Peer Review

Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization

Material Detail page

Reviewed:: Mar 11, 2025 by Biology

Bookmark

Ratings

Overall Rating:

Content Quality:

Effectiveness:

Ease of Use:

Overview:

The website of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization. This is an advocacy group pursuing evidence to demonstrate the existence of bigfoot in North America. The site includes articles and a database of sightings.

Founded in 1995, the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization is now the oldest and largest organization of its kind -- a virtual community of scientists, journalists, and specialists from diverse backgrounds. The researchers who compose the BFRO are engaged in projects, including field and laboratory investigations.

Type of Material:

Reference Material.

Recommended Uses:

This materials can be used individually in or out of the classroom as an example of pseudoscience.

Technical Requirements:

None.

Identify Major Learning Goals:

As a reference work, no goals are given. However, their stated goal is, "to derive conclusive documentation of the species' existence."

Target Student Population:

General public. As a reference work it could be consulted by any level of student.

Prerequisite Knowledge or Skills:

Some knowledge of Biology and Cryptozoology will help users better appreciate the material presented.

Content Quality

Rating:

Strengths:

The database of sightings is extensive and has a rating system.
Each sighting includes maps and detailed narratives.
Content is accurate and up-to-date.
The information is a comprehensive for sitings.

Concerns:

Given the paucity of evidence for a 3-meter-tall primate living in North America, any scientific investigation of bigfoot must begin with an honest question: does bigfoot exist. This site begins with the confident belief in existence and then proceeds to interpret most evidence as supportive of the belief. The BFRO thus amounts to an astonishngly elaborate example of the logical fallacy of petitio principii (begging the question). As such it is not unbiased and cannot be considered valid science.
The strawman fallacy is used to impugn scientific investigations of bigoot (none of which have supported its existence).
Post hoc explanations for why there is not conclusive evidence for bigfoot are rampant (e.g., it evolved to learn masterful evasive skills due to being hunted by Homo erectus).
Despite claiming to be a central clearing house for bigfoot research, much actual bigfoot research is not substantially included or addressed (e.g., Melba Ketchum, Bryan Sykes, and others). The site focuses primarily on sitings.
The credibility of witnesses (the primary "evidence" provided on the site) is never tested or considered.
While a case can be made that the abundant scientific skepticism of bigfoot is perhaps overly conservative and overweening, and that a legitimate role for marginal or fringe science exists, this site does no favors to that sort of path toward legitimacy. It is riddled with poor writing, offputting design, a lack of rigor and critical thinking, errors of fact and method, and a poor grasp of scientific process.

Potential Effectiveness as a Teaching Tool

Rating:

Strengths:

This site has lots of public interest, due to the popularity of Bigfoot Research in the United States.
The database of alleged sitings is arranged geographically and appears to be searchable. These could be useful to researchers.
Summary statistics are available for all sightings.
This site could be effective as a critical thinking exercise (to spot the flaws and analyze the flawed examples and poor attempts at science).
The BFRO project could invite people to participate in what philosopher Sherrilyn Roush calls "vigilante science". "People should feel more entitled to go out and investigate things that scientists might say don't exist," Roush says, citing "the broader purpose of science to find out what's going on in the world...What I'm saying is that the lay public can actually help science, and has a right, even a responsibility, to do so."

Concerns:

This site could lead gullible people to think there is strong evidence for bigfoot's existence.
No overview or introduction to bigfoot or any serious attempt to summarize and explain its existence in a world full of cameras, cars, hunters, and encroaching development is given. A picture of the site's arguments can only be pieced together through reading various fragments and diatribes included in the site.
The BFRO store, the expeditions for sale, and the hawking of thermal cameras tends to reduce the effectiveness of this site as a scientific database.

Ease of Use for Both Students and Faculty

Rating:

Strengths:

The information is organized.
Site is fast.
A menu on the left side allows access to the various parts of the website.

Concerns:

None of the links in the Media reports work. Links in other secitions (FAQs, Departments, and others) are dead as well. Dead links abound.
The website design is outdated and does not function like a modern website. The layout consists of lots of disorganized lists, clickable boxes with no apparent order or consistent design.
No ADA accommodations are present on the website.

Other Issues and Comments:: Although some users may find bigfoot research controversial, this site provides a wealth of anecdotal information and some physical evidence suggestive of existence of the creature. However, given the alleged scientific expertise of the core members of the group, the poor quality of the website (in terms of organization, scientific process, aesthetics and design, and searchability) is difficult to understand.
Creative Commons: