For decades people have searched for Bigfoot all over the world. Some call Bigfoot by the name: Sasquatch, Yeti or Abominable Snowman. Today, several video recordings of Bigfoot can be found on the Internet. Additionally, numerous eyewitnesses have claimed to have seen Bigfoot. If that wasn't enough, people have discovered hair samples, footprints, and body impressions of Bigfoot. However, the problem with these findings is that none of them have proven to be true proof of the existence of Bigfoot. Bigfoot does not exist because people are unreliable sources of information and the physical evidence found about Bigfoot has been proven to be false. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Since people are unreliable sources of information, the existence of Bigfoot cannot be proven through their anecdotes. People are unreliable because sometimes they can't remember what they actually saw. Furthermore, they may think they saw Bigfoot, when in reality it was an animal that resembled Bigfoot. Plus, the recordings people make are conveniently far away. Bigfoot doesn't exist because eyewitness accounts are unreliable. A study was conducted in which “researchers reported that 73% of the 239 [criminal] convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One-third of these overturned cases relied on the testimony of two or more erroneous eyewitnesses” (Arkowitz 1). Nearly three-quarters of the convictions overturned were previously wrong due to false eyewitness testimony. As if that wasn't enough, a third of people were convicted due to two or more erroneous eyewitnesses. This example illustrates how untrustworthy people are in general. People think they saw something, when in reality it never happened. A psychologist did research and found that "even an interrogation by a lawyer can alter the witness's testimony because fragments of memory can be unknowingly combined with information provided by the interrogator, leading to an inaccurate memory" (Arkowitz 1) . The problem with humans and their memory is that they can construct new, inaccurate memories, even if they think they remember a true memory. All of these examples relate to Bigfoot eyewitnesses because the examples convey how people do not remember the truth. People think they saw Bigfoot, but they are actually recalling a false memory. Bigfoot doesn't exist because people recall false memories, which proves that eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot are unreliable. Bigfoot records are unreliable, which proves Bigfoot's non-existence. A man named Shealy was convinced that Bigfoot was real and called him a skunk ape. He had footage of what he thought was Bigfoot. However, upon analysis, there was a "strange hidden primate breeding facility, escaped monkey colonies, great apes living further north in Florida, and apparent evidence of an escaped orangutan" (Stromberg 1) . This example shows how incredible stories can happen and make it seem like Bigfoot is real. However, it also shows how Bigfoot is unreal and how anomalies can trick people into thinking they have seen Bigfoot, when he was a previously discovered primate. The problem with recordings is that, “in such video or photographic 'evidence,' the subject is almost always obscured by tree branches or extremely far away. It begs the question of why the person filming the event (and there were many) doesn't just chase the creature, or at least try to get a clearer shot."(Fox 1). This example illustrates the main argument against Bigfoot recordings. People who catch Bigfoot always find themselves in inopportune places. If Bigfoot really exists, why hasn't anyone been able to see them better after decades of searching? Today, the technology is evident and almost everyone has a decent camera on their smartphone. If Bigfoot existed, then Bigfoot would have been found with clear evidence of being a newly discovered species by now. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist because records are inaccurate and Bigfoot has yet to be found despite the prevalence of technology. Some people argue that thousands of people have seen Bigfoot for decades, so it must exist; furthermore, some scientists have claimed to have seen Bigfoot. However, anecdotal evidence can never be reliable because anecdotes cannot be verified as fact. An editor of The Cryptozoological Review, Ben Roesch, stated how, "cryptozoology is largely based on anecdotal evidence while physical phenomena can be systematically tested and evaluated by science, anecdotes cannot, as they are neither physical nor regulated in content or form. For this reason, anecdotes are not reproducible and therefore not verifiable; they cannot be tested, they are not falsifiable and they are not part of the scientific process." (Radford 30) This example shows how anecdotes are not real. Furthermore, they cannot be credible because there is no way to test the validity of a story. Therefore, anecdotes cannot be taken into account when discussing the story. existence of Bigfoot because there is no way to verify their validity; they can be completely false. A mycologist named Gary Samuels spotted “a large primate in the Guyana forest he observed, remembered and accurately reported his experience. But Samuels is a scientific expert on tiny fungi that grow on wood. His expertise is botany, not identifying great apes in poor condition.” (Radford 31). This example shows how scientists who claim to see Bigfoot can be fooled into seeing them in poor condition. Furthermore, the scientist who saw Bigfoot is not qualified to identify and classify primates. Therefore, he cannot attest to the existence of Bigfoot when he most likely does not know about all the different primate species in the region. These examples exemplify how people and their anecdotes are unreliable. Bigfoot does not exist because the scientists who discover Bigfoot do not specialize in primate identification and anecdotes cannot be verified as fact. Bigfoot doesn't exist because the physical evidence is inconsistent, inaccurate, or unreliable. Footprints and body impressions believed to be from Bigfoot are inaccurate and inconsistent. Bigfoot somatic samples come from known species in the area or not from a species at all. Bigfoot does not exist because found footprints of Bigfoot are inconsistent and body prints are inaccurate. Some Bigfoot footprints “have aligned toes, others show splayed toes. Most alleged Bigfoot tracks have five toes, but some casts show creatures with two, three, four, or even six toes” (Radford 31). The problem with Bigfoot footprints is that they aren't consistent with each other. There are different numbers of toes on the prints and the toes are aligned differently. This observation shows that fingerprints cannot be reliable; the change in the fingerprints confirms them as fake. There was another case where some people claimed that they found Bigfoot and Bigfoot wanted to be stealthy to catch the bait. The peoplethey claimed to have found “the first Bigfoot body print [. The body print shows Bigfoot's body shape; there was an outline of Bigfoot's body in the mud.] The Bigfoot, according to the team, apparently made the impression when it lay on its side at the edge of a muddy bank and reached out to grab a bait ” (Radford 31). An animal that wanted to be stealthy wouldn't leave a giant footprint in the ground. Additionally, more footprints would be found around the world if Bigfoot left giant footprints in an attempt to catch food. The example becomes invalid because of those previous statements. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist due to the inconsistency of Bigfoot footprints and the inaccuracy of Bigfoot footprints.body impression discovery. Bigfoot does not exist because Bigfoot somatic samples are unreliable. There has been an analysis conducted by an international group of scientists on a small fragment of mitochondrial DNA isolated from 'bigfoot' hair samples collected over the last 50 years from hikers, naturalists and hunters. However, two specimens were found to be more similar to the Paleolithic polar bear, Ursus maritimus” (DNA 1). After years of finds, a couple of specimens came from an ancient (Paleolithic) polar bear. The results prove that the suspected evidence of Bigfoot's existence does not come from them. Additionally, other tests have shown that Bigfoot hair “turns out to be moose, bear or cow hair, for example, or the suspected 'Bigfoot blood' turns out to be transmission fluid. Advances in genetic technology have also proven unsuccessful” (Radford 34). This example further attests to the non-existence of Bigfoot. Not only were hairs from an ancient polar bear found, but hairs from other animals were also found. Additionally, “Bigfoot blood” was discovered to be car transmission fluid. This evidence shows how physical evidence of Bigfoot is unreliable. People may have confused the hair or blood of other animals with Bigfoot. However, it is still proven that there is no physical evidence of Bigfoot. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist because the physical evidence found by Bigfoot is proven false. Some argue that the physical evidence appears like another species when it comes to a Bigfoot footprint or specimen because the tests read animals that have already been discovered, not a new species. However, if Bigfoot was real, Bigfoot bodies would have been discovered, not just hair samples, blood samples, and footprints. There is also no evidence yet that Bigfoot is a real creature. The truth is: "At some point a Bigfoot's luck must run out: one in thousands must wander onto a highway and be killed by a car, or be shot by a hunter, or die of natural causes and be discovered by a hiker” (Radford 37) were the Bigfoot real, there would have to be a body found or a bone for decades further validates its nonexistence. Furthermore, the main idea is that people who believe in Bigfoot “cannot point to a living or dead sample of what they are studying” (Radford 37). blamed or that the evidence is misunderstood, nothing has been found to verify the existence of Bigfoot. There are no accurate records, hair samples, blood samples, bodies or bones that prove Bigfoot is real. After decades of trying of finding Bigfoot all over the world, by now Bigfoot would have been discovered through some kind of testing. Therefore, Bigfoot does not exist because there is no evidence such as Bigfoot bones or bodies that have been found by.