[ZX12R]

Having reviewed much of the data, I find the evidence for Sasquatch more compelling than that for man made global warming. I’m pretty confident both are hoaxes, but if I had to put my money on one of them being real, bigfoot would get the nod.

At least with global warming, there is data to examine, after which it is easy to conclude that it represents nothing more than natural variance in our climate. With bigfoot, there is no data and no evidence. No more so than for ghosts, fairies or leprechauns.

[Joe 6-pack]

Actually, with bigfoot (and by that I’m referring to the general Sasquatch/Yeti/Skunk ape proto-myth) there is a ton of testimonial evidence going back centuries. Granted, an overwhelming portion of it can be readily dismissed, but there is some from credible sources who had more to lose than gain by reporting it.

[JimRed]

With bigfoot, there is no data and no evidence.

Folklore going back hundreds of years from unrelated areas of the world tells of the same creature, with consistent descriptions. Footprints are frequently found; calls are occasionally heard. The Patterson film of 1967 and a couple of more contemporary dashcam videos from police units are evidence that has not yet been disproven. The attempts to get them on wildlife cameras have been unsuccessful, but an intelligent primate would tend to shy away from anything new in its environment; it's a survival instinct.