The legend of Bigfoot and yeti-like, Cro-Magnon hairy forest men are no stranger to the lives of many cultures around the world. Even the widely believed yeti of the Himalayas had a full-scale investigation launched in the early 60s and came up inconclusive. Evidence of Bigfoot, such as hair fibers, body parts, skeletons and habitats have largely been missing, therefore not much can aid in the scientific evidence proving Bigfoot's existence. Right now, all the science behind Bigfoot is a lack of evidence; there isn’t a real definitive way to disprove its existence.

Sightings of Bigfoot have been recorded on the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization website with a map and detailed descriptions of each encounter listed. Some sightings are quite vague in their descriptions and others go on in great detail. Unimpeachable sources are sources of observation from people with a professional standing in observation, such as sheriffs and park rangers, which have also been recorded stating their Bigfoot sightings. The location of sightings can vary just as great, from deep forests and mountainous locations to the middle of the suburbs in large metropolitan areas. Sightings in such populous areas are less believable for the lack of places a Sasquatch can hide, while scavenging through garbage bins is mostly a niche left to smaller rodents and raccoons.

Foot impressions of Bigfoot are commonly found, and even more commonly confessed to be faked. One large indicator that a footprint has been faked is the lack of biological features, such as an arch or toe ball detail. Heel and toe impressions often do not indicate weight displacement and movement in any one direction. Some anthropologists have come across footprints that were so believable they were convinced that Bigfoot was real. One of the most indisputable footprints was found in Washington state and examined by Jimmy Chilcutt of the Conroe Police Department in Texas, a forensic expert on ape and monkey prints for police investigations. Chilcutt states that the dermal ridges found in this impression match other similar casts claiming Sasquatch origin, and are too detailed to have been man-made. What is distinct about these dermal ridges are the similarities only found with howler monkeys in Costa Rica; they run down the sides, whereas with humans, they run across the width of the foot. (You can read more about Jimmy Chilcutt and his forensic findings in this article.)

The overall remarkable video of the Patterson-Gimlin film from 1967 is, as it should be, the capstone to any Bigfoot fanatic’s argument. I personally agree with the details pointing out obvious breasts and muscle definition that would be hard to fake in your average costume, but out of all the faked videos of Bigfoot in the world, there has to be one fanatic that created this beauty of a costume:

Because of the overwhelming evidence in sightings and lack thereof in hard evidence, I will have to side with a different hypothesis. There are no wrong answers in Cryptozoology, and most forums bring up aliens at least 50 times anyways. What is the harm in creating my own cult hypothesis? To put it another way, Bigfoot is not an evolved primate adept at avoiding human contact because of natural selection. Rather, it is more similar to a werewolf gene, and that there are normal people all over the world transforming into large, hairy, primitive beasts for short periods of time.