Comments on: Bigfoot press conference barely rates as a disappointment

By: media kingdom

media kingdom — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:09:50 +0000

i’m still trying to figure out if “Sasquatch” is Bigfoot’s name, or if that’s the name of his species

By: Eric S.

Eric S. — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 02:35:38 +0000

Huh. I hadn't thought of that; there has been a lot of strange creature news lately, hasn't there? The sixty-four dollar question is, has there actually been an increase in cryptozoological phenomena, or simply an increase in press coverage? Media does have a tendency to bounce from meme to meme, so it could be we're in the midst of a Flavor of the Month starting to scratch cardboard at the bottom of the carton. But if there's been an actual increase in the number of new species being discovered, and if I were either a conspiracy theorist or a science fiction writer, I'd swear this was just Phase II or a plan whose Phase I was the Pope's acknowledgement that life may exist elsewhere in the cosmos this past May. Conspiracy theorists and/or science fiction authors wishing to use this premise may do so if their either a) name the theory or b) a supporting character after me.

By: David

David — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 02:07:37 +0000

Thanks Eric S. for putting this in perspective. Although solid evidence of a large mammal in rural Georgia would be amazing, the route by which this "discovery" is being brought to light certainly leaves a lot to be desired. What I find much more interesting is this spike in interest in cryptozoology, and what that might be saying about society in general. Lets review for a moment: since early July, we've had the Montauk monster washed up on Long Island, a nice video of an unknown canine-like animal in Texas, and now possibly a physical specimen of a Bigfoot. And these are just the crank stories. Elsewhere in the more reputable media, we've recently had a novel shrew in Tanzania, a lemur-like mammal in Borneo, and the continued near-sightings of the Oh My God! bird by ornithologists in the SE United States for several years now. I'm not sure what this all means either, except that perhaps we don't know quite as much as we think we do about the world around us. So even if the Montauk Monster turns out to be a pit bull terrier that spent a few weeks too long floating over from Connecticut, and Corporal Reidel's chubracabra is just another coyote with mange, this doesn't change the fact that the diversity of life is likely more complex than we can imagine. I think this is a wonderful thing. The occasional discoveries of a never-before seen shrew should be a source of delight for us that perhaps we haven't completely mucked things up around here.

By: Eric S.

Eric S. — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:55:29 +0000

Hi, Dr. Prochazka, and thanks for stopping by. I’m 100% in agreement with you that what little info released thus far doesn’t disprove that the remains are a real bigfoot. But — and this is a big but — the fact that so little evidence has been released is certainly grounds for bracing oneself for disappointment. In the word of this fellow Charlie I stumbled across trying to find a transcript of the press conference, “At this point, the only reason to believe the owners of Bigfoot Global LLC have a real Bigfoot body is because they said so. The so-called ‘evidence’ is non-existent, at this point.”

By: Michal Prochazka, MD

Michal Prochazka, MD — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:12:13 +0000

I’m looking forward when the details of the DNA analysis will be made public. Considering that the DNA between human and chimpanzee is 96% identical, it is possible that the similary between human and bigfoot DNA will be even higher. Depending what kind of analysis was done, it is not impossible that DNA from bigfoot may look like human DNA. IMO whatever little info has been released about the DNA analysis, it does not disprove that the remains are a real bigfoot.