For decades, people have been searching for Bigfoot all over the world. Some people call Bigfoot: Sasquatch, Yeti or Abominable Snowman. Today, there are various video recordings of Bigfoot on the Internet. Many eyewitnesses have also claimed to have seen Bigfoot. As if that wasn't enough, hair samples, footprints, and body prints of Bigfoot have been discovered by humans. However, the problem with these discoveries is that none of them have proven to be true proof of the existence of Bigfoot. Bigfoot does not exist because people are not reliable sources of information and physical evidence found of Bigfoot has been proven to be false. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Since people are not reliable sources of information, the existence of Bigfoot cannot be supported by their anecdotes. People are unreliable because they sometimes don't remember what they actually saw. Additionally, they may think they saw Bigfoot, when in reality it was an animal that looked like Bigfoot. Additionally, recordings made by people are conveniently far away. Bigfoot doesn't exist because eyewitness accounts are unreliable. There was a study in which "researchers reported that 73 percent of 239 [criminal] convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony." A third of these overturned cases relied on the testimony of two or more erroneous eyewitnesses” (Arkowitz 1). Nearly three-quarters of overturned convictions were erroneous due to false eyewitness testimony. As if that wasn't enough, a third of people were convicted because of two or more faulty eyewitnesses. This example shows how unreliable people are in general. People think they saw something, when in reality it never happened. A psychologist conducted research and discovered that "even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness's testimony, because fragments of memory can unknowingly be combined with information provided by the interrogator, leading to memories inaccurate” (Arkowitz 1). The problem with humans and their memory is that they can construct new, inaccurate memories, even if they think they are remembering a true memory. These examples all point back to eyewitnesses to Bigfoot, because they show how people don't remember the truth. People think they've seen Bigfoot, but they're actually remembering a false memory. Bigfoot doesn't exist because people remember false memories, which confirms that eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot are untrustworthy. Records of Bigfoot are unreliable, proving the non-existence of Bigfoot. A man named Shealy was convinced that Bigfoot was real and called him a skunk monkey. He had images of what he thought was Bigfoot. However, upon analysis, there was "a strange, hidden primate breeding facility, colonies of escaped apes, great apes living further north in Florida, and apparent evidence of an escaped orangutan" ( Stromberg 1). This example shows how incredible stories can happen that make Bigfoot seem real. However, it also shows how unreal Bigfoot is and how anomalies can make people believe they have seen Bigfoot, when it was a previously discovered primate. The problem with recordings is that "in such video or photographic evidence, the subject isalmost always either obscured by tree branches or extremely remote. This begs the question of why the person filming the event (and there were many) didn't just chase the creature, or at least try to get a clearer photo" (Fox 1) . This example illustrates the main argument against Bigfoot recordings. People who capture Bigfoot always find themselves in inopportune places. If Bigfoot really exists, why hasn't someone gotten a better look at them after decades of research? Today, technology is evident with almost everyone having a decent standard of living. camera on their smartphone. If Bigfoot exists, then Bigfoot would have been found with clear evidence that it is a newly discovered species. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist because records are inaccurate and Bigfoot has not yet been found despite the prevalence of technology. Some people would say that thousands of people have seen Bigfoot over decades, so he must exist; Additionally, some scientists have claimed to have seen Bigfoot. However, anecdotal evidence can never be trusted because anecdotes cannot be tested as fact. Ben Roesch, editor of The Cryptozoological Review, stated that "cryptozoology relies largely on anecdotal evidence while physical phenomena can be tested and systematically evaluated by science, anecdotes cannot, because they are neither physical nor regulated in their content or form. For this reason, anecdotes are not reproducible, and therefore unverifiable; since they cannot be tested, they are not falsifiable and are not part of the scientific process” (Radford 30). This example shows how anecdotes are not factual. Additionally, they cannot be credible because there is no way to test the validity of a story. Therefore, anecdotes cannot be considered when discussing the existence of Bigfoot because there is no way to test their validity; they may be completely wrong. A mycologist named Gary Samuels spotted “a large primate in the forest of Guyana. The implication is that this discerning man of science accurately observed, recalled, and reported his experience. But Samuels is a scientific expert on the tiny fungi that grow on wood. His expertise is botany, not identifying large primates in poor conditions. » (Radford 31). This example shows how scientists who claim to see Bigfoot can be fooled into seeing them in the wrong conditions. Additionally, the scientist who saw Bigfoot is not qualified to identify and classify primates. He cannot therefore attest to the existence of Bigfoot when it is very likely that he does not know all the different species of primates in the region. These examples illustrate how people and their anecdotes are unreliable. Bigfoot does not exist because the scientists who discover Bigfoot do not specialize in identifying primates and anecdotes cannot be tested as fact. Bigfoot does not exist because the physical evidence is inconsistent, inaccurate, or unreliable. Footprints and body prints believed to be from Bigfoot are inaccurate and inconsistent. Bigfoot somatic samples come from species known in the region or do not come from a species at all. Bigfoot does not exist because the footprints found of Bigfoot are inconsistent and the body prints are inaccurate. Some Bigfoot prints "have aligned toes, others show splayed toes." Most suspected Bigfoot tracks have fivetoes, but some casts show creatures with two, three, four, or even six toes” (Radford 31). The problem with Bigfoot prints is that they are not consistent with each other. There are a different number of toes on the prints and the toes are aligned differently. This observation shows that fingerprints cannot be trusted; variation in the footprints confirms them as fake. Another case happened where some people claimed to have found Bigfoot, and Bigfoot wanted to be stealthy to catch the bait. People claimed to have found “the first body print of Bigfoot[. The body print shows Bigfoot's body shape; there was a silhouette of Bigfoot's body in the mud.] Bigfoot, according to the team, apparently made a good impression when he lay on his side at the edge of a muddy riverbank and stuck out his hand to catch bait” (Radford 31). An animal wanting to be stealthy would not leave a giant footprint in the ground. Plus, more footprints would be found around the world if Bigfoot left giant footprints while trying to catch food. The example becomes invalid because of these previous statements. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist due to the inconsistency of his footprints and the inaccuracy of his footprints. discovery of a body print. Bigfoot does not exist because somatic samples of Bigfoot are unreliable. There was an “analysis conducted by an international group of scientists on a small fragment of mitochondrial DNA isolated from samples of “bigfoot” hair collected over the previous 50 years by hikers, naturalists and hunters. However, two samples were found to be very similar to the Paleolithic polar bear, Ursus maritimus” (DNA 1). After years of discoveries, a few samples came from an ancient polar bear (from the Paleolithic era). The results indicate that the alleged evidence of Bigfoot did not come from them. Additionally, other tests have shown that Bigfoot hair "turns out to be moose, bear, or cow hair, for example, or that suspected "Bigfoot blood" turns out to be transmission fluid . Even advances in genetic technology have proven unsuccessful” (Radford 34). This example further attests to the non-existence of Bigfoot. Not only were hairs found on an ancient polar bear, but also on other animals. The “Bigfoot blood” was also discovered to be transmission fluid from a car. This evidence shows how unreliable the physical evidence of Bigfoot is. People could have confused the hair or blood of other animals with that of Bigfoot. However, it is still proven that there is no physical evidence of Bigfoot. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist because the physical evidence found of Bigfoot is false. Some would argue that the physical evidence appears like another species when it comes to a Bigfoot print or sample, because the tests read animals that have already been discovered. no new species. However, if Bigfoot were real, Bigfoot bodies would have been discovered, not just hair samples, blood samples, and footprints. Additionally, there is still no evidence that Bigfoot is a real creature. The truth is that "at some point, a Bigfoot's luck must run out: one in thousands must wander down a highway and get killed by a car, or get shot by a hunter, or die." of natural causes and being discovered by a hiker” (Radford 37). If Bigfoot were real, there would have to be a body found. If a body had not been discovered, something this large would have.