This is not an exercise in podiatry, or dentistry. The Bigfoot I am talking about is the creature we all wished existed but is most likely mythical. Wanting it to be real does not make it real, but how fascinating it would be to find another hominin, another dramatic presence from our larger primate family, and one which is presumably more closely related to us than the chimpanzees. If incontrovertible evidence was ever found, a body live or dead (but hopefully alive), it would be the news of the century, any century. There is no one in the greater biological sciences who would not be thrilled and electrified by such a discovery; even the greatest sceptics would celebrate the discovery and embrace with enthusiasm the inevitable research that followed . And there is some broad element of plausibility in the existence of a Bigfoot. Discoveries over the last couple of decades have indicated multiple hominin forms inhabited the world over the last two million years during  which our species evolved. As recently as 60 thousand years ago, a drop in the bucket in evolutionary time, there was a small hominin, Homo floresiensis (the "Hobbit"), inhabiting the island of Flores in Indonesia. But there are contravening implausibilities that also need to be weighed, and ultimately it must come down to evidence. It is the lack of adequate evidence that leaves most scientists skeptical of Bigfoot and its multiple cultural equivalents like Yeti, Sasquatch, Yeren, etc. Let's review some of the evidence that has been put forward.

• The Patterson/Gimlin film from 1967: this 59 second clip has probably got the most attention. When I first saw it (at a time when I was still a true believer) I thought it was a con job. It looked like a man in a gorilla suit. That has been the conclusion of many observers. It has subsequently been reported that a costume manufacturer admitted he sold Patterson the gorilla suit, and introduced a rather large individual who was said to be the one who wore it for the film.   https://theweek.com/articles/833273/enduring-legend-bigfoot.  If you research this more you will no doubt find a vast array of ambiguating data (conflicting "facts"), always the case when you try to nail down a singular event, whether hoax or the real deal. This is why science prefers controlled experimentation that can be duplicated, or possessing actual specimens.

• All those tufts of hair: In various cultures and places there has been a small accumulation of hair tufts that were believed to have come from one or another animal in the greater Bigfoot family. In 2014 a team of researcher took small samples from more than 30 of these specimens and did a DNA analysis. They found wolves and bears, but no primates. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4100498/pdf/rspb20140161.pdf.

• And the footprints:There have been numerous reports of extremely large footprints. Perhaps the most famous were those found by Jerry Crew in 1958. He was clearing some brush in a wilderness area of California when he discovered these tracks. It was his discovery that actually gave birth to the name Bigfoot. But years later it came out that Ray Wallace, one of his logging company co-workers, had carved the wooden feet that made the imprints. Footprints are easy to fake. See the Week reference above.
   

This is a small sample of the "best" physical evidence. There are a host of other sightings, reports, sincere witnesses, claims, etc, a seemingly inexhaustible supply on the internet, but none, zero, "nada" a bit of it is evidence that can hold up in the court of science. Do not mock this court: All the products of the technologies we enjoy are in part the result of the evidentiary standards of science. In marked contrast, we only have to look at many of our politicians to see how wacko people can be…and exploitive…and dishonest…and simply dumb ass wrong. Those traits are not, of course, limited to politicians. Beyond them we have that strong propensity for people to find all sorts of questionable ways to make a buck; a nice Bigfoot report or faked photograph (child's play nowadays) makes for reliable clickbait.

 

Not all scientist are skeptical. One major supporter of the idea of Bigfoot is famed primatologist Jane Goodall.  In one interview she states: “I’m a romantic,” ... I would like Bigfoot to exist. I’ve met people who swear they’ve seen Bigfoot. I think the interesting thing is on every single continent there is an equivalent of Bigfoot or Sasquatch." https://www.yahoo.com/news/jane-goodall-chimpanzees-might-get-passports-elephants-shouldnt-zoos-bigfoot-might-real-192523749.html   In another interview she dismissed the lack of evidence ("bones") by asking us to imagine a creature of greater intelligence who views humans as dangerously violent, and thus decide to hide their bones whenever one of their community dies. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=7396939327015212.

​

I am a great admirer of Jane Goodall, but I don't agree with her thoughts here.  First, the ubiquity of Bigfoot types is not really a good endorsement.  People in all cultures also believe in God(s), but that universal cultural fact is NOT a proof of God's existence. It could be simply an expression of a universal tendency towards superstition and the desire (need) of socially hierarchical creatures for higher authority and powers.  In fact the belief in Bigfoot and in God(s) are related in just this way: we have a propensity to extrapolate from our characteristic aptitudes to creating beings with higher powers.  Think SUPERHEROS! So Bigfoot is bigger, stronger, and far more intelligent.  He's the Wise Man of the Mountain whose cunning allows him to forever elude those dumb and doubting scientists.  And this is exactly what Goodall does in the second reference: The all-wise and all-knowing Bigfoot (who no doubt is also highly evolved morally, aesthetically, and they are likely to be great mathematicions! TIC) hides his bones and his existence from those nasty little human beings.  There is a certain amount of self-contempt (or at least species-contempt) is this view. I am not contesting that we are capable of great stupidities and violence; but we also are capable of great nobility and generosity. Our complexity rules out simplistic categorical judgments.  In any case, to carry on the argument, the belief in God(s) can be seen as a transcendent projection of this tendency to create beings more powerful than us. 

​

The universal nature of the Bigfoot (large primate) phenomenon raises a number of other implausibilities.  Dr. Goodall at least admitted they are mortal—they bury their dead. But to remain as a viable species, they must obviously procreate.  And with an apparent worldwide presence—multiple subspecies (?)—there can't be just a few of them rolling around in the mud out there.  That's not how species survive: it’s an alarm call when populations become minimal. So, if they exist at all they must exist in significant numbers which makes their evidentiary invisibility all the more problematic.  This is particularly so if they live in relatively large groups.  We, of course, have no idea how they might live.  If these secretive animals were loners and soloists, that again might stress their propagation. Moreover, we might wonder how they then communicate and share/reinforce their assumed culture (i.e. secretive, avoid humans, bury bones, their “book” of wisdoms, etc). 

 

We can also wonder if they, unlike all other creatures, are somehow exempt from disease, mental illness, sterility, stupidity, and all the other foils and foibles of biology. I alluded above to human complexity which is a product of our relatively high intelligence. You could probably document and establish a simple rule: the more intelligent a creature is, the more variable its behavior.  This would still apply to Bigfoot, with its presumed high evolutionary intelligence. So we must wonder: has there ever been a Judas Bigfoot, or a narcissistic blowhardy and stupid Trumpian Bigfoot? How about a Jane Goodall Bigfoot who wanted to take a risk, meet and study those quirky little humans! It would be most implausible if they are all equally wise and "well-behaved". 

​

These are some of the issues that you should address if you are inclined to believe in Bigfoot.  All these implausibilities blunted my inclination.

​

But believe we will.  It is one of the ways we compensate for the inevitable disappointments of our life. We can participate in a more gratifying imaginary world, an antidote to our quotidian weaks and woes.