Why is it that usually the Yeti and Bigfoot only leaves one good footprint? With the obvious answers like “that’s what you get in rough terrain” and “weather washes most of them away”, you have to scratch your head and wonder why it’s usually just one good print per major footprint sighting.
It just gives more credence to the people who claim it’s all just a big hoax and publicity stunt for those who are purporting to find the prints.
Prints are far easier to make than a video of an actual creature, and they are usually accepted more readily by most observers.
Take this footprint retrieval in Russia, for example.
To me, that print is way too curved and just looks “too human” to be considered authentic. It seems to have a curved arch where we know that Bigfoot traditionally have flat feet. It’s just too fresh and there is only one print. Maybe the grownups who are with the kid see some sort of profit potential from such “evidence”?
I’m sorry, but if you want to investigate or ponder this stuff seriously then you have to be willing to use a skeptical eye instead of believing everything you see and being made a fool of later.
People like me want to keep an open mind instead of being forever closed off like many who commented on that Daily Mail article, but we also need better and more plausible proof.
There is just something that smells bad about that whole Russian Yeti sighting, right down the the description by one of the adults and that the Yeti was supposedly carrying a stick covered with fur. While this would show signs of a more advanced intellect in such a creature, the construction of tools, it’s never seen anywhere else, which leads one to think that this is all just some hoax where they put forth crazy things hoping to make the sighting look more real when in fact they’re doing the opposite.
It actually wreaks of Mountain Monsters, the U.S. cable channel Destination America’s monster investigation entertainment program that has Bigfoot constructing complex grave sights and then guarding them by night from investigators and moonshiners.
The stuff is just going off into whacky land, and all it does is make the real investigations seem laughable to the general populace, much less to real scientists who would never risk their careers following up on a topic that has so much of a “giggle factor” associated with it.
Hopefully real evidence will come forth in great enough a number to make the whole thing seem more like real science, rather than the stuff of tabloid TV and sensationalistic yellow journalism only meant to get web clicks and ad revenue.
You be the judge. Tell us what you think below!