthy radius (say 5-10 miles). Now we get serious, trap cameras, spread out a lot of them, thousands. Every camera should have a match, two cameras watching each other. Network the cameras for faster and more accurate reporting. This is a lot of work, but the elusive Bigfoot knows how not to be seen by cameras, so force the issue, saturation is your best bet. Do your Bigfoot calls all you want, try attracting them with bacon and women, whatever, but don’t stop after 4 day. At this point you need to become part of the environment. A one year expedition to an area would be reasonable. Now at this point you may well say you are going to scare off the Bigfoots, and I say if you got a 10 mile radius covered in cameras you are going to see them leaving. One other little proviso, your location MUST remain secret, if it gets out where you are any sightings become suspect.

Now go get ‘em.