ValenciaGrail
New member
FILMKRUSC said:Well they have found in the footprint casts that the prints show dermal ridges (similar to your thumbprint but on the bottom of a foot). It's found in apes as well. That's actually good evidence.
Not a monster or a myth. Just a unknown species (probably ape related) that most scientists are too lazy to leave academia to look for.
Maybe it's an unknown species....
An animal this large and seen in as many places as has been reported would leave more than just a few footprints as evidence of its existence.
So why no bodies?
Could it be that faking footprints is a whole lot easier than faking an entire body?
"Academia" is not too lazy to look for it. Rather, "academia" has made a judgement that the evidence is not sufficent to warrant serious study. There are on the order of tens of millions of species to be studied whose very existence is not a topic of debate.
While some of the footprints allegedly contain actual dermal ridges, many others are known and proven fakes. A small fraction of them are real-looking enough to raise eyebrows.
Footprints are not bodies; as I said, there is no undisputed evidence.