posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 01:51 PM
Bear with mange? That could account for a few sightings I suppose. Most sightings mention the hair though, so I think a thousand other witness and/or
video accounts fall through the cracks of your hypothesis. If this is "the absolute best explanation for these sightings of Big Foot" then I believe
a jury would have to conclude that Bigfoot is real.
Bigfoot is real only because people want it to be real?? Come on man, my wife wants Leprechauns with a pot of gold to be real, my daughter wants
Unicorns, and I want go around town on a freakin' Pegasus. But no one sees any of those repeatedly. I hate to break it to you but nobody cares about
a smelly upright ape in the woods, they just run into them there.
If you want to be part of the "jury" on Bigfoot, you will need to examine all of the evidence without prejudging (i.e. prejudice). If you
objectively weigh the mountain of eyewitness accounts, foot prints, hand prints, photo, film, video, audio, FLIR, and other evidence out there, I
believe a reasonable person would certainly find that the preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of existence, and probably find for clear and
convincing evidence of Bigfoot. I will concede that "beyond a reasonable doubt" has not been reached yet, but please keep in mind that the first
dissected bodies of the duck billed platypus were determined to be a hoax.