The kid with the shark fin in “Jaws” didn’t make the real shark unreal. People stuffing into a horse costume doesn’t make us doubt horses. I saw someone yesterday dress up as a FISH. I’m still pretty sure that fish are real.

And yes, this is directly relevant to the sasquatch.

I frequently hear in reply to the above something like “yes, but those other animals you refer to are known to exist.” OK, they are. But we have a logical fallacy here. Does something exist only because we know it does? Obviously not. The giant panda and the mountain gorilla didn’t leap into existence when they were discovered; they had been there all the time. Whatever animals we haven’t discovered in the vastness of the ocean are there, and have been for as long as they have been, whether we ever know it or not.

If the sasquatch has been among us all along, it’s clearly illogical to use guys in suits - or suits, sans guys - as “evidence against.” Scientists may be rational in evaluating this question in terms of, essentially, betting research dollars against those going to known critters. What we have proven is what we know to exist; we know where it is, and often, when it is there. It’s what Vegas calls a safe bet. But if the animal is, it is and has always been, regardless what we have to say about the matter.

I actually read something from one of our favorite scoftics recently that said the existence of the sasquatch grows less likely with each passing day. That’s clearly irrational (unless he meant that the chances of its habitat disappearing altogether seem to be going up every day). The existence of the sasquatch, on any given day, has only one of only two probabilities: 100 percent or zero. It is, or it ain’t.

And there is a lot of evidence that it is. And none - that would be NONE - that it ain’t.

This is not as simple as “you can’t prove a negative.” What it means is that there is not a shred of evidence that all of the sightings, trackways and other encounters are false positives, i.e., a thing that can be proven or disproven, nor even a shred of evidence that so many of same are false positives that they cast as much as a scintilla of doubt upon the remainder. Misidentification, intoxication, or faked physical evidence seem to be the three stock debunks. I have read reports beyond counting that could not, in any conceivable way, be any of these. They were either sasquatch, or they were lies. All of them lies? Even half of them? I sure would not take that bet. And if one of them is real, then the animal is.

If you are looking for the sas, and you are smart, you still will be long after the Georgia stink passes. Because the odds, so far, seem overwhelmingly on your side.

The only rational thing to do, with any cryptid, is this: toss out the trash, and evaluate the evidence that behaves like that for animals we know.

For which, in the case of the sasquatch, there is a LOT.

I think it is important to remember that some jokesters’ hoax doesn’t have anything to do with whether Bigfoot exists or not. It doesn’t prove anything except that there are some pretty odd, terribly bored people in this world. And all this is coming from a fairly skeptical person, folks. I cannot say if Bigfoot exists or not. I just look at whatever evidence there is with a reasonably unbiased, critical eye. I am pretty sure that this hoax does not in any way somehow “disprove” the possibility of the existence of sasquatch. There is still plenty of circumstantial evidence that is worth at least looking into.

Of course, just because new animals take a long time to discover, or that sasquatch COULD be out there doesn’t mean it DOES. But there IS the possibility, some things definitely point in that direction. This hoax doesn’t change the fact that Bigfoot is a phenomena still worthy of investigation. That some intelligent, qualified people would give up looking into this area because of a hoax is unfortunate.

I say let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water here. Whether Bigfoot exists or not, let the evidence or lack of it convince you, not a hoax.