Extraordinary ClaimsAnswer
What does research say about people who report memories of past lives?
What past-life memory research investigates, what reported matches can show, and why case studies do not by themselves establish reincarnation.
THE QUESTION LIBRARY EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS
Has anyone ever found solid evidence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster?
What evidence exists for Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster? Examine tested hairs, the Loch Ness DNA survey, detection limits and what a verified discovery would require.
THE SHORT ANSWER
The evidence examined here does not establish either Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster as a real, unidentified species. Tested North American “Bigfoot” hairs matched known mammals; a Loch Ness water-DNA survey did not establish a monster. Those findings do not prove every imaginable creature impossible. A convincing discovery would need identifiable evidence that independent researchers can examine and verify.
- A submitted sample’s label is not its verified biological identity.
- Eel DNA does not establish a giant eel.
- A possible missed detection is not positive evidence of a monster.
On this page
WHAT WE DON’T KNOW YET
The cause of individual unresolved sightings and the detection limits for particular hypothetical animals. An unresolved encounter does not identify an unknown species.
WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS ANSWER
Well-documented biological evidence with independently replicated analyses establishing an unidentified animal, supported by verifiable observations and contamination controls, would change this assessment.
A reported encounter is evidence that someone reported an experience. A footprint or photograph is evidence that a mark or image exists. The harder question is what produced it.
For an unidentified animal, solid evidence must distinguish that explanation from alternatives. “I cannot identify this” and “this identifies a new species” are different conclusions. We can examine claims seriously without assuming either that witnesses are dishonest or that their interpretation is correct.
THE LONG ANSWER
Free long answer 1 of 3 this month.
Bigfoot: what did tested hairs reveal?
A 2014 genetic study obtained DNA sequences from 30 submitted hair samples attributed to Bigfoot and other purported unidentified primates. Its North American “Bigfoot” samples matched known mammals, including black bears, canids, cattle and a human. Some matches identified a broader group rather than a single species.
The study did not uncover a new North American primate. It also did not test every alleged specimen or determine what caused every reported encounter. These particular samples failed to provide the claimed biological identification; that is a narrower, stronger conclusion than declaring every sighting solved.
Loch Ness: what did the water reveal?
In 2019, the University of Otago reported results from 250 water samples collected across Loch Ness. The team looked for environmental DNA: genetic traces present in water. Its account found no support in those data for the proposed plesiosaur explanation and reported abundant eel DNA.
Eel DNA does not establish a giant eel. The team explicitly said its data did not reveal eel size. A possible explanation left open by a survey is not the same as a creature discovered by that survey. This source is the research institution’s announcement, not a full peer-reviewed methods-and-results paper.
Can DNA sampling miss an animal?
Yes. A primary study of environmental-DNA methods used simulations and empirical data to examine detection reliability. It explains why limited or degraded DNA can lead to missed detections, while errors can also create apparent detections. Repeated testing and appropriate analysis matter.
That methodological caution prevents us from treating any one negative survey as an infallible census. But it does not supply positive evidence for a monster. “The test could miss something” leaves a possibility unresolved; it does not tell us what is there.
What would count as a convincing discovery?
A useful claim would provide an examinable specimen or well-documented biological material, a record of where it came from, and independent analyses that agree on its identity. Genetic results would need safeguards against contamination and enough information to distinguish a genuinely new animal from known ones.
Images could contribute if their scale, location and origin were verifiable and their details distinguished the proposed creature from alternatives. An indistinct shape alone cannot carry all that work. A striking piece of evidence becomes stronger when different kinds of reliable observations fit together.
These are standards for evaluating a future claim, not a demand that we personally capture an animal before any scientific discussion can occur. The aim is evidence that others can check rather than a conclusion that depends on one person’s assurance.
Curiosity can remain open without calling the case proved
The reviewed tests offer no verified discovery of either creature. That assessment can change with better evidence. It does not require ridicule, nor does uncertainty give every explanation equal support. See why extraordinary claims need strong evidence for how possibilities become credible explanations.
THREE THINGS TO REMEMBER
- A submitted sample’s label is not its verified biological identity.
- Eel DNA does not establish a giant eel.
- A possible missed detection is not positive evidence of a monster.
Keep asking
What does research say about people who report memories of past lives?
People really do report experiences they interpret as memories of past lives, and researchers have investigated such reports.
New here?
God Plays Dice answers big questions in plain words, with sources and one of six honest labels.
Words worth knowing (3)
- Environmental DNA
- Genetic material recovered from an environment, such as a water sample.
- False negative
- A test failing to detect something that is actually present.
- Independent verification
- Checking evidence through researchers or methods beyond the original claimant’s analysis.
Sources & further reading
(3) · Checked Oct 5, 2026
- Genetic analysis of hair samples attributed to yeti, bigfoot and other anomalous primates ↗Proceedings of the Royal Society B; PubMed Central primary full text2014 North American Bigfoot-attributed samples matched known mammals; this finding concerns tested samples, not every possible encounter.
- First eDNA Study Of Loch Ness Points To Something Fishy ↗University of OtagoSeptember 5, 2019 institutional results announcement: eel DNA was found, but the data did not measure eel size.
- Replication levels, false presences and the estimation of the presence/absence from eDNA metabarcoding data ↗Molecular Ecology Resources; primary abstract in U.S. National Library of Medicine2014 online/2015 issue methodological research examines false detections and repeated sampling; it is not a Loch Ness survey.
See a mistake? Report a problem. Corrections are made openly.