“Strangely enough, those that dismiss the idea of Bigfoot seem to have no problem believing that there is a veritable cottage industry afoot in this country, manufacturing false evidence with remarkable consistency. This despite the fact that those coming forth with this evidence are generally met with ridicule. This unlikely scenario is apparently more believable to the skeptics than is the idea of Bigfoot’s existence.”

Exactly. That is an incredibly credulous mindset, and it is evident in the stance of anyone who immediately responds negatively to a report of an encounter. Where is the money and time (copious money over copious time) that would be required to pull this off? What is the possible motive? There has been virtually zero ROI for this investment so far. It is simply not a rational scenario. Keep in mind that the Youtube and footprint hoaxes ARE NOT part of this; they are so obviously human-fabricated that they can easily be set aside.

Either that, or the stance marks the person as very unacquainted with the evidence.

First, the footage would have to be completely unambiguous, clear, and undeniably showing a large, North American ape. It would have to be of good quality, without a shaking camera, and showing a good range of movement on which to base analysis. Preferably, the footage would be of a good length and at short range. There would have to be no doubt at all as to what was being seen, and there could be no doubt that what is seen could be anything other than a Sasquatch. There would have to be unanimous agreement that this is what the footage showed.

Second, as DWA and others have stated, it would not hurt in the slightest if the footage was taken as part of an actual scientific study, and vouched for by actual biologists directly involved with the study. This would go a long way towards building credibility for any such footage, and would quite possibly tip the scales for footage that otherwise might be more controversial.

Third, there would likely have to be some surrounding evidence involved. This could be footprints, or some sort of other physical evidence such as scat or even better, hairs. Photographic evidence should not exist in a vacuum, but rather be supported by corroborating physical evidence. This would further bolster the credibility of any footage.

It is one thing to debunk a shaky video, but quite a bit more difficult if that footage is clear and unambiguous, vouched for by scientists who took it, and supported by other physical evidence. Likewise, while DNA evidence may turn out to be inconclusive on its own, it would be a lot more compelling when coupled with very clear, very concrete and indisputable footage of an unmistakeable Sasquatch.

The reasons why these strict conditions I’m mentioning would likely have to be met for photographic evidence to even have a chance of acting as a holotype are varied. As AreWeThereYeti rightly stated, animals that we have good precedents for are much more likely to be accepted based on photographic evidence alone. A new kind of frog, lizard, heck, even large animals such as a new type of deer or rhino or something like that, all of these are animals that fit into the mold of what we know and what we have actual existing frames of reference for.

What I mean is, these animals are firmly set into the scope of current knowledge of biology. A new type of bear found in North America, for instance, no matter how strange and unlike other bears it may be, is still fitting into a set paradigm for this type of animal in this locale. We have firm, undeniable proof that these sorts of animals exist here.

A large, bipedal, temperate ape in North America, on the other hand, presents the old “extraordinary evidence” problem. Now, there is no reason why a temperate ape cannot or even should not exist, but the fact is that we do not have any living examples of this. Every current great ape we know of is tropical and that sets sort of a paradigm that requires strong evidence to overturn. Likewise for bipedalism. We know of no other currently existing hominid other than humans that is fully bipedal, so although of course there could be one and there have been in the past, and there is no reason there cannot>/em> be one, it has to be shown against our current understanding that there is one alive right now. Also, although I have gone on in depth before on how lack of fossil evidence does not negate the possibility of Sasquatch, we still do not really have it for a North American ape, or even any intermediate species anything like a North American ape. There is not only lack of Sasquatch fossils, but a huge whole in the fossil record for this type of creature, which further sets a paradigm that needs to be broken.

There is nothing that says Sasquatch cannot be real, and I see no reason for science to completely discard the idea, but very strong evidence is needed to buck current paradigms. While none of these things mean that a Sasquatch cannot exist, it all makes it harder to convince others that everything we know now is wrong and that the paradigm needs to be re-evaluated.

This all sets the bar higher for photographic evidence alone to be accepted as proof.

Also, another problem is that there is a demonstrable, proven history of people trying to hoax Bigfoot footage and photographs. Of course this does not mean that all such evidence is hoaxed, but it certainly muddies the waters. When you have so many unreliable pieces of photographic evidence and so many proven hoaxes, it makes it more difficult to accept new evidence of this kind without seriously considering that it too might be hoaxed or faked somehow. It forces us to be very careful with photographic data.

For all of these reasons, it is going to be hard to prove Bigfoot on photographic evidence alone. I wouldn’t say that it is impossible , but it is not an easy feat. For us to accept a new, large, North American bipedal ape as reality based solely on any such footage, it is going to have to be pretty amazing indeed. It certainly would help tremendously if it were brought forward by a reliable research team.

I’d like to think that we could bloodlessly prove this creature exists, but in the absence of photographic evidence of the type I have described, a body or even a part of a body will be needed I’m afraid.

As for researching going out to purposefully kill a creature, that’s tricky. You often hear witnesses remarking on how human it looked, or behaved. Despite our violent history (as a species) MOST people won’t willing pull the trigger on a fellow human unless they are in fear for their lives or the lives of their loved ones. Just as MOST hunters will not shoot what they cannot positively identify. There is always the chance of a confirmational bias kill as in ‘it’s bear season, I’m tracking a bear, I swear to god it looked like a bear from behind’ scenario but again, most hunters do tend to be extremely careful at what they shoot at, wanting to see a head or full body outline to make sure it isn’t some idiot trying to flush something out of the brush.

The undeniable problem is that whatever photographic evidence is presented, will be met by accusations of fakery. And these days, that evidence is supposed to be easy to fake.

DNA evidence, until there is a species type to identify it with, will continue to come back “unknown primate”. And that conclusion will be used by the “scientific skeptics” to show that it proves nothing.

I am absolutely opposed to shooting anything that cannot be identified by the shooter. But I have no doubt that a dedicated Bigfoot hunter knows what a Bigfoot is, and if he has one in his sights, would know what it is he’s aiming at.
If we are serious about studying Bigfoot and preserving them as a species, then it may be necessary to kill one in order to move past this controversy. Even then, some people will probably consider the dead specimen to be a hoax.

So there is a research group that is split between members who want to kill a Bigfoot and those that do not? I do not think the pro-kill group should be condemned. Given that all evidence short of a dead carcass is dismissed as fake, can anyone really blame the hunters?

Strangely enough, those that dismiss the idea of Bigfoot seem to have no problem believing that there is a veritable cottage industry afoot in this country, manufacturing false evidence with remarkable consistency. This despite the fact that those coming forth with this evidence are generally met with ridicule. This unlikely scenario is apparently more believable to the skeptics than is the idea of Bigfoot’s existence.

I am about at the point myself of being tempted to kill a Bigfoot just to put an end to this nonsense. It would be a shame to kill one of these creatures, but it may be worth it to get them taken seriously.

1. Ketchum won’t get the attention of the scientific community.

2. No way will a photographic holotype be accepted except under the terms I state.

(2a. And the P/G film, under those terms, WOULD have been.)

Ketchum can’t get a serious result without a type specimen, which of course there is not yet. “Unknown primate” has come back more than once; it’s not enough to get anyone worried about reputation on board.

A photographic holotype requires that the man-in-suit possibility be the first thing tossed. From everything I have read and seen, it is unlikely – in the extreme – that P/G is a hoax. The same kind of analysis, applied to a video or photographs for which a mainstream-funded expedition vouches, would get much greater traction right off the bat.

But count on it: until scientists stop tolerating laughter at things that haven’t been proven yet, the scientific community will need physical proof.

And DNA is far, far better than any picture or film could be.