How to Document a Cryptid Claim Responsibly

Introduction

Responsible cryptid fieldwork does not start with belief. It starts with preserving what can be checked: the time, place, conditions, photographs, physical traces, witness sequence and ordinary alternatives. In cryptozoology, most famous claims remain unverified, but a well-documented animal report can still be useful if it lets other people test whether the event was a known animal, a hoax, a weather or light effect, a mistaken trackway, or, more rarely, evidence worth escalating to wildlife specialists. The difference between a campfire story and a usable field report is not excitement; it is documentation. The basic rule is simple: record first, interpret later. Wildlife observation platforms define a useful observation as an encounter with an organism, or recent evidence of one, at a particular time and location, including signs such as tracks, nests, scat or remains. That standard is a helpful starting point for cryptid claims because it shifts the question from “What do I think I saw?” to “What exactly can be independently examined?”[iNaturalist Help]help.inaturalist.org151000169927 what is an observationiNaturalist HelpWhat is an observation?5 Mar 2025 — An observation records an encounter with an individual organism, or recent evidence o…

Record the scene before the story hardens

The first minutes after a strange animal report are often the most important. Memory begins to organise the event into a story, people influence one another, tracks degrade, weather changes, and phone photos get cropped, forwarded or stripped of metadata. A responsible investigator therefore separates the raw record from later interpretation.

A useful initial record should capture:

• Date and exact time: including whether the sighting time is certain, approximate, or reconstructed later.
• Location: GPS coordinates where possible, plus a plain-language description of access points, trails, watercourses, roads, fences and landmarks.
• Observer position and direction: where the witness stood, where the animal or sign was seen, and the direction of travel or movement.
• Weather and light: rain, snow, fog, wind, temperature, cloud, moonlight, glare, torchlight, vehicle headlights or camera flash.
• Distance and duration: estimated distance to the animal or track, how long it was visible, and whether anything blocked the view.
• Witness sequence: what was noticed first, what happened next, who spoke to whom, and whether witnesses discussed the event before giving separate accounts.

This is not special pleading for cryptozoology; it is ordinary field discipline. Wildlife investigation and enforcement guidance commonly stresses recording date, time, GPS location, weather and site details because later interpretation depends on those basics.[hpforest.gov.in]hpforest.gov.inwildlife crime scene management and forensic evidence…15 Jul 2023 — basic details such as date, time, GPS location, weather etc… For cryptid claims, those details matter even more because the claim is usually unusual and the evidence is usually fragile.

The most damaging habit is to begin with a label: “Bigfoot track”, “lake monster wake”, “black panther print”, “unknown primate hair”. The label can bias every later decision. Better field notes say: “single elongated track in wet silt, 31 cm long, five apparent toe marks, found at 07:40 beside stream after overnight rain.” That description may later prove to be a bear overprint, a human hoax, a distorted dog track, or something still unclear. At least it gives other people something to examine.

Time, place and conditions make or break a report

A cryptid claim without a reliable location is hard to test. A claim with a precise location can be compared against known wildlife ranges, livestock, escaped animals, hunting activity, roads, seasonal movement, local weather and previous reports. That does not prove or disprove the claim by itself, but it prevents the investigation from floating free of ecology.

Location should be recorded at several levels. GPS coordinates are useful, but so are contextual notes: the nearest road, whether the site is public or private land, whether there are game trails, bins, orchards, fish runs, farms, campsites or rubbish sources nearby. For aquatic claims, record the shoreline position, water depth if known, current, wind direction, boat traffic and sightline. For sound reports, record the listener’s position, terrain, wind direction, nearby roads, machinery, livestock, birds and other people.

Time is just as important. Camera traps and wildlife databases can be compromised by wrong timestamps; camera-trap researchers have reported recurring problems with incorrect or ambiguous date and time data, and camera-trap manuals emphasise checking date and time settings before deployment.[PMC]pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.govProblem—Cameras often record incorrect or ambiguous timestamps. We have observed many issues resulting from the way camera traps record d… A night photo with the wrong year, a trail camera left on daylight saving time, or a phone image copied through a messaging app can create a false timeline.

For responsible cryptid work, the investigator should preserve original files wherever possible. Screenshots, compressed social-media copies and edited images may still be useful for discussion, but they should not be treated as primary evidence. The original file may contain embedded date, time and location metadata; naturalist platforms routinely use such metadata when it is present, though it can be missing or wrong if the camera settings or permissions were wrong.[iNaturalist Community Forum]forum.inaturalist.orgi Naturalist Community Forum Geotagging Photosi Naturalist Community Forum Geotagging Photos

Photograph for measurement, not drama

The most common failed cryptid photograph is not necessarily fake; it is simply unmeasurable. A dark shape crossing a track, a ripple in a lake, a distant animal at dusk or a close-up of a footprint can be visually striking but scientifically weak if there is no scale, no location context and no way to reconstruct the camera position.

Good photographic practice is deliberately plain. The aim is to let someone else measure, compare and question the image.

For a track or ground sign, take:<div class="content-enhancement content-enhancement--step-flow" markdown="1">

1. A wide scene photo showing the track in relation to the path, bank, field edge, waterline or surrounding terrain.
2. A mid-range photo showing the whole trackway, not just the best print.
3. Close-ups with scale using a ruler, tape measure, field notebook, lens cap or other object of known size placed on the same plane as the print.
4. Oblique and overhead angles because depth, slippage and toe impressions can disappear from one angle.
5. Photos before touching anything and only then, if appropriate, photos after measuring or casting.</div>

Wildlife track guides stress that track identification depends on features such as size, shape, toe pattern, pads, claw marks and variation between individuals. They also warn, implicitly or explicitly, that tracks are not fixed signatures: substrate, gait, age, sex, speed and partial impressions can change appearance.[NMSU Publications]pubs.nmsu.eduPublications Identifying and Preserving Wildlife TracksPublications Identifying and Preserving Wildlife Tracks For cryptid claims, that means a single “perfect” print is less persuasive than a documented trackway with stride, direction, substrate and surrounding context.

Photographs of animals need the same discipline. Keep the original image. Do not digitally sharpen, enlarge, draw outlines or change contrast before saving an untouched copy. Record the camera or phone model, lens setting if known, zoom level if available, and whether the image is a still photo, frame from video, trail-camera capture or screenshot. If video exists, preserve the full clip, including the seconds before and after the apparent animal appears. Short clips cut at the most exciting moment often remove the context that would identify a known animal.

Handle samples as if contamination is the main suspect

Hair, scat, feathers, tissue, bones, saliva on food, and environmental DNA samples can sound more decisive than eyewitness testimony. They are also easy to contaminate, mislabel or overinterpret. A hair in a footprint is not automatically from the track-maker. A scat sample near a sighting is not automatically from the animal seen. A DNA result from a mixed or poorly handled sample may identify a person, dog, bear, deer, cow or laboratory contaminant rather than anything mysterious.

The strongest lesson from genetic testing of cryptid material is caution. In the Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project, researchers solicited hair samples attributed to yeti, Bigfoot and related “anomalous primates”. After screening, they selected samples for genetic analysis and found that the tested hairs came from known living mammals rather than unknown primates.[PMC]pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.govOpen source on nih.gov. Contemporary reporting summarised the practical result bluntly: alleged Bigfoot and Yeti hairs mostly matched ordinary animals such as bears, wolves, cows, horses, raccoons and other known species.[The Guardian]theguardian.comThe Guardian DNA analysis indicates Bigfoot may be a big fakeThe Guardian DNA analysis indicates Bigfoot may be a big fake

That does not mean “never collect samples”. It means collect them in a way that preserves their value. Environmental DNA protocols for wildlife work emphasise avoiding contamination, changing gloves or equipment when contamination is suspected, cleaning equipment between sites, and tracking sample transfer from field to lab.[USFS Research & Development]research.fs.usda.govUSFS Research & Developmente DNA Field Sampling Abbreviated ProtocolUSFS Research & Developmente DNA Field Sampling Abbreviated Protocol Wildlife evidence procedures likewise stress chain of custody: who collected the item, when, where, how it was stored, and who handled it afterwards.[U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]fws.govFish and Wildlife ServiceProcedures for Evidence Collection, Handling, and Storage30 Apr 2019 — It provides minimum standards for the res…

For cryptid-related samples, the minimum responsible practice is:<div class="content-enhancement content-enhancement--caution" markdown="1">

• Use clean gloves and clean tools for each sample.
• Photograph the sample in place before collecting it.
• Record exact location, time, collector, weather and nearby signs.
• Use paper envelopes for dry hair where appropriate; avoid sealing damp organic material in plastic where it may rot.
• Keep separate samples separate; do not pool hairs, scat or soil from different points.
• Label containers immediately, not later at home.
• Keep a handling log from collection to storage to any laboratory submission.
• Do not claim a sample is from a cryptid before testing; call it “hair found at reported site” or “scat found near trackway”.</div>

The wording matters. A lab can test a sample more usefully when the submission is precise and modest. “Unknown hair from fence wire, collected 2 metres from reported trackway” is better than “Bigfoot hair”, because the first description preserves the question while the second smuggles in the answer.

Check ordinary explanations before escalating the claim

Scepticism in field investigation is not hostility; it is quality control. The investigator’s job is to find the best explanation, not the most unusual one. In cryptozoology, that usually means checking known animals, humans, weather, optics, sound distortion, hoaxes and local context before treating a report as anomalous.

The most useful question is: “What would this look like if it were ordinary?” A bear standing or moving briefly on its hind legs can resemble a large upright figure at distance. Overlapping or degraded tracks can look larger and stranger than the animal that made them. Large otter, dog, deer, badger, bear, cattle and human tracks can all become misleading in mud, snow, sand or melting ice. Track guides show how much ordinary prints vary, including missing claw marks, partial toe marks, drag marks and substrate effects.[The Wildlife Trusts]wildlifetrusts.orgOpen source on wildlifetrusts.org.

This is where cryptid reports can benefit from outside expertise. A local wildlife biologist, tracker, gamekeeper, ranger, zoo specialist, veterinarian or natural history society may recognise a pattern that a cryptid-focused group misses. On public platforms such as iNaturalist, observations are built around the combination of organism evidence, time, location, photos and community identification, which is valuable precisely because it invites correction rather than private confirmation.[iNaturalist Help]help.inaturalist.org151000169927 what is an observationiNaturalist HelpWhat is an observation?5 Mar 2025 — An observation records an encounter with an individual organism, or recent evidence o…

The Loch Ness environmental DNA survey is a useful example of ordinary explanations being tested rather than merely asserted. Researchers sampled Loch Ness water and compared recovered DNA against databases of known life. Public summaries of the 2019 results reported no evidence for prehistoric reptiles, large fish such as sturgeon, or other dramatic candidates, while eel DNA was abundant enough to keep mundane eel-based explanations in discussion.[Science Focus]sciencefocus.comScience Focus Loch Ness Monster DNA study reveals 'plausibleScience Focus Loch Ness Monster DNA study reveals 'plausible The important point for field practice is not “Nessie is an eel”; it is that a famous claim was reframed as a testable biological question.

Use cameras carefully, and do not overread them

Trail cameras are tempting in cryptid investigation because they seem objective. They can be useful, but only when deployed and logged properly. Camera traps are now central tools in wildlife monitoring, yet the professional literature repeatedly treats data management, metadata, false positives and deployment design as serious issues rather than technical afterthoughts.[Purews]purews.inbo.bePurews Best Practices for Managing and Publishing Camera Trap DataPurews Best Practices for Managing and Publishing Camera Trap Data

A single camera pointed at a path for a weekend rarely says much. It may miss animals because of poor angle, wrong height, dead batteries, vegetation movement, rain, infrared reflection, human disturbance, bad placement or species behaviour. Conversely, it may generate ambiguous blobs, partial bodies, false triggers or misleading night images. Camera-trap research has shown the value of systematic image handling and automated classification, but also the need for careful verification because wildlife images can be numerous, uneven and difficult.[arXiv]arxiv.orgOpen source on arxiv.org.

For responsible cryptid claims, a camera deployment log should include:

• camera make and model;
• exact GPS position;

• height from ground;<div class="content-enhancement content-enhancement--decision" markdown="1">

• direction faced;
• trigger settings;
• date and time check before deployment;
• memory card number;
• battery status;
• reason for choosing the location;
• dates and times of checks;
• whether bait, scent lure or food was used.</div>

Bait and lures deserve special caution. They can attract known wildlife, alter behaviour, create misleading concentration of tracks, and complicate interpretation. If bait is used, it should be recorded openly. Hidden baiting or undocumented food sources can make a site look more mysterious than it is.

Separate witness testimony from physical evidence

Eyewitness reports are often the starting point for cryptid claims, but they should not be treated as the same kind of evidence as a tissue sample, clear photograph or repeatable trackway. A witness can be honest and still be mistaken. Distance, darkness, fear, expectation, fatigue, alcohol, group discussion, folklore, online imagery and surprise can all shape perception.

A responsible interview should be calm, non-leading and early. Ask the witness to describe what happened before offering possible labels. “What did you see?” is better than “Did it look like Bigfoot?” “Which direction did it move?” is better than “Did it walk like an ape?” Separate witnesses should be interviewed separately before group discussion where possible. The investigator should record uncertainty rather than smoothing it away: “about waist high”, “I heard it for five seconds”, “I only saw the rear half”, “I assumed it was black but it may have been in shadow”.

The report should distinguish:<div class="content-enhancement content-enhancement--insight-grid" markdown="1">

• Direct observation: what the witness personally saw, heard, smelled or found.
• Inference: what the witness thought it was.
• Later interpretation: what others suggested after discussion.
• Physical evidence: photos, tracks, hairs, scat, damaged vegetation, audio or video.
• Negative evidence: what was not found, such as no tracks where tracks would be expected.</div>

Negative evidence is often neglected, but it matters. If a large animal supposedly crossed soft mud yet left no tracks, that does not automatically disprove the claim, but it changes the assessment. If an animal was reported near a road yet no dashcam, CCTV, livestock disturbance, dogs barking, carcasses or repeat sightings exist, that also matters. Responsible documentation records absence without turning it into ridicule.

When a cryptid report is actually useful

Most cryptid claims will not prove a new species. That is not failure if the investigation produces a clearer answer. A report can still be useful when it identifies a known animal outside its expected range, documents an escaped exotic pet, records rare behaviour, flags a public safety issue, corrects a local rumour, or preserves a cultural account without misrepresenting it as zoological proof.

A strong field report is not the one with the strangest conclusion. It is the one another investigator can audit. The best reports make it possible to say, “This was probably a bear”, “This was likely a hoax”, “This may be an escaped cat”, “This trackway is too degraded to identify”, or “This sample should be tested by a qualified lab.” In a field crowded with folklore, enthusiasm and internet amplification, that humility is valuable.

The practical standard is therefore a decision cluster, not a single dramatic test:<div class="content-enhancement content-enhancement--insight-grid" markdown="1">

• Can the time and location be independently checked?
• Do original photos, video or audio files exist?
• Is there a scale and scene context for tracks or marks?
• Was the sample collected without obvious contamination?
• Have known animals and environmental explanations been checked?
• Can a neutral specialist review the material?
• Is the conclusion phrased in proportion to the evidence?</div>

That last point is the heart of responsible cryptid investigation. A blurry image should not become “proof”. A track should not become a species. A hair should not become a hominid before testing. A sincere witness should not be mocked, but neither should sincerity be confused with verification.

A field-ready standard for responsible claims

The simplest responsible protocol is to treat every cryptid claim as a wildlife report with an unusual hypothesis attached. The unusual hypothesis can remain on the table, but it should not control the evidence. Start with the location, conditions, original media and physical traces. Preserve samples cleanly. Ask witnesses neutral questions. Invite ordinary explanations first. Escalate only what survives basic checks.

That approach will disappoint anyone who wants cryptozoology to be a shortcut to mystery. It is, however, the only approach that makes unusual animal reports more useful rather than less. Good fieldwork does not guarantee discovery. It does something more basic: it gives a claim enough structure that it can be tested, corrected, compared and, when necessary, set aside.

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to How to Document a Cryptid Claim Responsibly. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Book

Abominable Science!

By Daniel Loxton, Donald R. Prothero

Focuses on evaluating evidence and ordinary explanations behind cryptid claims.

See on Amazon

Book

Hunting Monsters

By Darren Naish

Explains how unusual animal reports should be investigated and assessed.

See on Amazon

Book

Mammal Tracks & Sign

By Mark Elbroch

Helps distinguish mystery evidence from known animal traces.

See on Amazon

Book

Bigfoot Exposed

By David J. Daegling

Examines standards of evidence and investigation in cryptid claims.

See on Amazon

Browse more on Amazon: Abominable Science! Hunting Monsters Mammal Tracks & Sign

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

Shop location

UsingUSAUSAUSAUKCanadaAustraliaIreland

Example eBay listing

Cryptid Research Team Enamel Pin Badge

SearcheBay.co.uk: cryptid enamel pin

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

Mothman for President - Cryptid Enamel Pin - Fun Gift - New & In Stock!

SearcheBay.co.uk: cryptid enamel pin

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

Green Cthulhu Kraken Cryptid Metal Pin Badge Brooch Octopus DnD Goth Horror Alt

SearcheBay.co.uk: cryptid enamel pin

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Example eBay listing

Cryptid Research Team Enamel Pin Badge

SearcheBay.co.uk: cryptid enamel pin

Browse similar oneBay.co.uk

Browse more oneBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: help.inaturalist.org
Title: 151000169927 what is an observation
Link:https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000169927-what-is-an-observation-

2. Source: hpforest.gov.in
Link:https://hpforest.gov.in/storage/files/4/aboutus/wildlifefile15-07-2023-1689416227.pdf

3. Source: fws.gov
Link:https://www.fws.gov/policy-library/e1445fw3

4. Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Link:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6953665/

5. Source: forum.inaturalist.org
Title: i Naturalist Community Forum Geotagging Photos
Link:https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/geotagging-photos/66

6. Source: inaturalist.org
Title: 6020 getting started make observations from photos
Link:https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/6020-getting-started-make-observations-from-photos

7. Source: pubs.nmsu.edu
Title: Publications Identifying and Preserving Wildlife Tracks
Link:https://pubs.nmsu.edu/_circulars/CR561/

8. Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Link:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4100498/

9. Source: inaturalist.org
Link:https://www.inaturalist.org/

10. Source: arxiv.org
Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.05830

11. Source: arxiv.org
Title: arXiv Can poachers find animals from public camera trap images?
Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.11236

12. Source: inaturalist.org
Title: 60932 inaturalist technicalities geotagging photos uploading observations etc
Link:https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/60932-inaturalist-technicalities-geotagging-photos-uploading-observations-etc

13. Source: forum.inaturalist.org
Title: an observation with multiple photos taken on multiple dates
Link:https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/an-observation-with-multiple-photos-taken-on-multiple-dates/38821

14. Source: inaturalist.org
Link:https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/getting%2Bstarted

15. Source: forum.inaturalist.org
Title: when observations are photos of photos
Link:https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/when-observations-are-photos-of-photos/5610

16. Source: forum.inaturalist.org
Title: uploading photos after observation
Link:https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/uploading-photos-after-observation/21314

17. Source: forum.inaturalist.org
Title: uploading photos with uncertain times
Link:https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/uploading-photos-with-uncertain-times/4048

18. Source: help.inaturalist.org
Title: 151000197160 how to make an observation with the inaturalist iphone app
Link:https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000197160-how-to-make-an-observation-with-the-inaturalist-iphone-app

19. Source: forum.inaturalist.org
Title: what to do when i dont know the exact location of an observation
Link:https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/what-to-do-when-i-dont-know-the-exact-location-of-an-observation/51554

20. Source: forum.inaturalist.org
Title: how to post observations with accurate dates
Link:https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-post-observations-with-accurate-dates/60746

21. Source: inaturalist.org
Link:https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/archived%2Bhelp

22. Source: forum.inaturalist.org
Link:https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/should-i-post-multiple-observations-of-same-species-or-possibly-same-individuals-at-same-location-at-different-hours-or-days/18928

23. Source: forum.inaturalist.org
Title: extract time and location creating an observation from photo
Link:https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/extract-time-and-location-creating-an-observation-from-photo/25563

24. Source: help.inaturalist.org
Link:https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000170784-how-to-make-an-observation-with-the-inaturalist-website-video-tutorial

25. Source: forum.inaturalist.org
Title: position of observation by observer or observed
Link:https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/position-of-observation-by-observer-or-observed/43789

26. Source: help.inaturalist.org
Title: 151000192921 how to make an observation
Link:https://help.inaturalist.org/en/support/solutions/articles/151000192921-how-to-make-an-observation

27. Source: forum.inaturalist.org
Title: should i post old observations where i vaguely know the location
Link:https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/should-i-post-old-observations-where-i-vaguely-know-the-location/25126

28. Source: ntca.gov.in
Link:https://ntca.gov.in/assets/uploads/sops/Compendium_SOPs.pdf

29. Source: time.com
Title: dna analysis debunks bigfoot myth points to unknown bear species
Link:https://time.com/2948745/dna-analysis-debunks-bigfoot-myth-points-to-unknown-bear-species/

30. Source: wildlifetrusts.org
Link:https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/how-identify/identify-tracks

31. Source: theguardian.com
Title: The Guardian DNA analysis indicates Bigfoot may be a big fake
Link:https://www.theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2014/jul/02/genetics-evolution-dna-analysis-yeti-sasquatch-bigfoot-zoology-primates

32. Source: research.fs.usda.gov
Title: USFS Research & Developmente DNA Field Sampling Abbreviated Protocol
Link:https://research.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/rmrs-2019_edna_short_field_protocol.pdf

33. Source: fws.gov
Link:https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2026-04/process-for-non-traditional-sampling-program-sop-6-2026.pdf

34. Source: sciencefocus.com
Title: Science Focus Loch Ness Monster DNA study reveals’plausible’
Link:https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/loch-ness-monster-dna-study-reveals-plausible-explanation-for-sightings

35. Source: purews.inbo.be
Title: Purews Best Practices for Managing and Publishing Camera Trap Data
Link:https://purews.inbo.be/ws/portalfiles/portal/100083468/best_practices_for_managing_and_publishing_camera_trap_data.en.pdf

36. Source: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Link:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10499263/

37. Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Link:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24990672/

38. Source: adfg.alaska.gov
Link:https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/education/educators/curricula/pdfs/tracks.pdf

39. Source: theguardian.com
Title: loch ness monster could be a giant eel say scientists
Link:https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/05/loch-ness-monster-could-be-a-giant-eel-say-scientists

Additional References

40. Source: pestsmart.org.au
Title: location, time, date, site and camera code for.Read more
Link:https://pestsmart.org.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/06/CameraTrapManual_2012.pdf

41. Source: youtube.com
Title: Most Amazing Cryptozoology Findings | Lost Monster Files | Discovery
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSsIpDQ2Lbk

42. Source: youtube.com
Title: Getting an Expert’s Take On the Evidence | Finding Bigfoot
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DFBUVnJvDE

43. Source: researchgate.net
Link:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381405238_The_cryptoterrestrial_hypothesis_A_case_for_scientific_openness_to_a_concealed_earthly_explanation_for_Unidentified_Anomalous_Phenomena

44. Source: instagram.com
Link:https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaFBgAHj86-/

45. Source: reabic.net
Link:https://www.reabic.net/journals/mbi/2020/Supplements/MBI_2020_LeBlanc_etal_Appendix_1.pdf

46. Source: bfro.net
Link:https://www.bfro.net/gdb/

47. Source: vetmeduni.ac.at
Link:https://www.vetmeduni.ac.at/fileadmin/v/fiwi/Projekte/ALPBIONET/20171012_Beiglboeck_BasicsWildlifeForensicsHandout_sizereduced.pdf

48. Source: facebook.com
Link:https://www.facebook.com/groups/317843086751551/posts/1345778423958007/

49. Source: reddit.com
Link:https://www.reddit.com/r/Cryptozoology/comments/19efvyb/because_if_recent_studies_do_you_think_bigfoot/