The Argumentation On The Non-existence Of Bigfoot

Bigfoot has been a subject of fascination for many decades. Sasquatch is another name for Bigfoot. Today, the internet is filled with various videos of Bigfoot. Many eyewitnesses also claim to have seen Bigfoot. Not only that, but people have found Bigfoot’s hair samples and footprints. These findings are not conclusive proof that Bigfoot exists. Bigfoot doesn’t exist because people can be unreliable and physical evidence of Bigfoot is false.

Because people are unreliable, it is impossible to prove Bigfoot’s presence through anecdotes. Sometimes people can’t remember what they saw. They might also have mistakenly thought they had seen Bigfoot when, in fact, it was a similar-looking animal. Bigfoot doesn’t exist because eyewitnesses are not reliable. Researchers conducted a study where they found that 73% of the 239 [criminal] cases overturned via DNA testing relied on eyewitnesses. In one third of the cases that were overturned, there was testimony from two or more misinformed eyewitnesses (Arkowitz 1, p. 1). Nearly three-fourths the convictions that were overturned had been incorrect because of false witness testimony. It gets worse. A third of those convicted were due to two or even more false eyewitnesses. This illustrates the general unreliability of people. People often think they’ve seen something that never actually happened. A psychologist conducted research and discovered that even the questions of an attorney could alter the testimony of a witness because the fragments from their memory can be unknowingly combined together with the information they provide, leading to inaccurate recollection (Arkowitz, 1). Humans can create inaccurate memories even when they believe they are recalling the truth. These examples can be related to Bigfoot’s eyewitnesses, as they all show that people aren’t recollecting truthfully. The people who claim to have seen Bigfoot are in fact recollecting false memories. Bigfoot is not real because people recall false memories. Eyewitnesses are therefore unreliable.

Bigfoot is not real because the recordings are not reliable. Shealy called Bigfoot a skunk. He had footage he believed to be Bigfoot. After further investigation, however, it turned out that the “strange facility for breeding primates, colonies with escaped apes, and great apes who lived farther north in Florida” (Stromberg 1), were all true. This example illustrates how incredible stories can be made to appear real. The video also shows Bigfoot to be unreal. Anomalies can make people think they saw Bigfoot when it is actually an earlier discovered primate. The recordings have a flaw: “The subject of such photographic or video ‘evidence,’ is either very far or obscured by branches.” It is a question as to why the person recording the event (and this has happened many times) does not chase after the creature and try to get an improved shot. (Fox1). This is the main argument for not recording Bigfoot. People who record Bigfoot always do so in unfavourable locations. Why hasn’t anyone seen Bigfoot more clearly after searching for decades? Most smartphones have a decent-sized camera. Bigfoot, if it existed, would have been discovered with evidence that it was a newly-discovered species. Bigfoot cannot exist as the recordings are unreliable and despite modern technology, Bigfoot has still not been found.

Some people say that Bigfoot has existed for years because so many people have seen it. Some scientists also claim to be able to see Bigfoot. But anecdotal information is never reliable as it can’t be proven to be fact.

Ben Roesch stated in The Cryptozoological Review that anecdotes can’t be tested or evaluated scientifically because they aren’t physical and have no regulated content. Due to this, anecdotes can not be tested and reproduced. They are also not falsifiable. This example illustrates that anecdotes cannot be considered factual. A story cannot be tested for validity, so it is not credible. Anecdotes are not to be used in arguing for Bigfoot’s existance because they cannot be tested; they could be false. Gary Samuels is a mycologist. He saw “a primate of colossal size in the forests of Guyana.” This means that this scientist was able to accurately observe, recall, and report his experience. Samuels’ expertise is on the tiny fungi growing on wood. He is a botanist, and not an expert in identifying large primates under poor conditions. (Radford 31,) This example shows how scientists who claim to have seen Bigfoot may be misled by poor lighting conditions. A scientist who claims to have seen Bigfoot may not be qualified to classify and identify primates. It is unlikely that he would be able to confirm Bigfoot’s presence if he did not have a thorough knowledge of the primates found in the area. These examples show how unreliable people’s anecdotes can be. Bigfoot doesn’t exist because the scientists who discover Bigfoot are not experts in primate identification and anecdotes can’t be tested as facts.

Bigfoot is not real because the evidence is inconsistent, unreliable, or inaccurate. The body prints and footprints that are believed to belong to Bigfoot have been proven inaccurate. The somatic samples from Bigfoot come from other species or are not even from Bigfoot.

Bigfoot doesn’t exist because its body prints and tracks are inconsistent. Some Bigfoot tracks “have aligned toes while others show splayed ones.” Some casts of Bigfoot creatures have two, three or four toes. Bigfoot’s footprints are inconsistent. The toes of the footprints are different and are also arranged differently. The variation in the prints proves that they are false. Bigfoot wanted the people to believe that he was there, but he was actually trying to stealthy so as to get bait. “The first Bigfoot print” was claimed by the people who found it. Body print showing Bigfoot body shape. Mud silhouette showed Bigfoot body. The Bigfoot apparently left an impression on the ground when it laid down at the edge and grabbed some bait. A creature that wanted to remain stealthy wouldn’t leave a huge imprint in the ground. Bigfoot’s giant footprints in the ground would also be more common if it was attempting to catch prey. Due to the statements made before, this example becomes invalid. Bigfoot is therefore not real due to inconsistency between the found body prints and Bigfoot’s footprints.

Bigfoot is not real because somatic samples are unreliable. It was reported that an international team of scientists had conducted an analysis of a small mitochondrial fragment from bigfoot’ hair collected over the previous 50 year by hikers. Two samples, however, were most similar to Ursus martimus, the Palaeolithic Polar Bear (DNA 1). After many years of searching, two samples turned out to be from an ancient polar-bear (from the Paleolithic period). These findings indicate that they are not the source of suspected evidence. Other tests revealed that Bigfoot’s hair was actually cow, elk and bear hair. “Even the most advanced genetic technologies have failed to produce any results” (Radford). This example is further proof of Bigfoot’s absence. Hair was also found on other animals, including an ancient polar-bear. It was also discovered that “Bigfoot’s blood” is transmission fluid used in cars. These evidences show that physical evidence from Bigfoot can be unreliable. Other animals’ blood or hair could have been mistaken for Bigfoot. But it’s still proven that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. Bigfoot cannot exist because all the evidence that has been found to prove it is false.

Others would claim that Bigfoot is not the species that was tested, but that it appears to be another species. The tests are designed to detect animals that were already discovered. If Bigfoot was real, then there would be more than just blood, hair, or footprints. Also, there’s no solid evidence that Bigfoot exists. It is true that “at some point a Bigfoot’s luck has to run out. A body would be found if Bigfoot is real. Undiscovered bodies would leave a large skeleton or bones. The lack of a body for many decades is further proof that he does not exist. In addition, it is argued that Bigfoot believers “cannot provide a live or a dead specimen of the subject they’re studying.” (Radford 37). There is no evidence to prove that Bigfoot exists, regardless of whether tests or other evidence are misinterpreted. Bigfoot has never been proven to be real by accurate recordings. Bigfoot would be discovered through evidence after years of searching the world for Bigfoot. Bigfoot is therefore not real, as there are no evidences of Bigfoot such as bodies or bones that have been found over the past decades.

Bigfoot’s nonexistence is proven by the unreliability of witnesses and lack of evidence. It has been proven that people are unreliable eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses may recall false memories and create deceptive Bigfoot stories. The recordings are also of other primates or taken from a distance. In the age of technology there would be more videos if Bigfoot is real. Some people say that Bigfoot has been seen by scientists, thousands of people and other witnesses. Therefore, he must exist. Anecdotal proof cannot be proven to be true, and so must be ruled out. Also, scientists who claim to see Bigfoot could be experts in a different species. Gary Samuels was a fungi specialist who thought he’d seen Bigfoot. Bigfoot is not real because there are no physical evidences. It is invalid because the footprints are inconsistent. Bigfoot would also not leave such a large imprint to remain stealthy. Bigfoot is so large that hundreds, perhaps thousands, body prints have already been found. The somatic samples of Bigfoot have been confirmed to come from polar-bears, elks and other animals. It was also confirmed that the blood claimed by a man to be Bigfoot’s blood, actually came from transmission fluid. Some argue that it appears to be a specimen of a known animal when, in reality, it is a Bigfoot. If that was the case, Bigfoot would have bodies and bones all over. Bigfoot is not real because there are no reliable evidences of their existence.