Thursday, November 23, 2006

Where's the Bigfoot? (There's a tree stump in the way...)

` I have several interesting drafts, and have been too absent-minded to finish any of them yet.... Although, today I read an E-skeptic that got me rolling on the floor laughing! Apparently, a man named Jon-Erik Beckjord took a photo of a campsite and when it was developed he could make out a blob that he thought looked like... a bigfoot!!
` I'm sorry, but I cannot see anything that really looks like one, and my sufficiently coherent (I hope!) analysis is below, complete with my illustration. But first, the article:

Bigfoot Returns!

The press release which follows this introduction was sent to me recently by Jon-Erik Beckjord, a long-time Bigfoot hunter. It came attached with four photographs, which we present here untouched, along with the release accompanying them. Maybe I’m just a lousy pattern-seeking primate, but I just can’t see Bigfoot at all, even when I squint and use my imagination.

As an interesting back story to this, I emailed Beckjord to make sure it was okay to post his photographs. He agreed that it was fine, but insisted that I call him first, which I did. It was a most enlightening conversation. When I explained that, try as I may, I could not for the life of me see the creature in the phone, he insisted that everyone he showed these photos to without hesitation said things like “what’s that monkey doing there?”

` I then asked him, “Why are there no Bigfoot bodies?” That is, if you want to name a new species, you have to actually present to the scientific community a type specimen. Beckjord’s answer was most interesting: turns out that Bigfoot is not a primate evolved here on Earth, but is in fact a being from a parallel universe who pops in and out of our universe through worm holes.

` He referenced Einstein and Michio Kaku for this particular interpretation of quantum physics, and went on to explain that the worm hole/parallel universe theory also explains why we have no crashed UFOs, no alien bodies, along with ghost sightings, visitations from lost loved ones, and the like. So, in conclusion, Beckjord said that we do not now have—and never will have—physical evidence of Bigfoot.

The text follows and all the photos can be found on Beckjord’s website. I don't think they need any further commentary.

— Michael Shermer

` So, I went to the website to check it out, and I can't help but agree with Shermer - "What bigfoot?"

` Photo 1: A picture of a campsite including a car with an ambiguous, blurry piece of scenery just on the other side that appears to be a rotten tree stump.

` Photos 2 and 3: Clearly displays a blurry blob that looks more like a gnarled tree stump than a bigfoot. It is so bizarrely deformed that it could not even be a bigfoot, a human in a costume or any reasonable-looking mock-up:
` For example, it has an inflated shoulder - with pieces of moss apparently growing on it! - and most of its forearm would appear to be either missing or badly mangled and bent or something. Even so, judging from the 'shoulder' to the unrealistically round 'elbow', the arm would appear to be very short.
` On the other hand, its 'torso' is extremely and quite disproportionately long (and twisted at an awkward angle) as signified by its 'male organ' being just visible over the hood of the car. Then, when you judge where the ground would be behind the car, you then realize that its legs would have to be much shorter than those of Ms. Pitts, who is also in the picture!
` In fact, using her and the car as a scale, the 'bigfoot's' head and torso is as long as Ms. Pitts is tall, though its legs are only about two feet long! Think about it: A seven or eight-foot tall humanoid creature with two-foot legs!? Come on!! (...Unless, of course, it was on its knees because it was crouching out of sight? But if that were so, wouldn't it be ducking also?)

` Click for a larger image:

` Photo 4: The 'head' looks a little like Telly Monster from Sesame Street, except brown with a white nose! (And it appears to have two smaller pieces of moss!) Whatever it is, it definitely does not look like the Patterson photo it is compared to because its 'cranium' is too small. (Any diligent bigfoot researcher knows that Bob Heironimus, the guy in the gorilla costume for the Patterson film, was wearing a disguised football helmet!)
` And why bother even comparing new bigfoot evidence to the Patterson film anyway? After all (as I've implied), many of the hoaxers have come forth long ago. Not only that, but the modern image of bigfoot was invented in 1957, during a publicity stunt in Hot Springs where people were encouraged to search for giants (civilized, talking human giants who wore clothes, mind you) called 'Sasquatch'.
` Come to think of it, this last photo particularly reminds me of the 'Face on Mars'. If you compare the image to the one on his website, you will see that they are so blurry they somewhat resemble each other! (Small forehead, ambiguous nose, broad, open mouth....)

` Some people have claimed they could see hair and teeth, even a woman's body under it, or they said that it looked like the Sphynx at Giza! ...And then several clearer photographs were produced, showing it to be an unremarkable mountain range with absolutely no hair, teeth, or anything that would make it look more face-like. In fact, it looks like nothing more than just a mountain:

` I'm willing to bet a hundred dollars that something similar would happen if someone went back to that campsite and took another photo. Think about it - nobody actually saw the 'Bigfoot' until Beckjord developed his photos! Being a staunch believer, it apparently never occurred to him that perhaps the reason why was because it was not there to begin with!
` Since the object in question looks like a tree stump (with patches of moss growing on it!) more than anything else, I am willing to bet that if they should go back to that campsite and take another picture, they would find that - like the Martian 'face' - it is a natural structure after all!

` ...P.S.; The fact that Beckjord mentioned that Jane Goodall believes in bigfoot (rather, she thinks Bigfoot is plausible and says she wishes it were true, but maybe it isn't), appears to be a credibility ploy along with all the other claims of scientists backing him. Evidently, Goodall - like most people - just doesn't know much about the history of bigfoot stories, amazing scientist though she is. If you'd like to enlighten yourself on the matter, here is a good place to start!

28 comments:

Beckjord said...

Mike is possessed with the "Will to disbelieve" as all good debunkers do.

The car is 6 ft tall, and the
are therefore about four feet long.

The so-called hoaxer (1) of the PG
Film is only 5'10", and less
robust than I am. Has a stride
of under 28 in and the Bigfoot
had a stride of 41 in. Mike is totally uncritical of ANYONE
claiming to be a hoaxer.

I say: "Be skeptical of skeptics"

Jon-Erik Beckjord

http://www.beckjord.com

Beckjord said...

that is: the LEGS are about4 ft.

Beckjord said...

What Mike does not get is that due to Kaku and Einstein,

ALL paranormal phenomena now have
an explanation and that puts
skeptics out of business.

:-)

S E E Quine said...

` Jon-Erik Beckjord! Glad you could visit my site! Now, one thing at a time:

Mike is possessed with the "Will to disbelieve" as all good debunkers do.

` 1) Yes, critical thinking is all about "The Will to Suspend Belief." Otherwise, you would believe anything anyone claimed was true without evidence.
` In order to convince a careful thinker like Mike, you gotta produce some more convincing evidence than a really blurry photo (as they are easy to misinterpret) before he will consider it as reality.
` Of course, clear photos are easy enough to fake. (Not that I think you faked this one - it actually doesn't look good enough to be a hoax.)
` 2) He is not a 'debunker'. It's just that critical thought very often seems that way (but not always) because of the flood of irrationality that seems to rule various niches in the world.

The car is 6 ft tall, and the (legs) are therefore about four feet long.

` Oh. Well, okay, I'm sorry, it's just that your car looks smaller than that to me. So... you got a bigfoot with four-foot legs and an eight foot torso, plus a head. (Very different proportions from the Patterson video, BTW.)
` I'm guessing it comes from a dimension where there's not as much gravity so it doesn't tip over?

The so-called hoaxer (1) of the PG Film is only 5'10", and less robust than I am. Has a stride of under 28 in and the Bigfoot had a stride of 41 in.

` Actually, when the film was re-created, the filmers discovered that - judging from the distance the film was shot - the bigfoot could barely be six feet tall. It just looks bigger because its shape is quite robust.
` Sometimes, people are fooled by small fries in bigfoot suits. Even when they get up close!
` Take Ken Ticehurst, who dressed up as bigfoot and waited for a bus with his brother on board to pass by his hiding spot in Fraser Canyon. Once he and his brother got the bus driver riled up - one Pat Lindquist - he pulled over to check it out.
` Lindquist was 6'2", and he chased the bigfoot, suspecting that it was a guy in a suit. However, as he came close, he smelled rotting meat, freaked out, and ran back into the bus.
` He said the creature was at least seven feet tall and a lot heavier than he was, which is funny, considering that Ken was only 5'11" and weighed 165 lbs!
` All you need is an impressive enough appearance and people will think you are as big as you need to be.

I say: "Be skeptical of skeptics"

` As if every believer I've ever met hasn't said that before. Me, I just say: "Look closely and don't ignore anything. And if you don't have all the information about something, what seems to be the least complicated way it could appear that way?"
` I'm sorry, but your bigfoot you didn't even see looks like a rotted tree stump with green moss growing out of it. The simplest explanation is that it was - that would even explain why nobody saw it!

What Mike does not get is that due to Kaku and Einstein, ALL paranormal phenomena now have an explanation and that puts skeptics out of business.

:-)


` 1) O_o I ain't gonna say nothin'. Not here.
` 2) The logical method of skeptics is pretty much the same thing as the scientific method. So what, are you saying? That Einstein and Kaku put all scientists out of business?
` I think what you're trying to say is that 'debunkers' are put out of business. Well, they don't mean to 'debunk'. It just becomes their lot in life as people who think critically.
` In any case, Mike and other skeptics always say that once some seemingly paranormal phenomena is disovered and understood, it becomes something that can be used in scientific work, so in that way, he agrees with you.
` Even so, we will always need critical thinking (=skepticism) in the world in order to do science!! Plus, it is kind of a given that there will always be scammers and people who innocently misunderstand things in the world, and therefore, there will always be a need for people to expose them.
` And besides, how else would you determine the 'fake paranormal' phenomena from the real thing? Uncovering fakes may be tougher than ever!

` And one more thing; if you think that 'debunking' and perhaps being unreasonable about it is what skeptics are all about, then I think you may need 'skeptic lessons'. Here's a small one. I have a bunch more, too.

` ;-D

crabcake said...

If that's bigfoot in the tree, he's wearing a diaper and knee pads. Did I see it? Did I? Huh huh?

Galtron said...

No, he's that indistinct blob over in the bushes wearing headphones.

articulett said...

Look at this--it beats the face on mars--it's a landscape in Canada that looks like a woman listening to an ipod (the ipod is just a road).

http://news.satimagingcorp.com/2006/10/google_earth_reveals_face_in_a_1.html

People are excellent at seeing certain types of images where they are not intended that's for sure!

S E E Quine said...

` Wow! That looks more human-like than the mountain range on Mars, that's for sure!

beckjord said...

Mike-

Thanks for the outline of the ten foot Bigfoot by the 6 foot car.

We will call it "Shermer-Foot"

and thisnyear, we took photos and the Bigfoot is not there, since it was not an optical illusion, and has moved on.

Jon-Erik Beckjord

International Cryptozoological Society

S E E Quine said...

` I'd like to see them.

` BTW, I'm not Michael Shermer. I'm a bit shorter and have curves.

tara hauki said...

I agree with you.

I had the displeasure to spend three days with Jon-Erk and his girlfriend, and when I was allowed for a minute to look inside his office/bedroom ... I saw a large reddish orange fur suit that looked familliar. It wasn't until I was given a copy of the picture you have on your site, that I realized how similar the 'bigfoot' in the picture, and the reddish/orange looked. He said something intriguing to me there when he said he would lie, steal, or cheat to get what he wanted. Looks like he may have cheated himself.

Tara Hauki
http://onelifeoneheart.pbwiki.com

S E E Quine said...

` You're saying this all happened to you? That's messed up - in that case, Becky seems like even more of a nutcase in real life!
` Thing is, I can't imagine that blob as being a person in a suit. For one thing, the blob doesn't look very bigfoot-like to begin with, and for another thing, it's apparently too big to fit on a person unless they held their hands above their head.
` ...Unless Becky is really bad at making bigfoot suits that look like bigfoot.

Anonymous said...

Hauki has admitted to suicidal tendancies, being a meth user and a crack user.

Why are you believng her garbage?

Are you THAT gullible???

S E E Quine said...

` Well, Becky, there are perfectly respectable people who have taken meth and crack and who wanted to kill themselves who don't just lie about stuff.

toad said...

Hi,

Yes. All of those really happened to me ... and oh so much more. It's been the best ride, and of course I'm always ready for more.

Tara Hauki

I love bigfoot

S E E Quine said...

` If only I could log in again....

toad said...

And there WAS a red brown furry thing sitting on a chair in his room the weekend I stayed at his house. I admit I mentioned that when I was so mad at him for all the hitting and stuff ... hmmhmmm. But the truth is that I put two and two together after the fact and thought it was funny that there was a large piece of fur in his office thingy that was an exact match for the "bigfoot" in his picture. Another observation of mine is that the only 'real' bigfoot he has ever taken a picture of is that thing. All the rest are ... whatever ... Bigfoot ghosts. Whatever.

S E E Quine said...

` You mean 'ghosts' like his Nicole Brown Simpson shrubbery?

toad said...

Yeah, he takes pictures of places and he says there are likenesses of the people he wants to see in the shadows. I saw a lot of them and I agree a few of them look similar to what he says, but not many.

He says he does the same with bigfoot. He gave me a snapshot copy of the big red bigfoot image. I have it here at home.

He charges people like 500.00 to take pictures of arbitrary places, and then point out thier dead relatives to them. Not very scientific ... you must admit. I'm talking about Jon-Erik Beckjord here. I'de let him have his crazy theories cause we all have them of course, but the truth is the bastard hit me three times. It must have knocked my objective button out of whack where he is concerned. I try to make a habit of staying away from Bigfoot researchers who hit you with blunt objects and spray you in the face with pepper spray. It impedes my credibility meter.

S E E Quine said...

` I agree; jerk swindlers who use their overactive imaginations to make money are generally not the best people to be associated with!
` You know, if the furry thing on his chair really was the 'bigfoot' and not a tree stump, do you realize he must have made a 'male organ' for it, too?

toad said...

That's so pervy and gross to think about. Hind sight is 20/20, and that kind of scares me too. I spent almost a week with him and his girlfriend at his house. Eweth.

S E E Quine said...

` Hee hee! That's exactly how I never plan to spend any length of time!

toad said...

That's me motto ... "If you can't be a good example, be a bad warning". Glad to be of service.

S E E Quine said...

` Lol! Thanks so much!

toad said...

He's an armchair internet bigfoot expert. I don't think he swims either. he waits for people to send him supposed loch ness monster footage ... i.e. bird's flocking on the water. I saw one he recieved from a woman in England. He said it looked like a flock of birds. I thought so, and then he went and put on his site that it was a very good picture of Nessy. No soup for him.

S E E Quine said...

` Aaaaa-haaaa haaa haaa!

toad said...

Where's the bigfoot talk? Bring it back please. This is so much fun.

S E E Quine said...

I might... in my Corrigendopedia. Like, the second thing I write about or something.