My article that presented the evidence for standing bears as the source for many Bigfoot sightings (Skeptical Inquirer Sept./Oct. 2013) was reasonable and respectful of other views. The response from Daniel Perez of Bigfoot Times was anything but—accusing me of dishonesty and stupidity. Perez got me in his sights (he thought) and squeezed off a few shots—shooting himself, well, in his big foot. It seems, for starters, that he did what he accused me of.
He avoided responding to what he characterized as my “four page [sic] referenced article,” and in his one-page, unreferenced commentary (that opened with a structurally untenable “sentence”) he chose instead to criticize my cartoon illustration, which compared a bear with Bigfoot by juxtaposing sketches of half of each. He claimed I had “intentionally doctored” my bear portion to make it look more Bigfootish.
Alas, the split-image picture he responds with has been altered so as to make the compared figures as dissimilar as possible. Since he supplies the full photo of the bear chosen (which has a different stance than mine and has obscured lower legs and feet), we can see that much less than half of the width of that picture is used (one can measure across the neck), making the bear thin indeed. At the same time, a differently shaped and sized “Bigfoot” has been substituted. (Why? The Bigfoot in my sketch is as real as any! Of course, we know why a photo of Bigfoot—an unfaked one—cannot be obtained.) As to my bear’s leg, Perez thinks I have shown it too long because he has not paid close attention to where the inside of the leg intersects the center line.
Perez (rather arrogantly for a college dropout) tells me to “smarten up.” He does acknowledge that standing bears are Bigfoot lookalikes, “But,” he says, “once a bear is not standing upright but back on all four legs, do you think the eyewitness would be confused as to what they [sic] saw?” In fact, yes: I gave examples, such as a sighting at an Iowa state park, when a seven-foot brown Bigfoot that was shot at “ran away on all fours.” Moreover, if being on all fours means the animal was not Bigfoot, then why does Perez repeat that one woman who saw the mythical creature “said it looked just like an ape”? Does Perez think apes only walk bipedally?
It is Perez who insults many Bigfoot eyewitnesses. He states, “When a bear is seen in profile while standing, you would have to be deaf, blind and dumb to confuse it with a Bigfoot.” He seems to think that (1) bears always pose under optimum conditions, rather than at significant distances, at night, partially hidden in brush, and so on, and (2) eyewitnesses are always reliable, know that bears stand and walk upright, and are not influenced by the incredible hyping of Bigfoot by the popular media. If Perez believes these things, he is even further out of touch with the real world than previously thought.