Many wonder what’s really out there, in the world. Who’s to say what can and can’t be real. Between aliens and possible creatures in forests or in black lagoons, who really knows? However, I believe that there is a line between what can be real and what is absolute nonsense. An example here would be: Bigfoot. Also, known as Sasquatch.
What exactly is this “Bigfoot”? People have been seeing a “hairy man-like creature that walk on two legs and live in the forests and mountainous areas of North America and around the world” (oregonbigfoot.com). Believers of this “creature” think many possibilities as to what they think it is. An elusive primate, a spiritual being, an alien transplant, or even a shapeshifter (Williams). It’s reasonable to think such things about something you don’t really have credible evidence for. Really, there are only “eyewitness sightings, footprints, recordings, and somatic samples (hair, blood, etc.)” (Radford).
Bigfoot is more than 50 years old now since the first “sighting” in 1967 on film by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Although, at first, a man named Jerry Crew sighted and casted some large tracks in California in 1958 (Williams). How does one know if this creature can even be 50 years old? Is there more than one of them? Many animals can live a long while, but who is to say that over the course of more than 50 years, still being sighted, that this is the same “Bigfoot”? Too many questions without a close answer in sight.
However, the elusive primate is an interesting theory. Again, these are just theories. Some think that Bigfoot might be “Gigantopithecus Blacki” which is a “large primate whose teeth and jawbones have been discovered in parts of China” (Williams). If you have ever taken an Anthropology class, lucky for me, I just took one this past semester, then you know that “Gigantopithecus” translates as ‘giant ape’ and that only the teeth and jawbones have been found (prehistoric-wildlife.com). There’s not a complete skeleton or even partial skeleton for this early species. If there was a skull found, then this would be different. Skulls offer many clues as to how big a species can be, among other insights. So, this is an interesting theory and could be believable if they had found a skull or even plausible evidence as to how this “Bigfoot” or “Gigantopithecus” is still around. Again, not enough here to be thought of as real.
What’s wrong with this “evidence”? There’s no real credibility there. The weakest of them all is the eyewitness sightings. They are obviously unreliable. Then, there are the footprints. It’s how it got its name in the first place. According to Radford, the only evidence for footprints, is that “they are evidence for hoaxing.” He quotes a Dennett, who says that the “tracks are not particular consistence and show a wide range of variation.” He also goes on to explain that an investigation led an expedition and found the “most significant find in the past two decades,” a body print. They think that it laid on its side at the edge of a bank, reaching for bait. He quotes BFRO which says that it didn’t want to leave tracks, then why did it leave a giant footprint? He just doesn’t make sense (Radford).
There are recordings that are of course debated among many on how credible they are. The main one being the film I stated above by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Many “experts” say that the thing in the film can’t be human because of how large the chest is and that no human can walk like the creature can in the film. It is still in speculation because the men who filmed it, told others that he was going out to film specifically to capture it on film and that a footprint expert told him exactly where to see it. An anthropologist who worked at the Smithsonian Institution as a primate biologist, finds many problems with Patterson’s film. He claims that the walk could be done by a modern man. An actual expert claims this. Seems believable to me (Radford).
Lastly, the somatic samples that have been recovered from these so-called encounters. It’s all faulty evidence that leads nowhere. When they think they have found “Bigfoot hair” it actually is hair from elk, cows, or bears (Radford). People who find these types of evidences aren’t only already believing in this “Bigfoot,” but they are hoping to get some sort of credit for finding the “missing link” as some would say.
It just doesn’t add up. It is perhaps in the best interests to assume that it is all a hoax. All for the news and speculation of wonder. For tourism, perhaps? Lack of information can’t be used for evidence and word of mouth won’t cut it either. Hard evidence is what the people need to actually believe that this “Bigfoot” does exist. In the end though, for me, it does not.
References
Radford, B. (2002, March & april). Bigfoot at 50 Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half-century_of_bigfoot_evidence
Williams, A. (n.d.). OregonBigfoot.com. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/what-is-bigfoot.php
Www.prehistoric-wildlife.com, D. P. (n.d.). Gigantopithecus. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/g/gigantopithecus.html
