Space | Evolution | Physics | Social Sciences | Natural Sciences | DNA | Psychology | Biotech | Medicine | Anthropology | Astronomy

Eugenie Scott: Bigfoot and Other Wild Men of the Forest

More videos from this partner:


  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
There are 12 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
Trevar Avatar
Posted: 08.22.11, 05:15 PM
@Davin, check out this site: The site released aerial footage earlier this year of an uncontacted tribe in the Amazon. Amazing footage.
Davin Avatar
Posted: 08.21.11, 07:07 PM
I don't believe in Bigfoot by any means, and watching this just helped back that up with fact. But it got me thinking, when was the last time we (the western world) discovered a new or previously undiscovered tribe of people?
Heekboop Avatar
Posted: 02.27.11, 11:20 AM
• Also, Dr, Scott repeatedly indicates that Bigfoot is purported to be 10 to 12 feet tall, and expounds upon the attendant problems with body proportions and kinesiology that the existence of such a large creature would present. But accounts of creatures of that size are pretty much limited to the realm of folklore from long ago. Virtually all credible eyewitness accounts describe creatures in the 6.5 to 8-foot tall range, with a comparatively rare estimate of 9 feet. Considered in that proportional context, a limber bipedal creature is not at all biomechanically unfeasible. Consider some humans that are well within that range – Shaquille O'Neal, for example. At 7’1’’, O’Neal is not only capable of comfortably carrying his own mass, he is very agile and athletic, and, his limb structure is not elephantine. He is built pretty much like an average-size person, albeit an athletic one. This does not prove that Bigfoot exists, but Dr. Scott should apply her dimensional analysis to the actually-reported-sized creatures, not the mythological giant ones. And such an analysis would not reasonably preclude the existence of a 7 to 8-foot tall creature with somewhat human-like proportions, though the slam-dunk capacity of such a creature would be questionable.
Heekboop Avatar
Posted: 02.27.11, 10:19 AM
Very interesting. Dr. Scott did provide plenty of fuel for reasonable doubt. However, her refutation of the Patterson film was not supported by a thorough familiarity with the more recent analysis of the film. I am not sure what to conclude about it, but anyone who is interested in the subject should see a couple of documentaries from the past few years. (Both can be tracked down on the internet.) One of the first "Monsterquest" editions ( ) featured a digital enhancement/enlargement and isolation of the frames that revealed some interesting movements of the "creature"’s lips. This would have been difficult to achieve with a gorilla mask. A Bigfoot edition of "American Paranormal" ( ) also showed a digital reformatting of the footage, this one stabilizing the perspective. It provides a very good limb and body proportion analysis/comparison that casts serious doubt on the ability of a guy in a suit being able to manifest the appearance of the figure in the film. And the muscle movement Dr. Scott said she could not see is visible in these enhanced versions. Certainly in 1967, and likely even now, it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for someone to have both thought of all of these details, and been able to convincingly produce them. Skeptics of this film, including Dr. Scott, have some 'splainin' to do.
MartinC Avatar
Posted: 01.26.11, 12:19 AM
Quote: Originally Posted by AlienIquirer It's a good thing scientists don't control Hollywood. If scientific ideas were represented in Hollywood films we would have far more original stories and a more informed public who are curious about the real mysteries of the world. Why do so many people believe in bigfoot, ufos and aliens that build pyramids? HOLLYWOOD.
MartinC Avatar
Posted: 01.26.11, 12:10 AM
I think Eugenie Scott is brilliant and I appreciate her promotion of reason and science, However I was shocked to hear her say that a basking shark is a kind of WHALE! Basking sharks are definately sharks - they have gills. Quite a big boo-boo for an evolutionary biologist. No worries, I will still watch your talks Prof. Scott.
Lary9 Avatar
Posted: 08.02.10, 11:56 AM
What Eugenie is saying is like this: Remember the movie Pitch Black with Vin Deisel? It had these nocturnal flying carnivores that were shaped like manta rays and about the same body size. They only came out of subterranean caves every 24 years on an arrid, multi-sunned, desolated desert planet to feed. But on what? There was nothing else on the planet. The same dietary inconsistency is rife throughout scifi/horror film history as numerous aliens roam alien planets that mysteriously have no forage for feeding. Their survival is improbable. This is in addition to the obvious question as to how they managed evolutionary descent with modification under these conditions. It makes sense that if Bigfoot is real, its dietary provenance must be real too. Also, where's the sasquatch scat?
Lary9 Avatar
Posted: 08.02.10, 11:45 AM
~replying to saquatch~ Dear Sackwatch; Your derogation of Dr. Eugenie Scott is reprehensible. 'Genie' is just about the smartest, sweetest Lady of Science I've ever known and I ought to know---she's my cousin! You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Saquatch Avatar
Posted: 03.15.10, 03:06 PM
This woman is an idiot. She is denying the existence of a large primate because she claims large primates have limited geographic distribution and specific dietary needs. SHE IS A LARGE PRIMATE! Her very existence invalidates her argument! "Consider a large bodied Eugenie Scott."
bugstomper Avatar
Posted: 01.24.09, 12:26 PM
I 'ave big feet, but I doN live in TexASS!