Stories of a creature that defied logical explanation have roamed people's imaginations for centuries. The Sasquatch or more commonly known as “Bigfoot” has aroused everyone's curiosity. For thousands of years, Native Americans have told stories of a wild man who roamed the woods. The Himalayas are home to what is said to be a relative of Bigfoot known as the Yeti. Even more recently, about sixty years ago, a controversial film was released. The authors claimed it was the hairy beast. Despite all this supposed evidence, the question remains: Does Bigfoot exist? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay "Giant Footprints Puzzle Residents". A Northern California newspaper headline nearly sixty years ago gave new life to the Bigfoot conspiracy. The Humboldt Times received a report from a construction crew claiming to have discovered sixteen-inch human-like footprints. And from there the legend of Bigfoot grew. “The Bigfoot Field Organization lists at least one report from every state except Hawaii in the past two decades.” Crair, Ben. “The Call of the Wild Man.” The most contested evidence was filmed in 1967 by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. It showed a furry creature walking along a stream with two legs. Skeptics say the video is fake because a hoax involving Bigfoot took place at the same location. The Planet continues to regularly reserve surprises and the shrinking forest comes to the rescue. In 1992, a relative of the cow, the Saola, was discovered in Vietnam. The difference between the cow and Bigfoot is that people don't tend to hunt a new species of cow. Andrew Genzoli, the author of the Humboldt Times article, wrote about the mysterious footprints as a good Sunday morning read, he had no idea the curiosity it aroused in all his readers. Although the loggers are sure that Bigfoot committed the acts of vandalism. It seems that most builders didn't exactly believe that a giant eight-foot creature was to blame. Yet the story spread like wildfire. “There is ample circumstantial evidence for all of these creatures: eyewitness accounts, blurry photographs, mysterious footprints. For many cryptozoologists this evidence is sufficient to confirm the existence of a monster.” National geographic. When it comes to Bigfoot, some would say he is no different than a bear. Folklore commonly mistakes a bear for a wild man. As for the visual test. It is understandable that we try to refute skepticism, but there is little that can be proven from another's personal experience. There have been Bigfoots throughout the country, but most commonly in the Northwest region. Bigfoot's reputation grew in the twentieth century even as Native Americans have told stories of a wild man for centuries. The most common evidence is eyewitness testimony, although it is typically the weakest evidence. It's strange that even though everyone seems to carry around a five-megapixel HD camera on their smartphone, photo quality hasn't improved. Some suggest that Bigfoot has more of a supernatural phenomenon, causing cameras to lose focus when the creature appears. As far-fetched as this may be, it makes more sense as a misidentification. Some believe they have found "Bigfoot hair" or "Bigfoot blood", which turn out to be bear hair or transmission fluid. In some cases the results say “unidentified,” but that doesn't necessarily mean it's Bigfoot. Perhaps the DNA sample may have been contaminated or tampered with by conditions.