When you buy through links on our site , we may pull in an affiliate commission . Here ’s how it works .
In the new Animal Planet reality television show optimistically titled " Finding Bigfoot , " a team of experts examines video of an alleged Sasquatch spotted in the Canadian Rocky Mountains . The video , bourgeon by a valet named Todd Standing , show something large and dark , stand atop a wooded ridgepole and then ducking back behind a bush . It could pretty much be anything , and when the expert concluded that the subject was probably not aBigfoot , Standing expressed his defeat : " No TV is ever going to be evidence , ever . It ’s never perish to be right enough … "
Standing , like many Bigfoot investigator , misses the trouble : It ’s not so much that any Bigfoot picture is inherently worthless , it ’s that his video , like all that have come before it , is of such wretched quality that there ’s no way to have sex what we ’re seeing . It could have been anything – a guy in a dark jacket ( or Gorilla gorilla costume ) , a bear or even Bigfoot . The calamitous fault in Bigfoot picture and telecasting is the image quality , not the icon subject . If Standing , the " Finding Bigfoot " team , or anyone else shot well - ignite , clear television of what was obviously a 12 - foot - tall , hirsute bipedal wight in the woodwind , that would be compelling .
Bigfoot in all his (her) glory.
But even the highest - quality exposure or telecasting ca n’t be considereddefinitive proof of Bigfoot , the Loch Ness Monster , or any othermythical beast . Similarly , if the finish is to but make scientists and the general populace take Bigfoot badly , then some verified remains of the creature – be they hair , tooth , roue , bones or something else – would do the illusion . [ Infamous ' Yeti Finger ' flush it DNA Test ]
But definitive proof is a very mellow standard . Most Bigfoot enthusiasts — and the general public — would be satisfied with nothing less than the rock - satisfying determinate test copy propose by a living or dead specimen .
This issue fetch up a longstanding debate within the Bigfoot residential area : Would be honourable to shoot and vote out a Bigfoot ? Some say yes , because that ’s the only way to prove they survive , and once test copy is find out , funds could be made usable to protect them as an endangered metal money . Others say no – that because Bigfoot sighting are so rare , they must have very small population and killing one might drive the animals to extinction . Shooting a suspected Bigfoot with tranquilizer dart is an option that has gained some steam .
Ethics and the deadly - or - nonlethal disputation by , there ’s a honorable reason aiming your throttle at a Bigfoot could be a speculative idea : It might be illegal . A Texas teen germinate what he believed to be a Chupacabra in the first place this class , and while charges were not get against him , if the tool turned out to be someone ’s dog or a mangey Canis latrans , he could potentially havefaced a felony charge .
The point is , you simply ca n’t know for certain if the mystifying , burly frame you have lined up in your sights is the real beast , or a bear or someone ’s dearie – or , even worse , just a person in a Gorilla gorilla suit .
This story was provide byLife ’s Little Mysteries , a sister site to LiveScience .
Benjamin Radford is deputy editor ofSkeptical Inquirerscience magazine and author ofScientific Paranormal Investigation : How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries . His website is www.BenjaminRadford.com .
