Most skeptics and believers tend to agree that we can’t know that bigfoot is real without a specimen, living or dead. They’re all wrong. It’s not only possible to gather evidence without a body; the evidence is already here. Simply put, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a (mostly) bipedal hominid yet unclassified by mainstream science is living today, in North America and other continents. This may sound like a bold claim, but the evidence is simply that strong.
If a reasonable possibility contrary to the explanation in question cannot be proposed, then that explanation is beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, I implore anyone to propose an alternative explanation for the evidence at hand that does not involve such a creature existing. While I am more than happy to speculate on outlandish theories for the appearance of sasquatch, they can hardly be called reasonable without definitive supporting evidence.
So, consider all the evidence at hand, look it over for yourself, and consider if any sort of alternative explanation, such as hoaxing or misidentification, could explain all of it. If you can come up with some such explanation, without ignoring or dismissing the evidence presented, please tell me about it; I would be immensely grateful. If you can’t, (as I’m quite certain will be the case) you have to admit that bigfoot is real beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sound fair? Now let’s jump into it.
#1. Video Evidence & Body Ratios
There have been videos alleged to depict forest giants. While some are certainly hoaxes or unverifiable, others allow us to parse out specific details impossible to hoax by any known means. Body ratios are distinct among species. Humans have a particular set of ratios between the lengths of their torsos, arms, and legs. Other known great apes each have their own set of ratios between these measures. Whatever is being recorded on this sasquatch footage has a set of ratios that matches none of these. Putting a person in a bigfoot suit would not magically cause these ratios to change. Given that the arms have a joint in the middle, they could not be the result of “arm extensions”, not to mention that the torso is also too long.
There is also a consistent set of face ratios among these creatures. This could be faked under some circumstances, but it’s difficult to imagine this being implemented consistently among different hoaxers worldwide. It would also be very difficult to fix a human-shaped head inside of a bigfoot-shaped head or a gorilla-shaped head. They are lower in the forehead, and higher on the vertex, largely due to the presence of the sagittal crest. This is why gorilla suits either have a human shape or are overly large; it’s just not feasible to run a mask through the wearer’s forehead. Combine this with apparent facial expressions and eyeshine? Anyone who thinks this is a hoax has alot of explaining to do.
While we’re on the topic, digital editing is not quite as easy as many people would have it, and there are ways to rule out a fake. And that’s just for still photos; videos are infinitely more difficult to work with. Hollywood routinely spends millions of dollars to make edited footage look real, and it’s not capable of fooling an expert photoanalyst. That’s why video evidence is typically considered the gold standard in the court of law. Doctoring footage perfectly is nearly impossible. You can’t say that a video can prove a murderer guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but then assume that anyone could just “photoshop” a bigfoot creature without defect. If it were that easy, why wouldn’t criminals be doing it more often?
Then we have the particular suit materials of the Patterson-Gimlin Film. Whatever that suit was made out of, it was far more realistic than anything Hollywood could produce at the time. Remember, Planet Of The Apes was a contemporary, and An American Werewolf In London came out over a decade later. Jiggly flesh, pendulous mammaries, and individually placed hairs aren’t routine among even modern high-budget monsters, let alone back in the ‘60s. It is unreasonable to claim this is merely a suit.
There is also the size of these creatures. Some estimate Patty from the PGF to be inhumanly tall, although some estimate she was closer to human height. Either way, we have other videos that appear to display a massive creature. This could not be consistently faked by a mere suit, and it does not appear that CGI or puppetry could explain this.
Clearly the subject of these videos are not a case of mistaken identity with a bear, although there are some photographic records of bears that do get mistaken for bigfoot.
I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank ThinkerThunker for his tireless efforts. Without him, the case of photographic analysis would not be half as strong. Word has it that he's coming out with a second book soon, and it’s going to contain a new, simpler method for measuring body ratios that even a child could understand. I don’t want to give anything away, but it’s good. Real good. You can get a sneak peek ahead of time by signing up as a YouTube Member or supporting him on Patreon. Seriously, I can’t thank this guy enough.
Anyway, I can definitively say that there is no known means of hoaxing these videos. Therefore, the existence of bigfoot is proven beyond a reasonable doubt already. I could stop here, but we have more evidence, so why not keep going?
#2. Footprint Evidence
There are numerous footprints attributed to forest giants. Some are never examined by an expert, and bears do sometimes leave double-stepped tracks, which can be mistaken for sasquatch by the untrained eye. However, there are tracks from all over the world that have held up to professional scrutiny. These are nigh impossible to fake. With signs of dynamic motion, a hoaxer would need access to some flexible foot-machine carefully designed to emulate the function of an organic foot. That’s difficult and expensive to pull off, assuming it’s even possible. It’s not reasonable to suggest that this is being hoaxed all over the world.
Then there’s the consistent evidence of a functional midtarsal break, and the lack of an arch. Not only does this show up as a pressure ridge on the footprint, it’s also been corroborated by video evidence. There is also consistent evidence of dermal ridges on these footprints. These dermal ridges are in a consistent pattern with one another, but not any known species. Some prints found in different locations have even been a match, indicating that some, but not all, of these footprints were made by the same creature. If that’s not evidence of a new species of primate, what is?
There’s also the Shipton footprints. These don’t appear to be a hoax or misidentification to me, but I can’t be 100% certain. They aren’t any known kind of bear tracks that look anything like this, and I\m not sure how or why they could be a hoax.
Now add in the fact the footprints have an inhuman stride length? There just isn’t a way to hoax this, and it’s clearly not bears. Now, Ray Wallace claimed to have hoaxed some bigfoot prints, but he failed to demonstrate that he was even capable of faking them, Wooden cutouts are not capable of faking real tracks. Plus, there’s the "Skookum cast", which is a print of what is decidedly not a foot, although it does appear to be a forest giant.
Credit for most of these discoveries belongs to Dr Jeffrey Meldrum. I really appreciate all he’s done. He’s risked a great deal of credibility pursuing this subject, and there’s much to show for it. He’s published several papers on the topic, and he’s also co-authored a book about the skookum Chinook. It’s worth a look.
This evidence also proves that bigfoot exists beyond a reasonable doubt. But wait, there’s more!
#3. Unknown Animal Vocalizations
There are audio recordings attributed to forest giants that don’t match with any known animal vocalization, and don’t bear any evidence of tampering. And yes, there are more like it. It appears to consist of primitive words. Given the context of where and how these samples were recorded, it’s clearly bigfoot. If we didn’t have that context, it would only indicate that some animal, probably a large one, possibly a primate, and probably not a known species, was responsible for some novel vocalization.
Thanks to Ron Morehead and Al Berry for the original Sierra Sounds. So yeah, this is more evidence of wood apes.
#4. Consistency Of Reports
This is the weakest evidence yet, but it’s still a pretty strong argument. These reports have been consistent across various cultures with little or no contact with one another, and show oddly striking similarities and behaviours. Despite thorough mythologization, they are often depicted as mundane creatures, even in distinction to spiritual beings.
Dragons, another creature featured in the mythology of various cultures worldwide, are known to vary considerably between tellings. They appear to have their origin in evolutionary psychology, as either an exaggeration of snakes or as a composite of various predators, including snakes. It has been proposed that the belief in bigfoot may be attributed to evolutionary psychology as well, but there are some problems with this line of thinking. I once held this opinion, but my view was forcibly changed on being acquainted with the photographic and physical evidence. However, even on looking at the reports themselves, without considering the hard evidence, I still believe they show too much consistency to imply a mythic origin. This would be only further evidence that these creatures exist.
If you guessed that I was going to thank someone else in this paragraph, you’re spot on. Bob Gymlan, (apparently no connection to the Bob Gimlin who helped with the PGF) has some very interesting content. I find myself respectfully disagreeing with him quite often, but he is among the most thought bigfoot theorists on the platform. He’s done alot to explain the history of bigfoot, and speculate on the possible ecology of this mysterious creature…even if he’s bad at proving anything.
Okay, so that was the good stuff, but there are a few pieces of dubious evidence that I couldn’t pass up. I can’t vouch for these, but they do make the existence of bigfoot higher, and therefore function as evidence in a cumulative case.
First, we have the Minnesota Iceman. To summarize, an ape-man was put in a block of ice and put on display. It does not appear that its owner made a habit of collecting or exhibiting oddities, as he was in the business of tractors. The backstory of how he got it seems totally bogus, but it appears to be a real creature. Every expert that bothered to examine it found it to be the genuine article, and every expert that declared it a hoax refused to take a closer look.
He received threats that if it was a real creature, he may be prosecuted. He then took it to Canada, and then came back with a replica, claiming that he would only bring back the real one if he was guaranteed immunity. To reiterate, everyone agrees that the specimen he brought back from Canada was fake, including him. Maybe he hid the original to avoid prosecution. Maybe he lost it in customs. Maybe it started decomposing. Maybe it’s all a conspiracy. Regardless, it does not appear that the original was a fake, although I can’t be completely sure.
Then there’s the story of Zana. It’s a dubious case, but it might be evidence of a distinct group of hominins, some bizarre mutations, or maybe even bigfoot. I can’t be sure, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
Can you explain all that? (Not including the bonus evidence; feel free to set that aside for now.) There’s just too much evidence, and it’s proven multiple times over. We have no choice but to conclude definitively that bigfoot exists, unless something truly strange comes to light, like some sci-fi hoaxing technique or some type of paranormal illusions. Baring the totally unforeseeable, bigfoot is real. That’s the simple truth.