Formal Scientific Studies of Bigfoot or Sasquatch
| Missing image Merge_articles.png | It has been proposed that this article or section be merged with Bigfoot.
This request may be discussed on the article's talk page. |
| Missing image Stop_hand.png | The neutrality of this article is disputed. |
| Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. |
Though there have been a number of Formal Scientific Studies of Bigfoot or Sasquatch, an unconfirmed apelike creature reported primarily in the Pacific northwest of North America. While the subject has seen little formal interest, there have been a few notable scientific studies my mainstream academic experts.
Bernard Heuvelmans’s 1955 magnum opus, On The Track of Unknown Animals did not specifically discuss Bigfoot, but did discuss Yeti accounts, and is often seen as the root of cryptozoology.
Ivan T. Sanderson’s articles on mysterious animals that had seen publication in the likes of the Saturday Evening Post, and his Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come To Life (1961) was aimed at popular audiences; it went through several printings. Coleman and Clark write that the 525-page volume “remains a useful reference book”(Coleman and Clark, 212), while Krantz characterizes Sanderson’s writing as "'enthusiastic' ... reporting data from a variety of sources with what seemed to be little concern for consistency or verification," an approach which "certainly lowered his credibility in the eyes of the few scientists who read his work." (Krantz, 1) Sanderson’s book remains notable as perhaps the first book-length survey of enigmatic "hairy hominids", and certainly helped popularize Yeti, Bigfoot and other mysterious primates reported worldwide.
Perhaps the first mainstream scientific study of available evidence was by prominent primate expert John Napier. Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality (1973) offers an even-handed and sympathetic examination. While giving high marks to some earlier researchers ("Ivan T. Sanderson and John Green (and) Rene Dahinden ... have made a far better job of recording the major events of the sasquatch saga than I could ever hope to do". (Naper, 73), Napier wrote that if we are to form a conclusion based on scant extant "'hard’ evidence", science must declare "Bigfoot does not exist." (ibid, 197) Yet this conclusion is qualified, as Napier seemed willing to leave the question unresolved. He found it difficult to entirely reject thousands of alleged tracks "scattered over 125,000 square miles” or to dismiss all "the many hundreds" of eyewitnesses. He also adds that "if one track is genuine and one report is true-bill, then myth must be chucked out the window and reality admitted through the front door." (ibid, 203) In the end, Napier writes "I am convinced that Sasquatch exists, but whether it is all it is cracked up to be is another matter altogether. There must be something in north-west America that needs explaining, and that something leaves man-like footprints." (ibid, 205)
(Decades later, Krantz suggests that Napier "stuck his neck out a lot further than most primatologists by writing a book about hairy bipeds in which he took the subject quite seriously." (Krantz, 240)
In 1974, the National Wildlife Federation funded a field study seeking Bigfoot evidece. No formal Federation members were involved, and the study made no notable discoveries. (Bourne, 295)
1975’s The Gentle Giants: The Gorilla Story was coathored by Geoffrey H. Bourne, another noted primatologist; its final chapter is a brief summary of various mystery primate reports worldwide. Like Napier, he laments the dearth of physical evidence, but Bourne does not dismiss Sasquatch or Yeti as impossible.
From May 10-13, 1978, the University of British Columbia hosted a symposium, "Anthropology of the Unknown: Sasquatch and Similar Phenomena, a Conference on Humanoid Monsters". 35 papers were presented (abstracts collected in Wasson, 141-154). Most attendees came from anthropology backgrounds, and Pyle writes that the conference "brought together twenty professors in various fields along with several serious laymen to consider the mythology, ethnology, ecology, biogeography, physiology, psychology, history and sociology of the subject. All took it seriously, and while few if any accepted the existence of Sasquatch outright, they jointly concluded 'that there are not reasonable grounds to dismiss all the evidence as misinterpretation or hoax.'"(Pyle, 186)
Notable was a plenary address, by prominent anthropologist Carleton S. Coon: "Why There Has To Be A Sasquatch." Coon stated, "Even before I read John Green's book, Sasquatch: the Apes Among Us, I accepted the Sasquatch's existence ... Unfaked footprints are reported every year. (One can usually tell the difference because a man's weight is not enough to press the phony template down enough, among other things) ... Professor Stephen I Rosen of the University of Maryland has identified its hair as that of a previously unknown primate--and he has hair on file for most of the living primates of the world ... On this substantially impeccable evidence we may be justified to state that a primate other than man, which is either a pongid (ape), or hominid (kind of man) is alive in Washington ... It is easier to say what they are not than what they are. They are not Neanderthals."[1]
Some papers presented at the symposium were collected in 1980 as Manlike Monsters on Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence (edited by Marjorie Halpin and Michael Ames).
Pyle does not offer a publication date, but he reports that sometime after the early 1970’s, the Army Corps of Engineers mentioned Bigfoot in their formal Environmental Atlas of Washington State. "Under fauna", Pyle writes, "the corps listed Bigfoot and said: 'Reported to feed on vegetation and some meat. The Sasquatch is covered with long hair, except for the face and hands, and has a distinctively humanlike form.' It called the Sasquatch agile and strong, with good night vision and great shyness, 'leaving minimal evidence of its presence.'" Pyle goes on to suggest that “While the army did not come out and say that Sasquatch occus in Washington, it discussed the subject seriously at some length and included a map of sightings ... the compilers, with the U.S. Army’s imprimateur, classified the animal’s existence as not unlikely." (Pyle, 229)
Following this modest peak in interest in the late 1970’s, there has been little formal academic interest in the subject; many experts see further study as a waste of time. In more recent years, Grover Krantz achieved a degree of noteriety as probably the leading accredited expert to devote considerable effort to the subject, though a few professionals have followed in his footsteps. Few have endorsed Krantz’ conclusions that Sasquatch is a real creature, but at the very least, such experts argue that serious studies on the subject deserve fair consideration.
(It’s worth noting that Pyle’s Where Bigfoot Walks: Crossing the Dark Divide (1995)--as much a survey of Bigfoot’s cultural impact as of the likelihood of the creature’s reality--was researched and written with a grant from the Guggenheim Foundation.)
Sources
See the main Bigfoot page for a full bibliography