How Bigfoot Hunters Use Scientific Methods — and Where They Fall Short

Bigfoot remains a fixture of cryptozoology, often grouped with creatures like the Loch Ness Monster. But researchers Jamie Lewis (Cardiff University) and Andrew Bartlett (Sheffield University) found that many modern Bigfoot investigators are not caricatures: they routinely use accepted field techniques and consumer technologies in systematic ways to search for evidence.

Over more than three years the two social scientists interviewed more than 150 people — from dedicated field investigators (commonly called Bigfooters) and television personalities to skeptics and scientists — for their book Bigfooters and Scientific Inquiry: On the Borderlands of Legitimate Science. Their interviews revealed a spectrum of belief: while a small faction endorses extraterrestrial, interdimensional, or supernatural explanations, most proponents advance a simpler hypothesis: that a large, undiscovered primate might persist in remote regions such as the Pacific Northwest.

Fieldwork, tools, and standards

Contrary to popular stereotypes, many enthusiasts invest substantial time and effort in careful fieldwork. They spend weekends, weeks or longer in the field, learning to detect and document subtle traces — prints, hair, sounds and other residues that they interpret as possible evidence. Their toolkits often include widely available technologies like thermal cameras, drones, and parabolic microphones, along with conventional methods such as plaster casts, trail cameras, and systematic note-taking.

'Skeptics might believe that Bigfooters are rejecting science by chasing an animal whose existence has never been proved. But what my interviews showed were the ways in which Bigfooters draw on their idea of scientific practices to piece together fragments of what they believe is tangible evidence,' said Jamie Lewis.

Methodological credulity and why it matters

Lewis and Bartlett propose an approach they call 'methodological credulity': rather than dismiss outsider researchers out of hand, scholars should study how these communities construct knowledge. Bartlett argues that ridiculing well-intentioned investigators can be counterproductive; understanding their practices reveals that many are attempting to apply recognizable scientific standards, even if informally or without formal credentials.

The researchers stress that acknowledging these practices is not the same as endorsing Bigfoot's existence. Instead, it highlights how scientific methods and tools can be employed outside traditional institutions, and how social communities organize around shared investigative goals.

'Bigfoot exists,' Lewis said. 'Not necessarily as a biological creature, but certainly as an object around which thousands of people organize their lives — collecting and analyzing evidence, and making knowledge.'

By examining Bigfooters through a social-scientific lens, Lewis and Bartlett illuminate broader questions about expertise, consensus, and how communities produce and contest knowledge in the public sphere.