Bigfoot myth or monster?

[georgerm]

What proof do we have of the existence of bigfoot other than the Patterson Gimlin film, foot prints, hair samples, or reports of bigfoots being seen around UFOs. There is a report from Canada that I will try and find of a bigfoot shot by a hunter outside of a small Canadian town in one of the middle providences. All of these reports play a role in nailing down the existence of bigfoot but a live bigfoot is needed or the sad proof of a bigfoot being shot and brought in by a hunter. There is another report of a live infant bigfoot named Jacko who was found along railroad tracks in Canada? Read a report about Jacko below.

 

“The Jacko hoax was a Canadian newspaper story about a gorilla supposedly caught near Yale, British Columbia in 1884. The story, titled "What is it?, A strange creature captured above Yale. A British Columbia Gorilla", appeared in the British Columbia newspaper the Daily Colonist on July 4, 1884. The original newspaper article describes "Jacko" as a gorilla and not a Sasquatch. However, the "Jacko" story has been used by Bigfoot advocates as evidence for the existence of Sasquatch.”

 

Why are we having so much trouble in proving the existence of bigfoot by producing a live specimen or a deceased bigfoot that was old and died or shot by a hunter? We have evidence of practically every animal living on planet Earth but not bigfoot? What's it going to take?

[MIB]

2 hours ago, georgerm said:

What proof do we have of the existence of bigfoot other than t

 

We do not have proof of bigfoot.   We have evidence for the existence of bigfoot.    The difference matters greatly.    The absolute and unavoidable "math" is this: we will not have PROOF of bigfoot until modern science accepts the existence of bigfoot.   These are exactly identical.   

 

We have some pretty cool evidence.   Some is easy enough to dismiss even if it is incorrect to do so, some is pretty hard to rationally dismiss even if a scoftic would do so.   

[xspider1]

Whereas we cannot say that Bigfoot have been scientifically proven to exist, there are many adamant eye-witnesses to something that aligns with thousands of reports of Bigfoot.  And many, if not most of those eyewitnesses, have all the proof they need.

 

We have a lot of evidence of Bigfoot, a plethora of which is documented on this very forum.  I try to be careful taking it as a given that almost every other animal on earth except Bigfoot is already scientifically classified because there is probably no way that we could ever know that. 

Edited 22 hours ago by xspider1

[Huntster]

On 8/26/2026 at 10:47 AM, MIB said:

..........The absolute and unavoidable "math" is this: we will not have PROOF of bigfoot until modern science accepts the existence of bigfoot.   These are exactly identical...........   

 

In the folklore of the Caucasus, Pamir, and Altai mountains, an almas (also called an almasty) is a legendary hominid cryptid. Stories describe it as a human-like creature covered in reddish-brown hair, standing 5 to 6.5 feet tall, and resembling modern reconstructions of Neanderthals rather than large apes.

 

Zana fit that physical description perfectly. She was called an Almas during and after her lifetime.

 

Recently, Science dug her body up along with that of her son and analyzed the DNA of other descendants. She has been scientifically identified as Homo sapiens.

 

She was both, and there is no reason why she could not be both.