Why Bigfoot Is Fake: Bigfoot Debunked!
Is Bigfoot Real or Fake?
This article is intended to debunk the Bigfoot myth and show proof that Bigfoot is fake. There is a lot of debate over whether this creature is real or not, and here you'll read about compelling evidence that shows we've all been duped.
Of course those who consider themselves to have a highly rational mind don't need to be told any of this. Without solid proof and evidence that shows the existence of Sasquatch no scientifically minded person would admit to a belief in the Big Guy.
But deep inside I think we all like to believe there are still mysteries in this world, hidden from our view and awaiting discovery. Perhaps this is where myths like this take root, not in logic but in hope.
Some of my more regular readers may be thinking, "What the heck is going on here? Has Cryptid lost it?" After all, most of my posts are intended to cultivate the things insides us that give us reason to believe the fantastic is possible, and the unlikely is more likely than we think.
I have written a great deal on facts that show Bigfoot is real. But I also profess an open mind about such things, and therefore must, on occasion, take a hard look at the other side of the coin.
So here it is, the other side of the coin. This is Bigfoot debunked.
The North American Great Ape
The most common theory about Bigfoot is that he is some kind of undiscovered species of primate, ape-like but more intelligent and more evolved than any we currently know of. Some researchers refer to it as the North American Great Ape, though the species is, of course, theoretical.
But there is a problem with this idea. There are no other apes in the Americas, and no evidence that apes ever existed in the Americas. There are monkeys in South America, but they are very different from old-world monkeys, and have about 40-million years of evolution separating them. There is no evidence that indigenous apes or monkeys ever existed in North America.
However, there is a concept called Bigfoot-Giganto Theory that explains how the creature evolved from an ancient ancestor in Asia and migrated to America. But even if this is true, where is the evidence? No fossils or bones have ever been found.
Logic and the lack of available evidence suggest this is not a North American Ape.
It's equally illogical to assume it is some kind of human species. Neanderthal was the last human species on Earth, besides us of course, and the description does not match what we know about Neanderthal.
The main issue with linking Bigfoot to any human species is one of intelligence. Even a very primitive human species would be using tools and weapons, building fires, constructing shelters, and leaving other evidence behind for us to find. In short, if something like Neanderthal was still out there, or any other species of primitive human, we would know it.
Sasquatch and Native Americans
Anthropologists will tell you there is anecdotal evidence of Bigfoot among the tribes of North America. Many Native American cultures have a long oral tradition that includes tales of large, hairy, human-like creatures lurking in the forest. To some researchers this is proof enough that the creature has been here at least as long as humans.
But anthropologists (at least the ones interested in keeping their teaching tenures and grant money) will tell you something else: Many Native American stories are a mix of the real, the spiritual, and good, old-fashioned yarn spinning.
Remember, these are cultures that kept their history by oral storytelling, not by writing it down in books. In some cases this oral tradition may have spanned thousands of years, and included stories of animals that didn't exist anymore, or existed in some part of the world where their ancestors had migrated from.
These were also people who needed to make sense of a confusing and sometimes terrifying natural world. Religious beliefs and spiritual explanations for things they couldn't understand played a big part.
Some other Native American myths include lake monsters, shape-shifters, fairy-like creatures, and horned serpents. Is it all real? Or is it more logical to say Bigfoot is one facet of a very rich and complicated spiritual belief system and oral tradition?
The First Bigfoot Hoax
Of course Native Americans didn't call it Bigfoot. That name didn't come around until 1958 when logging company employees discovered massive footprints at a worksite near Bluff Creek, California. Obviously some huge, bipedal creature had been tromping around during the night!
The newspaper got hold of the story, invented the name, and the rest is history. But some people don't realize that the first-ever Bigfoot story may also have been the first-ever hoax.
The logging company site where the tracks appeared was owned by a man named Ray Wallace. Following the discovery of the tracks, Wallace went on to become an amateur researcher and somewhat of an oddball celebrity in the cryptozoology community.
However, following his death in 2002, his own family revealed that he had hoaxed the prints using a pair of big, wooden feet. Not only that, but Wallace left other fake evidence for Bigfoot researchers to stumble over. It seems Ray Wallace was quite a prankster, and his joke reverberates to this day.
Many serious researchers will tell you they didn't take Wallace seriously anyway, and his shenanigans did nothing to impact the real work done on the Sasquatch phenomenon. Still, the Wallace story doesn't help Bigfoot's credibility in the eyes of the general public.
Prints and Casts
One of the problems with the Wallace tale is the way the public tends to generalize. When they hear some guy was out there faking evidence all of these years, they assume he is responsible for all of the interesting evidence collected over the years. That's it: Bigfoot debunked.
Logically, that just isn't possible.
Bigfoot footprints have been found all around the continent, many long after the years Wallace was active. Often they are in places where it doesn't make sense for a prankster to venture, or expect anyone to find their work if they did.
So, if all prints can't be attributed to hoaxers, what explains them?
Bear and other wild animal tracks. Surely even those who haven't seen a bear track can tell the difference between bear and human-like footprints. But when a bear steps in its own footprint just right it creates what appears to be an elongated human foot.
Add in degradation brought on by the elements and it's easy to see how animals like bears could be making tracks that look like huge, human footprints. Bigfoot researchers say they know the difference, but how would they know if they were wrong?
Are Bigfoot Photos Faked?
Bigfoot pictures suffer from the same issues as video. Why can't the guy stand still for a proper photo at least?
There are plenty of supposed images floating around the web, notably the Jacobs Photos from Pennsylvania (which skeptics say is a black bear), the Silver Star Mountain pics (which skeptics say is another hiker) and a picture of what looks like a mangy Bigfoot shot by a Vermont trail-cam.
What do they call have in common? You guessed it: None show a clear image of the subject in question, but instead show it in shadow or contorted positions.
However, there is one somewhat clear image of an alleged Bigfoot, shot by an unknown photographer circa the year 2000 in the Myakka River region of Florida. Sure it's hiding behind a bush, but it looks like something that could be Bigfoot.
Skeptics cite an escaped orangutan and an outright hoax as possible explanations. The Myakka Skunk Ape photo is definitely interesting, but I don't think it counts as proof that the creature exists. Again, such things are just too easily faked.
Fake Bigfoot Video Evidence
Video evidence is among the most disputed evidence out there. On the surface, one would think clear video evidence showing Bigfoot in the wild would be bulletproof, and the critics would have to admit it is real once and for all.
Of course that never happens. Video is always grainy, out of focus, or shot in such an obscure way that the subject is hard to recognize. Was that Bigfoot running across the field, or a guy in an ape suit? Unless we can clearly tell what we're looking at, video evidence amounts to pretty much zero.
In some cases video is hoaxed, such as with the famous Snow Walker Video. Now, in the age of YouTube, it's all too easy for anyone to fake sensational sighting and post it for the world to see.
The Patterson-Gimlin film, shot all the way back in 1967 using 16mm film, remains the most compelling piece of video evidence to date. But even this historic clip has its doubters.
Several people have come forward over the years claiming the film is a hoax, including (allegedly) the guy in the ape suit and the company that made the costume. It's also worth noting that the video was shot along Bluff Creek, the same Bluff Creek associated with Bigfoot hoaxer Ray Wallace.
To date, nobody has been able to prove or refute the Patterson-Gimlin Film, and it remains a curious part of Sasquatch lore.
The Patterson-Gimlin Film
Bigfoot is spotted around the world. From Florida, to Alaska, and on over to Asia, people see large, hairy, bipedal creatures that they can't explain.
Australia has the Yowie, a Bigfoot-type beasty with roots dating all the way back to when the first humans arrived on the continent.
Even South America has a Bigfoot kind of thing. The Mapinguari is more often thought of as an extant giant ground sloth, but some claim it resembles a large, bipedal ape.
If Bigfoot is fake then it stands to reason that whatever all of these people think they are seeing, they must be wrong. Maybe they are victims of hoaxes, or perhaps they mistake known animals for something else. Maybe they are hallucinating, or so scared for some other reason that their mind is playing tricks on them.
Perhaps they are lying.
To me, this is the toughest part of the phenomenon to debunk. Certainly some sightings are hoaxes or lies, some are mistaken identity and some are tricks of the mind. But to say all of them can be written off as such seems almost as unlikely as the existence of Bigfoot.
So which makes more sense: Bigfoot really existing, or the thousands of people who claim to have seen him have gone screwy? Are they all wrong, confused, or deceitful?
Is Bigfoot Real or Not?
I know if I saw Bigfoot I probably wouldn't tell anyone. Not because I'd be afraid of ridicule, but because it would infuriate me to try to explain myself to people who would just assume I was stupid or lying. I'd keep the encounter to myself.
Is Bigfoot a fake? I have no idea. I like to think there is a real creature out there accounting for the sightings, the photos, the footprints, and the howls in the night. I like to think there are still things about this world we don't know.
Truthfully, my attempt to debunk only resulted in more theories and questions floating around in my mind. I know it isn't logical that a large, human-like creature would escape detection for so long, and avoid capture or at least clear documentation. But I prefer to be on the side of hope rather than exclusion.
What about you? Do you feel more comfortable dismissing Bigfoot as fake from a logical standpoint? Or, would you rather live in a world where it's possible a creature like Bigfoot could be real?