Legend or science?

"Sasquatch: Legend meets Science" is a pro-Bigfoot documentary, claiming that solid scientific evidence for the existence of a North American ape really does exist. To be honest, the film is quite boring - "Ancient Mysteries: Bigfoot" narrated by Leonard Nimoy is better. Still, I suppose "Sasquatch" is a must see for those who want to hear the "believer" side of the story.

One piece of evidence discussed is the footprints from various parts of the United States attributed to Bigfoot. An expert concludes that they aren't compatible with human footprints or those of any known ape, pointing to the "fingerprints" on certain parts of the feet. Another researcher has analyzed hundreds of purported Bigfoot footprints from various parts of North America and concluded that their size has a bell-shaped distribution, which is apparently to be expected if the prints are genuine. Perhaps it's just me, but I find purely statistical evidence unconvincing - some statistics prove astrology (apparently Scorpios are more likely to read astrology books?!).

The analysis of the famous Patterson-Gimlin film is more interesting. The researchers argue that the creature doesn't walk or move like a human, and that gorilla suits simply weren't that advanced back in 1967. Nor did people in general have the knowledge necessary to fake the walk of a great ape-like creature.

There is also evidence that is inconclusive at best. The team analyzes a spooky sound recording, drawing the conclusion that the calls are indeed made by a primate...but that this could include humans! DNA tests from the so-called Skookum print come up with absolutely nothing, although the team feels that at least some of the mysterious prints weren't made by an elk or other known animal. The researchers also prove that a "running Bigfoot" in the sensational Memorial Day footage could have been an ordinary man, and that he isn't really running very fast - the team's college runner was substantially faster. The speed-runner Bigfoot is just an illusion created by the camera angle.

I haven't read the accompanying book by Jeffrey Meldrum (yet), but so far I think the evidence for Bigfoot is suggestive but nevertheless inconclusive. Of course, the main problem with "cryptids" is precisely their strange ability to remain cryptic - decade after decade, century after century. Why doesn't *some* of these creatures, which supposedly exist all over the world, even in the vicinity of big cities, ever get caught or killed? The flesh-and-blood school of cryptozoology has the same problem as the nuts-and-bolts school of ufology: if thousands of literal space craft roam our skies, land on our fields and even dive under water, why hasn't anyone been able to catch a single alien?

Perhaps Bigfoot is a projection of our collective unconscious? But, of course, that's an explanation even more weird than the phenomenon itself... ;-)