In its current issue, the
Journal of Biogeography has published an article whose authors use ecological niche modelling software to predict the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America. The authors write:
We were stimulated to write this piece as a tongue-in-cheek response to the increasing prevalence of ENMs in the literature and in papers presented at professional meetings. As in any rapidly developing field with the promise of exciting applications, there is the potential for the empirical acceptance of new approaches to outpace conceptual understanding. The point of this paper has been to point out how very sensible-looking, well-performing (based on AUC and threshold tests) ENMs can be constructed from questionable observation data.
The authors then created an ecological niche model for the black bear,
Ursus americanus, and discovered that the two models (for Bigfoot and black bear) were remarkably similar, leading them to conclude that "many Bigfoot sightings are, in fact, of black bears." (via
New Scientist)
Comments
I bet the distribution of densely wooded areas is also similar. Are most forest sightings actually black bears?
That being said, it's a very interesting way to look at it, and they're probably on the right track.
With the proliferation of small digital cameras everywhere, where are the pictures of these animals?
Black bears are sighted often around here, in fact, there's a breeding population in a state park just 15 miles away. But there's never been a bigfoot sighting in this entire section of the state.
Figures... I live too far to the southeast to see bigfoot, and too far north to see a swamp ape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UeCRY1wciA
Chimpanzees with polio end up walking in an upright fashion to cope with distorted hips and thighs; Wonder if a bear would do the same if it had this or some other disease like rickets, due to vitamin deficiency? A slightly distorted black bear could be what people have been seeing, assuming they are simply not making it all up./hallucinating.
SO, their result is by their own admission spurious. And they are saying that black baers cannot be mistaken for Bigfoot. In other words, they are using an argument to disprove a falsifiable method . . . by making a claim that is demonstarbly false, since Bigfoot and black bears are both real and cannot be confused.
Rather like saying that airport metal detectors are faulty, because when leprechauns pass through their gold isn't picked up by the scanners . . . 😊