The world holds infinite mysteries and with so much unanswered humans tend to fill in their own blanks. One popular long existing mystery is Bigfoot and whether the creature is or is not lurking amongst our forests. Bigfoot is portrayed as a bipedal simian-like creature that stands higher than most humans. Bigfoot tends to appear in theoretical scenarios formed to answer the unanswered. The existence of Bigfoot cannot be a topic for an academic research paper and the articles “Bigfoot Friend or Foe? The Blood-Hungry Killer”, “Bigfoot Facts – Is Sasquatch Real”, and “Dog Missing, Possibly Eaten by Bigfoot” prove why. The articles all share the fact that they are written from a biased perspective and use conspiracy rather than factual evidence to validate their claims. First, the
…show more content…
This reference is not so much an article but more of a personal narrative. The writer recounts a personal experience that they believe involved Bigfoot. The writer claims, “I run out and see something two heads higher than me running like a man.” while discussing how Bigfoot may have been the predator that chased her dog into the woods. At no point does the writer provide justifiable reason to support their assumption that Bigfoot was the culprit. In summary, “Bigfoot Friend or Foe? The Blood-Hungry Killer”, “Bigfoot Facts – Is Sasquatch Real”, and “Dog Missing, Possibly Eaten by Bigfoot” all fail to provide anything more than assumptions. Claims of Bigfoot being a collosal sied creature snatching up hikers and puppies are entertained in these articles but fall short of purpose when being used in a research paper. An academic research paper cannot use biased, opionated references to support their conclusions. While these three articles are quite entertaining they are not credible sources and therefore do not belong in any kind of research
This reference is not so much an article but more of a personal narrative. The writer recounts a personal experience that they believe involved Bigfoot. The writer claims, “I run out and see something two heads higher than me running like a man.” while discussing how Bigfoot may have been the predator that chased her dog into the woods. At no point does the writer provide justifiable reason to support their assumption that Bigfoot was the culprit. In summary, “Bigfoot Friend or Foe? The Blood-Hungry Killer”, “Bigfoot Facts – Is Sasquatch Real”, and “Dog Missing, Possibly Eaten by Bigfoot” all fail to provide anything more than assumptions. Claims of Bigfoot being a collosal sied creature snatching up hikers and puppies are entertained in these articles but fall short of purpose when being used in a research paper. An academic research paper cannot use biased, opionated references to support their conclusions. While these three articles are quite entertaining they are not credible sources and therefore do not belong in any kind of research