Why haven't there been scientific studies on the existence of bigfoot?
371078
How about the Loch Ness Monster.  Becasue they are both so damn fake that no one will give them a serious look.
87117
The only evidence we have is:\n\nFootprints, which are probably the result of hoaxters, pranksters, and so on.\n\nA few videos, probably faked.\n\nSome hairs, but the ones that get tested usually are bear or other animals.\n\nEyewitnesses- horribly unreliable and easily confused by many things.\n\nSo- several people CLAIM to have seen them, but...
179232
Oh, dear.  So many of them have been disproven.  Be sure to look up the methods of fraud being used as well, such as statues with yes of porous stone, etc.  Best to be careful, as the church doesn't need that sort of publicity.\nAt the same time, science never suggests that something is false because so many have been found to be false.  There may be some real miracles, and waiting for God to prove himself is hubris in the extreme.  I can think of few other apparitions I'd rather meet in a dark alley, or in the skies.\n\nThat some people have dream-like visions while awake is already proven fact.\n\nI had a "vision" of God when I was seventeen.  I still leave open the possiblity that it might have been something else, despite the wonderful results of that experience and knowing it's truth.  There are always other possibilities for what caused my experience that a sane and thoughtful scientific man should consider.   Yet, we must never be afraid to explore the unexplored.\n\nKeep searching.
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.
271055
We lack the proof, only the high probability that something exists in one of the trillion or so systems out there.  Have you noticed that with all the camcorders out there in the past 5-10 years that there's been a lack of UFO sightings...just my observation.
286063
Capture Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster!!!\n\nThis really happened:\n\nAt the 5th Annual Texas Bigfoot Conference in Jefferson, Texas, October 15-16, 2005, and the Bates College Cryptozoology Symposium in Lewiston, Maine, October 28-29, 2005, Loren Coleman unveiled the details of a $1 million bounty to encourage the public to assist in the safe capture of a Bigfoot, Yeti, Lake Monster, Sea Serpent, or other cryptozoological specimen.\n\nSo get your harpoons, stun-guns, rocket launchers, and nets ready---lets get rich by finding monsters!
85236
You've got the job of science reversed in your mind.  Science cannot state that something doesn't exist, just like an atheist cannot state that they know that God doesn't exist.  All science or an atheist can state is that they don't have any imperical evidence of something, therefore until that evidence is produced it must be assumed that it does not exist.  As of today's date (February 19,2006) there is no hard evidence that UFOs exist.  NONE.  Every single claim that purports to be hard evidence always melts under close scrutiny.  We have no hard evidence to support the belief in UFOs.  Of course some think they know they exist because they saw something they cannot explain but that is not hard evidence.  Until something tangible, weighable, measurable, dissectable is brought forth science will have to hold the skeptical view that until you can prove it, we will assume it is false.
588760
All three.  Yes there are a lot of hoax out there.  Some are done by something we have no answer for yet.  There are great difference between the ones done by humans and the ones that are not
514481
If you're talking about the "tracks" in Paluxy river, Texas, these have been around, and been debunked, since the mid 1970's.  Even many creationist sources now recognize that the footprints are bogus.\n\nHowever, some creationist web sites and books *still* trot these out, decades after they've been debunked, as "evidence" of the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans, even though the overwhelming evidence is that they went extinct 65 *million* years before the first humans appeared.  \n\nIn other words, any source you see that brings up the Texas footprints is *not* the place you want to going for scientific information.
1746
it is verey possible to exist, all it would really be is a big ape,  many sitings of it have been recorded just not visually.  i think it is real it is just a shy creature most likly.  it could be realted to the yetti or somehting.
364140
Studies have been conducted rationally, objectively\nand scientifically on the so called Bermuda triangle\nphenomenon. When you consider the intensity of storms, the frequency of storms, the incidence of various natural and turbulent ocean currents and the high amount of air and marine traffic, it's quite normal that there should be a high rate of accidents and disappearance in that area.\nBut so long as there are hungry readers for super natural\nstories there will be journalists and authors eager to make a buck. These writers are the same kind who sensationalize\nand fabricate stories of alien abduction, bigfoot, Lock\nNess Monster and alien creation of crop circles. The real\nphenomenon here is a sociological one. And that is, the need\nthat people have to believe in the unbelievable and how\nit thrives on ignorance.
934460
In the world of science, videos don't carry too much weight.  If so, scientists would be arguing about how to classify Jabba the Hut in the animal kingdom.  There are far too many people out there with the skills to fake a bigfoot video and a great number of those people would love to make one just for the fun of it.  A video of the creature by itself is not much proof.\n\nStories of sightings are not too good either.  Witnesses can be deceived by all sorts of things.  Weather, mental condition, physial condition, lighting, alcohol/drug consumption, and injuries are just a few factors that could cause a person to believe that they saw something that was not there or to misidentify something they actually saw.  There are also the witnesses that lie.  A lot of people out there like to tell made up stories and some do it with hopes of cashing in.  A story by itself is not much use to science.\n\nFootprints are not too good either.  Lots of ways for nature to make a normal track look like something else.  Rain, melting snow, or an animal walking abnormally can cause larger than normal tracks.  Once again, there are a lot of people out there faking these footprints for the fun of it or for profit.  Go online and see how many bigfoot casts are being sold.\n\nWhat is needed to prove bigfoot, yeti, sasquatch, or any other mythical creature is a specimen dead or alive.  Nothing else will do.  That is the only way to prove that one exists.  With all of the people out in the wilderness these days, one should have been found dead by now or at least enough bones for identification.  None have been found.  \n\nThink of all of the hunters out there who are drooling of bagging a bigfoot.  Not a single sasquatch head has been mounted over a fireplace.  If anyone would have found one by now, it would have been the hunters.  They are more in tune with the animals of the northwest than pretty much anyone else out there.  If a bigfoot was out there, they would have shot one by now.  Some hunters can kill at a range of up to 500 yards and that is with a bullet that can kill a moose.  Bigfoot would not be able to avoid hunters if they can kill from such a range.  Remember, a deer is an animal that is prey to a lot of different animals so it needs to be able to hide.  Nature gave it the skills to avoid detection.  Yet they are not so hard to find if you know how to look for them.  Wolverines are some of the most elusive animals in North America.  There are not too many of them and they are smart and stay well hidden.  Yet, people can find them even though they are smaller than a bigfoot.  If a wolverine cannot avoid human detection, I do not see how a sasquatch could do it.
989892
I believe the last sighting was in the late 70's.\n\nSo it's possible. But lack of sightings is not proof that they are yet extinct.
999923
A lot of people are saying it's a hoax.  Awfully big hoax fellas.  So like the whole world is "in" on it? Because if you did your research, you would know that there have been sightings of "bigfoot" in almost every continent and that this has been going on for centuries. I think something like it existed at one time a long time ago, he was called giganthopithecus, and he very much resembles the bigfoot of legend. As to whether or not he still lives, well, who the hell knows?\nDoesn't seem too likely that he would be alive in North America because it's so heavily populated. But enough of that, just thought I'd bring a few little scientific factoids to the table.
677704
Sadly, nothing plausible at this time.\n\nMany believers in the Sasquatch have it that the professional zoologists have some kind of conspiracy to cover up the existence of Sasquatch, but in fact most zoologists would be ecstatic if such a new, exciting species were to be found.\n\nThe closest anyone has come to credible evidence is the infamous Patterson film, purportedly of a Sasquatch walking along a creek bed.  There are many technical inconsistencies with the film, as well as anecdotal evidence from costumers that indicate that the film is more likely a hoax than actual footage.
925235
Because we have a PRANKSTER GOD!!!\nHe put the bones in the ground to test our faith in him....\n\nGOD: "HAHAHAHAHAHA, I'm killing me, I'm so funny!\n\nSimple truths: there is a mountain of scientific, verifiable, measurable evidence to support the theory of evolution...and the research continues and discovers new things all the time.\nThere IS NOT A SHRED of evidence for creationism.\n\nLook at the issue from a balance of probabilities...masses of scientific evidence...or a man made book (often changed/edited/translated) of fairy stories and a bunch of crack pots...now which is more likely?
770654
I don't think any such monsters exist but yes maybe some ancient reptiles or other species(like coelacath which was thought to be extinct) maybe there.