Not really. I think some real tangible evidence would've been found by now. But I tell people that I have already found squatch, and I'm also going to put "I found squatch" on my gravestone. I do that for laughs, obviously.
I can't find anything that answers those two questions, but a lot of articles say it's only the second species of monkey they've found in 28 years. Since we didn't know about those for so long, there could be several more we don't know about.
I can't find anything that answers those two questions, but a lot of articles say it's only the second species of monkey they've found in 28 years. Since we didn't know about those for so long, there could be several more we don't know about.
"We" here obviously means the western world, as if I remember correctly, the natives of that area very well knew the monkeys.
But those are relatively small monkeys, big apes is another thing. When's the last time we discovered an ape? Could they even live where they are supposed to live, wouldn't we already have found them since they need a certain population to sustain?
I'm just saying it is very unlikely from a biological point of view they even can exist, even more so without us knowing about them. And there have been so many hoaxes of this, so many stupid people, that they would need really solid evidence for me to consider it anew.
I've got pictures to prove it. Just need to figure out how to upload them . . . But really, the big primate Bigfoot is much more like a giant gorilla than bears and monkeys combined.
I find the existence of the Bigfoot subjective to the information put forward in its research, translation, I believe something like this is possible if plausible information about it is put forward. My point of view in Bigfoot's existence is neutral, it is possible something like this can exist but I am not going to jump into believing in it so quickly.
