I was quite impressed with the level of civility between the opposing camps.
Is the cyrpozoologoy crowd the least woo woo and freakish of the pseuodsciences?
That said, it does tend to say something when a guy who seems to have devoted his life to bigfoot research can't point/counter point his way out of a debate with our podcast's fearless leader who, I'm guessing, has merely reviewed the field.
His best evidence seemed to be the dermal ridges although in a later podcast I think the crew noted a hoaxer merely used his own dermal ridges in the cast. One small town police expert claiming they're not human is fairly weak evidence especially if he didn't consider that a hoaxster, through cleverness or just sloppiness, might distort the ridges in some way.
His other line of evidence that seemed strong was the DNA of the hair, although Dr. N quickly pointed out they were only testing for animals native to the area and not all fur. Since hoaxing is pervasive in the field, this still isn't good evidence. Wouldn't, as a bigfoot researcher, you know this criticism before hand and at least reveal it? I would in an honest debate.
His evidence from the Patterson film also quickly met with another counter point. While a human could do a funny bigfoot walk, a hoaxster wouldn't, ostensibly, think to walk funny in a big monkey suit. Dr. N quickly countered "well, mabye he would, trying to do an alien looking creature walk" or words to that effect.
