Bigfoot Appearance Vs Reality

In 1959 "True" magazine published several articles about the sighting of large, mysterious footprints, in the woods of Bluff Creek, California. The story grew and people began to say that the footprints were made by a creature they called "Bigfoot". Some even claimed to have seen him. The most famous image of the creature was a 1967 film, taken by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlen. It showed a dark, man-sized and man-shaped figure striding through a clearing in the woods. Because the film was not clear the non-believers doubted it's authenticity.

Because more and more people were coming forward with pictures and sightings more people were beginning to think it was a hoax. Every picture that was presented was blurry and dark, The believers explained this away by saying he was probably from another dimension and had supernatural powers, that he could cause his pictures to be out of focus.

Sightings were beginning to be reported all across the country. A witness, in Fayetteville, Pennsylvania, said that a large, hairy creature, walking upright on 2 feet, walked in front of his car. He said it was accompanied by another creature about 7 feet tall, covered by long, dark hair. It's arms came down below it's waist, but …show more content…
He says that hair, feces, and skin scrapings, that were said to have come from Bigfoot were either never tested or were somehow lost or unattainable. He also said that a creature that big could not find enough food to sustain himself, and especially if there were more than one. He also said they would be too big to escape capture, and that the sightings were probably bears walking on their hind legs. At last count only 16% of the population believe in Bigfoot, 44% think probably not and 44% say absolutely not. Two times more people believe in ghosts or astrology. I'm with the 44% who say absolutely