That there isn’t proof yet hasn’t decreased the validity of the pieces of evidence you mention, right? How else would you explain them?

Folks who just say “obviously fake” don’t have any idea how hard that would be to do. Anyone who knows the breadth and depth of the evidence knows that passing it off to any single human-generated cause – let alone a random concatenation of them – is less likely, from a purely logical standpoint, than the animal is.

It comes down to this. Mainstream science isn’t involved. If they were, we’d know by now. But they’re not. Until they are, forget it.

And read this.

Other than the Patterson/Gimlin outing, that’s the only bigfoot expedition in history.

This is what we have to get over, this idea that people seeing something or three-day outings in the woods mean proof. No they don’t. Until scientists make a long-term commitment to remain in the field, forget proof.

But meanwhile the evidence keeps coming in.