The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
The Crown Prince Regent of Thulia, 1954
The Gallery of Fake Viral Images
The Cottingley Fairies, 1917
Pierre Brassau, Monkey Artist, 1964
The Great Wall of China Hoax, 1899
The Society for Indecency to Naked Animals, 1959
Rare planetary alignment decreases gravity, 1976
The Great New York Zoo Escape Hoax, 1874
What do the lines on Solo cups mean?
Swiss peasants harvest spaghetti from trees, 1957
Geographical distribution of Bigfoot same as Black Bear
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)
Categories: Cryptozoology, Science
Posted by The Curator on Tue Jul 07, 2009
Comments (11)
Well worth an igNobel Prize.
Posted by John Paradox  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Tue Jul 07, 2009  at  02:23 AM
That conclusion is biased. How do they know that many black bear sightings weren't actually Big Foot?
Posted by Sakano  on  Tue Jul 07, 2009  at  08:42 AM
Once again: Correlation does NOT imply causation.

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.
Posted by Crazy Ivan  on  Tue Jul 07, 2009  at  09:39 AM
Once again: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

With the proliferation of small digital cameras everywhere, where are the pictures of these animals?
Posted by KDP  in  Madill, OK  on  Tue Jul 07, 2009  at  09:59 AM
I would imagine that bankers and lawyers have a similar pattern of activity, it doesn't mean that they are one and the same... they both go where the money is, and bears and bigfeet, where the honey is. Pic-a-nic baskets too, booboo
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Tue Jul 07, 2009  at  11:52 AM
Maybe they just like to hang out together, throw back a couple beers and whatnot?
Posted by N E O  in  Everywhere and nowhere  on  Tue Jul 07, 2009  at  03:21 PM
Hm, I see one flaw with their research.

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.
Posted by Captain DaFt  on  Tue Jul 07, 2009  at  11:10 PM
LOL. Watch all the bigfoot believers get all bent out of shape. There are also bear remains in these areas as well. Any bigfoot remains? Nope.
Posted by Charles  in  Michigan  on  Wed Jul 08, 2009  at  04:51 PM
Dance, Sasquatch, dance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UeCRY1wciA
Posted by Canadarm  on  Wed Jul 08, 2009  at  04:52 PM
This makes sense . . . more so if black bears develop poliomyelitis.

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.
Posted by D F Stuckey  in  AUckland New Zealand  on  Thu Jul 09, 2009  at  07:26 AM
Actually, we may have ALL missed teh joke. Read that quote form the first part of the paper; The authors are saying that sensible data can be used to support an erroneous conclusion with this procedur aand analysis.

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 . . . smile
Posted by D F Stuckey  in  Auckland New Zealand  on  Thu Jul 09, 2009  at  09:43 PM
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.