Back in October we reported on a group who claim to have found proof of the existence of Bigfoot, which became a household name in 1967 with the Patterson–Gimlin film (footage I’ve personally heard was faked by an unconfirmed horror legend).
Bigfoot is so famous that he’s been spoofed all over in Hollywood, while also inspiring in a wide variety of films from Harry and the Hendersons to the upcoming Exists. But what if he isn’t real, and mankind would believe just about anything (no way, right?).
Science Magazine took historical evidence and embarrassed believers across the globe by reporting that these humanoid creatures are nothing more than bears, horses, and dogs.
In North America, they’re called Bigfoot or Sasquatch. In the Himalayan foothills, they’re known as yeti or abominable snowmen. And Russians call them Almasty. But in the scientific laboratory, these elusive, hairy, humanoid creatures are nothing more than bears, horses, and dogs. That’s the conclusion of a new study—the first peer-reviewed, genetic survey of biological samples claimed to be from the shadowy beasts.
“There are very few reputable scientists who have ever been willing to go publicly on record as far as Bigfoot and yeti,” says anthropologist Todd Disotell of New York University in New York City, who was not involved in the new work but has performed unpublished analyses of anomalous primate samples in the past. “This study did it right, reducing contamination and following all the standard protocols.”
Supposed evidence for Bigfoot and its ilk comes from observers who spot apelike creatures darting through the woods or who find giant footprints in the mud. Bigfoot believers have various ideas about what the animals are, often revolving around the survival of a prehistoric humanoid. Yet many sightings have later turned out to be hoaxes, and scientific support for the existence of the primates is scant.
Click the above link for the entire article and tell me, do you still believe?