Talk:Bigfoot

bigfoot , it can't be proven that it's not a real living animal

within the opening section of this article it says the following;

'However, the evidence is a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax, and the creature is not a real living animal.[3][7][10][11'

I believe that the final part of this is not based on fact or evidence.

I believe there is no proven or undisputed evidence that bigfoot exists but to make the claim that it doesn't is not based on fact.

there are multiple genuine scientists that believe in the possibility including Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University in Pocatello.

where he said within national geographic magazine the following in 2003

"Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified,"

he is not alone with his view and the assertion of the creature not existing undermines the thousands of witnesses who report sightings each year in north America alone.

I search reveals more scientists across the world believe that the possibility of it's existence remains, and even some who don't believe like the below person can only state 'its likely not to exist'

Mark Wilson, a geology and natural sciences professor at the College of Wooster, led the presentation, titled "A Scientific Perspective on Bigfoot," to explain scientists do not believe it's likely the creature truly exists.

this is because despite his credentials he can't evidentially state it doesn't exist,.no one can.

I think consideration should be given to state that bigfoot

'is not known to science at this time' or 'no verified evidence to it's existence has been made public'

or words to that effect ~2026-75217-6 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The brantopatimus doesn't exist because I just made it up. There is no evidence it doesn't exist because you can not find evidence to prove a negative. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence is often considered the weakest form of evidence, but it does not carry zero weight. Ball lightning was only known from anecdotal evidence before its existence was eventually taken seriously by mainstream science.

The "brantopatimus" has not been independently reported. Bigfoot has been independently reported. The "brantopatimus", however majestic, does not have phenotypic analogs in the recent fossil record. Bigfoot does. This does not automatically mean a modern non-Homo sapiens hominin is real by any stretch, but it does mean the opening paragraph of this article may arguably run afoul of the "Neutral Point of View" guideline, especially considering the number of anthropologists who (on the record) have at least taken the matter seriously, like the late Dr. Goodall.

Without commenting on the verisimilitude of the claims, this article's opening paragraph is perhaps in crucial need of adjustment to align with Wikipedia's expectations. Angilas (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Once we had evidence for ball lightning, the mainstream changed its opinion on the phenomena. If evidence is presented that bigfoot exists, then the mainstream will change its views and the article will change with it. Speculation of experts is not evidence, and the overwhelming consensus of the scientific establishment is that there is no evidence for bigfoot, and that given the highly populated areas with large amounts of cameras active where it is purported to live, we would expect to see a large amount of evidence for a breeding population of large indigenous great apes if they existed. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Why is it so hard to state "we don't know"? Tcarter887 (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The reason the final part of this is not based on fact or evidence is that Wikipedia isn't based on truth; it's based on reliable sources. You might also like to read Russel's teapot. lp0 on fire () 16:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I am saying that I agree with "~2026-75217-6" regarding changing the article's inaccurate conclusion "...and the creature is not a real living animal". There are "reliable sources" listed in the article that suggest a possibility to the contrary. Tcarter887 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There is also a "possibility" that Russell's teapot exists. But it is still correct to say it does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok so hypothetically if 10 reliable sources are referenced, and 9 of them say "we think it's green" but 1 of them says "well I think it's red", then logically you would conclude it's still 100% red? Does not seem logical to me. Do other wikipedia subjects come to a similar conclusion? Or for some reason logic does not apply to this subject? Tcarter887 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

sorry I can't edit my mistake... correction " then logically you would conclude it's still 100% green?" Tcarter887 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

but 1 of them says "well I think it's red" That would be a minority viewpoint, also called a fringe view, covered by our WP:FRINGE policy, which basically says we give the most weight to the majority view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand everyone's viewpoint here and "Russell's Teapot". My feeling is that wikipedia should not conclude with a verdict if the jury is still out. And the conclusion language should be modified to disclose that, as suggested by the original poster, or removed altogether. The article does a great job of presenting all the information on the subject, enough to allow the reader to make their own conclusion anyway. Tcarter887 (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

the jury is still out There is no jury. There is the scientific community which says one thing, and a few weirdos and hoaxers who say another thing. The conclusion from the other thing being unfalsifiable is not that we have to sit on the fence; it is that the other thing is useless for scientific purposes. Wikipedia follows the scientific community.

allow the reader to make their own conclusion Wikipedia does not have the compulsive power to disallow that anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I support any editor adding an adjective: "the [alleged/presumed/purported/supposed] creature is not a real living animal". 5Q5|^✉ 13:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Just some context. How do we know that bears exist? The overwhelming evidence. How do we know that ancient extinct animals existed? A lot of evidence, including about many without legends around them. Animals leave bones, fossils, coprolites, to survive a species needs a population and we rarely find a single specimen. We can even find their ancestors and we can map their migrations. How do we know about folklore and human traditions? We follow the evidence of such, like through writings. For a cryptid such as bigfoot, we can also note the many cases where common animals were misattributed. For bigfoot, we have all of the latter and none of the former. And people who jump to hasty conclusions to call "bigfoot" anything they want, wishthinking and confirmation bias. Saying "we don't know" or presenting beliefs as facts for readers to "chose between fantasy and reality" would be misleading. ~2026-10830-00 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

My only issue was the second paragraph which concludes with "...and the creature is not a real living animal." I feel that Wikipedia has no authority to conclude one way or the other on this subject and it would be best to remove it. However, I have read the "Fringe Theories" and "Neutral point of view" policies which require verifiable evidence, so I realize my argument here is pointless. Until we get evidence, the existing conclusion can remain in place to satisfy the skeptics, and insult the 100K+ witnesses who have actually seen the creature. Tcarter887 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Correction: witnesses who have seen something they believe to be the creature. Read Eyewitness testimony#Reliability. It is not Wikipedia's job to traipse around people's misconceptions of their own infallibility. Reliable sources familiar with the subject and with the mistakes one can make in such situations unanimously state that there is no solid evidence for the creature's existence and that there should be solid evidence if it existed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

See also xkcd:1235 lp0 on fire () 08:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

So over 500 tribes are all lieing about sasquatch. No physical evidence but there are photos of sasquatch.Ghost,ufos,crpytids and even poltergeist in the form of evp. It's not rocket science they all fall under paranormal phenomenon.Obtaining that kind of evidence go's beyond science.Its spiritual existence is not easily to capture and is usually done by random chances or repeated attempts. ~2026-21734-65 (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Like Faeries at the bottom of the garden then. Wikipedia is based on reliable mainstream sources. Bon courage (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

"Paranormal" is just a fancy way to say "I do not understand it". But people not understanding things is normal. Not paranormal. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I didn't think this thread was still alive. And interdimensional aliens, for the same reason (what is from the human imagination lacks palpable evidence of something else than the existence of human culture, human brains, the stories humans produce and spread, hoaxes and misinterpretations). ~2026-10830-00 (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect pronouns

In the paragraph beginning "According to data scientist Floe Foxon...", the pronoun "she" is used ("She states"). Floe Foxon uses he/him pronouns. See for example the following websites:

https://floefoxon.github.io/

https://www.skeptic.org.uk/author/floe-foxon/

https://skepticalinquirer.org/authors/floe-foxon/

https://education.wolfram.com/summer-research-institute/alumni/2025/floe-foxon/

It should be very straightforward to correct "She states" to "He states" in the Wikipedia page. Latimeriachalumnae (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done indirectly by removing the pronoun, the paragraph in question was using too many repetitive quotations anyway. Belbury (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Latimeriachalumnae (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

woo is bigfoot

ggggg ~2026-29503-16 (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The lead is noncompliant.

The lead is arguably noncompliant with Wikipedia guidelines in its current form, and it's only one sentence that generates the problem:

"However, the evidence is a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax, and the creature is not a real living animal."

A Wikipedia article using selective sources to come to a definitive conclusion on an issue that is technically unresolved in the literature arguably runs afoul of both "Neutral Point of View" and "No Original Research" simultaneously.

The addition of a few words could shift this from an ostensible abuse of Wikipedia's voice to something more representative of the academic consensus:

"However, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the evidence is a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax, and that the creature is not a real living animal."

That would arguably make the lead more compliant. Angilas (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I wrote that sentence, although I'm fuzzy on it. I probably had some hand in it, if only hunting citations down. I believe the wording was based around a strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade and WP:NFRINGE. I have no problems with this change. I wouldn't be surprised if someone else jumps in with some further corrections though. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Found the dif. Didn't write the sentence, but reworded it. Proposed version looks better. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:08, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response! Do understand where you were coming from. Since you don't have an objection though, I will probably make the alteration as soon as practicable. Angilas (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Whoaa. The given sources do not support your proposed change, which is far as I can see, is unsupported original research. There is no scientific "debate" about the existence of this imaginary creature. WP does not, or should not, indulge bothsidesism and false equivalency. We've had this discussion here many times, and it keeps getting resurrected. This is a time-waster, and you have no consensus to make this change. Carlstak (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree. There is no debate about the existence of Bigfoot. We need to avoid stating facts as if they were opinions. This particular scientific consensus is not WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED and can be stated as fact. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Adding "the overwhelming scientific consensus is that" probably shouldn't be too controversial considering the article already does so in the "Scientific View" section, which states: Expert consensus is that allegations of the existence of Bigfoot are not credible.

If the "Scientific View" section takes the approach of not using Wikivoice to make the assertion but instead relying on attribution, I do not see why the lead should use a stronger unattributed wording. Angilas (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

"the overwhelming scientific consensus is that" does not imply a debate in academic speak. It is equivalent of saying, "other then some fringe opinions, essentially everyone with an opinion that matters agrees." There ARE fringe opinions; the consensus is that they don't hold weight. Consensus CAN change, even if unlikely. We are not here to cast judgment on the evidence, but to state what the sources say about it. Overwhelmingly, the acadmeic concensus is that the evidence is "a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax, and that the creature is not a real living animal." In all honestly, it is a stronger dismissal than what we have and acknowledges that there is a fringe side presenting evidence that continues to try and debate the establishment. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge "Proposed explanations" section with "Scientific view" section

I believe these two sections are not quite redundant, but that there is enough overlap that they could be merged into one section. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)