It is most rational to believe there is a 'Bigfoot'

As he explained just because something is a living fossil doesn't mean it is exactly the same creature as the fossil just in our time. For example what was a three lobe fined fish now has two lobe fins. But other than a difference in the loss of genetic information we still find it appropriate to label as the same parent species. This accounts for much of my opponents criticisms against GB being the Sasquatch. Sightings of Bigfoot generally give it a height of 6 to 7 feet, meaning sometimes taller than humans, however not quite the 10 feet of GB. That loss in genetic information for height is easily expected. My opponent did admit it's completely possible that GB was bipedal, and the only reason most professionals would agree it wasn't is because they generalize GB against the walking methods of modern monkey's. But as we see even with that generalization the data was strong enough to convince at least one expert to dissent from common view. I don't know if my opponent considers professionals to dissent in such a way for whimsical reasons but I don't. My opponent brings up inbreeding, that because GB was susceptible to inbreeding it would not survive 300,000. But we mustn't forget that all species has had to overcome inbreeding when they first evolved. When you are the first in your species you'll find your options for what you are going to reproduce with are rather limited. How has every species on the planet come to where they are in-spite of this? The answer is random genetic mutation. Mutations like being bipedal perhaps. And thanks to a factor like walking or running on two legs would help this creature dwarf any competition North America could offer it. What is the worse this creature would face? the bears, moose, cougars? Even granted the general weakening of the GB it dwarfs these others in terms of competition. One of the points my opponent brought up against Sasquatch being a living fossil was that its too big. That the only mammals that are living fossils are small creatures. This is blatantly false as there is a six foot tall beast listed in my opponents own source. He must be counting on the fact that you would not check the list out for you self to take notice of (insert link here). This horse may be a foot shorter than most sighting of Bigfoot but its certainly bigger over all. The footprints are not quite as dubious as my opponent would have you believe. Taking the Cripplefoot tracks Dutch professor A. G. de Wilde of the University of Groningen examined the prints, and concluded that they were "not from some dead object with ridges in it, but come from a living object able to spread its toes. " Those tracks showed microscopic dermal ridges. Primatologist John Napier identified the tracks as having clubfoot, thus there called the Cripplefoot tracks. Impressions of the thenar eminence muscle are left in these tracks, because of its importance in a hand with an opposable thumb this particular set of tracks if a hoax is a rather complicated hoax. The person behind would need be familiar with the anatomy of the human hand, witch does not sound like a prankster just trying to get some ‘kicks' THE ALTERNATIVE In choosing to not believe in the Sasquatch's existence, just what are we believing in respect to North Americas long history of sightings of this thing. My opponent clearly got my time travel point well enough, and I concede he has shown its circular. But I can make the same point about foreknowledge legitimizing the claims even if I can t convince you Bigfoot is GB. The Native Americans have told of this creature for some time, predating any time they could have been told about any kind of monkey. Though my opponent say's he doesn't like doing so, he say's calling eyewitness's liars is more believable for him than saying Bigfoot is GB having traveled to North America across the Ice bridge. He finds it easier to accept that it's a conspiracy in essence. For when one person lies you just call it a lie, it becomes a conspiracy when we are talking about lots of people lying the same lie. If we are to accept Bigfoot as a lie who are we to believe has orchestrated this lie, having the lie passed down to themselves to carry on since as far back as the Bigfoot lie goes into Native American history? Perhaps my opponent will wish to tell you the Masons are doing it! All good conspiracies tie back to them somehow. The Illuminate perhaps! Or is the government that did it this time? Any of those three as the orchestrates of ‘the Bigfoot lie' you can easily see takes way more extrapolation than I can ever make for you just taking the easy explanation that it's a real creature. If this is a conspiracy can we not say with certainty it's a stupid one? To what ends is it for? Is the answer going to be so stupid sounding that it belongs on a Scooby-Doo cartoon, like ‘we've been dressing up as it for years to scare you meddling kids away from our uncharted goldmine' Witch belief do you think requires more imagination now to explain it? The imagination required to see pink elephants in your room pales in comparison to the imagination needed to be conspiracy theorist. The soft evidence of the creature on camera, or footprints can not be passed off as misremembering events, those have to be blamed on a conspiracy if we are to not accept the Sasquatch left the tracks or walked in front of a camera. For what motive could these be left? My opponent might tell you that it is just pranksters, or attention seekers. But this is very hard to believe as far as the ‘attention seekers' goes for many of the tracks like the Cripplefoot tracks go unclaimed as the works of anyone. So if someone did it for attention, they failed at getting it, for we do not know who they are. And the Cripplefoot tracks are rather elaborate as I covered earlier for a prankster. The prankster use of Bigfoot is just to spook ones friends that they brought with them to a campout. But to leave tracks and never take credit for them? What kind of joke is this? It is perhaps the most lame prank in history if it is a prank for there is nothing funny to it. No one is the victim of this prank, and its hardly a prank if no one is ‘had' by it. So its not a prank or just an attention seeker, this brings us back to saying it was old man Jenkins trying to keep those meddling kids off his land, and their dog too! As for the non footprint kind of soft evidence, the eyewitness testimony; they are undoubtedly some that are everything my opponent criticizes them to be. Some aren't even ‘eye' witness but ‘ear' witness really, where the individual heard an odd screaming sound. But even granted that some are like that they are still plenty of people who have subjected themselves to a lie detector come out as honest and were ‘eye' witnesses in every sense of the word. You know I've never heard of a Bigfoot witness as being judged a liar by a lie detector. Explaining these cases away hinge on how the memory is can be distorted to have false data without that data introduced to the holder of the memory. I do not disagree with my opponent's source at all on this matter, you cannot have no bias when telling people you saw Bigfoot. In light of this the question we need to ask ourselves ‘what are the limits of what false data I can remember? ' Could the native americans have distorted memories of seeing a bipedal monkey without seeing monkeys before? I can understand misremembering that you saw a coyote when in fact it was a wolf, or perhaps a wolf with a bear. But can it really make me think the bear was a bipedal monkey? My opponent has not shown that one can misrember if a horse had wings or not, so I ask him can we misremember what a horse looked like, adding the winged detail? For it seems like there would be limits to how faulty our memories can get.