WATCH: Local News Covers Finding Bigfoot's Thermal Investigation in NM

Albuqurque's KRQE News covers Finding Bigfoot's thermal investigation in NM

“I saw a tall, dark, broad figure, and it just walked right up against the truck..." -- a New Mexico resident

After watching the news packet covering the Finding Bigfoot investigation of the thermal video recorded in New Mexico, you can read the report that was posted on the website. 

Here is the article on the KRQE News website:

Hunt is on for Bigfoot in northern NM
Updated: Thursday, 16 May 2013, 9:05 AM MDT
Published : Thursday, 16 May 2013, 6:51 AM MDT
Jessica Garate
ALBUQUREQUE (KRQE) - The Valles Caldera is an enormous volcanic crater in the Jemez Mountains in northern New Mexico, known for its elk herds.
Now the area is getting attention for what else may be living there.
   
According to some field researchers, the area has perfect living conditions for Bigfoot.
   
They even provide proof, a video that brought investigators from the Finding Bigfoot TV series , that airs on Animal Planet, to New Mexico.
On an episode of Finding Bigfoot, the team from the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization heads to the Jemez Mountains in northern New Mexico.
       
The BFRO came to New Mexico late last year after a thermal video was taken in 2011 by another man on an expedition to find Bigfoot.
   
Now, the team is trying to figure out the size of the image to make sure it's not just another camper by comparing it to a picture of Bobo, one of their researchers, who is standing in the same place.
   
It is not just the video that has the team convinced Bigfoot lives in northern New Mexico.
 
In 2008 a KRQE News 13 reporter followed another Bigfoot hunter, Tom Biscardi, who's been on the creature's trail for 40 years.
   
He has been looking for signs of the hairy beast all across the four corners area where there have been dozens of Bigfoot sightings since 1998.
Biscardi pointed out to us then what he thought were Bigfoot’s footprints near Farmington.
“I saw a tall, dark, broad figure, and it just walked right up against the truck," a New Mexico resident said, "I want to get out of here now."
       
The BFRO heard more stories from New Mexicans during a town hall meeting they held in Jemez Springs during their visit.
”I woke up in the middle of the night, went to get out of the bed. My window faces this way, and there was something in my window. It didn't have a neck at all,” another resident said.
   
Despite this evidence, Ben Radford, managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, told KRQE News 13 in 2008 there is still a huge hole in the Bigfoot theory.
.
”If the creatures are out there they have to die somewhere why hasn't anyone found them?” Radford said.

SRC: KRQE.COM

You can see the thermal video below

Fossils Show When Sasquatch Ancestors and Monkeys Diverged

Artist's reconstruction of two new Oligocene primates, the ape Rukwapithecus (foreground left) and the Old World monkey Nsungwepithecus (background right).

"These discoveries are important because they offer the earliest fossil evidence for either of these primate groups," --Nancy Stevens, an anthropologist at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio.

So more specifically, the fossils suggest the time when apes diverged from monkeys, or as I like to translate it, "when Sasquatch ancestors diverged from monkeys". Skeptics will prefer that I am not so definitive about the existence of Bigfoots and some bigfooters would prefer I not diminish Bigfoots' intelligence and culture by associating them to apes. In order to to dissuade both camps from criticism I'm just gonna say that a blog about Bigfoot is obviously hopeful that Bigfoot will be a recognized species and to non-apers, apes is a designation of biology, not a comment on culture or intelligence.

Now we can get to the cool part and why this article is interesting. There was a gap in the fossil record and we really didn't know when monkeys and apes diverged. DNA research suggested it was about 25 million years ago, but we had no physical evidence that supported that. So this is a twofer; 1) we get solid physical evidence and 2) it supports what DNA had suggested.

Due to the confirmation of what DNA can tell us, This finding makes us more anxious for what is store with Bryan Sykes Bigfoot DNA study and Future Bigfoot DNA studies in general. 

Read the details from an excerpt of the LiveScience article below:

The fossil remnants of these two primate species date back to 25 million years ago, filling a gap in the fossil record that reveals when apes and monkeys first diverged.

"These discoveries are important because they offer the earliest fossil evidence for either of these primate groups," said lead study author Nancy Stevens, an anthropologist at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio.

DNA evidence has long suggested that apes and Old World monkeys diverged from a common ancestor between 25 million and 30 million years ago. But until now, no fossils older than 20 million years had been found.

The age of the new specimens extends the origin of apes and Old World monkeys into the Oligocene Epoch, which lasted from 34 million to 23 million years ago. Previously, only three primate species were known from the late Oligocene globally, Stevens said.

"These finds can help us to further refine hypotheses about the timing of diversification of major primate groups," Stevens said.

You can read the full article at Live Science 

Scientific American: Dear Animal Planet, Learn The Difference Between Real and Fake Monsters

Don't call them River Monsters! They have feelings!

I love good skeptics, I hate lazy ones. When I say this I always cite my favorites. Sharon Hill of Doubtful News and a Huffington Post contributor and Brian Dunning of Skeptoid. Most others reach for the low hanging fruit or are just contrarians. These last two category of skeptics, the fruit-pickers and the contrarians, are unimpressive. Yes, this assumes I am worthy of being impressed, and truth be known, I can't think of a better person I would like to spend time impressing than myself. 

back to lazy skeptics, more specifically Kyle Hill (pictured left), a science writer who specializes in finding the secret science in your favorite fandom. Hill has also contributed to Wired, Nature Education, Popular Science, and io9. At least that what is says on his bio for Scientific American. Today he wrote an open letter to Animal Planet asking them not to blur the lines between real and fake using shows like River Monsters, Finding Bigfoot, and  Mermaids: The New Evidence as an examples that create an uphill battle for serious science educators. Boo hoo. Science is a method, teach the method and let people educate themselves.

The gist of his argument is real fish should not be called "monsters" and mythical creatures should not be considered real. We agree, leprechauns and unicorns should not be considered real--oh wait, he's putting Bigfoot/Sasquatch into this mythical category. Read for yourself below as he tries to protect the reputation of fish and uses the same knee-jerk arguments against the Bigfoot evidence.

I don’t want to see a legion of fisherman descend on the Congo or Amazon rivers to wipe out tiger fish, or any other animal, out of misplaced fear. Each time River Monsters decides to characterize a fish as a “flesh ripping chainsaw mauling atomic assassin,” the possibility grows. Don’t turn magnificent creatures into mythological horrors.

And don’t turn mythological horrors into real creatures.

I’m afraid I can’t speak highly of your track record when it comes to presenting evidence-based programming, considering that Finding Bigfoot never finds, and won’t ever find, Bigfoot. But never has it been worse than with Mermaids: The Body Found and the upcoming Mermaids: The New Evidence.

Cryptozoology persists precisely because there is no evidence for these creatures. If we actually found Bigfoot or mermaids, they would be studied, cataloged, and brought into the wide swath of biological knowledge. Bigfoot does not exist because there would be evidence left behind—hair, feces, bones, kills, offspring, a carcass—if it did. Considering how many expeditions have attempted to find this evidence and have come up short, in spite of the Bigfoot hunters who claim these creatures number in the thousands, we can effectively rule Bigfoot out. Admittedly, it’s hard to criticize the search for mermaids in the same way. We only recently captured the fabled giant squid on camera. But the difference between these sea monsters is that the squid, prowling the depths off Japan, leaves evidence behind (beaks, tentacles, whole carcasses).

Funny how footprints and casts never make the list of missing evidence. And there have been potential hair and feces samples that are currently being investigated by Bryan Sykes of the University of Oxford. I also think it is crazy that people assume a population of thousands should be easy to find. We have downed airplanes that we can't find in the wilderness, and those had trajectories to give us clues!

Finally, these are TV shows not documentaries. Anybody who's research stops at a TV show bracketed by commercials and ads is not someone you should care to persuade anyway. Let Animal Planet entertain, because I think people are smarter than Kyle Hill gives them credit for.

Click the following link to read Kyle Hill's open letter to Animal Planet