Maybe if you lazy *******s would get up a little earlier we could put this argument to rest.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RuNEuSVS83Q?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I don't know when it was discovered exactly but the gorilla was classified as a species in the mid 1800s
I'm asking from 5,000 years until now.
8ft and 400 lbs is rather small when you're talking about millions upon millions of potential square miles to cover. If you think every inch of the Pacific Northwest has not only been stepped on, but combed over for fossils, then I don't know what to say. A needle in a haystack would probably be easier to find.
This study says there could be 8.7 million species on our planet, and we've only found found and cataloged 1.3 million.
Not using it for it's accuracy, but we haven't even stratched the surface of what really is out there.
I mean, there are actual civilizations of people we haven't even "discovered" yet. They just found some back in 2011 in the Amazon. We live on a HUGE planet.
When was the last time we discovered a land species that would be this size?
I don't know if this is the "last" one but ....
No, a person who claims to be a scientist, but has no training in science, also claims to have DNA results. He further claims that they reveal that they are from an unknown species. This non-scientist has refused to share the actual data and even refused to to share any of the sample for any reputable, trained scientist to test.
Substantial claims require substantial evidence, and science is never established by press releases.
Hahahaha Nope. If there were really a bigfoot, he'd have been found by now.
I wonder what all these skeptics think of the foot print castings that have been analyzed by crypo-zoologists and various university zoologly experts.
Anyone heard of the Melba Ketchum paper/"research"?
Let me say this: there is absolutely no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that leads one to believe that "bigfoot" exists.
Blu is sorta right... Mountain Gorillas were discovered in 1902. Gorillas in general were officially discovered in the mid 1800's... Of course they had been seen many times before that but that is when physical proof came into the picture. Sightings alone don't necessarily constitute 'discovered'.
Blu said gorillas.
Here is the interview I heard:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yp-YOxSe6Rc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I haven't re-listened to it all yet, but it's likely NSFW due to probable language and whatnot.
One time we were out doing research and camping and we had a sighting when one of the campers thought he saw a Sasquatch out in the mist near the lake. It was hard to see but we could clearly see something in the mist. Turned out it was gorillas.... Gorillas in the mist...
How do the skeptics explain this?
I know exactly where Sasquatch is. He's hanging out by the strawberry river.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/n2WqYidC_0Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>