Bigfoot can't and doesn't exist due to the lack of evidence and no fossil records supporting it.

Thank you for your brilliant reply and answers. 1. Eyewitnesses Accounts It's true that eyewitness accounts can be faked. However, there were many eyewitness accounts of Sasquatch long before Wallace's high jinks in 1958. Ray Wallace did not create Bigfoot, and the fact that he staged many elaborate hoaxes does not wipe away the evidence that exists or the many thousands of eyewitness accounts of the creature. Many Bigfoot researchers knew Wallace as a prankster and have long suspected that he was behind some of the footprints, sightings and photographs that have appeared over the years. It is only now that his family has confirmed the hoaxes. His hoax came from the idea that large, hairy, upright-walking, ape-like creatures had been seen in that part of the country for generations. Before "Bigfoot" became a popular name for the beast, it was known as the Sasquatch, a Native American word meaning "crazy man of the forest." Sasquatch was known to Native Americans for hundreds of years. Apart from the Native Americans' long tradition of the Sasquatch, a long list of sight history of sightings could be found at http://paranormal.about.com... and http://paranormal.about.com.... Those who who choose to ignore the large amount of anecdotal evidence, the footprints and the anomalous hair samples (like my opponent), we would found small groups of them by now or scientific evidence that they exist. My opponent would ask,"How could a population of such creatures evade man for so long?" The fact that populations could not remain hidden from civilization for long periods of time is untrue. In fact, in November, 2002, a new, secret population of orangutans was discovered on the island of Borneo according to BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk.... We are discovering new species every year so it wouldn't be unreasonable to imagine that colonies of intelligent primates could be living in the unexplored wilderness of North America. Source: http://paranormal.about.com... 2. Scientific evidence A. Native American artifacts I have nothing to say, because I'm almost out of time, thinking for an agruement. But even if Native American artifacts don't prove that Bigfoot is real, I have to disagree that it is circular. As noted before, there is a long history of eyewitnesses accounts before modern sightings such as the infamous Patterson-Gimlin film. B. Footprints When you study foot prints very closely there is a tremendous amount of information that can be obtained. Variations in toe positions, weight shifts, weight distribution, lift off, heel strike, stride, depth of impression, pressure ridges, all of these can be used to detect fakes and to gain information on the creature that made them. The information gained from Bigfoot tracks indicates an anatomical structure that is very different from a human foot. A fallen arch, more evenly sized toes, a double ball, a shorter forepart and longer heel. A foot designed for a very heavy bipedal creature. A man that weights about 200 pounds would make 1/4 of an inch deep impression while Bigfoot makes an inch deep impression. Therefore, you can infer that he weighs about 800 pounds. Combine this with a step length of 4-6 feet and the many other subtle clues that indicate a flexible and anatomically functioning foot. To fake this a man would have to be running over rough terrain and large obstacles, while carrying 600 pounds of weight and wearing a very mechanically sophisticated, and practically impossible to construct, pair of boots. Bigfoot tracks are regularly found in very rugged and remote places that a hoaxer could not expect some one, just by chance, to find them. Therefore, a hoaxer would to go through an impossible amount of effort. considering the number of Bigfoot tracks that have been found through out North America. There are other Bigfoot researches other than Prof. Grover S. Krantz such as Jimmy Chilcutt and Jeff Meldrum who are both experts who could be better than Krantz. Source: http://www.geocities.com... C. Hoaxes A lot of hoaxes have not been positively proven to be fake, but are generally considered to be fake by most Bigfoot researchers. Many proponents of Bigfoot admit that many of sightings are hoaxes or misidentified animals. Loren Coleman, a cryptozoologist, and Diane Stocking have estimated that as many as 70 to 80 percent of sightings are not real. This means that 20 to 30 percent is real and so Bigfoot can exist. The remaining sightings, that small portion of reports that can't be explained away, intrigue researchers and keep the pursuit active. Source: http://www.csicop.org... D. Hair and blood "They are inconclusive usually due to the sample being not well preserved and damaged." I disagree: The DNA tests used on somatic samples give very limited information as there is no known Bigfoot sample to compare it to. The process can only compare the unknown sample to a set of known samples, which necessarily lacks samples of all known animals. Therefore, why don't people used DNA test on every species on the planet? Because they lack samples of all known animals. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... E. Absence of fossil evidence One of the most often used arguments my opponent used is "Where are the bones? How come no one has found a dead body? Where is the physical evidence?" This becomes a very weak argument when you see the reality of the situation. Most of our population is congested in large cities which occupy very little of the total land mass. Our entire world population could fit in a mega city smaller than the state of Texas. The Pacific Northwest offers the largest area of uninhabited and unexplored land in North America. However, if Bigfoot turns out to be Gigantopithecus then there has been good physical evidence in the form of bones all along. One other thing to consider is that there is no fossil record of any of the great apes. Neither has anyone ever found any of their bones in the wild. The only known fossils are of its mandible and teeth. Source: http://www.geocities.com... F. Nobody looks for Bigfoot remains except Bigfoot researchers. It is true and my opponent has no argument against it. G. Crytozoology Even if I get the evidence, it is evaluated not on its merits or failings, but rather based on opinions of researchers, or on prevailing paradigms or world views. Therefore, mainstream scientist will dismiss it. There are several species cited as examples for continuing cryptozoological efforts: * Cryptzoologists claim the Mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) was previously dismissed as folklore/myth, due to lack of evidence and fossils, before being confirmed in 1902. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Conclusion The view amongst the scientific community is justified, because there are possibilities that Bigfoot exist. Quoted from http://nl.newsbank.com... "Schaller said that he is troubled that no Bigfoot remains have ever been uncovered, and no feces samples have been found to allow DNA testing. Schaller notes: "There have been so many sightings over the years, even if you throw out 95 percent of them, there ought to be some explanation for the rest. I think a hard-eyed look is absolutely essential." I agree that Bigfoot deserves to be analyzed more carefully whether the evidence was hoaxed or not. There is no evidence indicated that Bigfoot never existed unlike the geocentric model when it was disproved.