Evidence for Bigfoot gains credibility when the possibility of human fabrication can be ruled out. The trackways of a crippled Sasquatch are said to provide such a compelling case, but examination of this claim suggests that hoaxing the footprints may have been a fairly manageable endeavor.
What distinguishes Bigfoot from other alleged contemporary monsters is its propensity to leave physical traces of its activity in the form of footprints. Indeed, the compendium of physical evidence attributed to the beast maintains the legend and has prompted some academics to argue for the animal's authenticity. Arguably the most important Bigfoot trackways were discovered in Bossburg, Washington, late in 1969. Well over 1,000 footprints were left of an allegedly crippled Sasquatch, whose left footprints were "normal" by Bigfoot standards but displayed right footprints betraying a type of acquired or congenital clubfoot deformity (figure 1).
- Fig. 1 — Right footprint of the Bossburg Sasquatch
- cripfoot.jpg (5.96 KiB) Viewed 2705 times
The rationale for accepting the tracks as genuine is summarized by Krantz in his book Big Footprints: "I figured the whole thing out after studying the footprints; any hoaxer had to plan it all out from nothing. This requires an expert anatomist with a very inventive mind, more so than me, and I seriously doubt that any such person exists" (1992, 63).
Krantz's opinion, consistent with Napier's and Meldrum's reasoning, is that the preserved imprint of the deformed foot is imbued with so much anatomical detail that the average person would not have the expertise required to fabricate the print. Critical to the argument is the suggestion that the proportions of the foot, in terms of the relative lengths of individual bones reconstructed from the deformed foot imprints, are decidedly nonhuman. Both Krantz and Meldrum agree that the bony proportions implied by the Bossburg tracks are biomechanically consistent with a large body mass significantly beyond human range. A potential hoaxer, it is argued, would be unlikely to understand the subtle functional transformations that would be entailed in scaling up a human foot to a biped of the staggering size of Bigfoot.
Invention or Imitation?
There is, however, a significant oversight in this argument. The linchpin of the argument is that a hoaxer would have been required to fabricate the details of the Bossburg prints from scratch, yet there is an alternative and far more plausible means of hoaxing such details. This alternative is based on the distinction between invention and imitation.
The possibility neglected by all investigators is that the Bossburg "cripplefoot" is simply an enlarged copy of a human clubfoot deformity. In 1969, textbooks describing congenital foot deformities were commonplace and had been for decades, and images (both photographic and radiographic) had been widely available in such sources. 4 The act of copying such images is a far more likely source of hoaxing than the involved cerebral and technical exercise of fabrication based on anatomical principles. It requires no specialized knowledge beyond tracing and enlarging a two-dimensional image, and the fabricated print of a real deformity ensures the correctness of anatomical detail. Krantz's insistence that a hoaxer must match his training and genius is thus irrelevant.
The argument for authenticity also hinges on the assumption that the footprints show a foot skeleton unique in proportion relative to human feet. If this observation is true, the hypothesis of an imitative hoax is undermined. This claim, however, rests on the assumption that Krantz's skeletal reconstruction of the Bossburg tracks is correct. Several arguments throw into question the accuracy of Krantz's reconstruction. First, the centerpiece of the reconstruction, in terms of establishing a foot that is functionally distinct from the human condition, depends on the correct placement of the tibiotalar joint of the ankle (Dennett 1994), an articulation that is well removed from the plantar surface (sole) of the foot (figure 2).
A second problem is whether the pedal skeleton can be accurately reconstructed from the surface features of the sole of the foot — specifically the location of anatomical joints so crucial to Krantz's argument. The Bossburg track is said to permit this because of the presence of two pathological "bunions" on its lateral (outer) border. These bunions are claimed to correspond to the calcaneocuboid and cubometatarsal joints of the foot, but this assertion lacks supporting clinical evidence or other empirical foundation. It is equally plausible to assign these to unusual prominences of other bones in the region (the cuboid and fifth metatarsal bones or the inconstant sesamoid bones os peroneum and os vesalianum) or any number of soft tissue pathologies. In any case, between the ball of the foot and the heel there are few landmarks to guide an anatomist to a perfect reconstruction.
- Krantz's skeletal reconstruction of the tracks
- cripfoot.gif (3.99 KiB) Viewed 2705 times
If one concedes that the tracks preserve the true foot proportions of the hobbled biped (an unanswerable question thirty years after the fact), the uniqueness of the foot that made them can be assessed. If Krantz's claims are taken at face value: 1) that the foot skeleton can be inferred from a footprint and 2) that the reconstructed foot skeleton differs significantly from a human's, then it follows that the morphology of the tracks must also be decidedly nonhuman in their proportions. 5 In examining the normal footprint of the Bossburg Sasquatch, Napier (1972) provides a figure in which a scaled-up human foot is superimposed on the "normal" Bossburg track. The outlines described by the two are very similar-sufficiently comparable in fact that Napier himself described the Bigfoot's print as human in outline. If this track is, in fact, nothing more than a gigantic human form, it becomes more mysterious how one concludes from it that Sasquatch feet are biomechanically distinct from those of their puny human cousins. The rejoinder that the reconstruction was derived from the deformed track is vacuous, since then we have to entertain the tortuous argument that somehow the crippled print betrays a once functionally harmonious skeleton while the normal print must be (by virtue of its human form) ill-proportioned for the task of propelling its massive owner.
But what if Napier is simply wrong, and instead we embrace Fahrenbach's (1998) conclusion that Sasquatch feet are not proportionally enlarged human feet? Krantz's assessment of the footprint evidence has led him to conclude that Sasquatch prints are "disproportionately wide" (1992, 52). If the Bossburg tracks exhibit this trait, it would seem that copying and enlarging human prints could be ruled out. But there is a human source for fabrication after all. Human feet change subtly but unmistakably in their shape during development (Scheuer and Black 2000). Infant feet, a typical subject of photographs documenting foot deformities, display relatively wide feet in their outward appearance despite maintaining proportions of bony segments that are similar to those of adults (Hoerr et al. 1962). The outward appearance of infant and young juvenile feet is similar to the shape of the Bossburg tracks. A would-be hoaxer, by selecting and enlarging an image of a young person's foot deformity, would produce a Sasquatch track that — intentionally or nor — corresponded to shapes seen in the inventory of Bigfoot tracks that existed prior to 1969. One cannot legitimately argue that the correspondence between a hoaxed print and Bigfoot's theoretical ideal is beyond probable: The skeletal reconstruction was based on the footprints themselves and not independently derived.
Napier's difficulty in conceiving of the Bossburg tracks as human fabrications was focused on the underlying motivation of a would-be hoaxer, because he could not imagine why someone would go to the trouble. In the years since the crippled Sasquatch supposedly hobbled through Bossburg, however, many of the details of the entire episode have been forgotten or neglected (Dennett 1994). Ivan Marx, a longtime Bigfoot hunter, was living in Bossburg at the time the tracks began to appear and eventually shot a film of the crippled Sasquatch. It is universally regarded as a hoax even among the staunchest Bigfoot advocates, though no one has specifically settled on who should receive proper credit for the fraud. 6 The allegation of Hunter and Dahinden (1973, 170) that Marx was seen purchasing a number of furs in Spokane before the film was made was also not encouraging to the core of potential believers. Adding to the intrigue were claims by other parties of a Sasquatch foot stashed in a Portland freezer and a still breathing Bigfoot being trapped in an undisclosed mineshaft (Hunter and Dahinden 1973). Neither bodies nor parts thereof ever materialized, but tens of thousands of dollars were offered with respect to these items and the film. Smaller amounts of currency actually did change hands in the course of attempts to maintain or secure access to the alleged bits of evidence. The presence of cash transactions in Bossburg provides the motivation for potential hoaxers that Napier could not fathom.
Conclusion
In their discussions of the Bossburg evidence, the three anthropologists apparently do not believe the film or other activities are germane to the issue of authenticity, since they only mention Marx's presence at the scene but not his subsequent cinematic exploits. Similarly, talk of mineshafts or freezer burn is also absent. It is arguable whether full disclosure is called for — after all, if the footprints are genuine, then the collateral activities are irrelevant. The argument for authenticity, however, is based primarily on the assumption that a hoax is implausible on the merits of the tracks alone. Once an alternative scenario for hoaxing is identified, the issue of motivation appropriately comes to the fore.
Like the Patrerson-Gimlin film, the Bossburg tracks occupy a central position in Bigfoot lore, their authenticity tied to the assumption of the impossibility of their fabrication. In the case of both pieces of evidence, the mere assertion that hoaxing can be ruled out is taken to be equivalent to a demonstration that this has, in fact, been established. For example, David Gordon (1992) argues for the authenticity of the Bossburg tracks by reasoning that it is "absurd" to suggest that anyone would think to fabricate deformed Sasquatch feet with anatomical accuracy. It is essentially the argument made by Krantz and Napier, in substance what Richard Dawkins (1986, 38) derides as the "argument from personal incredulity." When supporting arguments take this form, the search for Bigfoot becomes not so much a scientific enterprise but a subjective matter of personal conviction.
David Daegling is in the Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117305, Gainesville FL 32611-7305.
Notes
1. Napier's final verdict was this: "It is very difficult to conceive of a hoaxer so subtle, so knowledgeable — and so sick — who would deliberately fake a footprint of this nature. I suppose it is possible, but it is so unlikely that I am prepared to discount it" (1972, 122).
2. Big Footprints, pp. 43, 53. Boulder, Colorado: Johnson Books.
3. Meldrum (1999) offered a biomechanical and anatomical analysis of the prints in a presentation at the 1999 meetings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Meldrum's diagnosis was reported by Grover Krantz (1999). In print, Meidrum has neither endorsed the authenticity of the tracks nor suggested that they are fabricated, but considers the tracks consistent with his model of the anatomy and function of Sasquatch feet.
4. A PubMed search of the primary literature revealed 229 published articles on clubfoot deformities from 1900 to 1969, which can be safely considered a conservative estimate of the number of papers dealing with the phenomenon. The number of articles with images or figures is not known. Textbooks having figures and radiographs of clubfoot deformities were also readily available in 1969. An exact count is difficult to come by, but publications dealing with foot pathologies began to appear with some regularity in the mid-nineteenth century, so the question of access to such material is not an issue.
5. The "unique" form of Sasquatch tracks is an oft-proposed argument for their authenticity. Fahrenbach (1998) offers a statistical analysis that suggests nonhuman foot proportions for the legendary Sasquatch.
6. Marx is a prolific photographer of Bigfoot, having filmed the beast on at least five occasions. Some of his more inspired work can be found on his video production The Legend of Bigfoot (1982, Palladium Pictures). John Green's Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us (1978) and Don Hunter's and René Dahinden's Sasquatch/Bigfoot (1973) offer independent accounts of what is known as the "Bossburg Incident." Peter Byrne is credited with uncovering several inconsistencies between the film itself and the narrative surrounding it.
References
• Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. New York, W.W. Norton.
• Dennett, M. 1994. Bigfoot evidence: Are these tracks real? Skeptical Inquirer 18(5): 498-508.
• Fahrenach, W H. 1998. Sasquatch: Size, scaling and statistics. Cryptozoology 13: 47-75.
• Fripp, A.T and N.E. Shaw. 1967. Club-Foot. Edinburgh: E. & S. Livingatone.
• Garesy, S.M., K.M. Middleton, EA. Jenkins, Jr., and N.H. Shubin. 1999. Three-dimensional preservation of foot movements in Triassic theropod dinosaurs. Nature 399: 141-144.
• Gordon, D. 1992. Field Guide to the Sasquatch. Seattle: Sasquatch Books.
• Green, J. 1978. Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. Saanichton, B.C.: Hancock House.
• Hoerr, N.L., S.I. Pyle, and C.C. Francis. 1962. Radiographic Atlas of Skeletal Development of the Foot and Ankle. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
• Hunter, D., and R Dahinden. 1973. Sasquatch/Bigfoot. Toronto: Signet.
• Krantz, G. 1999. Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence. Surrey, BC: Hancock House.
• -----. 1992. Big Footprints. Boulder, Colorado: Johnson Books.
• Kriz, B. 1998. Lower Extremity Anatomy II Letture Manual. San Fesneisco, California College of Podiatric Medicine.
• Meldrum, D. J. 1999. Evaluation of alleged Sasquatch footprints and inferred functional morphology. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. Supplement 28: 200.
• Napier, J. 1972. Bigfoot. New York: Berkley Books.
• Scheuer, L., and S. Black. 2000. Developmental Juvenile Osteology, San Diego: Academic.
• Tachdjian, M.O. 1990. Pediatric Orthopedics, 2nd edition, Vol. 4. Philadelphia: W B Saunders.
From: Skeptical Inquirer March, 2002
Updates every