Convicting a Sasquatch



For quite some time I’ve wanted to write something, however short it may be, on the concept of courtroom convictions and the evidence required for such things versus the evidence required to prove the existence of Sasquatch.

If you’ve read my article Confessions of a Reluctant Skeptic, you’ll know that I find no joy in challenging specific arguments for the existence (and acceptance) of bigfoot as a flesh and blood creature.

I desperately want to turn on the news tomorrow morning and see “Sasquatch finally found…” (and not hear the name Rick Dyer in conjunction with aforementioned news segment.)

That being said, one of my main motivations for creating this site and the content to which it holds, is to look at things related to this subject with a critical eye. I want my reasoning and opinions to resonate just as well with the bigfoot community as it does with the scientific community.

This, of course, means no shapeshifting, cloaking, inter-dimensional Sasquatch.

It means no mind-speaking, 15 foot tall, laser beam eyeball shooting, bigfoot.

It also means being willing to look at oft repeated arguments for the creatures existence with a somewhat skeptical eye. Some things parroted by prominent members of the bigfoot community make total sense and I feel are valid arguments supporting the existence of the creature.

One of my favorites goes something like, “If every single documented encounter up to this point had been a fake, a hoax, the result of a drunken stooper, or a combination of all of the above EXCEPT one…then the creature is real.”

This is sound, solid, reasoning. It’s undoubtedly true. If one single encounter was, in fact, a Sasquatch, then they exist.

Plain and simple.

That simple statement gives allowances in regards to a great majority of sightings being likely, well, non-sightings. It also points out the fact that one-million hoaxes cannot discredit one single legitimate sighting.

However, if you spend any time at all on message boards, Facebook groups, or the bigfoot internetz in general, you’ll hear this next “argument” come up over and over again.

“People are convicted of crimes and locked away for life with less evidence to prove their guilt than we have for the existence of Sasquatch…”

In other words;  We will throw someone in jail and lock away the key with only eyewitness testimony as evidence of their guilt while refusing to accept eyewitness testimony regarding the existence of bigfoot.

On the surface, this is a valid sounding argument.

Why should someones life be ruined with nothing more than a “he said/she said” testimony while something as trivial as bigfoot be held to a higher standard of evidence.

The answer is actually quite simple.The idea of…


  1. an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

    Ahhh, now we’re cooking with fire.

    Most times, the Sasquatch community, in all of it’s excitement, forgets this one, incredibly vital, piece of the puzzle.

    In a traditional courtroom, there is inherent precedent.

    The things which a judge may convict someone have more than likely happened thousands of times before and often hundreds of times before that very judge.

    People have robbed other people. 

    Human beings have hurt other human beings.

    Man has killed man.

    The judge automatically has something to base his judgement on. He is aware of a human beings capability to be, well, terrible.

    He’s beginning his deliberation in regards to the guilt or innocence of those on trial with the knowledge that the subject in question does, in fact, have the capability to commit the crime they are being accused of. 

    Now, take that same judge and ask him to determine the validity of an eyewitness testimony in regards to whether or not they encountered a bigfoot.

    What precedent does the judge have?

    What “earlier event or action” definitively attributed to bigfoot can he use as an example to confirm or deny the witness testimony?

    Ah ha!

    There is none.

    There has (unfortunately) never been any definitive proof regarding the actual existence of these creatures.

    Footprints? Yes.

    Sounds? Sure.

    Thermal footage? Maybe.

    Have any of the above ever been 100% verified as bigfoot?


Again, and still unfortunately, no…

 No one has ever been convicted of a crime with less evidence than we have for Sasquatch. 

Without precedent, without definitive proof to as to the creatures existence, this argument holds no water.

And again, no one is more unhappy about that than I am.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s