Is Bigfoot not real

Answer 1

I will list the scientific facts and then it is up to each individual to decide for themselves:

-A pristine footprint, almost 24 inches long and almost a foot wide was found in a remote location in northern California in the late 1960's. When a plaster cast was made of it, it had retained the ridges and whorls that are present on the hands and feet of primates, including man. The cast was presented to a scientist whose field of expertise is the study of hand/feet prints. His conclusion was the footprint could not have been a hoax. The ridges were somewhere between the patterns of man and the patterns of chimps (our closest relative based on DNA).

-DNA tests run on hair and scat (manure) samples taken from areas where eyewitnesses have seen Bigfoot were as follows. The DNA is of an unknown primate whose genetic makeup was between man and chimps. Chimps share %99 of our DNA. There is now proof that some other creature, bipedal, that has DNA even closer to us than chimpanzies.

-Cryptologists have found many crudely made 'hammocks' in remote areas from Callifornia to Vancouver, B.C., Canada. These beds were made from small tree branches about 12' to 14' off the ground in trees that had grown close together. Other great apes make these same beds, from gorillas to chimps. Other on-the-ground beds have also been found in very remote areas across the country and in Canada.

-Eyewitnesses claim that these large hairy creatures hit sticks against tree trunks as a warning to 'stay back'. This is a primate behaviour. So is rock throwing, many eyewitnesses claim they were almost hit by huge rocks to large and heavy for even a big man to be able to pick up.

-And the most controversial evidence of all is the Patterson film. With advanced technology the most famous Bigfoot footage of all has shown breasts (female) and muscles that would be almost impossible to duplicate in the 21st century. In 1968 even Hollywood special effects experts did not have the capablity to simulate muscle movement under a hairy suit.

Of course, this is not the complete roster of evidence, but the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I felt these were the strongest scientific evidence and are actually factual. DNA does not lie. It is virtually impossible to copy hand and foot ridges and whorls. The behaviour witnessed by unsuspecting hikers is hard to refute. Most people have no idea of primate behaviour, such as rock throwing and using sticks to warn off intruders, or making beds in trees, which the west coast of America has no primates at all that could have done this. It is now up to the individual to decide.

Answer 2

No-one really knows whether he is real or not because ther have been footprints of his description, but there have been fake bigfoot carcasses put to the news. Do you believe in the beast of the U.S.A forest?
there have many hoax that does mean that is not real.

Answer 3

The Patterson film had examinations which concludes the film is real. the wikipedia has a good article on evidence of bigfoot.

Answer 4

well if you have a life then bigfoot is not real but if you don't have a life then of course he's real that give you hope.. right?