Via BBC News:
I know some hairy girls.
If BigFoot did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
I say the jury is still out because that was the only option that fits my feelings about the subject. I don’t care if he exists or not but maybe i would care in the existence of hard evidence. Hard evidence either way, that is.
Nitpick:Bigfoot is Sasquatch, Abominable Snowman is Yeti.
And I’ve run into neither, and feel they’re both probably the result of somebody drinking too much and seeing things. No way we wouldn’t have found some concrete evidence of Bigfoot by now if they did exist. Dead ones or their bones or something at the very least.
Why? Or was that a grammar error?
Generally, if there is a “cryptid” the natives know about the critter. To some extent, this is true about the Yeti. Yeti is thus very doubtful, but there’s a tiny chance, that maybe…
But not so with Bigfoot, who is a complete and total hoax, beginning to end.
It would be interesting if there was.
And as to not finding a body - I have gone hiking and camping in woods many times in my youth, and it is fairly unusual to find animal corpses in the woods - they tend to get dragged off and eaten, bones scattered and then leaves fallen on top of any remains. Usually, any animals people find are on the edges of roads where many scavenger animals are scared away by human presence.
I think that if there is any large cryptid around, they are assiduously staying away from human areas.
- I would have strongly preferred the additional option of:
- no scientific evidence
- There are many amazing animals on the planet:
What these all have in common is that they have been found.
There has been no evidence for Bigfoot: particularly no bodies (either adults or young.)
Almost all ‘sightings’ have been by people who then published books or appeared on TV or in the press. Gee, I wonder why that is? :smack:
BigFoot only appears to authors?
Like how UFOs only appear to Wayans.
Including bacteria on your list of amazing animals is amazing indeed.