Search
1000 results for “Data_Ranger”
-
The US National Parks System offers a range of educational materials. Even if you can't travel to see some of them in person, you can view signage collected through the #SaveOurSigns effort:
Save Our Signs image viewer -
Times are changing for Bigfoot hunters
As evidence for the reality of Bigfoot remains objectively poor, with promising finds deteriorating under scrutiny, the future for scientific cryptozoology looks troubling for those who committed their reputation to finding a biological creature. What comes next?
Several events in the history of bigfoot studies have boosted or burned the potential reality of the sasquatch. Three recent developments, in particular, shifted the tenuous foundation on which bigfoot researchers derive any public currency and social credibility. I argue that the general tide is turning on those who promote the idea of biological bigfoot. The biological concept is being replaced by a cultural version of bigfoot, which may work just as well financially. But first, it’s worthwhile to revisit some of the past key evidence examples that were intended to bolster the reality of bigfoot and what happened to them. Then, I present three examples to show how bigfoot research has lost critical parts of its foundation in the 2020s.
Jerry Crew and the Wallace prints
In 1958, the giant hairy creature of the Pacific Northwest gained its infamous moniker after huge prints were found in Northern California by Jerry Crew and then publicized by the Humboldt Times newspaper who named the printmaker “Bigfoot”. This finding set the scene for what was to come over the next 10 years – giving shape and structure to what was previously viewed as a tall tale or myth. In 2002, the family of Ray Wallace, who owned the company doing the work where the tracks were found, admitted Wallace had made the trackways himself with fake feet. The reveal made news at the time and was fairly influential. The average uninvested citizen heard the news and thought, “Bigfoot is a hoax.” Not so for the invested believers. The Wallace hoax claim was ultimately disregarded by many Bigfooters as they had already compiled significantly more trackway evidence that, in their minds, nullified this incident.
Photo by Dave Rubert
Dale Lee Wallace of Toledo reveals the original feet made from Alderwood his Uncle, Ray L. Wallace, used to make the now-famous bigfoot tracks in 1958.Skookum cast
The Skookum cast was discovered in fall of 2000 by the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) during an expedition to the Skookum Meadows area of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington. On location for a TV show, the muddy area was baited with fruit with the intent to capture prints. The resulting large print was interpreted by bigfoot researchers as a body imprint, which was cast and studied. Those involved saw significant detail in the print. Just a few months later, others familiar with wildlife traces concluded this was an elk wallow, complete with elk hairs. There was no other corroborating evidence for a sasquatch. Bigfooters had mixed feelings about the cast, but the hype about the body imprint ultimately faded away due to the elk conclusion and the hard-to-accept story about it being bigfoot-generated.
Jeffrey Meldrum with an annotated Skookum cast. BFRO.Critical literature
In 2004, a book landed on the scene explaining how Patterson did his infamous film (PGF). The Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long was supported by investigative work and extensive interviews that laid bare the fact the Patterson was an unscrupulous character. The book revealed that Bob Heironimus was in the Patty suit in the iconic film clip. Later in 2012, the scholarly book Abominable Science by Loxton and Prothero detailed how Patterson had constructed the film based on the 1955 account of William Roe. It matched liked a storyboard of what Patterson would later film. Long, Loxton, and Prothero’s works were pilloried by Bigfooters who refused to engage with the confounding or outright damning evidence. They rejected Long’s claims of the suit and the filming while conceding that Patterson was no angel. The two books were critical parts of the Bigfoot story but the believers would consistently dismiss any red flags that degraded the legacy, continuing to mostly consider the PGF as legitimate bigfoot evidence. After steering clear for decades, Bob Gimlin eventually began to make the rounds to the cryptid conventions telling a dramatic story of being there. Gimlin became a revered figure, bolstering the legitimacy of the PGF once again.
Ketchum’s DNA circus
In 2008, Melba Ketchum, a veterinarian at a forensics laboratory, was picked to analyze a suspected yeti hair from Bhutan collected as part of Josh Gates’s adventure show, Destination Truth. Over the next few years, Ketchum received additional samples and funding from various sources to conduct more analyses of hair, blood, saliva and tissue of supposed hairy hominin creatures. This included a sample from Justin Smeja who claimed he shot two bigfoots (he didn’t). After promising blockbuster results that would withstand scrutiny, many Bigfooters followed her every word. As of 2012, she had vociferous defenders and a publicist but others were deserting her and her trail of empty promises. The resulting paper was rejected by Nature. In February of 2013, the fiasco culminated in a sloppy paper published in a “journal” she set up for her sole purposes. Accompanying the official version of the paper was a video which supposedly showed a sleeping sasquatch – a brown, furry figure on the forest floor. DNA was supposedly obtained from this individual, named Matilda. The video was laughably bad and the DNA results were terribly botched, showing nothing of value. The paper was roundly destroyed by genetics experts. Ketchum ironically expressed that the creature had a partly supernatural origin. Years later, she ended up in further professional trouble and is now thoroughly discredited, with the episode almost entirely forgotten. Several bigfoot-curious people who followed the Ketchum saga were disgusted and either dropped out of the scene for a while or disappeared entirely.
Canonical stories
Two specific witness stories remain a solid part of the bigfoot/sasquatch canon. Albert Ostman told a dramatic but unverified story that he was abducted by a family of sasquatches in 1924. He came forward decades later in 1957 when nothing could be confirmed and bigfoot was now a media commodity. The Ape Canyon incident, also of 1924, described how several men were attacked by “wild apemen” in a cabin at Mt. St. Helens. Fred Beck publicized his version of the account in 1967. Beck considered the creatures “supernatural beings” but this aspect was frequently left out of the retelling by those who thought of bigfoot as a human-adjacent hominin. The Ape Canyon attack was disputed by the forest rangers but remained a graphic story repeated countless times to demonstrate the reality of these creatures.
Not Finding Bigfoot
Additional key videos, photos, recordings, tracks, and eyewitness accounts still make up the body of evidence presented for the reality of bigfoot. Yet, even the “best” evidence does not hold up well to scrutiny. Beginning in 2011, a new audience was exposed to the legend and the idea that bigfoots were EVERYWHERE thanks to nine years of a semi-scripted “reality” show called Finding Bigfoot. The show successfully placed the idea of bigfoot as a real animal back into the public consciousness. Those on the show made an effort to look like they knew what they were doing and serious about it. They encouraged people to tell their stories, which sound highly convincing. The kicker was… they never found bigfoot (to the degree that the scientific world would be satisfied). Thanks to TV, the internet, and the surge of amateur paranormal investigation as a popular pastime, bigfoot was again a hot topic and now regularly “sighted” across the continent. More researchers signed on to look for evidence themselves.
Around 2000, the internet ushered in a new means of communication allowing people with fringe ideas to find each other. The internet platforms not only were a way to hear new opinions, claims, and findings, but also leveled the field whereby anyone could be heard and present themselves as qualified “experts”. The situation created new self-styled bigfoot influencers and a place for the bigfoot-curious researchers to find information. In the 2020s, Bigfoot and other cryptids became more mainstream as cultural icons, as celebrated local folklore, and as commodities. The efforts to bring accounts of anomalous creatures to the masses transformed into an explosion of casual cryptid interest by a new generation. This new model of cryptids was less about discovery of a real animal and more about the performance of investigating mysteries and the joy of indulging in edgy beliefs, an aesthetic derived from the cryptid TV shows and social media platforms.
2025 may mark the beginning of a definable shift in Bigfootery as highlighted by three major developments. Time will tell how the community responds.
Death of Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum was the scientific face of bigfootery. A credentialed university researcher, Meldrum went to many bigfoot related events every year, was the in-demand spokesperson for the reality of bigfoot on TV, started a journal, and embraced his role as leading bigfoot expert. He also provided a measure of reason by rejecting dubious claims such as those by the aforementioned Melba Ketchum as well as Russian Yeti promoters. When Meldrum passed away in September of 2025, it was a shock and a heavy blow to the community of Bigfooters. There is no equivalent figure to fill his shoes. While others continue to reference his legacy and opinions, they cannot replace the familiar bearded professorial guy calming telling you that he knows bigfoots are real because of “science”.
There are not many candidates who could step up to fill the role of scientists of bigfoot studies. Active scientists are generally unwilling or unable to commit to work on what, for all intents and purposes, appears to be a dead end zoological subject. After 60 years of questionable, weak, and hoaxed evidence, the subject has instead slipped into a pop cultural phenomenon that people see as fun, with a few hundreds, perhaps, who consider themselves serious researchers. Like a bigfoot Pope, (an admittedly inappropriate metaphor) Meldrum kept the faith alive, providing guidance and authority. He encompassed a role that seems unlikely to be filled soon, if ever. But the lure of being the most important fish in a small pond may be tempting (e.g., Avi Loeb).
Absence of evidence
Every day that goes by without a biological finding means that Bigfoot is more likely to not exist. After nearly 60 years, we have no better evidence for its reality as a biological entity. If people are actually experiencing a Bigfoot as they say they are – in their backyards, crossing roadways, watching in the forests, moving around with their offspring, signalling to each other across distances – there should be actual evidence of their existence. Instead, we have useless visuals, prints without a print-maker, and scads of eyewitness accounts certainly influenced by cultural contagion that prompts people to see a Bigfoot when it is unlikely to be that at all. We now have the technology to watch game trail traffic, and to use drones and infrared equipment. We can map out all areas on earth remotely and in most places in person. Even though the number of serious seekers has increased, no biological sign of an unknown ape has been secured. Yet, Bigfooters insist discovery is close.
Lewis and Bartlett’s book Bigfooters and Scientific Inquiry (2026) does a good job of showing how Bigfoot knowledge claims are constructed through absences: whatever cannot be attributed to other causes is interpreted as possible evidence of Bigfoot. Such a framing can work for constructing a hypothesis – such as, the missing cause is a “Bigfoot”. However, that hypothesis has yet to be confirmed. It has failed, so far.
Typical collection of data isn’t enough. Images and video will need corroborating evidence to prevent being discarded out of hand, DNA testing will need funds, deep analysis, and continued efforts. Gathering even more eyewitness accounts is worthless when the volumes already existing have never have led to a capture. Only a body or body part will do.
Instead, the process continues as it has for six decades – amateur speculation, excuses, and criticism of existing scientific processes. Seekers see a bigfoot everywhere but find it nowhere. Bigfooters who wish to maintain the position that a bigfoot can be found will have an ever more difficult time justifying their efforts and maintaining any credibility if the same tired old evidence is all that gets presented. In reference to Meldrum’s passing, the field lacks scientific leadership.
PGF film hoax reveal
The vehement reaction by some Bigfooters to the assertion that the Patterson film has been solidly and conclusively demonstrated to be a hoax (by Patterson and Gimlin, et al.) has been a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. (See Long hidden evidence blows up the reality of the Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot film) While it is fair to say we should wait for the Capturing Bigfoot documentary to be available to assess it, it is NOT reasonable to also throw out excuses of how the debunking itself must have been faked. These same people who are denying the premise and claims of Capturing Bigfoot, as well as previous evidence of a hoax, will, ironically, take eyewitness accounts of bigfoot at face value. How will they square their rejection of facts from a physical film that everyone will be able to see? America is awash in obvious examples of how far people will reach to soothe their cognitive dissonance these days.
The hoax denialists claim the new pieces were AI generated, that the footage was from Roger’s other documentary, even that Patty Patterson is too old to remember and Clint Patterson is not a reliable claimant. None of this is remotely reasonable in the big picture. So far we have no public disputes of the claims from Bob Gimlin or the Pattersons. To me, that is the crucial point. They know it’s a hoax and this is the end of the line for this key piece of evidence. That realization hits hard with those for whom searching for a real animal has become an inherent part of their identity (and their revenue stream).
Eliminating the PGF doesn’t automatically correlate to the end of bigfoot. We still have the unsolved problem of people seeing and experiencing what they say they have. However, looking back at history, people also were sure they saw fairies, demons, angels, aliens, and spirits. This is not an easy enigma to unravel. The previous point of “absence of evidence” comes into play. Bigfooters cannot make their biological argument without outrageous mental acrobatics, distractions, and slight of hand.
A key piece of evidence revealed as invalid does not take down the whole system, but it makes some people on the inside start to doubt and many more on the outside say, “See! We told you this was nonsense.” Social ridicule also has the tendency to squelch further sighting reports and involvement. So, while some Bigfooters insist this too shall pass, I don’t think it will. What happens in response to the public release of Capturing Bigfoot will be illuminating.
Still the #1 cryptid
As documented on this blog, bigfoot and other cryptids are more popular than ever before. However, finding a body is not a primary goal. Cryptid tourism is flourishing. Places are embracing their local monster lore even if the creature is an absurdity that has no basis in biology or reality. People appear to be looking for connection, experiences, and entertainment, maybe even a sense of enchantment in the world. They want to believe. This works much better when the mystery remains active. As we see daily, even when the explanation punches us in the face, we would rather continue to believe our constructed “truth” instead. Cryptid media is on fire and there are more movies, books, and online content to peruse, including merch so you can advertise your belief to those around you. Cultural bigfoot is not equivalent to physical bigfoot, but it’s not nothing. And, it’s still important.
Those with museums, podcasts and YouTube channels, even TV shows, will still rake in the viewers who yearn for the mystery and experience. Conventions and festivals will still attract fans. Bigfoot remains the #1 North American cryptid. Bigfoot is iconic, and commodified, Americana that is not going away soon. The PGF, if not a film of a real bigfoot, is a universally-successful hoax. And that’s really something.
(Please note that comments are moderated. Substantive comments only will be posted.)
#Bigfoot #BigfootEvidence #BigfootScience #Bigfooters #CapturingBigfoot #FindingBigfoot #hoax #JeffreyMeldrum #Sasquatch -
Times are changing for Bigfoot hunters
As evidence for the reality of Bigfoot remains objectively poor, with promising finds deteriorating under scrutiny, the future for scientific cryptozoology looks troubling for those who committed their reputation to finding a biological creature. What comes next?
Several events in the history of bigfoot studies have boosted or burned the potential reality of the sasquatch. Three recent developments, in particular, shifted the tenuous foundation on which bigfoot researchers derive any public currency and social credibility. I argue that the general tide is turning on those who promote the idea of biological bigfoot. The biological concept is being replaced by a cultural version of bigfoot, which may work just as well financially. But first, it’s worthwhile to revisit some of the past key evidence examples that were intended to bolster the reality of bigfoot and what happened to them. Then, I present three examples to show how bigfoot research has lost critical parts of its foundation in the 2020s.
Jerry Crew and the Wallace prints
In 1958, the giant hairy creature of the Pacific Northwest gained its infamous moniker after huge prints were found in Northern California by Jerry Crew and then publicized by the Humboldt Times newspaper who named the printmaker “Bigfoot”. This finding set the scene for what was to come over the next 10 years – giving shape and structure to what was previously viewed as a tall tale or myth. In 2002, the family of Ray Wallace, who owned the company doing the work where the tracks were found, admitted Wallace had made the trackways himself with fake feet. The reveal made news at the time and was fairly influential. The average uninvested citizen heard the news and thought, “Bigfoot is a hoax.” Not so for the invested believers. The Wallace hoax claim was ultimately disregarded by many Bigfooters as they had already compiled significantly more trackway evidence that, in their minds, nullified this incident.
Photo by Dave Rubert
Dale Lee Wallace of Toledo reveals the original feet made from Alderwood his Uncle, Ray L. Wallace, used to make the now-famous bigfoot tracks in 1958.Skookum cast
The Skookum cast was discovered in fall of 2000 by the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) during an expedition to the Skookum Meadows area of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington. On location for a TV show, the muddy area was baited with fruit with the intent to capture prints. The resulting large print was interpreted by bigfoot researchers as a body imprint, which was cast and studied. Those involved saw significant detail in the print. Just a few months later, others familiar with wildlife traces concluded this was an elk wallow, complete with elk hairs. There was no other corroborating evidence for a sasquatch. Bigfooters had mixed feelings about the cast, but the hype about the body imprint ultimately faded away due to the elk conclusion and the hard-to-accept story about it being bigfoot-generated.
Jeffrey Meldrum with an annotated Skookum cast. BFRO.Critical literature
In 2004, a book landed on the scene explaining how Patterson did his infamous film (PGF). The Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long was supported by investigative work and extensive interviews that laid bare the fact the Patterson was an unscrupulous character. The book revealed that Bob Heironimus was in the Patty suit in the iconic film clip. Later in 2012, the scholarly book Abominable Science by Loxton and Prothero detailed how Patterson had constructed the film based on the 1955 account of William Roe. It matched liked a storyboard of what Patterson would later film. Long, Loxton, and Prothero’s works were pilloried by Bigfooters who refused to engage with the confounding or outright damning evidence. They rejected Long’s claims of the suit and the filming while conceding that Patterson was no angel. The two books were critical parts of the Bigfoot story but the believers would consistently dismiss any red flags that degraded the legacy, continuing to mostly consider the PGF as legitimate bigfoot evidence. After steering clear for decades, Bob Gimlin eventually began to make the rounds to the cryptid conventions telling a dramatic story of being there. Gimlin became a revered figure, bolstering the legitimacy of the PGF once again.
Ketchum’s DNA circus
In 2008, Melba Ketchum, a veterinarian at a forensics laboratory, was picked to analyze a suspected yeti hair from Bhutan collected as part of Josh Gates’s adventure show, Destination Truth. Over the next few years, Ketchum received additional samples and funding from various sources to conduct more analyses of hair, blood, saliva and tissue of supposed hairy hominin creatures. This included a sample from Justin Smeja who claimed he shot two bigfoots (he didn’t). After promising blockbuster results that would withstand scrutiny, many Bigfooters followed her every word. As of 2012, she had vociferous defenders and a publicist but others were deserting her and her trail of empty promises. The resulting paper was rejected by Nature. In February of 2013, the fiasco culminated in a sloppy paper published in a “journal” she set up for her sole purposes. Accompanying the official version of the paper was a video which supposedly showed a sleeping sasquatch – a brown, furry figure on the forest floor. DNA was supposedly obtained from this individual, named Matilda. The video was laughably bad and the DNA results were terribly botched, showing nothing of value. The paper was roundly destroyed by genetics experts. Ketchum ironically expressed that the creature had a partly supernatural origin. Years later, she ended up in further professional trouble and is now thoroughly discredited, with the episode almost entirely forgotten. Several bigfoot-curious people who followed the Ketchum saga were disgusted and either dropped out of the scene for a while or disappeared entirely.
Canonical stories
Two specific witness stories remain a solid part of the bigfoot/sasquatch canon. Albert Ostman told a dramatic but unverified story that he was abducted by a family of sasquatches in 1924. He came forward decades later in 1957 when nothing could be confirmed and bigfoot was now a media commodity. The Ape Canyon incident, also of 1924, described how several men were attacked by “wild apemen” in a cabin at Mt. St. Helens. Fred Beck publicized his version of the account in 1967. Beck considered the creatures “supernatural beings” but this aspect was frequently left out of the retelling by those who thought of bigfoot as a human-adjacent hominin. The Ape Canyon attack was disputed by the forest rangers but remained a graphic story repeated countless times to demonstrate the reality of these creatures.
Not Finding Bigfoot
Additional key videos, photos, recordings, tracks, and eyewitness accounts still make up the body of evidence presented for the reality of bigfoot. Yet, even the “best” evidence does not hold up well to scrutiny. Beginning in 2011, a new audience was exposed to the legend and the idea that bigfoots were EVERYWHERE thanks to nine years of a semi-scripted “reality” show called Finding Bigfoot. The show successfully placed the idea of bigfoot as a real animal back into the public consciousness. Those on the show made an effort to look like they knew what they were doing and serious about it. They encouraged people to tell their stories, which sound highly convincing. The kicker was… they never found bigfoot (to the degree that the scientific world would be satisfied). Thanks to TV, the internet, and the surge of amateur paranormal investigation as a popular pastime, bigfoot was again a hot topic and now regularly “sighted” across the continent. More researchers signed on to look for evidence themselves.
Around 2000, the internet ushered in a new means of communication allowing people with fringe ideas to find each other. The internet platforms not only were a way to hear new opinions, claims, and findings, but also leveled the field whereby anyone could be heard and present themselves as qualified “experts”. The situation created new self-styled bigfoot influencers and a place for the bigfoot-curious researchers to find information. In the 2020s, Bigfoot and other cryptids became more mainstream as cultural icons, as celebrated local folklore, and as commodities. The efforts to bring accounts of anomalous creatures to the masses transformed into an explosion of casual cryptid interest by a new generation. This new model of cryptids was less about discovery of a real animal and more about the performance of investigating mysteries and the joy of indulging in edgy beliefs, an aesthetic derived from the cryptid TV shows and social media platforms.
2025 may mark the beginning of a definable shift in Bigfootery as highlighted by three major developments. Time will tell how the community responds.
Death of Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum was the scientific face of bigfootery. A credentialed university researcher, Meldrum went to many bigfoot related events every year, was the in-demand spokesperson for the reality of bigfoot on TV, started a journal, and embraced his role as leading bigfoot expert. He also provided a measure of reason by rejecting dubious claims such as those by the aforementioned Melba Ketchum as well as Russian Yeti promoters. When Meldrum passed away in September of 2025, it was a shock and a heavy blow to the community of Bigfooters. There is no equivalent figure to fill his shoes. While others continue to reference his legacy and opinions, they cannot replace the familiar bearded professorial guy calming telling you that he knows bigfoots are real because of “science”.
There are not many candidates who could step up to fill the role of scientists of bigfoot studies. Active scientists are generally unwilling or unable to commit to work on what, for all intents and purposes, appears to be a dead end zoological subject. After 60 years of questionable, weak, and hoaxed evidence, the subject has instead slipped into a pop cultural phenomenon that people see as fun, with a few hundreds, perhaps, who consider themselves serious researchers. Like a bigfoot Pope, (an admittedly inappropriate metaphor) Meldrum kept the faith alive, providing guidance and authority. He encompassed a role that seems unlikely to be filled soon, if ever. But the lure of being the most important fish in a small pond may be tempting (e.g., Avi Loeb).
Absence of evidence
Every day that goes by without a biological finding means that Bigfoot is more likely to not exist. After nearly 60 years, we have no better evidence for its reality as a biological entity. If people are actually experiencing a Bigfoot as they say they are – in their backyards, crossing roadways, watching in the forests, moving around with their offspring, signalling to each other across distances – there should be actual evidence of their existence. Instead, we have useless visuals, prints without a print-maker, and scads of eyewitness accounts certainly influenced by cultural contagion that prompts people to see a Bigfoot when it is unlikely to be that at all. We now have the technology to watch game trail traffic, and to use drones and infrared equipment. We can map out all areas on earth remotely and in most places in person. Even though the number of serious seekers has increased, no biological sign of an unknown ape has been secured. Yet, Bigfooters insist discovery is close.
Lewis and Bartlett’s book Bigfooters and Scientific Inquiry (2026) does a good job of showing how Bigfoot knowledge claims are constructed through absences: whatever cannot be attributed to other causes is interpreted as possible evidence of Bigfoot. Such a framing can work for constructing a hypothesis – such as, the missing cause is a “Bigfoot”. However, that hypothesis has yet to be confirmed. It has failed, so far.
Typical collection of data isn’t enough. Images and video will need corroborating evidence to prevent being discarded out of hand, DNA testing will need funds, deep analysis, and continued efforts. Gathering even more eyewitness accounts is worthless when the volumes already existing have never have led to a capture. Only a body or body part will do.
Instead, the process continues as it has for six decades – amateur speculation, excuses, and criticism of existing scientific processes. Seekers see a bigfoot everywhere but find it nowhere. Bigfooters who wish to maintain the position that a bigfoot can be found will have an ever more difficult time justifying their efforts and maintaining any credibility if the same tired old evidence is all that gets presented. In reference to Meldrum’s passing, the field lacks scientific leadership.
PGF film hoax reveal
The vehement reaction by some Bigfooters to the assertion that the Patterson film has been solidly and conclusively demonstrated to be a hoax (by Patterson and Gimlin, et al.) has been a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. (See Long hidden evidence blows up the reality of the Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot film) While it is fair to say we should wait for the Capturing Bigfoot documentary to be available to assess it, it is NOT reasonable to also throw out excuses of how the debunking itself must have been faked. These same people who are denying the premise and claims of Capturing Bigfoot, as well as previous evidence of a hoax, will, ironically, take eyewitness accounts of bigfoot at face value. How will they square their rejection of facts from a physical film that everyone will be able to see? America is awash in obvious examples of how far people will reach to soothe their cognitive dissonance these days.
The hoax denialists claim the new pieces were AI generated, that the footage was from Roger’s other documentary, even that Patty Patterson is too old to remember and Clint Patterson is not a reliable claimant. None of this is remotely reasonable in the big picture. So far we have no public disputes of the claims from Bob Gimlin or the Pattersons. To me, that is the crucial point. They know it’s a hoax and this is the end of the line for this key piece of evidence. That realization hits hard with those for whom searching for a real animal has become an inherent part of their identity (and their revenue stream).
Eliminating the PGF doesn’t automatically correlate to the end of bigfoot. We still have the unsolved problem of people seeing and experiencing what they say they have. However, looking back at history, people also were sure they saw fairies, demons, angels, aliens, and spirits. This is not an easy enigma to unravel. The previous point of “absence of evidence” comes into play. Bigfooters cannot make their biological argument without outrageous mental acrobatics, distractions, and slight of hand.
A key piece of evidence revealed as invalid does not take down the whole system, but it makes some people on the inside start to doubt and many more on the outside say, “See! We told you this was nonsense.” Social ridicule also has the tendency to squelch further sighting reports and involvement. So, while some Bigfooters insist this too shall pass, I don’t think it will. What happens in response to the public release of Capturing Bigfoot will be illuminating.
Still the #1 cryptid
As documented on this blog, bigfoot and other cryptids are more popular than ever before. However, finding a body is not a primary goal. Cryptid tourism is flourishing. Places are embracing their local monster lore even if the creature is an absurdity that has no basis in biology or reality. People appear to be looking for connection, experiences, and entertainment, maybe even a sense of enchantment in the world. They want to believe. This works much better when the mystery remains active. As we see daily, even when the explanation punches us in the face, we would rather continue to believe our constructed “truth” instead. Cryptid media is on fire and there are more movies, books, and online content to peruse, including merch so you can advertise your belief to those around you. Cultural bigfoot is not equivalent to physical bigfoot, but it’s not nothing. And, it’s still important.
Those with museums, podcasts and YouTube channels, even TV shows, will still rake in the viewers who yearn for the mystery and experience. Conventions and festivals will still attract fans. Bigfoot remains the #1 North American cryptid. Bigfoot is iconic, and commodified, Americana that is not going away soon. The PGF, if not a film of a real bigfoot, is a universally-successful hoax. And that’s really something.
(Please note that comments are moderated. Substantive comments only will be posted.)
#Bigfoot #BigfootEvidence #BigfootScience #Bigfooters #CapturingBigfoot #FindingBigfoot #hoax #JeffreyMeldrum #Sasquatch -
Times are changing for Bigfoot hunters
As evidence for the reality of Bigfoot remains objectively poor, with promising finds deteriorating under scrutiny, the future for scientific cryptozoology looks troubling for those who committed their reputation to finding a biological creature. What comes next?
Several events in the history of bigfoot studies have boosted or burned the potential reality of the sasquatch. Three recent developments, in particular, shifted the tenuous foundation on which bigfoot researchers derive any public currency and social credibility. I argue that the general tide is turning on those who promote the idea of biological bigfoot. The biological concept is being replaced by a cultural version of bigfoot, which may work just as well financially. But first, it’s worthwhile to revisit some of the past key evidence examples that were intended to bolster the reality of bigfoot and what happened to them. Then, I present three examples to show how bigfoot research has lost critical parts of its foundation in the 2020s.
Jerry Crew and the Wallace prints
In 1958, the giant hairy creature of the Pacific Northwest gained its infamous moniker after huge prints were found in Northern California by Jerry Crew and then publicized by the Humboldt Times newspaper who named the printmaker “Bigfoot”. This finding set the scene for what was to come over the next 10 years – giving shape and structure to what was previously viewed as a tall tale or myth. In 2002, the family of Ray Wallace, who owned the company doing the work where the tracks were found, admitted Wallace had made the trackways himself with fake feet. The reveal made news at the time and was fairly influential. The average uninvested citizen heard the news and thought, “Bigfoot is a hoax.” Not so for the invested believers. The Wallace hoax claim was ultimately disregarded by many Bigfooters as they had already compiled significantly more trackway evidence that, in their minds, nullified this incident.
Photo by Dave Rubert
Dale Lee Wallace of Toledo reveals the original feet made from Alderwood his Uncle, Ray L. Wallace, used to make the now-famous bigfoot tracks in 1958.Skookum cast
The Skookum cast was discovered in fall of 2000 by the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) during an expedition to the Skookum Meadows area of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington. On location for a TV show, the muddy area was baited with fruit with the intent to capture prints. The resulting large print was interpreted by bigfoot researchers as a body imprint, which was cast and studied. Those involved saw significant detail in the print. Just a few months later, others familiar with wildlife traces concluded this was an elk wallow, complete with elk hairs. There was no other corroborating evidence for a sasquatch. Bigfooters had mixed feelings about the cast, but the hype about the body imprint ultimately faded away due to the elk conclusion and the hard-to-accept story about it being bigfoot-generated.
Jeffrey Meldrum with an annotated Skookum cast. BFRO.Critical literature
In 2004, a book landed on the scene explaining how Patterson did his infamous film (PGF). The Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long was supported by investigative work and extensive interviews that laid bare the fact the Patterson was an unscrupulous character. The book revealed that Bob Heironimus was in the Patty suit in the iconic film clip. Later in 2012, the scholarly book Abominable Science by Loxton and Prothero detailed how Patterson had constructed the film based on the 1955 account of William Roe. It matched liked a storyboard of what Patterson would later film. Long, Loxton, and Prothero’s works were pilloried by Bigfooters who refused to engage with the confounding or outright damning evidence. They rejected Long’s claims of the suit and the filming while conceding that Patterson was no angel. The two books were critical parts of the Bigfoot story but the believers would consistently dismiss any red flags that degraded the legacy, continuing to mostly consider the PGF as legitimate bigfoot evidence. After steering clear for decades, Bob Gimlin eventually began to make the rounds to the cryptid conventions telling a dramatic story of being there. Gimlin became a revered figure, bolstering the legitimacy of the PGF once again.
Ketchum’s DNA circus
In 2008, Melba Ketchum, a veterinarian at a forensics laboratory, was picked to analyze a suspected yeti hair from Bhutan collected as part of Josh Gates’s adventure show, Destination Truth. Over the next few years, Ketchum received additional samples and funding from various sources to conduct more analyses of hair, blood, saliva and tissue of supposed hairy hominin creatures. This included a sample from Justin Smeja who claimed he shot two bigfoots (he didn’t). After promising blockbuster results that would withstand scrutiny, many Bigfooters followed her every word. As of 2012, she had vociferous defenders and a publicist but others were deserting her and her trail of empty promises. The resulting paper was rejected by Nature. In February of 2013, the fiasco culminated in a sloppy paper published in a “journal” she set up for her sole purposes. Accompanying the official version of the paper was a video which supposedly showed a sleeping sasquatch – a brown, furry figure on the forest floor. DNA was supposedly obtained from this individual, named Matilda. The video was laughably bad and the DNA results were terribly botched, showing nothing of value. The paper was roundly destroyed by genetics experts. Ketchum ironically expressed that the creature had a partly supernatural origin. Years later, she ended up in further professional trouble and is now thoroughly discredited, with the episode almost entirely forgotten. Several bigfoot-curious people who followed the Ketchum saga were disgusted and either dropped out of the scene for a while or disappeared entirely.
Canonical stories
Two specific witness stories remain a solid part of the bigfoot/sasquatch canon. Albert Ostman told a dramatic but unverified story that he was abducted by a family of sasquatches in 1924. He came forward decades later in 1957 when nothing could be confirmed and bigfoot was now a media commodity. The Ape Canyon incident, also of 1924, described how several men were attacked by “wild apemen” in a cabin at Mt. St. Helens. Fred Beck publicized his version of the account in 1967. Beck considered the creatures “supernatural beings” but this aspect was frequently left out of the retelling by those who thought of bigfoot as a human-adjacent hominin. The Ape Canyon attack was disputed by the forest rangers but remained a graphic story repeated countless times to demonstrate the reality of these creatures.
Not Finding Bigfoot
Additional key videos, photos, recordings, tracks, and eyewitness accounts still make up the body of evidence presented for the reality of bigfoot. Yet, even the “best” evidence does not hold up well to scrutiny. Beginning in 2011, a new audience was exposed to the legend and the idea that bigfoots were EVERYWHERE thanks to nine years of a semi-scripted “reality” show called Finding Bigfoot. The show successfully placed the idea of bigfoot as a real animal back into the public consciousness. Those on the show made an effort to look like they knew what they were doing and serious about it. They encouraged people to tell their stories, which sound highly convincing. The kicker was… they never found bigfoot (to the degree that the scientific world would be satisfied). Thanks to TV, the internet, and the surge of amateur paranormal investigation as a popular pastime, bigfoot was again a hot topic and now regularly “sighted” across the continent. More researchers signed on to look for evidence themselves.
Around 2000, the internet ushered in a new means of communication allowing people with fringe ideas to find each other. The internet platforms not only were a way to hear new opinions, claims, and findings, but also leveled the field whereby anyone could be heard and present themselves as qualified “experts”. The situation created new self-styled bigfoot influencers and a place for the bigfoot-curious researchers to find information. In the 2020s, Bigfoot and other cryptids became more mainstream as cultural icons, as celebrated local folklore, and as commodities. The efforts to bring accounts of anomalous creatures to the masses transformed into an explosion of casual cryptid interest by a new generation. This new model of cryptids was less about discovery of a real animal and more about the performance of investigating mysteries and the joy of indulging in edgy beliefs, an aesthetic derived from the cryptid TV shows and social media platforms.
2025 may mark the beginning of a definable shift in Bigfootery as highlighted by three major developments. Time will tell how the community responds.
Death of Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum was the scientific face of bigfootery. A credentialed university researcher, Meldrum went to many bigfoot related events every year, was the in-demand spokesperson for the reality of bigfoot on TV, started a journal, and embraced his role as leading bigfoot expert. He also provided a measure of reason by rejecting dubious claims such as those by the aforementioned Melba Ketchum as well as Russian Yeti promoters. When Meldrum passed away in September of 2025, it was a shock and a heavy blow to the community of Bigfooters. There is no equivalent figure to fill his shoes. While others continue to reference his legacy and opinions, they cannot replace the familiar bearded professorial guy calming telling you that he knows bigfoots are real because of “science”.
There are not many candidates who could step up to fill the role of scientists of bigfoot studies. Active scientists are generally unwilling or unable to commit to work on what, for all intents and purposes, appears to be a dead end zoological subject. After 60 years of questionable, weak, and hoaxed evidence, the subject has instead slipped into a pop cultural phenomenon that people see as fun, with a few hundreds, perhaps, who consider themselves serious researchers. Like a bigfoot Pope, (an admittedly inappropriate metaphor) Meldrum kept the faith alive, providing guidance and authority. He encompassed a role that seems unlikely to be filled soon, if ever. But the lure of being the most important fish in a small pond may be tempting (e.g., Avi Loeb).
Absence of evidence
Every day that goes by without a biological finding means that Bigfoot is more likely to not exist. After nearly 60 years, we have no better evidence for its reality as a biological entity. If people are actually experiencing a Bigfoot as they say they are – in their backyards, crossing roadways, watching in the forests, moving around with their offspring, signalling to each other across distances – there should be actual evidence of their existence. Instead, we have useless visuals, prints without a print-maker, and scads of eyewitness accounts certainly influenced by cultural contagion that prompts people to see a Bigfoot when it is unlikely to be that at all. We now have the technology to watch game trail traffic, and to use drones and infrared equipment. We can map out all areas on earth remotely and in most places in person. Even though the number of serious seekers has increased, no biological sign of an unknown ape has been secured. Yet, Bigfooters insist discovery is close.
Lewis and Bartlett’s book Bigfooters and Scientific Inquiry (2026) does a good job of showing how Bigfoot knowledge claims are constructed through absences: whatever cannot be attributed to other causes is interpreted as possible evidence of Bigfoot. Such a framing can work for constructing a hypothesis – such as, the missing cause is a “Bigfoot”. However, that hypothesis has yet to be confirmed. It has failed, so far.
Typical collection of data isn’t enough. Images and video will need corroborating evidence to prevent being discarded out of hand, DNA testing will need funds, deep analysis, and continued efforts. Gathering even more eyewitness accounts is worthless when the volumes already existing have never have led to a capture. Only a body or body part will do.
Instead, the process continues as it has for six decades – amateur speculation, excuses, and criticism of existing scientific processes. Seekers see a bigfoot everywhere but find it nowhere. Bigfooters who wish to maintain the position that a bigfoot can be found will have an ever more difficult time justifying their efforts and maintaining any credibility if the same tired old evidence is all that gets presented. In reference to Meldrum’s passing, the field lacks scientific leadership.
PGF film hoax reveal
The vehement reaction by some Bigfooters to the assertion that the Patterson film has been solidly and conclusively demonstrated to be a hoax (by Patterson and Gimlin, et al.) has been a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. (See Long hidden evidence blows up the reality of the Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot film) While it is fair to say we should wait for the Capturing Bigfoot documentary to be available to assess it, it is NOT reasonable to also throw out excuses of how the debunking itself must have been faked. These same people who are denying the premise and claims of Capturing Bigfoot, as well as previous evidence of a hoax, will, ironically, take eyewitness accounts of bigfoot at face value. How will they square their rejection of facts from a physical film that everyone will be able to see? America is awash in obvious examples of how far people will reach to soothe their cognitive dissonance these days.
The hoax denialists claim the new pieces were AI generated, that the footage was from Roger’s other documentary, even that Patty Patterson is too old to remember and Clint Patterson is not a reliable claimant. None of this is remotely reasonable in the big picture. So far we have no public disputes of the claims from Bob Gimlin or the Pattersons. To me, that is the crucial point. They know it’s a hoax and this is the end of the line for this key piece of evidence. That realization hits hard with those for whom searching for a real animal has become an inherent part of their identity (and their revenue stream).
Eliminating the PGF doesn’t automatically correlate to the end of bigfoot. We still have the unsolved problem of people seeing and experiencing what they say they have. However, looking back at history, people also were sure they saw fairies, demons, angels, aliens, and spirits. This is not an easy enigma to unravel. The previous point of “absence of evidence” comes into play. Bigfooters cannot make their biological argument without outrageous mental acrobatics, distractions, and slight of hand.
A key piece of evidence revealed as invalid does not take down the whole system, but it makes some people on the inside start to doubt and many more on the outside say, “See! We told you this was nonsense.” Social ridicule also has the tendency to squelch further sighting reports and involvement. So, while some Bigfooters insist this too shall pass, I don’t think it will. What happens in response to the public release of Capturing Bigfoot will be illuminating.
Still the #1 cryptid
As documented on this blog, bigfoot and other cryptids are more popular than ever before. However, finding a body is not a primary goal. Cryptid tourism is flourishing. Places are embracing their local monster lore even if the creature is an absurdity that has no basis in biology or reality. People appear to be looking for connection, experiences, and entertainment, maybe even a sense of enchantment in the world. They want to believe. This works much better when the mystery remains active. As we see daily, even when the explanation punches us in the face, we would rather continue to believe our constructed “truth” instead. Cryptid media is on fire and there are more movies, books, and online content to peruse, including merch so you can advertise your belief to those around you. Cultural bigfoot is not equivalent to physical bigfoot, but it’s not nothing. And, it’s still important.
Those with museums, podcasts and YouTube channels, even TV shows, will still rake in the viewers who yearn for the mystery and experience. Conventions and festivals will still attract fans. Bigfoot remains the #1 North American cryptid. Bigfoot is iconic, and commodified, Americana that is not going away soon. The PGF, if not a film of a real bigfoot, is a universally-successful hoax. And that’s really something.
(Please note that comments are moderated. Substantive comments only will be posted.)
#Bigfoot #BigfootEvidence #BigfootScience #Bigfooters #CapturingBigfoot #FindingBigfoot #hoax #JeffreyMeldrum #Sasquatch -
Times are changing for Bigfoot hunters
As evidence for the reality of Bigfoot remains objectively poor, with promising finds deteriorating under scrutiny, the future for scientific cryptozoology looks troubling for those who committed their reputation to finding a biological creature.
Several events in the history of bigfoot studies have boosted or burned the potential reality of the sasquatch. Three recent developments, in particular, shifted the tenuous foundation on which bigfoot researchers derive any public currency and social credibility. I argue that the general tide is turning on those who promote the idea of biological bigfoot. The biological concept is being replaced by a cultural version of bigfoot, which may work just as well financially. But first, it’s worthwhile to revisit some of the past key evidence examples that were intended to bolster the reality of bigfoot and what happened to them. Then, I present three examples to show how bigfoot research has lost critical parts of its foundation in the 2020s.
Jerry Crew and the Wallace prints
In 1958, the giant hairy creature of the Pacific Northwest gained its infamous moniker after huge prints were found in Northern California by Jerry Crew and then publicized by the Humboldt Times newspaper who named the printmaker “Bigfoot”. This finding set the scene for what was to come over the next 10 years – giving shape and structure to what was previously viewed as a tall tale or myth. In 2002, the family of Ray Wallace, who owned the company doing the work where the tracks were found, admitted Wallace had made the trackways himself with fake feet. The reveal made news at the time and was fairly influential. The average uninvested citizen heard the news and thought, “Bigfoot is a hoax.” Not so for the invested believers. The Wallace hoax claim was ultimately disregarded by many Bigfooters as they had already compiled significantly more trackway evidence that, in their minds, nullified this incident.
Photo by Dave Rubert
Dale Lee Wallace of Toledo reveals the original feet made from Alderwood his Uncle, Ray L. Wallace, used to make the now-famous bigfoot tracks in 1958.Skookum cast
The Skookum cast was discovered in fall of 2000 by the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) during an expedition to the Skookum Meadows area of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington. On location for a TV show, the muddy area was baited with fruit with the intent to capture prints. The resulting large print was interpreted by bigfoot researchers as a body imprint, which was cast and studied. Those involved saw significant detail in the print. Just a few months later, others familiar with wildlife traces concluded this was an elk wallow, complete with elk hairs. There was no other corroborating evidence for a sasquatch. Bigfooters had mixed feelings about the cast, but the hype about the body imprint ultimately faded away due to the elk conclusion and the hard-to-accept story about it being bigfoot-generated.
Jeffrey Meldrum with an annotated Skookum cast. BFRO.Critical literature
In 2004, a book landed on the scene explaining how Patterson did his infamous film (PGF). The Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long was supported by investigative work and extensive interviews that laid bare the fact the Patterson was an unscrupulous character. The book revealed that Bob Heironimus was in the Patty suit in the iconic film clip. Later in 2012, the scholarly book Abominable Science by Loxton and Prothero detailed how Patterson had constructed the film based on the 1955 account of William Roe. It matched liked a storyboard of what Patterson would later film. Long, Loxton, and Prothero’s works were pilloried by Bigfooters who refused to engage with the confounding or outright damning evidence. They rejected Long’s claims of the suit and the filming while conceding that Patterson was no angel. The two books were critical parts of the Bigfoot story but the believers would consistently dismiss any red flags that degraded the legacy, continuing to mostly consider the PGF as legitimate bigfoot evidence. After steering clear for decades, Bob Gimlin eventually began to make the rounds to the cryptid conventions telling a dramatic story of being there. Gimlin became a revered figure, bolstering the legitimacy of the PGF once again.
Ketchum’s DNA circus
In 2008, Melba Ketchum, a veterinarian at a forensics laboratory, was picked to analyze a suspected yeti hair from Bhutan collected as part of Josh Gates’s adventure show, Destination Truth. Over the next few years, Ketchum received additional samples and funding from various sources to conduct more analyses of hair, blood, saliva and tissue of supposed hairy hominin creatures. This included a sample from Justin Smeja who claimed he shot two bigfoots (he didn’t). After promising blockbuster results that would withstand scrutiny, many Bigfooters followed her every word. As of 2012, she had vociferous defenders and a publicist but others were deserting her and her trail of empty promises. The resulting paper was rejected by Nature. In February of 2013, the fiasco culminated in a sloppy paper published in a “journal” she set up for her sole purposes. Accompanying the official version of the paper was a video which supposedly showed a sleeping sasquatch – a brown, furry figure on the forest floor. DNA was supposedly obtained from this individual, named Matilda. The video was laughably bad and the DNA results were terribly botched, showing nothing of value. The paper was roundly destroyed by genetics experts. Ketchum ironically expressed that the creature had a partly supernatural origin. Years later, she ended up in further professional trouble and is now thoroughly discredited, with the episode almost entirely forgotten. Several bigfoot-curious people who followed the Ketchum saga were disgusted and either dropped out of the scene for a while or disappeared entirely.
Canonical stories
Two specific witness stories remain a solid part of the bigfoot/sasquatch canon. Albert Ostman told a dramatic but unverified story that he was abducted by a family of sasquatches in 1924. He came forward decades later in 1957 when nothing could be confirmed and bigfoot was now a media commodity. The Ape Canyon incident, also of 1924, described how several men were attacked by “wild apemen” in a cabin at Mt. St. Helens. Fred Beck publicized his version of the account in 1967. Beck considered the creatures “supernatural beings” but this aspect was frequently left out of the retelling by those who thought of bigfoot as a human-adjacent hominin. The Ape Canyon attack was disputed by the forest rangers but remained a graphic story repeated countless times to demonstrate the reality of these creatures.
Not Finding Bigfoot
Additional key videos, photos, recordings, tracks, and eyewitness accounts still make up the body of evidence presented for the reality of bigfoot. Yet, even the “best” evidence does not hold up well to scrutiny. Beginning in 2011, a new audience was exposed to the legend and the idea that bigfoots were EVERYWHERE thanks to nine years of a semi-scripted “reality” show called Finding Bigfoot. The show successfully placed the idea of bigfoot as a real animal back into the public consciousness. Those on the show made an effort to look like they knew what they were doing and serious about it. They encouraged people to tell their stories, which sound highly convincing. The kicker was… they never found bigfoot (to the degree that the scientific world would be satisfied). Thanks to TV, the internet, and the surge of amateur paranormal investigation as a popular pastime, bigfoot was again a hot topic and now regularly “sighted” across the continent. More researchers signed on to look for evidence themselves.
Around 2000, the internet ushered in a new means of communication allowing people with fringe ideas to find each other. The internet platforms not only were a way to hear new opinions, claims, and findings, but also leveled the field whereby anyone could be heard and present themselves as qualified “experts”. The situation created new self-styled bigfoot influencers and a place for the bigfoot-curious researchers to find information. In the 2020s, Bigfoot and other cryptids became more mainstream as cultural icons, as celebrated local folklore, and as commodities. The efforts to bring accounts of anomalous creatures to the masses transformed into an explosion of casual cryptid interest by a new generation. This new model of cryptids was less about discovery of a real animal and more about the performance of investigating mysteries and the joy of indulging in edgy beliefs, an aesthetic derived from the cryptid TV shows and social media platforms.
2025 may mark the beginning of a definable shift in Bigfootery as highlighted by three major developments. Time will tell how the community responds.
Death of Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum was the scientific face of bigfootery. A credentialed university researcher, Meldrum went to many bigfoot related events every year, was the in-demand spokesperson for the reality of bigfoot on TV, started a journal, and embraced his role as leading bigfoot expert. He also provided a measure of reason by rejecting dubious claims such as those by the aforementioned Melba Ketchum as well as Russian Yeti promoters. When Meldrum passed away in September of 2025, it was a shock and a heavy blow to the community of Bigfooters. There is no equivalent figure to fill his shoes. While others continue to reference his legacy and opinions, they cannot replace the familiar bearded professorial guy calming telling you that he knows bigfoots are real because of “science”.
There are not many candidates who could step up to fill the role of scientists of bigfoot studies. Active scientists are generally unwilling or unable to commit to work on what, for all intents and purposes, appears to be a dead end zoological subject. After 60 years of questionable, weak, and hoaxed evidence, the subject has instead slipped into a pop cultural phenomenon that people see as fun, with a few hundreds, perhaps, who consider themselves serious researchers. Like a bigfoot Pope, (an admittedly inappropriate metaphor) Meldrum kept the faith alive, providing guidance and authority. He encompassed a role that seems unlikely to be filled soon, if ever. But the lure of being the most important fish in a small pond may be tempting (e.g., Avi Loeb).
Absence of evidence
Every day that goes by without a biological finding means that Bigfoot is more likely to not exist. After nearly 60 years, we have no better evidence for its reality as a biological entity. If people are actually experiencing a Bigfoot as they say they are – in their backyards, crossing roadways, watching in the forests, moving around with their offspring, signalling to each other across distances – there should be actual evidence of their existence. Instead, we have useless visuals, prints without a print-maker, and scads of eyewitness accounts certainly influenced by cultural contagion that prompts people to see a Bigfoot when it is unlikely to be that at all. We now have the technology to watch game trail traffic, and to use drones and infrared equipment. We can map out all areas on earth remotely and in most places in person. Even though the number of serious seekers has increased, no biological sign of an unknown ape has been secured. Yet, Bigfooters insist discovery is close.
Lewis and Bartlett’s book Bigfooters and Scientific Inquiry (2026) does a good job of showing how Bigfoot knowledge claims are constructed through absences: whatever cannot be attributed to other causes is interpreted as possible evidence of Bigfoot. Such a framing can work for constructing a hypothesis – such as, the missing cause is a “Bigfoot”. However, that hypothesis has yet to be confirmed. It has failed, so far.
Typical collection of data isn’t enough. Images and video will need corroborating evidence to prevent being discarded out of hand, DNA testing will need funds, deep analysis, and continued efforts. Gathering even more eyewitness accounts is worthless when the volumes already existing have never have led to a capture. Only a body or body part will do.
Instead, the process continues as it has for six decades – amateur speculation, excuses, and criticism of existing scientific processes. Seekers see a bigfoot everywhere but find it nowhere. Bigfooters who wish to maintain the position that a bigfoot can be found will have an ever more difficult time justifying their efforts and maintaining any credibility if the same tired old evidence is all that gets presented. In reference to Meldrum’s passing, the field lacks scientific leadership.
PGF film hoax reveal
The vehement reaction by some Bigfooters to the assertion that the Patterson film has been solidly and conclusively demonstrated to be a hoax (by Patterson and Gimlin, et al.) has been a textbook example of cognitive dissonance. (See Long hidden evidence blows up the reality of the Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot film) While it is fair to say we should wait for the Capturing Bigfoot documentary to be available to assess it, it is NOT reasonable to also throw out excuses of how the debunking itself must have been faked. These same people who are denying the premise and claims of Capturing Bigfoot, as well as previous evidence of a hoax, will, ironically, take eyewitness accounts of bigfoot at face value. How will they square their rejection of facts from a physical film that everyone will be able to see? America is awash in obvious examples of how far people will reach to soothe their cognitive dissonance these days.
The hoax denialists claim the new pieces were AI generated, that the footage was from Roger’s other documentary, even that Patty Patterson is too old to remember and Clint Patterson is not a reliable claimant. None of this is remotely reasonable in the big picture. So far we have no public disputes of the claims from Bob Gimlin or the Pattersons. To me, that is the crucial point. They know it’s a hoax and this is the end of the line for this key piece of evidence. That realization hits hard with those for whom searching for a real animal has become an inherent part of their identity (and their revenue stream).
Eliminating the PGF doesn’t automatically correlate to the end of bigfoot. We still have the unsolved problem of people seeing and experiencing what they say they have. However, looking back at history, people also were sure they saw fairies, demons, angels, aliens, and spirits. This is not an easy enigma to unravel. The previous point of “absence of evidence” comes into play. Bigfooters cannot make their biological argument without outrageous mental acrobatics, distractions, and slight of hand.
A key piece of evidence revealed as invalid does not take down the whole system, but it makes some people on the inside start to doubt and many more on the outside say, “See! We told you this was nonsense.” Social ridicule also has the tendency to squelch further sighting reports and involvement. So, while some Bigfooters insist this too shall pass, I don’t think it will. What happens in response to the public release of Capturing Bigfoot will be illuminating.
Still the #1 cryptid
As documented on this blog, bigfoot and other cryptids are more popular than ever before. However, finding a body is not a primary goal. Cryptid tourism is flourishing. Places are embracing their local monster lore even if the creature is an absurdity that has no basis in biology or reality. People appear to be looking for connection, experiences, and entertainment, maybe even a sense of enchantment in the world. They want to believe. This works much better when the mystery remains active. As we see daily, even when the explanation punches us in the face, we would rather continue to believe our constructed “truth” instead. Cryptid media is on fire and there are more movies, books, and online content to peruse, including merch so you can advertise your belief to those around you. Cultural bigfoot is not equivalent to physical bigfoot, but it’s not nothing. And, it’s still important.
Those with museums, podcasts and YouTube channels, even TV shows, will still rake in the viewers who yearn for the mystery and experience. Conventions and festivals will still attract fans. Bigfoot remains the #1 North American cryptid. Bigfoot is iconic, and commodified, Americana that is not going away soon. The PGF, if not a film of a real bigfoot, is a universally-successful hoax. And that’s really something.
(Please note that comments are moderated. Substantive comments only will be posted.)
#Bigfoot #BigfootEvidence #BigfootScience #Bigfooters #CapturingBigfoot #FindingBigfoot #hoax #JeffreyMeldrum #Sasquatch -
Space For Maritime [European Space Agency]
--
https://business.esa.int/maritime
--
https://youtu.be/pbU6p702Ufc?si=HysHUZY-TyQSCRw0
--
“ESA Space Solutions has been working on projects with a maritime focus since 2010, covering a wide range of topics from maritime safety and security to port operations, bringing benefits for shipping, the marine environment and our oceans. 🌊Bringing together experts from across the maritime sector, the Task Force has a joint mission to develop & deliver sustainable projects that use space technology & satellite data to support decarbonisation of the maritime industry, protect marine and coastal ecosystems and help strengthen the maritime economy across Europe and beyond.🛰️🌍 …”
#GIS #spatial #mapping #remotesensing #earthobservation #maritime #ocean #marine #safety #security #Sustainability #Ports #BlueEconomy #Satcom #GNSS #GPS #AIS #SatEO #darkvessels #fisheries #risk #hazard #smugging #shipping #transportation #searchandrescue #situationalawareness #environment #habitat #planning #policy #coastal #ESA -
How are European schools doing at teaching #languages? Find it out in the new #Eurydice report looking at 51 indicators on a wide range of topics, such as #LinguisticDiversity and #education level amongst students.
Read the report here 👉 https://europa.eu/!mR6xF9
🐦🔗: https://n.respublicae.eu/EU_opendata/status/1645396250160926722
-
Getting Started with Daisy Seed
I’ve finally managed to get myself a Daisy Seed from Electro-Smith, so as is becoming usual, this is my “getting started” notes-to-self post.
Warning! I strongly recommend using old or second hand equipment for your experiments. I am not responsible for any damage to expensive instruments!
If you are new to microcontrollers, see the Getting Started pages.
What is Daisy Seed?
From the Daisy Seed product page on the Electrosmith website:
“Daisy is an embedded platform for music. It features everything you need for creating high fidelity audio hardware devices.”
The key specifications are as follows:
- ARM Cortex-M7 MCU, running at 480MHz (STM32H750)
- Stereo audio IO – 96kHz / 24-bit audio hardware (AC-Coupled)
- 31 GPIO, 12 ADC inputs (16-bit), 2 DAC outputs (12-bit, DC-Coupled)
- 1MB or 64MB option plus 8MB external flash
- SD card, PWM, SPI, UART, SAI/I2S, I2C.
I’ve also picked up a “pod” which is a breakout board that includes the following:
- 3.5mm stereo jacks for line level audio I/O, headphone output, and TRS MIDI input.
- Built In headphone amplifier with dedicated volume control.
- 2 Buttons, 2 RGB LEDs, and rotary encoder with push button.
- SD Card Slot, and secondary USB micro port
There are a number of DIY experimenter style products that use the Daisy Seed. Here are a couple that might be worth a look (I’ve not used any of them):
Just doing an image search for Daisy Seed synth and quite a few come up!
Getting Started
There are several ways to start programming the Daisy Seed, one of which is using an online, web-based programing environment. I’ve stayed with familiar territory and installed support into the Arduino IDE.
This requires the following steps as described in the Arduino version of the Getting Started Guide:
- Add in the Arduino board URL for the STM32 core and install “STM32 MCU Based Boards” from STMicroelectronics.
- Install the STM32CubeProgrammer from ST (requires email registration).
- Add the location of the STM32 tools to the PATH. For my Windows setup this means adding: %ProgramW6432%\STMicroelectronics\STM32Cube\STM32CubeProgrammer\bin to the system PATH.
- Install the DaisyDuino library using the Arduino Library Manager.
Unfortunately one thing that wasn’t particularly clear as part of any of the above is that the STM32 core no longer supports the V1 strand of the Arduino IDE. I spent quite a chunk of the afternoon trying to work out why the build tools didn’t seem to be able to find all the things they needed. Eventually I stumbled across some replies in the STM32 core forums to some problems that stated that V1 was no longer supported.
For my initial experiments, I rolled back the version of the Arduino STM32 Core to version 2.7.1, which was the last release that supported V1.
At this point I was finally able to use the Arduino IDE to download the blink example using the configuration as per the getting started guide, but summarised as:
- Board -> Generic STM32H7 Series
- Board Part Number -> Daisy Seed
- USB Support -> CDC (Generic Serial supersede U(S)ART)
- Upload Method -> STM32CubeProgrammer (DFU)
To upload requires a RESET on the board with the BOOT button pressed.
Eventually I just updated my Arduino environment to V2 for other reasons 🙂
DaisyDuino Examples
There are a number of example scripts as part of the DaisyDuino library, and a number of them are provided that support the Daisy Seed Pod.
The Pod provides buttons, LEDs, pots, an encoder and MIDI and audio circuitry and there is a full suite of examples here, available under Examples -> DaisyDuino -> Pod.
The non-pod related Daisy Seed examples are listed here and can be found under Examples -> DaisyDuino -> Seed.
I downloaded the pod/SimpleOscillator example which does the following:
- Encoder selects one of four waveforms.
- Pot 1 selects the frequency.
- Two buttons change the octave.
Full details can be found here: https://github.com/electro-smith/DaisyExamples/tree/master/pod/SimpleOscillator
Other examples for the Pod include:
- ChordMachine – “A simple sine wave chord machine. Cycle through different chord types and inversions.”
- Encoder – change the LED colour using the encoder.
- EuclideanDrums – A kick and snare twin sequencer.
- Looper – shows how to loop incoming audio.
- Midi – MIDI controlled oscillator and filter.
- MultiEffect – “Simple effects for incoming audio. Includes reverb, delay, and downsampling.”
- MusicBox – “Generate random melodies.”
- SimpleButton – “Example showing basic usage of pushbutton switches for momentary and latching behavior.”
- SimpleLed – “Example showing basic usage of RGB LED by mapping R/G values of LED 1 to knob.”
- SimpleOscillator – “Example showing a basic SimpleOscillator with controls.”
- StepSequencer – “Simple 8 step sequencer. Has controls per step for envelope decay, pitch, and step activation.”
- SynthVoice – “Simple Synth voice with resonant filter, self cycling envelope, and vibrato control.”
Example Hardware Connections
The datasheet contains a number of connection diagrams showing how potentiometers, buttons, LEDs, and audio jacks can be connected to the Daisy Seed.
Audio input and output for example are as follows:
This is essentially what the Daisy Pod provides – basic IO and connections following these patterns, along with a headphone amplifier and MIDI.
I might have missed it, but looking at the Pod schematic and the board itself, I believe there is an option to switch from MIDI TRS “A” to MIDI TRS “B” by swapping some 0R resistors on the rear of the Pod.
Key Hardware Parameters and Features
Here is a list of various odds and ends that are tucked away in the datasheets or wiki that I might want to note:
- Most GPIO is 5V tolerant apart from D24, D25, D28, D29, D30 which are 3V3 only. The datasheet states 0 and 3V3 as the typical operating range for all GPIO.
- VIN supports 5V to 17V.
- Audio inputs/outputs: -1.8V to 1.8V.
According to the datasheet it is ok to power the Daisy Seed from VIN and USB at the same time.
Audio in and out was originally provided by an AK4556 (the last revision for which there is a full schematic published), then a WM8731 with the latest version using a PCM3060. This is connected to the STM32H7’s SAI1 peripheral.
Closing Thoughts
Whilst this has a whole range of IO and synth type examples, what I’m really interested in is the potential for processing audio via the audio input, so that is probably what I’ll be looking at the most.
For such a (relatively) cheap device, this certainly has a huge set of examples and applications. I can see why so many people have started building these into other products.
I can already imagine producing a Daisy Seed version of some of my own PCBs for example…
I should probably take a proper look at the non-Arduino environments too – I’ve been meaning to have a look at Pure Data for a while, so maybe this could be an excuse for that.
Kevin
-
The #decree orders the #ForeignMinistry to “verify data & provide priority services to obtain documents related to #citizenship rights for #victims or their heirs & people affected by serious #HumanRights violations who are abroad.”
The exact number of the #exiles from the 1960s is not known but estimates range from 1,500 to thousands, including their descendants. Many no longer have relatives in #Indonesia , analysts said.
https://www.eurasiareview.com/17032023-indonesia-to-restore-citizenship-for-political-exiles/
-
On average, the cost of a healthy meal has increased by 52% in October 2024 compared to the same month last year. Meanwhile, average salaries and wages have increased in the range of 9 to 10%
Cost of making a healthy meal sees a 52% jump compared to an year ago. Read this along with the fact that India ranked 105 out of 127 countries in the #GHI
While wages remain fairly static, the #inflation has caused huge dent on the lives and well being of the common people.
www.thehindu.com/data/meal-costs-are-rising-faster-than-earnings-data/article68796170.ece -
Starting to get a a bit of data from running these #waspos #pinetime logging apps I've written.
So I've been writing a log-viewing app of course.
My mood over the last most-of-a-week has been generally constantly good, with blips down mostly on work-day morning awakenings. The actual work doesn't make me sad, just having to get out of bed and do it. Even though I'm very lucky, that is only 3 days a week.
Step rates and heart-rates peak around the ten-minute exercise times as you'd expect and range about what you'd want I think other than the outliers that are probably just data glitches.
Higher in the late mornings, trending down towards bedtime.
Needs more data to track how it changes over time.
The screen show here shows the log-viewer and has all the logs selected: so it has bar-graphs diving up into 6 daily blocks, each of which is split and colored by activity and it's height corresponds to wakefulness.
Over that is drawn the heart-rate graph in red and the step-rate graph in blue.
The mood-graph is near the top coz I'm mostly happy. It'd probably clash more with the heart-rate and steps-count graphs for a miserable person, compounding their misery
-
I asked 3 vendors to quote a 10 MW data center. Same spec, same city, same tier.
The answers: $95M, $142M, and $187M.
So I built a free CAPEX calculator. Set your IT load, cooling type, redundancy, seismic zone — see exactly how each variable moves the total.
Not a replacement for engineering estimates. But the fastest way to build a defensible cost range before your next board meeting.
Try it: resistancezero.com/capex-calculator.html
-
Why is a standard business laptop or a mid-range smartphone more expensive in 2026?
The answer is not inflation. It is wafers.
In today’s semiconductor market, every DDR5 module, HBM stack, LPDDR chip, and enterprise SSD starts from the same 300mm silicon wafer. When manufacturers allocate those wafers to AI-grade memory for data centers, they are no longer available for PCs, smartphones, or consumer devices.
This article breaks down the full memory hierarchy—DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR, GDDR, HBM, and NAND—and explains the “Silicon Zero-Sum Game” driving record price increases across the entire IT ecosystem.
If you manage hardware budgets, data centers, or surplus IT assets, this is essential reading for understanding the 2026 memory super-cycle.
https://www.buysellram.com/blog/the-2026-global-memory-shortage-why-ram-and-ssd-prices-are-surging/
#MemoryPricing #DRAM #NANDFlash #SSD #DataCenters #AIHardware #SupplyChain #TechEconomy #HBM
#DDR5 #LPDDR5X #NVMe #EnterpriseSSD #WaferCapacity #ITAssetManagement #ITAD #tech -
Why is a standard business laptop or a mid-range smartphone more expensive in 2026?
The answer is not inflation. It is wafers.
In today’s semiconductor market, every DDR5 module, HBM stack, LPDDR chip, and enterprise SSD starts from the same 300mm silicon wafer. When manufacturers allocate those wafers to AI-grade memory for data centers, they are no longer available for PCs, smartphones, or consumer devices.
This article breaks down the full memory hierarchy—DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR, GDDR, HBM, and NAND—and explains the “Silicon Zero-Sum Game” driving record price increases across the entire IT ecosystem.
If you manage hardware budgets, data centers, or surplus IT assets, this is essential reading for understanding the 2026 memory super-cycle.
https://www.buysellram.com/blog/the-2026-global-memory-shortage-why-ram-and-ssd-prices-are-surging/
#MemoryPricing #DRAM #NANDFlash #SSD #DataCenters #AIHardware #SupplyChain #TechEconomy #HBM
#DDR5 #LPDDR5X #NVMe #EnterpriseSSD #WaferCapacity #ITAssetManagement #ITAD #tech -
Why is a standard business laptop or a mid-range smartphone more expensive in 2026?
The answer is not inflation. It is wafers.
In today’s semiconductor market, every DDR5 module, HBM stack, LPDDR chip, and enterprise SSD starts from the same 300mm silicon wafer. When manufacturers allocate those wafers to AI-grade memory for data centers, they are no longer available for PCs, smartphones, or consumer devices.
This article breaks down the full memory hierarchy—DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR, GDDR, HBM, and NAND—and explains the “Silicon Zero-Sum Game” driving record price increases across the entire IT ecosystem.
If you manage hardware budgets, data centers, or surplus IT assets, this is essential reading for understanding the 2026 memory super-cycle.
https://www.buysellram.com/blog/the-2026-global-memory-shortage-why-ram-and-ssd-prices-are-surging/
#MemoryPricing #DRAM #NANDFlash #SSD #DataCenters #AIHardware #SupplyChain #TechEconomy #HBM
#DDR5 #LPDDR5X #NVMe #EnterpriseSSD #WaferCapacity #ITAssetManagement #ITAD #tech -
Why is a standard business laptop or a mid-range smartphone more expensive in 2026?
The answer is not inflation. It is wafers.
In today’s semiconductor market, every DDR5 module, HBM stack, LPDDR chip, and enterprise SSD starts from the same 300mm silicon wafer. When manufacturers allocate those wafers to AI-grade memory for data centers, they are no longer available for PCs, smartphones, or consumer devices.
This article breaks down the full memory hierarchy—DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR, GDDR, HBM, and NAND—and explains the “Silicon Zero-Sum Game” driving record price increases across the entire IT ecosystem.
If you manage hardware budgets, data centers, or surplus IT assets, this is essential reading for understanding the 2026 memory super-cycle.
https://www.buysellram.com/blog/the-2026-global-memory-shortage-why-ram-and-ssd-prices-are-surging/
#MemoryPricing #DRAM #NANDFlash #SSD #DataCenters #AIHardware #SupplyChain #TechEconomy #HBM
#DDR5 #LPDDR5X #NVMe #EnterpriseSSD #WaferCapacity #ITAssetManagement #ITAD #tech -
Ongoing drought in the mid-Atlantic and Southeast spread into the Midwest in August, bringing a range of impacts to the contiguous U.S.
Read more in the August drought impacts summary: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/6422168df01c46babe1b48d7fd716d54
#drought #drought2024 #August2024 #climate #science #data #news #UnitedStates
-
Wow!!! 👏
The #Giants beat the #Astros today 3-5, Webb gets another rare win and #Doval gets the "save" with a rare 3 up and down appearance in the top of the 9th.
The Giants took the series 2-1 vs the current 2023 MLB champ #Rangers in Texas and took the series 2-1 vs the 2022 MLB champ #Astros at home -- back to back -- but yet they currently have a record of 34-35. 🤷♂️
Next up . . . a 3 game series at home starting the day after tomorrow vs the #Angels (25-41) who aren't the same since Ohtani took the $ & ran to the #Dodgers.
On paper, the Giants should sweep the Angels but the #Giants have a way of defying the data. 🤷♂️
Go Giants!!! 🥳
PS: Just noticed the1st game vs the Angels is being aired on #AppleTV. So, won't be able to watch it anyway. 😡
-
Greetings and Felicitations! The Enterprise crew encounter yet another petulant child with crazy powers. This week's #StarfleetChallenge asked "Trelane's device is thought to have foreshadowed what future Star Trek tech?" Did Allie and I get it right? Is Trelane Q's great-great-grandpappy? Is it fair to judge humanity based on old data about a narrow range of events in our past? Listen now @ https://humanisttrek.com
.
.
#StarTrek #startrektheoriginalseries #startrektos #tos -
We are delighted to announce the summer 2026 edition of ReproducibiliTea in the HumaniTeas @UniKoeln with tea-rrific guest speakers from as close as Cologne and as far as Brazil, bringing us new insights into how to improve the way we do research! ☀️
Find the full schedule on our homepage (https://ub.uni-koeln.de/en/courses-consultations/specials/reproducibilitea-in-the-humaniteas) with topics spanning the entire research cycle from registered reports, achieving reproducibility (with sensitive data), doing big team science, and open peer review, to sustainable research and education for sustainable development, and science communication.
Join us in person at the University Library @unibibkoeln (room 4.006, access via Kerperner Str.) where we serve a range of teas (including our signature cardamon tea!) and biscuits. Alternatively, brew your own tea and join us via Zoom. The Zoom links are shared via our mailing list (https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/reproducibilitea-humaniteas). Come to network and join the discussions! 🤗 🫖 🍪
#ReproducibiliTea #humanities #SocialScience #academia #research #OpenScience #reproducibility #DigitalHumanities
-
Earth system models have generally been on track with unfolding reality, and they get better all the time.
Anyway, here's more of what Russell Vought calls "alarmism" but is better thought of as information for applying the #PrecautionaryPrinciple. These are very high stakes.
"Simultaneous droughts across multiple maize-producing regions can strike record-shattering portions of the global maize agricultural area, threatening global food security as the system is poorly adapted to large shocks. Yet the future probability of such global droughts remains unknown. Here, we close this gap by analyzing surface soil moisture data from large ensemble climate models under future emission scenarios. During 2026-2099, the chance of at least one such event is 52% (32–80%, range across models) under an intermediate emission scenario and 60% (32–100%) under high emissions, about seven to eleven times higher than expected if there were no long-term trends in soil moisture. These elevated probabilities are primarily driven by long-term drying in Brazil, Europe, and the USA. Interestingly, global record-shattering droughts do not emerge from simultaneous regional record-shattering events, but they mostly occur when several regions simultaneously face moderately extreme droughts relative to the new climate. These results demonstrate a high potential for an upcoming global record-shattering drought in crop-producing areas, an under-recognized risk for food security."
Sadly it appears the authors are unable to pay the ransom demanded by Springer-Nature so as to free their findings.
[HT to @anlomedad for pointing out that the article is indeed open access. And Springer Nature is that little bit richer. :-) ]
-
#Processing #Python #py5 #genuary #genuary31 #トゥートProcessing
# https://iamkate.com/data/12-bit-rainbow/
palette = (
'#817', '#a35', '#c66', '#e94',
'#ed0', '#9d5', '#4d8', '#2cb',
'#0bc', '#09c', '#36b', '#639'
)def setup():
size(800, 800)
no_stroke()
background(0)def draw():
xc = yc = 400
for i in range(6):
m = 1 - abs(cos(radians(frame_count / 2))) ** 5
r = 150 + 150 * m
a = radians(frame_count / 2 + 60 * i)
x = xc + r * cos(a)
y = yc + r * sin(a)
fill(palette[i])
circle(x, y, 150)
r = 300 - 150 * m
a = a + radians(30)
x = xc + r * cos(a)
y = yc + r * sin(a)
fill(palette[-1 -i])
circle(x, y, 150) -
#Processing #Python #py5 #genuary #genuary31 #トゥートProcessing
# https://iamkate.com/data/12-bit-rainbow/
palette = (
'#817', '#a35', '#c66', '#e94',
'#ed0', '#9d5', '#4d8', '#2cb',
'#0bc', '#09c', '#36b', '#639'
)def setup():
size(800, 800)
no_stroke()
background(0)def draw():
xc = yc = 400
for i in range(6):
m = 1 - abs(cos(radians(frame_count / 2))) ** 5
r = 150 + 150 * m
a = radians(frame_count / 2 + 60 * i)
x = xc + r * cos(a)
y = yc + r * sin(a)
fill(palette[i])
circle(x, y, 150)
r = 300 - 150 * m
a = a + radians(30)
x = xc + r * cos(a)
y = yc + r * sin(a)
fill(palette[-1 -i])
circle(x, y, 150) -
#Processing #Python #py5 #genuary #genuary31 #トゥートProcessing
# https://iamkate.com/data/12-bit-rainbow/
palette = (
'#817', '#a35', '#c66', '#e94',
'#ed0', '#9d5', '#4d8', '#2cb',
'#0bc', '#09c', '#36b', '#639'
)def setup():
size(800, 800)
no_stroke()
background(0)def draw():
xc = yc = 400
for i in range(6):
m = 1 - abs(cos(radians(frame_count / 2))) ** 5
r = 150 + 150 * m
a = radians(frame_count / 2 + 60 * i)
x = xc + r * cos(a)
y = yc + r * sin(a)
fill(palette[i])
circle(x, y, 150)
r = 300 - 150 * m
a = a + radians(30)
x = xc + r * cos(a)
y = yc + r * sin(a)
fill(palette[-1 -i])
circle(x, y, 150) -
#Processing #Python #py5 #genuary #genuary31 #トゥートProcessing
# https://iamkate.com/data/12-bit-rainbow/
palette = (
'#817', '#a35', '#c66', '#e94',
'#ed0', '#9d5', '#4d8', '#2cb',
'#0bc', '#09c', '#36b', '#639'
)def setup():
size(800, 800)
no_stroke()
background(0)def draw():
xc = yc = 400
for i in range(6):
m = 1 - abs(cos(radians(frame_count / 2))) ** 5
r = 150 + 150 * m
a = radians(frame_count / 2 + 60 * i)
x = xc + r * cos(a)
y = yc + r * sin(a)
fill(palette[i])
circle(x, y, 150)
r = 300 - 150 * m
a = a + radians(30)
x = xc + r * cos(a)
y = yc + r * sin(a)
fill(palette[-1 -i])
circle(x, y, 150) -
#Processing #Python #py5 #genuary #genuary31 #トゥートProcessing
# https://iamkate.com/data/12-bit-rainbow/
palette = (
'#817', '#a35', '#c66', '#e94',
'#ed0', '#9d5', '#4d8', '#2cb',
'#0bc', '#09c', '#36b', '#639'
)def setup():
size(800, 800)
no_stroke()
background(0)def draw():
xc = yc = 400
for i in range(6):
m = 1 - abs(cos(radians(frame_count / 2))) ** 5
r = 150 + 150 * m
a = radians(frame_count / 2 + 60 * i)
x = xc + r * cos(a)
y = yc + r * sin(a)
fill(palette[i])
circle(x, y, 150)
r = 300 - 150 * m
a = a + radians(30)
x = xc + r * cos(a)
y = yc + r * sin(a)
fill(palette[-1 -i])
circle(x, y, 150) -
#Processing #Python #py5 imported mode #genuary #genuary30 #トゥートProcessing
# Kate Rose Morley's palette
# https://iamkate.com/data/12-bit-rainbow/from itertools import product
palette = (
'#817', '#a35', '#c66', '#e94',
'#ed0', '#9d5', '#4d8', '#2cb',
'#0bc', '#09c', '#36b', '#639'
)def setup():
global palavras
size(800, 800)
no_loop()
rect_mode(CENTER)
no_stroke()def draw():
w = 400
i = 0
for x, y in product(range(0, width, w), repeat=2):
for z in range(3):
fill(palette[i])
square(w / 2 + x, w / 2 + y, w / (z / 2 + 1))
i += 1 -
#Processing #Python #py5 imported mode #genuary #genuary30 #トゥートProcessing
# Kate Rose Morley's palette
# https://iamkate.com/data/12-bit-rainbow/from itertools import product
palette = (
'#817', '#a35', '#c66', '#e94',
'#ed0', '#9d5', '#4d8', '#2cb',
'#0bc', '#09c', '#36b', '#639'
)def setup():
global palavras
size(800, 800)
no_loop()
rect_mode(CENTER)
no_stroke()def draw():
w = 400
i = 0
for x, y in product(range(0, width, w), repeat=2):
for z in range(3):
fill(palette[i])
square(w / 2 + x, w / 2 + y, w / (z / 2 + 1))
i += 1 -
#Processing #Python #py5 imported mode #genuary #genuary30 #トゥートProcessing
# Kate Rose Morley's palette
# https://iamkate.com/data/12-bit-rainbow/from itertools import product
palette = (
'#817', '#a35', '#c66', '#e94',
'#ed0', '#9d5', '#4d8', '#2cb',
'#0bc', '#09c', '#36b', '#639'
)def setup():
global palavras
size(800, 800)
no_loop()
rect_mode(CENTER)
no_stroke()def draw():
w = 400
i = 0
for x, y in product(range(0, width, w), repeat=2):
for z in range(3):
fill(palette[i])
square(w / 2 + x, w / 2 + y, w / (z / 2 + 1))
i += 1 -
#Processing #Python #py5 imported mode #genuary #genuary30 #トゥートProcessing
# Kate Rose Morley's palette
# https://iamkate.com/data/12-bit-rainbow/from itertools import product
palette = (
'#817', '#a35', '#c66', '#e94',
'#ed0', '#9d5', '#4d8', '#2cb',
'#0bc', '#09c', '#36b', '#639'
)def setup():
global palavras
size(800, 800)
no_loop()
rect_mode(CENTER)
no_stroke()def draw():
w = 400
i = 0
for x, y in product(range(0, width, w), repeat=2):
for z in range(3):
fill(palette[i])
square(w / 2 + x, w / 2 + y, w / (z / 2 + 1))
i += 1