Wow, comparing evidence for bigfoot and GOD?!!! How hilarious and deluded can one be?
Let's examine and deconstruct just bigfoot:
Like most kids, BF captured my youthful imagination. How strange and cool, I thought. But at some point I researched the evidence and found it to be hugely lacking in facts. I still think it would be exciting if a large unknown ape could be found in North America, but I also know that to be impossible.
Purported to be an 850-lb., 7-8 foot, ape-like creature with many thousands of reports. Believers also point to the gorilla, unknown to Westerners before mid-1800s. But the HUGE difference is, the jungles that gorillas inhabited were not frequented or well explored by Westerners - but the locals had long known of their existence. And so for a huge primate to exist undiscovered, it would take an EXTREMELY remote and very dense habitat that is virtually untouched by humans. But the larger an animal is, the far more unlikely it can stay undiscovered.
Let's look at the supposed North American bigfoot. Frequently reported in areas of the Pacific Northwest in which Europeans and Americans have been exploring, trapping and now recreating, biologists doing detailed reports in its every county, now for a collective several hundred years. Hunters with quite capable rifles have been throughout it's range for 150 years. And yet we have not as much as even ONE bone, carcass, or specimen killed, shot, hit by car, found rotting. For many years now we have had trailcams throughout BF country - absolutely NOTHING has been filmed (unless you consider the laughable, blurry videos of hoaxers)! Biologist frequenting BF country have discovered even the smallest of insects, but somehow they've missed ALL provable evidence of an 850-lb. beast? Think some hunter - especially in the 1800s or early 1900s - seeing a large, reddish-brown animal at a distance, wouldn't have mistaken him for a trophy bear and killed one? NEVER? Please!
What about all of the supposed tracks? So many tracks found must mean they are nearly as abundant as black bear, no? Well, these have been proven easy to fake - even tracks with dermal ridges. Ever notice how BF tracks go for a few yards and then mysteriously disappear - almost as if they were let down on a rope by helicopter, walked a short distance, and then were pulled back up? Listen, an 850-lb. beast would be a track-making machine. If BF existed, going into areas frequented by them would be to see trackways/pathways riddled with tracks, and virtual ruts were they regularly travel. No matter how stealthy an animal is, ALL animals need water. Go to any river, creek or stream side area and you will see all kinds of tracks in the dampened sand and mud near them - from sparrows to deer, possum, raccoons - as ALL animals easily leave tracks in soft and frequently damp ground immediately adjacent to water. And so 850-lb. animals would be leaving massive numbers of tracks in all such areas they frequent, this would be impossible to avoid! So where are they? In fact, ANY BF habitat in which one commonly finds soft sand, mud, clay, etc., these places would be riddled with tracks, as such huge weight would necessitate leaving copious tracks. But this is not what we find. Go to any farm with horses or cows - all the soft ground and muddy areas are riddled with track impressions of these massively heavy animals. Pathways they frequent have ruts - BF would be no different!
BFRO (Bigfoot Research Organization) is the largest, organized BF group, and it keeps a detailed database of supposed sightings. Pierce County, Washington has the greatest number of reported sightings in the U.S. (
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_county_rep ... nty=Pierce) But where is the evidence? Why aren't scientists easily and frequently finding BF evidence there? Constant and abundant tracks? Bones? Carcasses? Do they bury their dead? This is so laughable! Why do you think BF has never been tracked or found with dogs? Mere smells and odors are as real to a good tracking dog as tangible objects. Yet dogs can't find a BF - even there, in a county with constant BF sightings? A few good teams of tracking dogs could find BF in a day - IF they were truly there. And countless trailcams don't show them there? And yet we have all these reports. Something is very wrong. Biologists all over the county, have detailed the tiniest of insects, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, birds - but they've somehow missed an 850 lb. hairyman? Yeah, right.
Ooh, but three is the Patterson film (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOxuRIfFs0w). Do a bit of research and you'll find that Patterson was known to be one of the biggest con man ever. He had already written a book about BF, made an unfinished film about BF, had ties to Hollywood costumers, and strangely, no original negatives were forthcoming - he claimed he LOST them - the biggest quest of his life, perhaps one of the most important modern discoveries - and he LOST the negatives. Plus, he films BF on a Friday afternoon, gets back near dark, and he supposedly gets the film developed so he and his pals could watch it on Sunday - IN 1967? There were only a few labs in the U.S. that could develop color film back then - local shops had to mail it off. It was, at least, a week turn around. But that didn't stop Roger, his film developing was a magical as BF itself. And what of the BF he supposedly filmed - here we have the most successfully elusive creature of all time caught on film. And yet "Patti" (named after Patterson's wife) is caught off guard by two men slowly moving on rocky ground ON HORSES. Think of the noise and the height. A half-blind and half-deaf person would have easily detected them from a considerable distance - but not Patti. And THEN, once Patti realizes she has been discovered, what does this legendarily elusive creature do? She doesn't panic or flee for cover, no, she walks nonchalantly away at an relaxed pace, and THEN she TURNS HER BACK TO HER PURSUERS. She merely walked away, very man-like, as she's walking to the store for a beer, totally unconcerned that she is being pursued. So THAT is the creature that has avoided detection for centuries?!!! Maybe Patti was just totally inept and lucky, heh heh.
Oh, but what about BF in cold, snowy areas - places with severe, below-zero winters? ALL HUGE body weight (upwards of 800 lbs.) animals in such areas are either ruminants (like a moose that can exist on conifer needles and dead leaves) or they are like bears and hibernate. Both types of animals lose immense body weight during long winters and also must pack on enormous weight to prepare for them. There are no hibernating primates or ones that are ruminants. A huge body weight demands enormous calories - calories that are not sufficiently available in such areas (during winter) - and thus the strategies of moose and bears. And if BF STORED food for winter in caches - why hasn't one been found? They would have to be common in such winter areas?
And so we are left with nothing but a bunch of books and popular, cheap to produce TV shows, all aimed at making money off of the unprovable. MonsterQuest, Searching for BF - a bunch of idiots roaming the woods with infrared cameras, howling to see if they are answered, knocking on trees - only the very gullible should take such seriously. No such animal could exist - UNLESS it was metaphysical - won't go there ... yet.
So, do you think I might be a BF skeptic?
