Bigfoot research and credible researchers!?

[lepage]

Having just read some interesting articles on Bigfoot, I came across a few articles on a guy by the name of Tom Biscardi. I was wondering if anyone has heard of him and if so, Is he legit or a phony!?
I neither believe nor disbelieve in Bigfoot. I just find it all interesting.

[Cmonster]

I've spoken to Tom Biscardi. He seems like a very passionate and driven guy. Whether Bigfoot exists or not, I don't know either, but I wish him the best in his endeavors.

SC

[Brazoo]

Tom Biscardi is the Big Foot "expert" who got duped by the costume in a freezer fraud. He might be a nice guy, but his need to believe overwhelmingly taints his critical thinking abilities in my opinion.

Here's a clip of an interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7lNmbNlO2g

An article exposing the hoax he perpetuated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAcN0...eature=related

[Brazoo]

If you're interested, there's a fantastic interview with Eric Altman from the Penn Bigfoot Society on the podcast "Skeptics Guide To The Universe".

Both sides do a good job of presenting what specific evidence is needed to scientifically further serious big foot research.

Here's a link to the podcast:
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe - Download free podcast episodes by Dr. Steven Novella on iTunes.

That interview is item 250 on that list, Episode #26.

[MIB41]

Many within the Hollywood effects community claim to know that legendary makeup artist John Chambers (Planet of the Apes fame) privately admitted to being the one who filmed that infamous sequence where you see "Big Foot" lumbering along in the forest and looking back. He states that was actually his WIFE in the costume he made for that shot.

[LadyZod]

I don't find it hard to believe that in a world where we're constantly discovering new species, that an unknown species of North American Ape can exist. In fact I'd find it harder to believe that one doesn't.

For every legit cryptozoologist that want to take research of Bigfoot seriously along the lines of science, there's always a loon that claims Bigfoot is an alien and is married to Elvis.

The Patterson film may or may not be legit. It's really easy to claim "ownership" once the folks brought it to the mainstream (Patterson and Gimlin) are no longer around to answer. If it was faked, the guy did a good job. He captured the imagination of many kids in the 70's.

One guy I'd steer clear of is Dave Shealy when it comes to the FL Skunk Ape.

[stevenlore]

Tom Biscardi is a fraud. He has no credibility with Cryptozoologists. If you want an expert, it is Loren Coleman. See his site Cryptomundo - for Bigfoot, Loch Ness, and More - Blog Home

[johnmiic]

Tom Biscardi was involved in the Georgia, costume in a cooler, fiasco in 2008. Honestly I don't know if he is just looking for attention or gets caught up in stuff beyond his control. My info comes from the BRFO website:

http://www.bfro.net/hoax.asp

The BFRO is a very good resource for reports and news on Bigfoot. You should also look at books written by Dr. Grover Krantz, Dr. Jeff Meldrum, John Green, Rene Dandehien, Ivan T. Sanderson and Loren Coleman. Many of these guys are top in the field.

I think some of the best evidence beyond the tracks is the Paterson/Gimlin film. That film has not been disproven. People claim to have debunked it-THEY HAVE NOT. Also a man by the name of Paul Freeman used to videotape Bigfoot in the Pacific Northwest before his death. His tapes don't offer much as far as resolution goes but they are tantalizing. Do a search for his vids on youtube.

Some in the Hollywood community claim makeup artist John Chambers (Planet of the Apes) made the suit in that film. I think that was a load of crap Director John Landis used to push on the public. What connection John Landis has to Bigfoot is beyond me. Chambers was interviewed by one of the websites. They got him to set the record straight.

John Chambers: Obituary

There is a double-standard here to take note of. If people come forward with sightings or evidence they are treated with ridicule and are required to jump thru a lot of hoops to prove what they saw is real. Even if they do they are often not believed. When someone claims to debunk a sighting or evidence they are not usually subject to the same rigorous standards. If someone claims that 1 sighting or 1 set of tracks is fake or misidentified, people usually conclude the whole thing is probably not true. If someone is going to come forward and claim they wore the suit in the Patterson/Gilmin film then put your money where your mouth is and show us the suit. Let us compare what you have to what is in the film. If you don't have the suit make another one and let us scrutinize it to see if you truly can make a suit that good. Most debunkers are usually publicity seekers and offer nothing of importance.

[MIB41]

The idea that the "Big Foot" species could somehow "interact" with folks yet, NO ONE has been able to even provide a DNA sample from one of these "tracks", let alone a few bones of these creatures tells me all I need to know. It's scientifically impossible for something of that scale to roam this continent and not leave behind traces of it's existence outside of what someone making a buck shows up with. It's nonsense. An animal on that scale does not know what a camera is. It could not know what a video recorder is. So how could it be elusive and why would only scam artists have lame, out of focus, shots which do not confirm anything? And the animals it would need to eat to survive on that scale have never had declining populations to suggest something is feeding out there. H*ll where do they take a dump? There simply isn't anything to prove this thing exists. NOTHING. He ranks right up there with the boogie man. The burden of proof is on the likes of you, not me. You think it's really out there, even though there is no scientific proof? Great! Prove it. Lets get one on Oprah. Until then, just watch old reruns of the Six Million Dollar man. The Bionic Big Foot is about as real as you will EVER get.

[Brazoo]

Tom Biscardi was involved in the Georgia, costume in a cooler, fiasco in 2008. Honestly I don't know if he is just looking for attention or gets caught up in stuff beyond his control. My info comes from the BRFO website:

http://www.bfro.net/hoax.asp

The BFRO is a very good resource for reports and news on Bigfoot. You should also look at books written by Dr. Grover Krantz, Dr. Jeff Meldrum, John Green, Rene Dandehien, Ivan T. Sanderson and Loren Coleman. Many of these guys are top in the field.

I think some of the best evidence beyond the tracks is the Paterson/Gimlin film. That film has not been disproven. People claim to have debunked it-THEY HAVE NOT. Also a man by the name of Paul Freeman used to videotape Bigfoot in the Pacific Northwest before his death. His tapes don't offer much as far as resolution goes but they are tantalizing. Do a search for his vids on youtube.

Some in the Hollywood community claim makeup artist John Chambers (Planet of the Apes) made the suit in that film. I think that was a load of crap Director John Landis used to push on the public. What connection John Landis has to Bigfoot is beyond me. Chambers was interviewed by one of the websites. They got him to set the record straight.

John Chambers: Obituary

There is a double-standard here to take note of. If people come forward with sightings or evidence they are treated with ridicule and are required to jump thru a lot of hoops to prove what they saw is real. Even if they do they are often not believed. When someone claims to debunk a sighting or evidence they are not usually subject to the same rigorous standards. If someone claims that 1 sighting or 1 set of tracks is fake or misidentified, people usually conclude the whole thing is probably not true. If someone is going to come forward and claim they wore the suit in the Patterson/Gilmin film then put your money where your mouth is and show us the suit. Let us compare what you have to what is in the film. If you don't have the suit make another one and let us scrutinize it to see if you truly can make a suit that good. Most debunkers are usually publicity seekers and offer nothing of importance.

Honestly, it's 180 degrees the other way to my way of thinking. The debunkers don't come across as the publicity seekers to me. The hoaxers and frauds do - and unfortunately they taint serious and honest big foot enthusiasts.

One ongoing source of disharmony between people who think the existence of big foot is highly improbable (people like me) and people who believe that big foot exists is because the rules of the game aren't understood.

It's simply impossible to prove a negative. I can't prove that spiders don't exclusively live off of eating marshmallows, or that cucumbers communicate with Venus, or that vikings made Star Wars - all I can do is look at the evidence for those things and say they're highly improbable.

I'll grant you that big foot is much more probable in terms of being reasonable and believable than those things - of course my examples are just silly - but the fact that no one can disprove the existence for those things is not proof for the existence of those things. That's why the onus of proof is on the believers - not the skeptics.

And I think when it comes down to it big foot believers understand that, because even if a highly educated and respected entomologist came forward and said he had absolute proof that all spiders live off eating marshmallows it doesn't matter how much he insists, you'd want to see physical and confirmable evidence.

That the kind of evidence doesn't exist yet for big foot either. I'm not saying big foot believers are wrong, or unintelligent, or even misguided - but there is a specific set of rules they need to follow with their evidence before their theory will ever gain acceptance, and I think that's necessary.

[BlackKnight]

H*ll where do they take a dump?

Alaska is Full of Bottomless Outdoor and made "Honey Buckets" . He has now become somewhat Domesticated. ..., I mean, Come On Man, Squating up next to a Tree , might get a bit tiresome. It's nice to sit down, and Enjoy the Sports page every once in a while.

[Hector]

In order to survive...a species needs a fairly large population base and territory...especially for such a large creature such as Bigfoot.

One Bigfoot per state is just not realistic.

We have found bones (fossils) of dinosaurs from millions of years ago...yet we can't find one lone tailbone of a Bigfoot?

No way on Earth would this creature match the power of a 1000 pound Grizzly bear...in order for Bigfoot to survive...he would need to be in groups...one lone bipedal Bigfoot is dead meat against a four-legged, six-inch clawed Grizzlies, and pack of wolves...unless he has weapons, lol.

No...I don't believe such a creature exists...especially in highly populated First World USA...where the name of the game is technology...I mean...we can find a bloody ant from 20 miles up in the air, let alone a smelly hairy tall dude, lol.

[johnmiic]

There are answers to many of the problems you point out:

The idea that the "Big Foot" species could somehow "interact" with folks yet, NO ONE has been able to even provide a DNA sample from one of these "tracks", let alone a few bones of these creatures tells me all I need to know.

DNA has been collected from some sites in the form of hair samples but not usually from within footprints. Some hair samples have proven to be different from known primates. Not every hair sample will yield DNA because it's collected out in the wild. The elements can degrade and destroy good DNA samples. In the samples that have yielded positive DNA but the DNA did not match any known animal. It could not be said with %100 certainty it was a Bigfoot sample-as no one has verifiably collected a Bigfoot DNA/Hair sample-but it leaves the door open.

How many bones, do people casually find, on any given day of the week, lying around, out in the open, waiting to be found, of a dead: mouse, rat, rabbit, squirrel, a fox, raccoon, cat, dog, pidgeon, eagle, hawk, vulture, coyote, wolf, mountain lion, horse, deer, moose, a buffalo or a bear? How about Gorillas? Except for animals that are the victims of poaching how many do you find lying around out in the open waiting to be found? All these animals we know are real but except for roadkill for some of the smaller animals, you do not find skeletons, or partial skeletons or bones untouched by scavengers. These things do not ordinarily around waiting to be found.

It's scientifically impossible for something of that scale to roam this continent and not leave behind traces of it's existence outside of what someone making a buck shows up with. It's nonsense.

Besides hair we have track and footprint finds accross the world-not just the US. Also some possible hand prints have been found in some locations. Areas where the creature lives usually sport trees that have been snapped at a high level. Usually too high for man or bear to do so. Nests have been found. Trees and shrubs "arranged" in a way to provide shelter, cover and comfort for something very large to sleep in and not be detected by a casual person. If Bigfoot is truly a primate and similar to Apes it may also travel trough trees like other primates and remain unseen to people just walking around.

There have also been vocalizations recorded. There are few but some have been captured on tape. All of this adds up to evidence. We know an animal is out there which we have not caught or catalogued yet.

An animal on that scale does not know what a camera is. It could not know what a video recorder is. So how could it be elusive and why would only scam artists have lame, out of focus, shots which do not confirm anything?

We don't actually know what the intelligence rating of a Bigfoot is. We've never tested one. There are Great Apes/Gorillas and chimpanzees in captivity that can learn sign language and communicate with people. They can ask for food, toys, paint pictures. It is not beyond the capability of an animal, which is at least considered the equal of an Ape, to know rule No.1 in life is to avoid man. Perhaps they avoid people carrying camera's because they don't know if people are actually carrying guns. How do we know when people go hunting, Bigfoot has not seen the effects of what a gun can do to a deer? Maybe they noted that when the white man moved in the Native American peoples died off very suddenly. Not because they are smart and can talk and reason but only because they saw a change in their environment. They may avoid people for fear of being shot. That is not so complex a lesson to learn for any animal.

Also there is some talk about them being mainly nocturnal. Daytime sightings are very rare and the reason could be they avoid most people by travelling and forraging at night. One new avenue of research is infra-red & thermal imaging. People have started setting up infra-red & thermal video camera's at night to capture Bigfoot. There have been some good results so far but nothing that would prove once and for all Bigfoot exists.

And the animals it would need to eat to survive on that scale have never had declining populations to suggest something is feeding out there. H*ll where do they take a dump?

There is plenty for Bigfoot to eat in the wild. Have you ever watched the TV survivor programs on cable like Survivorman? There are scat finds which are associated with Bigfoot but not many eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot in "the act". You would need to witness it to verify it conclusively. Some people are pretty certain they have found scat finds from Bigfoot tho based upon what is in the scat. Do we really want to go into detail on this?

There simply isn't anything to prove this thing exists. NOTHING. He ranks right up there with the boogie man. The burden of proof is on the likes of you, not me. You think it's really out there, even though there is no scientific proof? Great! Prove it. Lets get one on Oprah. Until then, just watch old reruns of the Six Million Dollar man. The Bionic Big Foot is about as real as you will EVER get.

Brazoo, I think this addresses your concerns as well. This is a great topic and I love talking about it and love reading what people think. You can't deal with extremes. This is not an all or nothing situation. There is plenty of evidence that suggest it's a real animal. However debunkers and hoaxers don't offer anything in the argument. People who are serious researchers have hair, DNA, verifiable track casts, some film & video and vocal recordings.

It is just as important that if a hoaxer wants to claim they wore the suit-then show me the suit. That is not an unreasonable request. If people who have a collected a foot-cast or made a film or collected hair in the wild, have to go through he gauntlet just to prove what they have is real, then so should anyone claiming they faked it. If you don't have the suit anymore then make me another. Use the same materials and do it the same way you did it in 1967. If you can make a suit that good, better than a Hollywood SPFX make-up artist, then do it. It should be even easier to do it today than in 1967. Otherwise why poison the well? It angers me and I speak out against it because it's the actions of an ignoramus. It doesn't help further knowledge and it doesn't weed out bad evidence.

You claim a track was a fake-show me the fake foot. Show me how you carved it. What materials did you use? The researchers can evaluate it and discount that 1 piece of evidence if it was faked. The research will continue.

[Brazoo]

johnmiic - from my knowledge the DNA you're referencing was compared to animals found locally - not every known animal. As far as I know the process of comparing a DNA sample to every known species would be extremely expensive and technically almost impossible to do, so I don't think the examples you're referencing are exciting the scientific community for a reason - not just because of prejudice. Even the best big foot evidence is very weak when you look at the probability of how genuine the samples are, especially when you measure probability based on what we currently know about our habitat and known species.

The many documented cases of foot print casting and suit hoaxes prove that a certain amount of big foot enthusiasts, even well respected ones, can be fooled. And again, if you're saying that people who doubt big foot's existence need to prove the Patterson-Gimlin film was a fraud using a suit, for example, I'm agreeing that it can't be done. That was the whole point of my last post. Anyone can come up with a number of things that can't be proved to not exist. Thats why the burden of proof lays with the people making claims agains the consensus of knowledge - not the other way around.

Even you must admit that the Patterson-Gimlin film could have possibly been filmed with a suit. Everything imaginable is just a matter factoring probability - like Hector said, as it stands the ratio of breeding population needed to sustain a big foot species and the population of humans living in North America are a huge blow to the probability of big foot's hidden existence.

It's not a double standard - it's the standard that everything in science and critical thinking is held to. All our collective knowledge is gained that way.

[johnmiic]

from my knowledge the DNA you're referencing was compared to animals found locally - not every known animal. As far as I know the process of comparing a DNA sample to every known species would be extremely expensive and technically almost impossible to do, so I don't think the examples you're referencing are exciting the scientific community for a reason - not just because of prejudice.

The samples are not exciting the scientific community because they are inconclusive. You find a DNA sample and it does not match a known animal on record. You can't say what it really is-because nothing you know of has that DNA. You can only say what it isn't-because it doesn't match any DNA catalogued so far. As far as science is concerned that doesn't mean Unknown DNA = Bigfoot. In order to identify a Bigfoot hair we need a captured Bigfoot to verify what such a DNA sample would actually look like. Scientists have mainly held that the only evidence they will consider is a dead body-nothing less I think. There are arguments to be made against killing one of these animals to prove it's real.

Your statement is very confusing. I assumed, based on the shows I was watching, that the samples collected were being compared to other primates, to rule out humans, known primates such as apes, chimps, orangutans, etc., possibly bears and generally animals you encounter in a forest environment in North America. I thought that was understood. Why would they compare the DNA to animals that lived around the whole world? Why compare it to animals that we know don't live in the USA? Would they compare the unknown DNA to elephants to rule them out? Because no elphants live in the US & Canada. Would they check against Camels or Koala's? Because they don't live in the Pacific Northwest or Canada as far as I know. Shouldn't any DNA sample have simple, obvious, characteristics that would automatically rule it out as being from non-primate/non-human? Can DNA from a human be easily confused with known DNA from a bear or a squirrel or a mountain lion?

if you're saying that people who doubt big foot's existence need to prove the Patterson-Gimlin film was a fraud using a suit, for example, I'm agreeing that it can't be done.

I am saying, if a person claims to know how the hoax was accomplished-they also share a burden of proof and must show us how it was done or withdraw from making such claims. TV Producer Robert Kiviat claims Bigfoot was a man in a suit. He went shopping around until he found Bob Heironimus willing to claim he wore the suit and propped him up as the culprit, (Kiviat's previous TV credits include: Producer, Alien Autopsy: (Fact or Fiction?) (1995). Gee, I wonder how that turned out? I know. The irony of that is not lost on me). Philip Morris of Morris Costumes claims he sold Patterson a costume. Bob Heironimus claims to have worn a costume for Patterson's film. Their accounts and descriptions of the costume do not match. John Landis and John Chambers allowed rumors to spread for years that it was costume John Chambers made. Where is the costume? Why can they not produce the costume? If the costume was thrown out-highly unlikely due to its value-why can they not produce a facsimilie? The BBC attempted to create a Bigfoot costume to show it could be done for a documentary they made a few years back and they failed to replicate the authentic look of the animal in the Patterson film. Costumes can be made if there is intent to show it can be done. Only the BBC has tried to show it can be done and they failed. The Patterson/Gimlin film has withstood the fakery test very well. So far no one has been able to replicate what is on that film.

The real answer probably is there was no costume used in that film. Occams Razor: the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred. Was an undiscovered animal caught on film or did people conspire to make a technologically advanced costume that even Hollywood special effects masters can't duplicate, to perpatrate a hoax but only revealed their involvement in the hoax 30-40 years later? The most likely answer is an unknown animal was caught on film. What we still need is more proof.

Even you must admit that the Patterson-Gimlin film could have possibly been filmed with a suit. Everything imaginable is just a matter factoring probability - like Hector said, as it stands the ratio of breeding population needed to sustain a big foot species and the population of humans living in North America are a huge blow to the probability of big foot's hidden existence.

It's not a double standard - it's the standard that everything in science and critical thinking is held to. All our collective knowledge is gained that way.

There IS a double standard here. The Double-standard exists in how the claims of people are received. A burden of proof also exists on the hoaxers. People who make claims they faked it are usually accepted as truthful. Why that is I don't know. People who claim they have evidence proving Bigfoot is real usually are considered liars or worse:crazy. People claiming they were in on the hoax gain noteriety and make money off these claims which have no truthful basis. They are tainting the evidence for their own selfish gain. People have devoted time, secured resources and equiptment and spent money out of their own pockets to look for this animal and when one of these ignorant yahoos comes along claiming they made the suit, they wore the suit, they made fake feet, they crap on all the good work dedicated people have done trying to prove Bigfoot exits. Showing me a costume used to perpetrate a hoax does not automatically mean Bigfoot = real but why to these hoaxers get a free pass? If they're so smart and they fooled all of us all these years show us how you did it. Let experts evaluate what you are claiming the same way they must evaluate what researchers are claiming. If you can show me you faked it we will eliminate certain examples of evidence that have been collected. Investigation will more likely eliminate the hoaxers and improve the collection of good evidence. If hoaxers cannot produce a suit which matches the one in Patterson's film that improves the possibility of the film being of a real animal.

Certainly a fake cannot be ruled out. I admit that. I am not dealing in extremes here. We are talking theoretically but I advocate that it is real. We have very compelling evidence that can be tested and evaluated. We can seperate hoax from good evidence. What we know is only the tip of the iceberg. No one is claiming there is only 1 Bigfoot per state or even for the US alone. There must be a population but we do not know how many there are because they are clever animals and we have not even caught one yet. Not catching one does not mean they all don't exist.

This is the benchmark for a Bigfoot Population which remains as yet-undiscovered. Animals can live, sustain a population and remain hidden from man out in the wild. Theoretically it can happen:

More than 100,000 rare gorillas found in Congo - CNN

Gorilla May Double World Numbers