skunk ape is it bigfoot?
338397
I believe in "BIGFOOT". No I dont have proof,but theres no proof he isnt real! I know people who know what they saw and I believe them. The scientific community does not have all the answers.There may be lots of things on Earth that have yet to be discovered.The paranormal cannot be explained,yet something is going on. I have been witness to unexplained phenomena many times. I know what I saw and heard and I was a skeptic once.
639099
big bear HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
1067337
It is Quetzalcouatal, the feathered serpent.\nOr maybe it's Cthulhu.\nYeah, that's it, Cthulhu......
635959
Don't do it!! It might be a dead skunk!
1052046
For the past 20 years I have been keeping up on the research into the Loch Ness Monster, and there have been a lot of people looking. Loch Ness is a heavily monitored lake. They've looked a lot, and they haven't discovered a single bit of evidence. I'm ready to call it and say that the beastie isn't there.\n\nAlthough, there is another possibility. I don't know if this has occurred to anyone else, but if everything has a spirit, then everything could have a ghost, so it could be possible for there to be ghost dinosaurs and one could be haunting Loch Ness.
39198
Do I ever!  Got to Bfro.net.  They 'Have TONS of stories, sound recordings, pictures, and clubs.  You can find stories about bigfoot from anywhere in the u.s.a. or canada.  I found a story that happened just a half hour from where I live!!  I HIGHLY suggest going to the website!
263995
I have heard of a lot of sightings in thePacific North West especially Washington state. Proof ?  do you think there are that many crazy people out there ? I mean there are huge numbers of people who claim to have sightings and they say there is some evidence. in the south he is called Skunk Ape. think about this. we know that Pigeons have babies but have you ever seen one ? my family all hunt hike and do a lot of other outdoor sports but we have never seen a cougar either. that doesn't mean they don't exist.
263241
It is the dawn of a new season for the sasquatch.I think now thru around mid june is a good time to set eyes on one based on the thing coming down to feed.I found a picture of hair samples from last season's sightings that can not be explained that I know of.Also a couple lawmen sighted one they claimed in I think it was colorodo.
955350
a Capuchin, possibly? Although, its not an ape, its a monkey. An ape beginning with C is a Chimpanzee.
802522
Yes, unless you plan on dating Bigfoot!
946485
I believe what you are referring to is the Chupacabra.  They have been spotted in many Texas towns, and are apparently migrating north from Mexico.  Several have been spotted in the Big Bend area of Texas.  One was spotted in San Antonio in 2004.  One was spotted in Coleman, Texas this year.\nMany people who spot one say the same thing...that is looks like a cross between a dog and a kangaroo.\nRemember, the Chupacabra is a bloodsucker, if spotted take many photos then run for your life.
307962
None-And let me add, that people who believe in things such as ghosts, telekinesis, etc, think that the scientific establishment want to somehow dispute this, even though they know its true.  Discovering that telekinesis is true, that bigfoot really exists, that there are provable ghosts, would make a scientist's career and put them in the history books...and scientists are, if anything, more curious than most people-we would LOVE to see that kind of thing...remember, lots of us were raised on science fiction and still harbour hopes of meeting ET, going faster than light speed, finding out the ESP really works...on and on.  Problem is, we also require real proof.  No, there is no proof of telekinesis.  If there were, the US government would be pouring billions of dollars into studying it.
1005132
Cryptozoology is pure bullplop. Period. It's no different from "studying" pixies or ghosts. Itls a psuedoscience endorsed only by crackpots.\n\nWe'd better define our terms first. From the Skeptic's Dictionary:\n\n    Cryptozoology is, literally, the study of hidden animals. It is the study of such creatures as the Australian bunyips, Bigfoot, the chupacabra, and the Loch Ness monster. It is not a recognized branch of the science of zoology.\n\nYou can get a glimpse into this if you visit the website of Loren Coleman, a self-proclaimed cryptozoologist, giving advice on entering the field:\n\n    But I'm sorry to say that there are very few classes ever given in cryptozoology (I taught one in 1990) and no formal cryptozoology degree programs available anywhere. So my advice would be to pick whatever subject you are most passionate about (primates? felids? giant squids? fossil men?) and then match it up with the field of study that matches that subject (anthropology, zoology, linguistics, etc.). Pursue that subject, pick the college that is good in that arena, and you can develop your niche in cryptozoology and not go wrong. (I studied anthropology/zoology, and then moved on to more psychological graduate studies to understand the human factor.)\n\nThat pretty much sums it up. These folks do not get grants specifically to look for mythical beasts. The scientific grant review process is arduous and extremely critical, and any legitimate scientist would immediately reject searches for yetis, etc., as total nonsense. However, if you write a research proposal saying something like, "The Mgwango tribe of equatorial Africa believes that a large, brontosaurus-like beast called mokele-mbembe lives in their forest, and I wish to go to Africa to investigate this tribe," you might actually get a grant for it--not because the grantors believe you're going to discover a brontosaurus, but because you're promising to find out why the Mgwango tribe believes there's such a beast in their forest, which is an interesting bit of anthropology. If that qualifies as "goofy," then the entire anthropological profession would qualify, I suppose.\n\nIn other words, the anthropological side of this research is legitimate. But once someone starts calling themselves a cryptozoologist instead of an anthropologist, they've departed the realm of science. Don't get me wrong. Only a fraction of the world's species have been described in the scientific literature, and new critters are being discovered all the time, mostly tiny ones--bugs and worms and such. Finding more is a serious scientific project. But to go after legendary megafauna chiefly because they're legendary, without any real evidence that they exist--I'm sorry, this is the work of crackpots.
551725
Jackalope is a fictional animal, the urban legends.  It's up to those gullible minded people to immerse in it.\n\nNo one's ever seen a living jackalope. Certainly there are no jackalopes in zoos or mounted in museums. (even there are displays, they are fake and concocted.) And there's never been any footage of the fabled hare with horns shown on wildlife shows or on reruns of "In Search Of."\n\nThat's because the jackalope doesn't exist. It's simply a hoax, a tall tale made up by cowboys in the 1800s to explain noises they heard at night while sitting around the campfire.
301641
It wasnt Animal.  It was one of those hippie guys and 2 monster looking things.  I just watched it the other day! (we bought the DVD set) LOL
594582
i think fake and bigfoot and loch ness monster^^
42863
bigfoot has bigfeet\n\nI wonder why he/she/it wasn't called 'bigfeet' then?