Bigfoot: Reality or Myth?
The Bigfoot phenomenon has puzzled scientists, captured the imagination of millions of Americans, and frightened little children in their beds at night. The most notorious Bigfoot followers have dedicated years – even sacrificed their marriages and careers – to finding out as much about the creature as they can. They follow footprints to wherever they may lead, interview eyewitnesses, document their findings, and write books about their theories. Yet there is no physical evidence to date that proves that Bigfoot does indeed exist. There is, however, a pile of soft evidence to consider, including footprints, eyewitness accounts, and a film said to have captured Bigfoot in action, but this evidence isn't substantial, and thorough conclusions are seldom made. In his book, John Napier, a primatologist, writes of this issue: "Unfortunately . . . we have virtually no material evidence. Fragments of 'evidence'. . . have been produced from time to time, but without exception all have been shown to be either fakes or irrelevancies." The evidence has been cross examined by Bigfoot followers and skeptic scientists alike, but no Bigfoot creature has been found, dead or alive, so what is there to make of the evidence? The fact is that eyewitnesses testify to have seen something, and footprints were made by someone. The question is, who?
The modern Bigfoot legend began around the 1920s in a small town in Canada. J.W. Burns, a teacher who worked on the local Indian reservation, decided to investigate rumors about hairy giants. His curiosity sparked the first investigation to find the Sasquatch. On April 1, 1929, an article written by Burns was published introducing the creatures said to have roamed British Columbia. Burns claimed to have found eyewitnesses, making Bigfoot not just a tall tale, but a legend. The eyewitnesses described the sasquatches as hairy humans who resided in caves up in the mountains and surrounding villages, and they could also talk. No hard evidence exists for this case, but the eyewitness accounts cannot be dismissed.
The next remarkable eyewitness case occurred in 1957 by a man named William Roe. Roe was the first to describe the Sasquatch as having characteristics of an ape. However, when he was questioned by reporters no one knows when, why, or what he said. Soon after the Roe case, a man named Albert Ostman claimed he was kidnapped by a family of sasquatches and then miraculously escaped by getting the father Sasquatch addicted to snuff. Ostman's story is very popular amongst Bigfoot followers, but hardly anyone believes it. There is no physical evidence except Ostman's testimony, and that is something that cannot be proven. In a sea of eyewitness testimonies, how is one to determine what was truly seen and what was not? Hundreds have come forth sharing their personal experiences since Ostman, but when it comes right down to it, it is not enough. David J. Daegling, an anthropologist, writes: "In science, eyewitness testimony counts for nothing if there are more objective data that can be collected." The objective data Daegling speaks of is evidence collected such as footprints, hair samples, and film. The most important of these is footprints.
The most significant set of footprints were found in 1958 when two brothers, Wilbur and Ray Wallace, claimed to have found giant footprints in a place called Bluff Creek. In the following weeks, new tracks were found around the site. Jerry Crew, the bulldozer operator, took matters into his own hands and preserved the footprints in plaster for the world to see. He went to the local paper and an article was published featuring a picture of Crew holding up his plaster of a giant footprint. It was the first time the term "Bigfoot" was introduced to the public. Not wanting to miss any of the action, and excited about what the footprints could mean for those who were pro-Bigfoot, researchers such as John Green and Rene Dahinden flew to California to inspect. Many were impressed and would return year after year, hoping to find a glimpse of the hairy giant. Researches wondered and speculated about who was making the prints, but it wasn't until years later, when Ray Wallace passed away, that the truth came out in the open. According to his family, the tracks were made by Ray Wallace all along. Daniel Loxton explains: "By the time of his death, Ray Wallace had been producing fake tracks, fake photos, and tall tales for decades – and Bigfoot insiders knew it."
Scientists have proven the prints made by Wallace were absolutely false, yet some Bigfooters still feel that some of the tracks at Bluff Creek were made by a real Bigfoot. They believe that the tracks that the Wallace family presented were not the same tracks that were found in Bluff Creek. Researchers pointed out, quite reasonably, that the hundreds of footprint cases found around the continent couldn't have been all faked by Wallace. However, those cases cannot be proven true. There have been many footprint cases that have been proven false, but it is almost impossible to prove any footprints were made by a real Bigfoot. Not until a Bigfoot is found, and the footprints can be compared. Indeed, many researchers believe most of the footprints found were faked. Peter Byrne, Bigfoot researcher, writes: "There is no doubt in my mind that some of the footprints that I have seen, which others regarded as real Bigfoot footprints, were faked."
It was beginning to look like the Bigfoot community was clutching at straws with alleged footprints and sightings until a famous incident in October 1967, when Roger Patterson declared he had captured Bigfoot on film. The film would cause a ripple in the Bigfoot community. Loxton describes the film's legacy: "Today, Patterson's film remains the central piece of the Bigfoot puzzle, the ultimate symbol of Bigfoot's existence. . ." The Patterson film was debated on by scientists and skeptics alike. Some claimed it was a man in a costume; others fervently believed no human could possibly imitate the gait of Bigfoot. They examined every second of the film, trying to decipher every detail, but once maximized, the details become sketchy. Furthermore, there was no evidence found near the area where the film was shot except for one supposed footprint. Having come to a standstill on the film itself, the case turned to the credibility of the creator when Greg Long wrote The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story. According to Loxton, "Long ignored the old footage, and simply asked if Patterson was the kind of guy who might have cooked up a hoax, or not?
If the film itself can't settle anything, the filmmaker's character is the only thing left to consider…" According to witnesses interviewed by Long during his quest for the truth, Patterson was known as a scammer, a cheat, a criminal, and a liar. Bigfooters dismiss the book entirely, claiming that the book is a direct accusation against Patterson and a deliberate attempt to prove everything he did was dishonest. So what is there left to believe? Was Patterson's film a hoax or not? The truth is no one can know for sure. In his article, Paul McGarva acknowledges that, "[u]ltimately—perhaps sadly—we are no closer to finding the truth of the whole matter than we were on that fateful October afternoon some four decades ago. Barring some unimpeachable, well-documented revelation, we will likely never know". There was never a costume found or further evidence around the scene, so all we have left to ponder is Patterson's character, which cannot be disregarded. So how is the Patterson film viewed in the Bigfoot community? In his article, McGarva explains the attitude of the Bigfoot community: "That is why many serious bigfooters believe . . . that the [Patterson/Gimlin Film] is utterly useless as evidence for the existence of Bigfoot . . . many bigfooters choose to avoid the topic of the film entirely."
Those who are adamant that Bigfoot does not exist often question: If Bigfoot does exist, how come they haven't found bones? If there are so many eyewitnesses, how come one hasn't been shot dead yet? According to Loxton, there are only four reasons: Bigfoot is hard to find; they're too smart to be killed; if indeed they were found, they're being kept hidden, or; they don't exist. It is hard to believe that Bigfoot is a rare species if so many eyewitnesses have come forth claiming to have spotted the creature. It is improbable that they are too smart to be caught if they are tangled in headlights and rifle sights. It is also highly unlikely that they are being kept hidden by their captors, since a creature such as Bigfoot would be worth a great deal of money. We are left with the last probable reason: Bigfoot doesn't exist. But even this reason seems farfetched. If Bigfoot doesn't exist, is the evidence documented in the past decades rendered completely worthless? The footprints, the eyewitness accounts, and the Patterson film add up to a significant amount of evidence, but nothing that would prove without a doubt that Bigfoot exists. In his book, Daegling reasons that, "[d]espite the thousands of eyewitness sightings and endless traits of gigantic footprints, there is a remarkably limited amount of Bigfoot data that are amenable to scientific scrutiny."
Time and time again, the evidence doesn't hold up. It is unreasonable to conclude that Bigfoot doesn't exist, and just dismiss all of the evidence. So where does that leave us? Until a real Bigfoot is discovered, all that we have left is questions, countless theories, and a soft pile of evidence that doesn't add up. The only reality that we have is that Bigfoot has captured the imaginations of many, making it a legend sparking controversy like no other. All we can do is wait for real proof to come to light and finally lay all our doubts to rest.