What do you consider evidence then? Most of the above items if found at a crime scene could send a person to prison for life, but somehow they bear little weight in a investigation into a massive country wide sighting of creature known as Bigfoot. I feel that little more than a body would prove the existence of this animal, only because of the mystery. The giant squid was a myth of sailors in historic times yet people believed in its existence, it wasn't until commercial fishing came along and actually snagged one and science inspected the body did they actually name it a new species. Only recently did a film crew actually catch one on film live.

Believe it or not most of the Earth still remains unexplored, hence why hundreds of new species are discovered all the time. So that fact is, bigfoot and many other unknown mythical monsters COULD exist without us knowing.

Scientist very much frown upon this idea because it leads to fact that aliens and other such living things can exist without our knowledge. Anyone who knows any scientists know that the mentioning of one of these phenomena/creatures is career suicide. So evidence is overlooked and tainted by biased science.

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Sagan)." Carl Sagan says it well.

Putting all your eggs in one basket isn't always a good thing to do in science. Many times when think we figured something out, we find we are just viewing from the wrong perspective.

By the way, I also mean no offense by any of my views.