But dismissing that is a bit of a cop-out too. That's the trouble with modern Forteana these days.
I'm interested in what is going on with the witness rather than proving there's a big apeman running around.
When it clearly not a bear - what are they seeing? Why are they seeing it? What is happening?
First of all, for the avoidance of doubt, I am neither hostile nor scornful towards those who believe in Bigfoot. I doubt that Bigfoot exists. If it does, then I expect it to be a flesh and blood cryptid rather than either a tulpa ot some sort of interdimensional being.
I absolutely agree that what is going on with the witnesses is interesting — and is Fortean in its own right. Simple "misidentification" and hoaxes happen, but they are not the whole story. Witnesses are strange things.
I did quite a lot of reading on the subject of witness evidence when I was working in a fraud department for an insurance company. I spent 36ish years investigating claims (including motor and workplace accidents) and 10 of those years specialising in fraud management.
There is a compelling amount of evidence that what someone "saw" depends on what they expected to see, and what questions they are asked after the event.
There was a study in which groups of subjects were shown a short video of a car crash. (
Loftus & Palmer 1974)
After watching the video, they were asked to estimate the speed of the vehicles.
The groups were asked the same question with one word different. What was the speed when the vehicles [smashed, collided, bumped, hit, or contacted] each other?
Those who were asked with an emotive word (smashed) estimated the speed as substantially higher than those who were asked a more neutral word (bumped).
Later, they were asked whether they had seen glass on the road after the cars had [smashed, collided, bumped, hit, or contacted] each other.
Some subjects in each group reported seeing glass. However, those who were asked "smashed" were significantly more likely to report seeing glass.
In fact, there was no glass on the road, so no one had actually seen it.
There is no reason to suspect that the subjects of this study attached any importance to their answers, or that they knew what they were being tested for, so we can assume that they were answering truthfully. Nevertheless, their answers were demonstrably inaccurate, and the inaccuracy was statistically linked to the way that they were asked.
This is how human witnesses behave when they are seeing something fairly routine in a calm and structured environment. Take these same witnesses into a forest and show them a fleeting glimpse of something that might just be an amazing anomaly and a once in a lifetime experience, and you could reasonably expect the effect to be amplified.
Who wants to concede, "Yes, it was probably a bear"? Also, most witnesses want to please the person asking them questions, rather than answering "I can't say" or "I don't know".
A trained and honest investigator knows to ask neutral and open questions: "How would you describe it?" "What did you see?"
A bad investigator asks leading questions: "Would you say it was nearer six feet or seven feet tall?" "Did you feel threatened?"
A poorly trained or amateur investigator acting in good faith may allow emotive words and lines of questioning to influence what the witness "recalls". "How tall was it?" invites an answer that suggests it was quite tall, for example.
Because witness evidence, especially filtered through interviews by amateur enthusiasts, is so unreliable, I am firmly in the camp of "I would love to find that Bigfoot really exists, but I need reliable evidence rather than reports. After all these years of searching, where are the clear and unequivocal photos and videos? Where are the spoors, DNA samples, etc.? We have more physical evidence of countless species from over 200 million years ago than we have for this species that is said to exist today.
Change of subject: Bigfoot is conventionally described as bipedal. The only truly bipedal mammals are humans. By being bipedal, we sacrifice speed across the ground for the ability to manipulate, carry, and throw things with our hands. You can't outrun a wolf, tiger, or a bear, but they can't build a shelter, tend a fire or make a spear.
Take a human shape and add 10% to its height and you add 33% to its weight, but only 21% to the cross section of the bones and muscles. The bigger it gets, the more disadvantageous being bipedal becomes. A species would only evolve to be bipedal if there were a gain somewhere else, such as tool use, building shelters, throwing hunting spears, carrying possessions, etc. Although we have found very few bones of prehistoric human species, we have quite a lot of their tools, art, fire places, middens and so on. We have none of this for Bigfoot.