Bigfoot is dead...

It died Sunday, actually. See?

I'm not sure why people believe in this crap. I am a logical thinker, and when you put all of the facts on the table, logic is nowhere to be found. I understand that the main goal of the people that come up with these hoaxes is to cause a media stir, and to somehow make money off of their claims. That part makes sense. We are a capitalist nation that will do (just about) anything to make an extra buck, even if it means trying to dupe people into believing there's some monstrous mutant bear-gorilla-man-thing walking around the woods. Get ready, because I'm about to throw logic into the mix.

John Lithgow believes he's real. It's that fake-ass kid in his arms he doesn't believe in.

I don't want to go all-in on my first reason, but in my mind, it's the one that should end the debate altogether. Ready for this? If the sasquatch was real...there would be no myth. Go ahead, admit it...I just blew your mind there. Think about it: if the creature's existence was proven, there would be no more mystique, no allure, no mystery to be solved and no reason for people to continue carrying on with this charade. If bigfoot was actually caught, I guarantee you there would be an exhibit at one of our nation's largest zoos, no doubt about it. Everyone would visit the zoo to see the enormous beast, they'd likely be disappointed that it's not quite as intimidating as had previously been promoted, and then carry on with their lives like normal and never have to think about whether it is fact or fiction. The idea that it could exist is what keeps people interested. Carve a few giant footprints into the soil going to and from some animal carcass, break a few branches that are 8 feet off the ground on some nearby trees, and then call the newspapers. That's what keeps people hooked. If everyone knew, no one would care. Period. Ask the Hendersons. They knew he was real, and it was so 'normal' to them, that they took him in as one of their own...as family. There isn't much on this earth more commonplace than family. The sad fact that my spell check on the blog actually throws up a red flag when I type 'bigfoot' is the computer's way of telling me to capitalize it. Oh, so suddenly 'Bigfoot' and 'Sasquatch' are proper names now? Who made that call? I want a point of reference, because that person (or group of people) needs a 2X4 to the skull. If we are to assume those are proper names, no wonder the Hendersons called him Harry: they wanted him to feel special; different from the rest of them. Not everyone can be called Johnny Mullet like me, so I totally get that. Seriously though, by capitalizing these terms, we are licensing these pricks to continue attempting to hoax you. They know that personalizing these things makes you that much closer to believing them. Don't buy into it, please.

This guy sucks at faking sasquatch footprints. It's not even in the woods!

Then there's the whole concept of physical evidence. The idea that, "I'll believe it when I see it," really puts a damper on these claims. When only a select handful of people say they've ever seen a bigfoot, yet they can't produce a shred of legitimate tangible proof, it's really hard to believe them. With enough time, patience and creativity, a lot of things can be made to look like objects or impressions the monster left behind. As I mentioned earlier, footprints can be fabricated. You take one step in a mushy dirt area, scoop around your foot in a consistent manner that it looks like a much larger version of your foot, smooth out the dirt you just handled, take your next step and repeat. I say this like I've done it before, but it doesn't require a genius to figure out how it can be done. It requires a few idiots to believe that person, though. Some have claimed to have found larger-than-normal feces left behind. To spare everyone the unnecessary details, the age-old question, "does a bear shit in the woods?" can actually be answered. What we'd be looking for are actual remains of a deceased one. You're telling me that with all of the technology we possess, and all of the time spent by these loonies using said technology to locate these primitive beings, that they've never found a single dead sasquatch among the bushes? By telling us that, you're leaving only two possibilities open for consideration:

1. These things are immortal. It's tough to run away from bigfoot hunters when you're already dead, right? Might as well keep on living to keep people guessing. That, and you have all of eternity to mess with humans. Now that sounds like a fun time!
2. Their remains spontaneously combust upon death. Sounds just about as likely as possibility #1. Who knows if their bones and skin and muscles and organs and fur all turn to ashes immediately after their pulse quits? That's why we need to find one alive!

I think these possibilities are pretty reasonable, don't you? No? Well you're just not open-minded. So go take a hike...in the sasquatch-infested woods. What's that? You're scared? Well then maybe you do believe. Welcome to the club!

A tape measure and a headlamp. Good call, bro.

 I hope you brought your butterfly net with you, too.

When you all get mauled by something, then I'll consider watching your show.

Last we'll look at all of the proven methods that have been used to fake a sighting, along with the conflicting, vague or broad accounts that were publicly announced. How about ape suits and those military camouflage suits? It's been documented that based on the distance away from a bigfoot that supposed photographs and videos were taken, these suits worn by men look identical. The fact that they have only been seen walking upright also raises some eyebrows. Do we automatically assume they just simply walk like humans? If they're as primitive as they are suggested to be, don't you think they'd have some attributes that cause them to go on all fours now and again? That's human nature to walk on two legs. How about the fact that they always seem to be running away from the camera? Is it even fair to think that they're remotely scared of us? These things are gigantic, according to the tales. Big enough to mutilate us with ease. These idiots playing dress up are just scared of being caught. As for their size, people who have come forward with their stories estimate that they are about six to ten feet tall. That's a pretty wide range, folks. Seriously, I am pretty good with math, and that standard deviation would drive any statistician mad. "Well...from a distance, it looked like it could be...oh, I don't know...six, maybe ten feet tall?" That's right, you don't know, because you're a jackass and you didn't see anything. Even better and more intriguing is how some of the alleged footprints have had anywhere from two to six toes. Come on. Again with the variance. If you're going to try to be convincing, why don't you all settle on one number of toes please. Your claims are nonsense. Only rare birth defects and stupidity have been the reasons for extra or missing toes on humans. Usually it involves someone mishandling a gun. Even if they have opposable thumbs, I doubt they'd get their massive paw-hands on a gun. In that unlikely scenario, and they do happen to shoot themselves in their feet (the part of them that is legend), doesn't that come full circle from when I talked about finding remains? It'd be a pretty significant find if somebody stumbled upon a sasquatch toe or two (pun very much intended). Hasn't happened. Never will happen.

When it finished posing for this glamour shot, they all hopped in the car and went to McDonald's.

So the next time a news story comes out about a bigfoot sighting or that evidence was collected, they'd better have that big hairy bastard caught in a cage and ready to be put on display. Otherwise, shut the hell up and stop showing the world how gullible and ignorant some Americans can be.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go put some food in my Loch Ness tank before I make dinner for myself and my centaur roommate.

D.