If you're sitting in a house somewhere in the suburbs or any kind of populated area the notion of a creature like that seems pretty distant.
But, if you are deep in a wilderness, somewhere where the cell signals don't reach, the trees and mountains stretch on for many miles and help is a long way away then you might suddenly start to believe that maybe modern man doesn't really rule his environment quite as much as you thought before you left home.
This is true, but it's not really an argument in favor of Bigfoot. it basically boils down to "It's a big world out there. Sometimes strange unexpected things are real. Who knows?" The problem is you can use that as a response to anything, real or imaginary. At some point you either have compelling physical evidence or you don't.
In the Middle Ages, seaman and explorers came home with stories about strange creatures from distant lands. Some of them corresponded to real things (like giraffes), but many of them were completely made up and are obviously bullshit to modern readers (like headless people with faces in their chests).
The world is a lot smaller than it used to be, and the chances of an unknown mammal larger than a human close enough to populated areas is really pushing it.
Maybe there is something in the human brain that deceives, that wants to believe that such, fairly specific creatures are real. That makes us see things that aren't there. Something in our DNA. Could be some protective instincts left over from primitive man-- who had to survive real monsters -- that evolution has left intact.
This is a possibility that actually fits the evidence better than Bigfoot being real.
I find that notion damned interesting, but not as interesting as if there is actually an incredibly cunning, unknown species that desperately wants to steer clear of us and possesses extraordinary sensory capabilities that allow it to, just barely, accomplish that by living in places that makes contact very rare and all on their terms. Typically, the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere.
Either possibility is on the table to me. Science finds previously unknown species fairly regularly these days and this one could be a great deal smarter than any of those because they are part human.
This returns to the problem of evidence. When you have a theory about something, you don't just look at what evidence you have. You also need to ask what evidence you should expect to find if your theory is true, and if that evidence isn't there, it's a strike against you and you have to think of a plausible - not possible, but plausible - reason why you don't have it. Occam's Razor kicks in, and you need to ask, "Is this creature imaginary? Or is it supernaturally efficient and effective at hiding?" The former is WAY more plausible than the latter.
That's why I keep returning to the idea of corpses. Bigfoot enthusiasts want us to believe the following: There is a breeding population of at least thousands of these things in North America (ignoring the rest of the world for the sake of argument). Not a single one has died by accident (like falling from a height or into a ravine) and been found by a human. Not a single one has ever been killed by a bear and found by a human. Not a single one in thousands of years was killed by a Native American and the remains/bones kept as a trophy or heirloom to be passed down to us. Not a single one has ever been killed - accidentally or on purpose - by a human with a firearm, even though humans are often armed in remote areas, are hunting other animals regularly, and supposedly have "encounters" with them. Think of how many hunters stupidly shoot and sometimes kill other hunters by mistake, thinking they were a deer. Some people are dumb, and shoot first and ask questions later. More so in the middle of the night. No backwoods flunky ever shot one? Not one Bigfoot roadkill?
All that just strains credibility to the breaking point.
Do we have to say all other cryptids with a similar lack of evidence are real too? Like Nessie, Chupacabra, Wendigo and Mokele Mbembe?
Is "you never know!" a good response?
I just like a good story. Either way.
Me too. The world would be
cooler if it was real. I'd be pretty excited if it
was real. But you need to be doubly skeptical when investigating something you
want to be true. That way lies self-deception.
To do good science, you need imagination and skepticism both. If certain Bigfoot enthusiasts "like a good story" to the point where Occam's Razor is ignored, then they're engaged in motivated reasoning and their conclusions are justifiably suspect.
.