Sasquatch. Yeti. Abominable Snowman. Boqs. Sisimite. Dwendi.
Shiru. Didi. Agogwe.
Mahula. Pedek. Mapinguari.
Or simply put, Bigfoot.
All of these names are used to describe a creature that has captured
the imaginations of people from around the globe. Bigfoot creatures are described in many
cultures around the globe, ranging from North American to Australian Indigenous
cultures, and evidence of their existence has been collected from the American and
Canadian Northwest to the Himalayan Mountains of Nepal. While cultural and geographical descriptions
do vary, similar characteristics of these creatures have been identified. Bigfoot creatures are described as being
anywhere from four to eight feet tall, extremely hairy, and exhibiting human
and ape-like characteristics. Despite large
quantities of cultural evidence on the topic, there remains a debate regarding
the very existence of these creatures. Today’s
blog post is dedicated to a physical anthropological discussion on the topic of
Bigfoot creatures and the biological evidence that exists. These pieces of evidence fall into three
broad categories: fossil evidence, natural evidence, and modern evidence, and
each of these will be thoroughly discussed in individual blog posts as a means of determining if Bigfoot
creatures can viably exist in today’s world. This blog post focuses on the natural evidence.
Natural Evidence
Evidence suggests that Bigfoot exists on every continent
around the globe. The majority of the
physical/natural evidence, however, comes from Asia and North America. These pieces of evidence primarily consist of
hair and footprints, which have been widely studied and examined. As per the scientific method, in order for
these pieces of evidence to conclusively support the existence of Bigfoot they
must not be attributable to other organisms-known or unknown.
As mentioned above, the majority of the physical/natural
evidence originates from Asia and North America. Both of these locations have been or
currently are the sites of various primate species. North America does not currently have a large
variety of primate species present, although Homo sapiens widely populate the continent. North America, however, was the site of many
early primate ancestors about 65 million years ago based on fossil evidence,
which does lend credence to the existence of Bigfoot on the continent. The continent of Asia plays host to a variety
of primate species, ranging from the Orangutan to the Golden
Headed Langur. This also lends
support to the existence of Bigfoot on the continent, but it also problematic
as these primates could be explanations
for Bigfoot sightings. In fact, several
scholars both in the past and present have attributed Bigfoot sightings in Asia
to both of these modern and known primate species. Because of this, it is unclear if Bigfoot
truly does exist in Asia when other known and viable candidates could be
mistaken as Bigfoot, particularly among panicked and inexperienced travelers who
make up the majority of sources of Bigfoot witnesses.
One of the other key pieces of physical/natural evidence
that has been offered up includes “Bigfoot hair and skin”. Scholars, collectors, and hunters have
collected a variety of hair and skin samples that purportedly belong to
Bigfoot. Prior to scientific advances,
these samples could not be adequately tested, leaving many to believe that they
truly belonged to Bigfoot creatures with very little support other than someone’s
word. Under modern scientific scrutiny,
these pieces of evidence do not hold up.
A recent DNA study at Oxford University has demonstrated that Bigfoot hair
specimens belong not to an unknown creature but known species of animals, such
as bears, porcupines, horses, cows, raccoons, and many more. A Bigfoot scalp has also been attributed to
belonging to a bear, not a Bigfoot creature.
Taken together, these results not only cast doubt on the existence of
Bigfoot but also the evidence used to support its existence.
The final piece of physical/natural evidence that is used to
support the existence of Bigfoot is foot print evidence. Several thousands of Bigfoot footprints have
been found throughout North America and Asia, and the sheer volume would seem
to support the existence of such a creature.
That is if they are all real. The
first problematic issue with these footprints is that there is little consistency
among them. Bigfoot footprints vary in
length and width as well as general morphology, leading some to believe these
differences are due to different individuals of various size, age, and sex
creating these prints. This is a logical
explanation, except that these differences can also be attributed to several
different individuals creating fake prints.
Many have come forward and admitted to faking Bigfoot footprints, and
they have demonstrated multiple means of creating these footprints. These fakes have been compared to “real”
footprints and there are consistencies between many of them. Other footprints that have not been chalked
up to being faked have been ruled out as potential Bigfoot prints because they
were caused by other creatures, including bears and wolves.
 |
| Figure 1: Midtarsal break in a chimpanzee foot vs the lack of a midtarsal break in a normal human foot. |
The most damaging piece of refuting evidence against the
existence of Bigfoot based on footprint evidence came recently from a scholar
who was not even attempting to foray into the Bigfoot debate. One of the key pieces of evidentiary support for
the existence of Bigfoot that comes from the footprints is the presence of a
midtarsal break (Figure 1). Midtarsal
breaks occur due to a pair of joints that lack the same mobility as seen in
bipedally adapted feet. This trait is
common in chimpanzees and other nonhuman ape species, and it was believed not
to exist in humans due to the hindrance in bipedal walking. Jeremy De Silva published a study that
demonstrated that some humans, particularly large and overweight individuals,
exhibit a midtarsal break. This study
tore apart this key piece of evidence, the support of which rested on the lack
of existence of such a diagnostic feature in any Homo sapien (human).
Taken together, the physical/natural evidence to support the
existence of Bigfoot is not without criticism and other viable explanations. As such, the majority of these pieces of
evidence cannot conclusively support the existence of Bigfoot. Several of these pieces of evidence have been
demonstrated to be fakes or potentially and easily faked or belong to other
known species. As such, these pieces of
evidence honestly cannot support the existence of Bigfoot, although many
individuals continue to cling to this idea.
Bryne, Peter.
1975. The Search for Big Foot: Monster, Myth, or Man? Acropolis Books, Washington.
DeSilva, Jeremy. 2010. "Revisiting the 'Midtarsal Break'." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141: 245-258.
DeSilva, Jeremy. 2010. "Revisiting the 'Midtarsal Break'." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141: 245-258.
Green, John W.
1968. On the Track of the Sasquatch.
Cheam Publications, Agassiz, B.C.
Green, John W.
1978. Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us.
Hancock House, Seattle.
Harrison, Guy P.
2012. 50 Popular Beliefs that People Think Are True. Prometheus Books, Amherst.
Highpine, Gayle.
2000. “Traditional Attitudes
Toward Bigfoot in Many North American Cultures.” Bigfoot
Encounters.
Hunter, Don and Rene Dahinden. 1975. Sasquatch. New American Library, New York.
Landau, Joel.
2014. ”Man Who Claims He Killed
Bigfoot Releases More Pictures of the Mythical Creature.” Daily
News.
Napier, John R.
1973. Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality. Dutton, New York.
No Author. 2014. “10 Reasons Why Bigfoot’s a Bust.” Discovery
News.
No Author. “Yeti.” New World Encyclopedia.
No Author. “Yeti
History.” TheYetiFest.com
Olson, Grant. 2014. “Hunter
Confesses that Bigfoot Body is a Fake…Again.”
Daily
American.com
Prigg, Mark. 2014. “Moo-ve along, Bigfoot, nothing to see here: Genetic test of 30 different hairs claimed to be from sasquatch finds they are from bears, wolves and even a COW.” Daily Mail.
Viegas, Jennifer.
2014. “’Bigfoot’ Cases Solved,
But A New Mystery Surfaces.” Discovery
News.
18 comments:
What I find most interesting about the lack of conclusive natural evidence as well as any other supposed evidence that allegedly supports Bigfoot, is how far some people will go just to "prove" that something exists. There are people who would create fake footprints or plant other animal hair to claim that Bigfoot exists, and I just find it kind of remarkable that people do that. Homo Sapiens are definitely charming little apes.
I find it interesting that people are still looking for a mythical creature that if actually existed in this day and age of technology would surely have no place to hide. Unless it is hiding in the deepest depths of the oceans where man still cannot go, I truely feel it is a myth that hunters like to tell to scare little childre. Although, my upstairs neighbors are more then likely his closest existing relatives. Loudest freaking neighbors I have ever had. Thinking of calling the folks that produce the show, "Finding bigfoot" and telling them they can cancel the show, he lives upstairs from me!
it's not hard to believe that there is people out there that still believe through what they see in newspaper, pictures, and video it doesn't help that there is a show " finding bigfoot" that make it seem like there is something out in the woods at night with the noises they capture on camera and in the end it could be someone messing around with them.
I think it is hilarious people are faking footprints and that some scientists would not be able to figure that out!
-Laura Redl
Hence why one should be critical of anything brought to their attention, not just Bigfoot. Critical thinking skills are great assets in a variety of situations, from choosing a mate, selecting a political candidate, to deciding upon a mortgage lender (for purchasing a home).
One of the biggest issues in all fields of anthropology is distinguishing between fake and real evidence. In cultural anthropology, anthropologists rely on cultural informants to be truthful in what they say, but sometimes those informants lie for whatever reason (e.g. personal gain, to be funny, protect cultural secrets, etc.). In archaeology, looters will replicate artifacts, trying to pass them off as legitimate pieces to both archaeologists and the general public, seeking the highest price for those fakes. And in physical anthropology, there was the famous case of Piltdown Man, a faked hominid species that a scholar created in order to legitimize English colonial domination throughout the globe. Fakes happen. This is why peer review and the scientific method are so important, but even the best of scholars make mistakes.
In light of the evidence at hand, scholars will reach the best conclusion possible. In light of new evidence, that conclusion will either continue to be supported or not. This is why very few scientific conclusions ever make it to the realm of theory because it takes years of continual scientific support for that designation to be reached. There are very few (if any) scientific "facts". Just lots of solid hypotheses.
I think that its a really jerky thing to do to fake Bigfoot evidence. I would rather there be no evidence of any kind and just stories than a bunch of fake evidence that ruins any kind of credibility should real evidence ever actually be discovered. Real or not these people who fake evidence and claim that they do it as believers are really just hurting the Bigfoot believer population as a whole. Its as bad as Charles Dawson and his Piltdown Man, in the end you just look foolish.
I find it entertaining that people fake evidence of Big Foot. What's annoying is not that they fake the evidence, but that so many people jump on the opportunity to believe it without first reviewing the evidence or doing their own research in the first place. I don't think I will ever believe in Big Foot until there is evidence in front of my face that I can scrutinize myself. If I'm going to jump on a bandwagon of faulty evidence and claims, I think I'll pick something more fun to believe in like mermaids or unicorns :)
It seems that people long ago believed in these creatures for many reasons and that is understandable. With the huge advances in Science over the last 100 or so years it's not as forgivable other than the romantic attachment we all have for the mythical beasts.I would like if Bigfoot was real but the facts are stacked against it,
James K. - Antho 101
When you mentioned bears, I immediately thought about how it has been reported many times that they will often run away. I imagine it would be easy to believe it was Bigfoot when a ten foot tall bear is running away from you.
i don't understand how people are upsets with the idea of finding facts to make him believe it true. i think it is nonsense to being making seem its true. there can be evidence but not enough.
Briana Banuelos
Anthro 102 1001
like I said earlier I do not believe that big foot exists. The only thing I can say is maybe just maybe there was some sort of genetic disorder with a chimp or something and he grew to be unusually large and because of this his locomotion was bipedal. One person saw him and the legend grew out of that but he has since died and people are just grasping at straws.
Foot prints have been the biggest concern in finding bigfoot obviously for tracking reasons. They apparently walk like humans but would leave a more complete foot print due to midtarsal break, if they existed. For years, people have tried to reenact bigfoot walking motions but leave the genetics behind. Still looking for him when I walk my dog.
Zachary Forrester
anthro 101 3001 summer
Although the evidence is not sound, it does make quite and intriguing idea to hold on to and contemplate. I think this idea will always be relevant because it is a great conversation starter among a group, and that is why we continue to humor it.
Jordan R
I don't understand why some people fake evidence, it reminds me of The Little Boy who cried Wolf. We all know it's not real but when something strange happens the people won't believe them for the fact they pulled so many false evidence.
Aaliyah Caldwell
The "foot print evidence" reminds me of Piltdown man. Both of then turned out to be an hoax.
I personally don't believe that there is any legitimate proof of Bigfoot existing even with all of the photos, and video proof shown on the internet. furthermore i believe that with all of the technology that we have it makes it almost impossible to believe that bigfoot hasn't been discovered.
Post a Comment