The Argumentation on The Non-existence of Bigfoot

For decades, people have been searching for Bigfoot all over the world. Some call Bigfoot by the name of: Sasquatch, Yeti, or Abominable Snowman. Today, there are various video recordings of Bigfoot on the internet. Also, numerous eyewitnesses have claimed to see Bigfoot. If that was not enough, hair samples, footprints, and body prints of Bigfoot have been discovered by people. However, the problem with these findings is that none of them have substantiated themselves as true evidence of Bigfoot’s existence. Bigfoot does not exist because people are unreliable sources of information and the physical evidence found from Bigfoot has been substantiated as false.

Since people are unreliable sources of information, Bigfoot’s existence cannot be substantiated through their anecdotes. People are unreliable because sometimes they cannot recollect what they actually saw. Also, they may think they saw Bigfoot, when in reality, it was an animal that looked like Bigfoot. Also, the recordings taken by people are conveniently far away.

Bigfoot does not exist because the eyewitness accounts are unreliable. There was a study done where, “researchers reported that 73 percent of the 239 [criminal] convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses” (Arkowitz 1). Almost three-fourths of the overturned convictions were previously wrong because of false eyewitness testimony. If that was not bad enough, a third of people were convicted because of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. This example conveys how people are unreliable in general. People think they saw something, when in reality, it never happened. A psychologist researched and found that, “even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall” (Arkowitz 1). The issue with humans and their memory is that they can construct inaccurate new memories, even though they think they are recollecting a true memory. These examples all relate back to the eyewitnesses of Bigfoot because the examples convey how people are not recollecting the truth. People think they saw Bigfoot, but they are actually recollecting a false memory. Bigfoot does not exist because people recollect false memories, which substantiates eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot as untrustworthy.

The Bigfoot recordings are unreliable, which substantiates Bigfoot’s nonexistence. A man named Shealy was convinced that Bigfoot was real and called it a skunk ape. He had footage of what he thought was Bigfoot. However, after analysis, there was a, “strange, hidden primate-breeding facility, colonies of escaped monkeys, great apes living farther north in Florida and the apparent evidence of an escaped orangutan” (Stromberg 1). This example conveys how unbelievable stories can occur and make it look like Bigfoot is real. However, it also shows how Bigfoot is unreal and how anomalies can cause people to think they have seen Bigfoot, when it was a previously discovered primate. The problem with the recordings is that, “in such pieces of video or photographic ‘evidence’, the subject is almost always either obscured by tree branches or extremely far away. It raises the question why the person filming the event (and there have been many) doesn’t simply chase the creature, or at least try and get a clearer shot” (Fox 1). This example conveys the main argument against the recordings of Bigfoot. The people who capture Bigfoot are always in inopportune locations. If Bigfoot truly exists, why has someone not gotten a better glimpse of them after decades of searching? Today, technology is apparent with almost everyone having a decent camera on their smartphone. If Bigfoot exists, then Bigfoot would have been found with clear evidence of being a newly discovered species by now. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist because the recordings are inaccurate and Bigfoot has yet to be found despite the prevalence of technology.

Some people would argue that thousands of people have seen Bigfoot for decades so it must exist; additionally, some scientists have proclaimed to have seen Bigfoot. However, anecdotal evidence can never be reliable because anecdotes cannot be tested as fact.

An editor of The Cryptozoological Review, Ben Roesch, stated how, “cryptozoology is based largely on anecdotal evidence while physical phenomena can be tested and systematically evaluated by science, anecdotes cannot, as they are neither physical nor regulated in content or form. Because of this, anecdotes are not reproducible, and are thus untestable; since they cannot be tested, they are not falsifiable and are not part of the scientific process” (Radford 30). This example conveys how anecdotes are not factual. Additionally, they cannot be credible because there is no way to test a story’s validity. Therefore, anecdotes cannot be considered when arguing about Bigfoot’s existence because there is no way to test the validity of them; they can be completely false. A mycologist named Gary Samuels sighted, “a large primate in the forest of Guyana. The implication is that this exacting man of science accurately observed, recalled, and reported his experience. But Samuels is a scientific expert on tiny fungi that grow on wood. His expertise is botany, not identifying large primates in poor conditions.” (Radford 31). This example conveys how the scientists that claim to see Bigfoot can be fooled by seeing them in poor conditions. Additionally, the scientist that saw Bigfoot is not qualified in identifying and classifying primates. Therefore, he cannot attest to Bigfoot’s existence when it is a strong possibility that he does not know all the different species of primates in the region. These examples exemplify how people and their anecdotes are unreliable. Bigfoot does not exist because scientists who find Bigfoot do not specialize in identifying primates and anecdotes cannot be tested as fact.

Bigfoot does not exist because the physical evidence is inconsistent, inaccurate, or unreliable. The footprints and body prints believed to be from Bigfoot are inaccurate and inconsistent. The somatic samples of Bigfoot are from known species in the area or not from a species at all.

Bigfoot does not exist because the footprints found of Bigfoot are inconsistent and the body prints are inaccurate. Some Bigfoot footprints, “have toes that are aligned, others show splayed toes. Most alleged Bigfoot tracks have five toes, but some casts show creatures with two, three, four, or even six toes” (Radford 31). The issue with the Bigfoot footprints is that they are inconsistent with each other. There are a different number of toes on the footprints, and the toes are aligned differently. This observation shows that the footprints cannot be reputable; the variation in the footprints substantiates them as false. Another instance occurred where some people claimed to find Bigfoot, and Bigfoot wanted to be stealthy to catch bait. The people claimed to find, “the first Bigfoot body print [. The body print shows Bigfoot’s body shape; there was a silhouette of Bigfoot’s body in mud.] The Bigfoot, according to the team, apparently made the impression when it laid on its side at the edge of a muddy bank and reached over to grab some bait” (Radford 31). An animal wanting to be stealthy would not leave a giant impression in the ground. Also, more imprints would be found around the world if Bigfoot left giant imprints trying to catch food. The example invalidates itself because of those previous statements. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist because of the inconsistency of Bigfoot’s footprints and the inaccuracy of Bigfoot’s discovered body print.

Bigfoot does not exist because the somatic samples of Bigfoot are unreliable. There was an, “analysis conducted by an international group of scientists on a small fragment of mitochondrial DNA isolated from ‘bigfoot’ hair samples collected during the previous 50 years by hike rs, naturalists and hunters. However, two samples were found to be most similar to the Palaeolithic polar bear, Ursus maritimus” (DNA 1). After years of findings, a couple of samples were from an ancient polar bear (from the Palaeolithic era). The findings convey that suspected evidence of Bigfoot is not from them. Additionally, other tests have shown that Bigfoot hair, “turns out to be elk, bear, or cow hair, for example, or suspected ‘Bigfoot blood’ is revealed to be transmission fluid. Even advances in genetic technology have proven fruitless” (Radford 34). This example further attests Bigfoot’s nonexistence. Not only was hair found from an ancient polar bear, but it was found from other animals as well. Also, discovered “Bigfoot blood” was transmission fluid from a car. These pieces of evidence show how the physical evidence from Bigfoot is unreliable. People might have mistaken other animals’ hair or blood to be from Bigfoot. However, it is still substantiated that there is no physical evidence of Bigfoot. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist because the physical evidence found from Bigfoot is substantiated to be false.

Some would argue that the physical evidence appears as another species when it is a footprint or sample from Bigfoot because the tests read animals that have already been discovered, not new species. However, if Bigfoot were real, there would have been Bigfoot bodies discovered, not just hair samples, blood samples, and footprints. Additionally, there is still no evidence in favor of Bigfoot being a real creature. The truth is that, “At some point a Bigfoot’s luck must run out: one out of the thousands must wander onto a freeway and get killed by a car, or get shot by a hunter, or die of natural causes and be discovered by a hiker” (Radford 37). If Bigfoot was real, there would have to be a found body. If a body was undiscovered, something of such large size would have left a bone or skeleton. The fact that there has not been a body or bone found for decades further validates his nonexistence. Additionally, the main idea is that people who believe in Bigfoot, “can’t point to a live or dead sample of what they’re studying” (Radford 37). Whether tests are blamed or evidence is misconstrued, nothing has been found to verify the existence of Bigfoot. There are no accurate recordings, hair samples, blood samples, bodies, or bones showing that Bigfoot is real. After decades of trying to find Bigfoot across the world, Bigfoot would have been discovered by now through some type of evidence. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist because there is no evidence such as bones or bodies of Bigfoot that has been found for decades.

It is substantiated that Bigfoot does not exist because of people’s unreliability and the lack of physical evidence. People have been confirmed to be unreliable as eyewitnesses; eyewitnesses can recollect false memories, which leads to deceptive stories of Bigfoot. Additionally, the recordings of Bigfoot are verified to be of other types of primates or are conveniently taken far away. If Bigfoot was real, there would have been better videos by now with the prevalence of technology. Some claim that scientists and thousands of other people have seen Bigfoot, so he must be real. However, anecdotal evidence cannot be tested as fact, so it must be considered as untrue. Also, scientists claiming to have seen Bigfoot, can be specialized in another species. For example, Gary Samuels thought he saw Bigfoot when he specializes in fungi. Another reason that Bigfoot does not exist is the lack of physical evidence. The footprints found have been inconsistent with one another, which conveys its invalidity. The body print of Bigfoot conveys its invalidity as well because an animal of such large size would not make a giant imprint to be stealthy. Also, hundreds if not thousands of body prints would have been discovered by now because of Bigfoot’s size. In addition, the somatic samples from Bigfoot are confirmed to be from polar bears, elk, and other animals. Also, a person claimed to have Bigfoot blood, when it was confirmed to be transmission fluid from a car. Some would argue that the physical evidence looks like a known species when it is in fact, a sample from Bigfoot. However, if that was true, there would be bones and bodies of Bigfoot everywhere. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist because there is no valid evidence conveying their existence.