Bigfoot free essay sample

The belief of the existence of Bigfoot is cyptozoology. When you google the word bigfoot you will get 8,400,000 hits. (google search). The trash has to be weeded out which can be done by using google scholar’s advance search options and narrow down the field in which bigfoot research and scientific peer-reviewed articles can be found. Most of the reliable links lead back to the skeptical inquirer, which is a publication from The Committee of Skeptical Inquiry. Other resources used to support this paper were found at one of two libraries located in two different counties. All of the other literature at these libraries that was on Bigfoot was found in the fiction section, so was determined to be trash. A huge red flag for trash was if they site was a . com site. There is a huge amount of . com trash on Bigfoot as indicated by my Google search. As Mr. Stewart stated . com stands for commercial sites and it is known that commercial sites are used by anyone and everyone and are not peer-reviewed. Results: Timeline: The name Bigfoot came from the alleged footprints of the alleged animal. (Radford 2002) J. Bord and Colin Brod’s The Bigfoot Caslbook states that Bigfoot sightings date back to the 1830s. Some belivers think that Bigfoot lives all over the United States. (Radford 2002) Evidence: There are four types of evidence that has been brought forth as Bigfoot evidence. (Radford 2002) They are eyewitness sightings, footprints, recordings, and somatic samples which simpler put means hair and/or blood samples. (Radford 2002) There are numerous, reports of sightings, theories, and footprint casts from all over North America. Radford 2002) It is known that eyewitness testimony is the weakest form of evidence, like scientist, lawyers and judges want hard evidence to prove their case. (Radford 2002) The footprint tracks that have been classified as evidence to support Bigfoot believers have all varied in size, shape, and other factors that have been closely examined. (Radford 2002) How can there be such a difference and be from the same animal or species? The evidence contradicts it self. (Radford 2002) Ignoring evidence that conflicts is part of pseudoscience. Coker 2001) It is poor quality and most have been proven to be other animals or synthetic fibers. (Radford 2002) With so many gunshots fired at this creature where is the hard evidence. (Boston 2003) In Ben Radford’s review of The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide, wrote by Loren Coleman and Patrick Huyghe published in 1999 by Avon Books, He points out that the believers who wrote the book cannot explain why claims of Bigfoot being killed presented no bones or bodies as evidence. Radford 2000) The book also claims that eyewitnesses even admitted they could have misidentified another animal as Bigfoot. (Radford 2000) A short film taken in 1967 by Roger Patterson and Bog Gimlin shows the alleged Bigfoot crossing a clearing. (Radford 2002) The question of it is a hoax or not is not important the important thing is the fact that the statement it cannot be a fake claim is able to be false. (Radford 2002) Don Grieve who is an anatomist specializing in human gait has concluded that the alleged Bigfoot gait that was claimed couldn’t have been made by a human in fact could have. Radford 2002) â€Å"The existence of a large primate such as Bi gfoot especially in North America is almost impossibility speaking, because the discovery of a new mouse is big news these days. † stated by Dr. Richard W. Thorington, Jr. who in 1980 was the head primatologist in the Department of Vertebrate Zoology at the National Museum of Natural History in the Smithsonian Institution. (Wylie 1980) Money: â€Å"Some are doubters some believe, the rest of us just know†, this was the slogan of the 2006 Bigfoot Rendezvous Conference. Ben Radford was a speaker at this event. He stated â€Å"Enormous time money and energy have been spent trying to find Bigfoot. Today in 2006 we have more footprints than ever before. We have more photographs and videotapes and film footage than at any other time in history. The problem is not that we don’t have enough evidence; the problem is that that evidence is inconclusive at best. † (Radford 2006) He also made it clear that skeptics do detailed research. (Radford 2006) Tom Biscardi is an explorer that travels looking for Bigfoot, he and his crew was feature on our own KWII news searching the Paris, TX. rea for Bigfoot. (Gotera 2007) Him and his team get paid to explore for Bigfoot, one week of exploring can cost around $70,000. 00. (Gotera 2007) Thomas Biscardi also had a webpage that you could subscribe. (Dennett 2006) Patterson made a profit off of his film and book as well as the organization he started. (Radford 2002) News about a Bigfoot encounter generates money. (Dennett 2006) The Sci Fi Investiga tes is a television series that claims to investigate mysterious phenomena. (Radford 2007) It is for entertainment urposes and to make profits, even the cast that has no scientific credentials, has pointed out that eyewitness Bigfoot encounters are not explainable. (Radford 2007) A lot of the episodes aired are based on anecdotes, as previously stated anecdotes are not scientifically testable. (Radford 2007) In one episode they try to make a convincing Bigfoot film, by making this what did they prove about Bigfoot, nothing. (Radford 2007) The show lacks skeptical investigators for a reason if it wanted them the producers would have hired them, the bottom line is profits. Radford 2007) Conclusion: Science isn’t based on our beliefs it is based on investigation and repetition of results, pseudoscience is based on belief without data or results that can be repeated or explained. (Coker 2001) Often times pseudoscience is favored by our religious beliefs or cultural beliefs, religion and cultural beliefs are not testable in the realm of science they do not follow natural law. (Coker 2001) Cryptozoology is based mostly on anecdotal evidence which is evidence that cannot be tested, or proven falsifiable, which is why it is pseudoscience. Radford 2002)