Bigfooters fallacy: Kill or no kill (Removed)


Why was this post removed?

We at Doubtful News have decided that Bigfoot news is currently too absurd to warrant discussion on our site. There is no solid evidence that Bigfoot exists. Yet, TV shows and cryptozoology personalities have assumed the reality of the creature instead of considering all reasonable options to explain eyewitness reports. That’s not science. It’s pure speculation.

Therefore, we have decided from this point to limit our coverage of Bigfoot to any ACTUAL quality news stories that arise that have some value, not rumors or disputes between personalities or humorous mention of Bigfoot in the media. Because of the tendency of too many in the pro-Bigfoot camp to attack critics (often personally) who question the evidence, and to hype speculation for web hits and ad revenue instead of providing well-thought out arguments, we have removed this post.

This site is designed to be a place for rational exchange. The lessons we have learned from posting Bigfoot stories is that rational exchange doesn’t happen.

For this post, Mr. Scharf was misrepresented by Fox News. Prior to receiving that information, we commented on the story as if it were factual. Unfortunately, that happens on occasion and we regret the error and annoyance caused to Mr. Scharf. Although we noted to him that we were pleased to provide a space where he could show the accurate facts of the story, he did not take kindly to that request. An archive of this post is available for those who wish to see the corrections that we made to appease Mr. Scharf. Other evidence is also available to show his personal replies to me via Facebook.

Please follow our Twitter feed @doubtfulnews where we may link to these news stories in lieu of placing them on the website.

  33 comments for “Bigfooters fallacy: Kill or no kill (Removed)

  1. May 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM

    Texas “hunters” have already started shooting at what they believe is Bigfoot:

  2. snoma
    May 9, 2012 at 12:08 PM

    I believe that if Bigfoot/Sasquatch is to ever be found, it will already have been dead for some time.

    I have no reason to believe we will ever find a live Bigfoot, but we might find fossils after a Bigfoot like creature one day.

    That scenario is to me much more likely than the BRFO finding Bigfoot hiding behind a tree in the forest somewhere in freaking Oregon or something.

  3. Sean Elliott
    May 9, 2012 at 1:22 PM

    Is it ethical to shoot something that has not been proven to exist? The question is ridiculous. I read a few Bigfoot blogs to keep abreast of how the myth continues to take shape. How this creature has become a kind of human in the minds of so many is flabbergasting.
    As a Buddhist and a vegan, I do not condone killing anything. The idea that a hypothetical shooting of an imaginary animal is so upsetting to some people is troubling. Read some of the comments on said blogs, and you will encounter a contempt for our own species that is shocking. I always wonder how many of these people that feel such outrage over the suggested death of A Sasquatch take any action to protest the inestimable loss of human life to the tide of war?

  4. Massachusetts
    May 9, 2012 at 8:40 PM

    A large number of Bigfooters believe that the creature exists, but that it is a type of human. This means it’s extremely close genetically to the human line, so close in fact that it can inter breed with humans. That’s essentially the crux of Melba Ketchum’s argument, if I’m not mistaken. Now, if you do believe those points, then it’s logical not to shoot Bigfoot. You aren’t shooting a type of deer or bear, or some strange “creature.” You are shooting a type of person, albeit a big, strong and hairy person, and perhaps a person with somewhat different cognitive abilities from most of us.

    Do they have evidence to support these claims–no, not very good evidence. They claim to have evidence. They believe they have evidence. But it’s not enough, not nearly enough, at present to warrant scientific recognition of this being.

  5. M
    May 9, 2012 at 8:42 PM

    I notice this has given Robert Lindsay opportunity to flaunt his hateful racial theories in public, yet again.

    There is a significant undercurrent to Bigfoot “theory” that is offensive not to science, but simple human decency. I don’t have the stomach to dredge up the worst examples tonight, but it’s all on his blog.

  6. F89
    May 9, 2012 at 9:48 PM

    It sounds like Mr. Scharf was going for (I can’t think of a better way to put this) a “back door admission” of Bigfoot’s existence- something like “Why would a government agent have a classification. Unless they KNEW it exists”
    As for shooting Bigfoot: can anybody shoot one without the body disappearing, or turning into something that is definitely NOT a cryptid?

  7. Massachusetts
    May 10, 2012 at 12:16 AM

    Navigating Lindsay and race can put you in rather treacherous waters. It’s amazing how he can make a comment like that and then seem surprised when people find it offensive.

  8. Massachusetts
    May 10, 2012 at 12:21 AM

    Seriously, a certain strand of bigfoot enthusiasts believe that MOBS (that’s right, Men in Black) come and take the bodies away. Seriously. Not all, of course, but there’s a conspiracy theory undercurrent running through the movement. After all, if it definitely exists but you can’t find it no matter how hard you look, then there must be a cover up. That’s the only possible explanation, right? The aforementioned Robert Lindsay has mentioned this on his blog.

  9. Massachusetts
    May 10, 2012 at 12:30 AM

    Since we are on the topic of killing an animal that probably doesn’t exist, and the evidence needed to prove that it does, take a look at what camera traps can do to find intelligent, large primates, when those said primates, though rare, do in fact exist:

    If the Bigfoot community can deliver footage like this, I’m not sure we’d need a body.

  10. Sean Elliott
    May 10, 2012 at 12:35 AM

    One common argument is that the logging industry knows all about it and is trying to keep a lid on it in tandem with the government….

  11. F89
    May 10, 2012 at 6:58 AM

    That would be a good reason not to shoot one, and at this point we should have great pictures of one, after all NABS has:

    “developed a theory of how to subtly take hair off the biped without causing injury and to continue to take their hair without them knowing it was occurring, it worked. It has worked dozens of times in several states across North America. Our system involved getting the root”

    Close enough to get hair but no clear pictures. Which brings us back to square one.

  12. Massachusetts
    May 10, 2012 at 9:35 AM

    Believers insist that Bigfoot can detect cameras and choose to avoid them. This is a major way they explain the lack of trailcam evidence. They also believe that that photo which many claim is a bear cub (I forget the name but it’s all over the web and here as well) is a Bigfoot caught on cam, so they point to that to say it can happen, it’s just very rare. Plus, the pic of bigfoot licking a camera has been toughted by many to be authentic, though most on this site found it silly (the gray one that looked like a smudge until you looked for long time and then started seeing something that looked very abstracted, like an air brush drawing. In fact, Robert Lindsay is saying that it is the first photograph confirmed by DNA to be a Sasquatch! He’s quite certain about it and so are many in the Bigfoot community, it would seem. So once again, skeptical and believer interpretations that are worlds apart when viewing the same pics and discussing the significance of the same dearth of evidence.

  13. Gary B
    May 10, 2012 at 9:44 AM

    As I read through this article and comments I actually started to wonder about bigfoot births rather than death. No bigfoot has ever been killed by man and no naturally expired body has ever been found. This appears to put bigfoot at the top of the food chain and we should be seeing bigfoot everywhere unless they practice some form of birth control. I think that is the logical next step in all those things that are “known” about bigfoot. The Catholic bigfoots probably use the rhythm method and the others break into gas stations and drug stores and steal condoms and pills and like that. I just know this is the next great discovery regarding bigfoot!

  14. May 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM

    John Lloyd Scharf claims he was clear about Bigfoot in his email to the Texas game wardens.

    His exact email and the response (provided by Scharf) are posted at

  15. May 10, 2012 at 10:11 PM

    Thanks Guy. Even so, it wasn’t too direct. I’m not sure that the Sinclair got it. (Well, obviously, he didn’t)

  16. VIn
    May 11, 2012 at 12:36 AM

    LOLOLOLOL Ridiculous!…..soooo… THIS day and age, when digital cameras are a dime-a-dozen and virtually every mobile phone has a camera in it and almost EVERY game hunter has one of those ‘action cam’ thingies on his hat/gun….he presents a DRAWING?!?!??!?!? WTF is this guy ON?

  17. John Lloyd Scharf
    May 12, 2012 at 7:10 PM

    The original question to Texas Wildlife both mentioned “Bigfoot” and unidentified species not yet covered. New species are discovered every day. Some never will because someone lacked the foresight to regulate this irresponsible behavior.

    Beyond that, having kill crazy trophy hunters in the wilds is a danger to everyone who happens to be a bipedal animal. Are you not bipedal?

  18. John Lloyd Scharf
    May 12, 2012 at 7:11 PM

    Well, we cannot blame the Texas educational system for that. It seems you did not get it as well when you falsely accused me.

  19. May 12, 2012 at 7:12 PM

    Apologies. I made the revision. And left the original to show the mistake made.

  20. John Lloyd Scharf
    May 12, 2012 at 7:19 PM

    No back door about this issue. I was very plain about it in my first question. I did mention the context of “Bigfoot” and asked the broader issue about unidentified species.

    If there is a back door in all this, it is created by bloggers and network news organizations who have distorted and mischaracterized what has specifically been said.

    I would have originally said Sinclair had lied, but at this point I have no clue as to what he may have said or how they couched the answer. I did ask for clarification about his answer, but did not receive it:

    John Scharf
    PETER FLORES Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
    GREG GREG DAVIDSON Office of the Governor
    Message flagged Thursday, May 3, 2012 3:51 PM
    If a species is unlisted and an unknown new species, is there an open season and blank permit to take that species? Several groups of individuals claim they have talked to game officials in Texas about this issue. They have framed it within the supposed existence of the “Bigfoot.” I have said no wildlife may be taken without the permission of the people of Texas.

    So, my question, generally, is whether they are allowed to kill and take wildlife that may be native to Texas without a season or a permit?

  21. John Lloyd Scharf
    May 12, 2012 at 7:26 PM

    We catch, take samples from, and release bears with transmitters on them. It proved in one State they had twice the bears the fish and game folks thought they had.

    So, there is no scientific reason for any killing and in this case the scientific ethics involved is far from acceptable.

    They are armed for bear and trophy hunting. Not only could they devastate any new species by removing even one individual, they could be responsible for their extinction. This could be ANY undocumented species, including a bird, fish, or other mammal than a relict hominid. So, this is not just about some “imaginary” species.

    WE ALL OWN WILDLIFE IN COMMON. So, some glory bound head hunter has no individual right to make these kinds of decisions.

  22. John Lloyd Scharf
    May 12, 2012 at 7:32 PM

    Your article essentially was geared to make a mockery of the issue. All undocumented and unidentified species are hypothetical until a scientist proves it. You can say nothing about behaviors or even that such an animal exists in the wild by killing one. It may have been the last of its kind.

    Dr. E. Greenbaum of the University of Texas has been part of 12 papers and the lead author of four of them. He has discovered two species and two new genus in the same time we have been waiting for ONE paper from Melba Ketchum on “Bigfoot.” He SEE:

    Consider that a lead for further investigation on how it is really done.

  23. May 12, 2012 at 7:44 PM

    Mr. Scharf:

    As I stated to you in private, this site feeds PUBLISHED news stories. However, unlike Fox News, we post corrections if they are provided. I did not falsely accuse you, that was the information provided. I have apologized for the error that FOX NEWS promulgated. (wait, what?) AND I made corrections as you pointed out. You have made your views very clear but have now crossed the line into ranting in multiple comments so you will be moderated. See comment policy.

    However, my comments also apply to many Bigfoot hunters out there who will absurdly suggest that we place a non-verified animal on a protected list.

    Meanwhile, I await the day when solid evidence is provided that Bigfoot exists.

  24. Ben Radford
    May 12, 2012 at 7:59 PM

    It’s been scientifically proven that 174 angels can dance on the head of a pin, providing there is no wind.

  25. snoma
    May 12, 2012 at 8:02 PM

    John, unless we have a documented case for Bigfoot, we can’t possibly put it on an endangered species list, cause we won’t know if it is endangered or not.

    But I’m a bit confused. Are you against hunting in general, that we shouldn’t kill any wildlife or just endangered (and possibly endangered) species?

  26. May 12, 2012 at 8:08 PM

    Agreed. Fox did distort what you said and the response given by the Tx official was strange. Have you contacted either?

  27. May 12, 2012 at 8:11 PM

    But we haven’t caught Bigfoot even on trail cam! It would be awesome if we could confirm it’s out there but the evidence so far has not even been that solid. I’m confused by what you are suggesting. As I alluded to in the post, I could not shoot anything – from bird to Bigfoot, just wouldn’t do it.

    But the body is still necessary as a type specimen – considering the controversy. Yet, we haven’t a dead one either. We have nothing to go on.

  28. Fastmover01
    May 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM

    First and foremost, this creature, if it exists, would require at least a minimal breeding population if the reports are even remotely accurate. Nature, diease, and accidents happen even to non-humans, so your theory of it possibly being the last of it’s kind is off-base. If it is the last of it’s kind then it will die and no one will be able to prove it’s existence anyway as bodies, bones or remains have never been found.Secondly, the scientific community will NOT classify or recognize this creature until a body or live trapped specimen is presented, and have stated that much through various sources. Why? Because of the over-hyped and often false claims and outright hoaxing of evidence for fame or monetary gain. Trap camera footage, foot casts, hair samples and even scat/DNA mean nothing with out the creature’s body to verify and break down the evidence. So like it or not, it will take one dead or alive, and if the reports of this thing are accurate then god help anyone foolish enough to capture it alive.

  29. Russell
    May 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM

    I have a teapot orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars. I have some tea from the pot.

  30. F89
    May 12, 2012 at 9:52 PM

    Thank you for the clarification Mr. Scharf.

  31. Jim
    May 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM

    Bigfoot does not exist, repeat, Bigfoot does not exist. Got it? Good.

  32. Evil Eye
    May 13, 2012 at 7:43 AM

    If you don’t know what it is… why would you kill it?
    If you KNOW what it is… Why would you kill it?

    If it attacking you and you killed it. OK. But has anyone ever been attacked by a bigfoot?

    If you really believed that it was a hominid… Why would you have ANY reason to kill something you aren’t sure of what it really is? Or even if you identified it positively as a bigfoot… wouldn’t capture be better than kill?

  33. Evil Eye
    May 13, 2012 at 7:49 AM

    Jim. That is the old No Black Swans fallacy. There is no evidence for a Bigfoot. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. It means that until evidence of a bigfoot that is testable is shown.. there is no good reason to believe there is a bigfoot.

Comments are closed.