Bigfoot Facts

Are Bigfoot Facts Based Upon Reality, Imagination, Or Hoax?

Many of the Bigfoot facts presented to date have turned out to be the result of sometimes elaborate hoaxes. Others are based upon vivid imaginations. When something looms up if front of us all of a sudden, it often appears to be much larger than it actually is. Other Bigfoot facts appear to be based upon credible observations, which is not to say they prove Bigfoot to be real, but at least give the possibility that Bigfoot exists a certain amount of credence.

Any good scientist will be somewhat of a skeptic, rather than running with whatever evidence happens to be in someway supportive of one theory or another. In this case, the theory is that Bigfoot exists, and there are no findings to date, and perhaps never will be, that the opposite is true. Not being able to prove that Bigfoot does not exist does not mean the creature does exist. Proving that something "isn't" is often more difficult than proving it "is".

There are those who believe Bigfoot exists and seek out data, information, or sightings to bolster that belief. The more serious researchers neither believe or disbelieve in Bigfoot, though may have their private feelings on the matter. Their approach is to try to debunk or disprove Bigfoot facts as they become available, not because they don't believe in Bigfoot, but want the facts to be at least credible if not conclusive.

Fuzzy Pictures Abound - The credibility of Bigfoot facts depends on evidence, and all too often the evidence provided is a somewhat fuzzy image of a somewhat fuzzy picture. It's not all that different that pictures of UFOs which rather than showing sharp detail, often resemble fuzzy pie pans. UFOs to the best of our knowledge have left no footprints, but some Bigfoot facts presented are based upon footprints. Footprints can easily be faked of course, and one would really have to find footprints in various far flung areas where sightings have been reported, and the footprints should show something in common, although they need not be identical. It is helpful of course if there are other clues close by such as animal fur or hair, or branches broken off 9 feet above the ground.

Character - Some researchers use what are called the "four C's" in examining information gathered from sightings. These are Character, Context, Clues, and Comparison. The character of the person who sighted Bigfoot, or provided some evidence, must of course be beyond dispute, especially if there is no supportive evidence available. Sightings by practical jokers, fame seekers, or mental cases can often be rejected out of hand. Sightings by upstanding citizens will be taken more seriously, especially since many of the type do not seek publicity, and might even be afraid to admit they may have encountered Bigfoot.

Context - Context can be very important. Context relates to the surrounding environment or situation. This is one thing that makes images of UFO sightings difficult to assess, as the environment is usually the sky, making comparisons to other objects impossible. Bigfoot is often sighted in the brush, unfortunately usually in heavy brush, but at least some data may be gathered regarding habitat.

Clues And Comparison - We've mentioned clues such as footprints, hair and broken limbs (tree limbs not human limbs). Hair can be examined in the laboratory to see if it comes from a primate or a costume, and perhaps DNA analysis can reveal some pertinent Bigfoot facts. If Bigfoot were to smash in cabin doors or throw 50 pound boulders around, some useful information could perhaps be gathered. As far as comparison is concerned, a clear image of Bigfoot standing next to an average sized (but very frightened) human, would tell us a great deal. An image of Bigfoot standing by a bush could be revealing if the bush could be located and then measured.

The main problem in gathering reputable Bigfoot facts is not that there is a lack of evidence, but there have been so many instances of incomplete evidence and outright hoaxes, that it's difficult not to be very skeptical.