12 Reasons Bigfoot Definitely Exists—Proof Skeptics Are Wrong

What if I told you that every argument skeptics use to deny Bigfoot’s existence has already been quietly dismantled by science, evidence, and a web of facts most people have never heard? What if the truth isn’t hiding in the shadows, but lurking in plain sight—waiting for someone to look past the noise, past the ridicule, and listen to the wild?

I’ve spent years in the forests, in the archives, and in the company of those who have seen things they cannot explain. I’ve debated skeptics, listened to their questions, and watched as their certainty crumbled under the weight of evidence. Tonight, I invite you to walk with me through the most common skeptic arguments—one by one—and see how each dissolves in the face of what’s real.

The Body in the Ice

The first question is always the same: “Where’s the body?” Why don’t we have a corpse, a skeleton, a fossil in a museum? The answer, as it turns out, is not as simple as it seems.

In the late 1960s, the Minnesota Iceman toured North America, exhibited in sideshows and fairs—a frozen body encased in ice, a man-like creature with haunting eyes and a broken forearm. Two respected scientists, Ivan T. Sanderson and Dr. Bernard Uvelmans, examined it for days. They documented anatomical features that pointed to a real, unknown primate. Uvelmans published a scientific paper identifying the creature as “homopangoitis,” a possible evolutionary offshoot of early hominins. “This is no hoax,” he wrote. “I have studied it in great detail for three full days. The creature is real.”

Sanderson concurred, citing injuries too complex to fake—a shattered forearm, a damaged eye. Later, critics claimed the Iceman was a latex replica, a switch that conveniently allowed them to dismiss the entire case. But why would two top-tier zoologists risk their reputations by doubling down on its authenticity if it was a fraud?

The Iceman melted away into legend, but the question lingers: if not a hoax, what was it? And if it was real, why did it vanish so quickly?

The Vanishing Dead

Skeptics ask, “Why haven’t we found remains?” North America holds over two billion acres of wilderness, much of it untouched. Even with modern exploration, we rarely stumble upon the remains of animals we know exist—bears, cougars, wolves. Decomposition happens fast in the wild; scavengers and microbes reduce even large bodies to nothing in days. Fossils are rare. Chimpanzees, with hundreds of thousands alive today, have left only a few dozen fossil specimens.

There’s growing evidence that Sasquatches may bury their dead. Chimpanzees, gorillas, elephants, wolves, and even magpies have shown behaviors suggesting mourning or burial rituals. If Sasquatch possesses intelligence on par with great apes or beyond, it’s plausible they conceal or bury their dead, making the odds of stumbling across a skeleton nearly zero.

The wilderness keeps its secrets well.

The Hunter’s Dilemma

Another common refrain: “A hunter would have shot one by now.” But what percentage of North America’s wild acres do hunters actually visit? Most hunters stay on trails, in blinds, or within a few miles of access points. Sasquatches are reportedly seen deep in remote terrain, far from human activity.

And if a hunter did encounter one, how many would pull the trigger on something walking upright with a strikingly human face? The line between man and beast blurs in the wild. Several park rangers, police officers, and military personnel have gone on record saying they were ordered to keep quiet after seeing evidence of Sasquatch. If a kill did happen, it’s possible it was covered up, buried out of fear of prosecution or ridicule.

The forest is a place of silence, where secrets are kept and stories are whispered only to those who listen.

Eyes in the Trees

With trail cams everywhere, skeptics say, “We would have caught one on camera by now.” In truth, several pieces of trail cam footage exist showing large upright figures moving through forests—figures matching eyewitness descriptions of Sasquatch and remaining unexplained despite years of scrutiny.

One notable example is the 2012 Alberta trail cam photo, showing a massive dark figure sitting in the woods with proportions that don’t match any known animal or human. The visible arm is clearly not a bear’s. Another is the 2021 Birch Bay trail cam sequence, capturing a broad-shouldered biped walking past at night—its size, arm length, and posture immediately intriguing.

These clips are rare, not because of a lack of cameras, but because of the creature’s uncanny ability to avoid them. Researchers report trail cams turned around, powered off, or malfunctioning in Sasquatch hotspots. Expecting crystal-clear footage of a stealthy, intelligent primate from a $50 motion sensor is asking too much from the wrong tool.

The Blurred Truth

“Why don’t we have any clear video?” Skeptics point to the blurry nature of most footage as proof of hoax. But even with today’s technology, it’s difficult to capture clear video of known animals in the wild. Try filming a bear unexpectedly while hiking and see how clear your footage is.

The Patterson-Gimlin film, shot in 1967, remains the most analyzed wildlife footage ever. It captures a large upright creature with clear muscle movement, non-human limb ratios, and a gait no suit wearer could mimic. Every attempt to recreate the film using 1960s costume tech has failed.

The claim that the Patterson-Gimlin film is a hoax has never been backed by solid evidence, only hearsay and debunked stories. Bob Heronomous, who claimed he wore a suit, never produced it, never replicated the gait convincingly, and contradicted himself on key details. In contrast, physical anthropologists and motion analysis experts have concluded the creature’s proportions, muscle movement, and locomotion are biologically accurate and beyond costume capabilities.

Special effects artists like Bill Muns have stated the figure is not a man in a suit. Restoration of the film reveals further anatomical detail, including muscle contractions under the skin and a frighteningly human face. No proof of hoax has ever been produced, only speculation.

The Tracks in the Mud

“There’s no physical evidence,” skeptics claim. But there is—more than for many accepted species in their early stages of discovery.

Take footprints. Dr. Jeff Meldrum has analyzed casts showing dermal ridges, mid-tarsal breaks, and pressure release indicators impossible to fake. Tracks like the 1969 Bossberg “cripplefoot” display detailed pathology consistent with a living being, not a hoaxer. Hair samples collected from sighting locations have been analyzed and determined to be from an unknown primate, not matching any known species. DNA evidence appears humanlike but with unexplained anomalies.

Trackways left in snow, mud, and across long distances demonstrate variations in stride, depth, and pressure that rule out static molds or mechanical devices. Veteran forensic experts have stated publicly that some Sasquatch tracks contain dermal ridge patterns “neither human nor ape, but consistent across multiple locations.” That’s not something a guy in boots could fake.

The Unseen Species

“We’ve discovered all land animals already.” This statement is both arrogant and wrong. New species of land animals are discovered every year, many of them large, elusive, or previously thought mythical. The billy ape, a giant chimpanzee with gorilla-like features, wasn’t officially verified until the early 2000s. The saola, a large forest-dwelling bovine in Vietnam and Laos, was unknown to science until 1992. Even in North America, the eastern cougar was thought extinct until verified sightings and DNA turned up in the 21st century.

Discovery requires a willingness to look, and the scientific establishment has largely avoided serious study of Sasquatch.

The Population Question

“There would have to be enough Sasquatches to sustain a breeding population.” Biologists estimate a viable population of large primates could range from 1,000 to 4,000 individuals spread across North America. Given the size and remoteness of Canadian and Alaskan wilderness, plus vast uninhabited land in the Pacific Northwest, Appalachians, and Rockies, it’s realistic.

Species like wolverines, mountain lions, and lynx have thriving populations in areas where they’re almost never seen. Sasquatches are described as nocturnal, nomadic, and highly intelligent, which further reduces sightings and evidence.

Their reportedly long lifespan, low population density, and strong avoidance of humans may help explain how they sustain themselves while remaining off our radar.

The Scientists in the Shadows

“No legitimate scientists take Bigfoot seriously.” That’s simply not true. Several credentialed scientists have dedicated large portions of their careers to studying Sasquatch evidence, including Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Dr. John Bindernogle, and even Dr. Jane Goodall, who stated, “I’m sure that they exist.” Other notable scientists have examined evidence seriously and drawn conclusions that support the creature’s plausibility.

The real issue isn’t a lack of interest, but the fear of ridicule and career damage that comes with admitting it publicly. The absence of mainstream acceptance doesn’t mean absence of legitimacy. It means the topic threatens the fragile ego of institutional science.

The Extraordinary Evidence

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Let’s take stock. We have thousands of credible eyewitness accounts, many from trained observers like law enforcement, hunters, and military personnel. We have trackways showing anatomical precision, deformation, and consistent traits over decades. We have hair samples, DNA studies, audio recordings of vocalizations that defy classification, and an iconic film still not debunked after half a century. We have whistleblower testimonies from forestry workers, government employees, and park rangers claiming cover-ups. We have indigenous oral histories describing creatures identical to modern reports.

At some point, refusing to accept the evidence says more about your belief system than the facts themselves.

The Heart of the Mystery

The forest is a place of silence and secrets. It does not yield its mysteries easily. For every skeptic who scoffs, there is a witness who trembles, a scientist who wonders, and a seeker who follows the shadows deeper into the wild.

Bigfoot is not just a legend—it is a challenge to our understanding of the world, a reminder that not all questions have easy answers, and not all mysteries are meant to be solved. The evidence is there, waiting for those willing to look, to listen, and to believe in the possibility that something extraordinary walks among us.

So next time you hear the tired arguments, remember the facts, the science, and the voices lost in the wilderness. The truth is out there, hidden in the shadows, waiting for someone to find it.