Evidence for Bigfoot?

by M.K.Davis

What constitutes good evidence that Bigfoot has been around? The casting of tracks, perhaps? Tracks are interesting, and serve to bolster the confidence of the researcher, if he or she is lucky enough to have found some. However, this in and of itself does not constitute a conclusive anything. Tracks have been cast now for many years. And, no doubt, there are probably thousands of them. Some even have dermal ridges. These are the finger print-like ridges in the skin, whose patterns are unique to the individual. This is interesting, however, it doesn't look like you're going to get ole hairy into the textbooks, even with the dermal ridge castings.

What about sound recordings? That's another interesting kind of evidence. With the bionic ear hand held dishes available now, people get some pretty interesting sounds on tape these days. But, what does that mean in terms of conclusive evidence? Very little actually, except to the researcher who was fortunate enough to tape them. How many times, in a court of law, have you heard of "ear" witness testimony? No, they almost exclusively call upon eyewitnesses in order to get a conviction.

Then there are hair and scat samples. Most hairs collected in the wild have turned out to be the hair of a known animal, and sometimes even human. But, then there are some samples that cannot be matched to anything known. However, that is where it ends. . UNKNOWN. Don't you hate that word? I mean, isn't that what most researchers are trying to do? To get this creature into the "known" category? Well, if there isn't anything to compare it to, then all unmatched hair, and scat for that matter, will fall simply into that category. . unknown. Even blood, when catalogued as an unknown animal, is a dead end street. So sad.

Maybe photography is the answer. There were over 900 frames of some pretty good footage, taken in northern California, in 1967. Footage of a creature actually making tracks in a sand bar. This film is still being debated 36 years later. The film is still yielding a lot of good information. However, don't you think it would have been more conclusive if the two men, who were there, could have submitted the Bigfoot instead of the film as evidence? This probably would have required a heroic effort on the part of the two men, or perhaps a well place round from a rifle.

Maybe if the men had shot it, others would have attacked them. Or, maybe they would have an enraged Bigfoot that their rifle would not put down immediately. Or, maybe the mystery would be solved right now. Who knows?

Which way do you think is best? Pro kill, or no kill? It's easy to see both sides of the issue. Yet, it's an issue that still pulls on people's heartstrings. If you had been one of those two men, what would you have done? – The End