Editorial: Are Photos and Films Enough?

There seems to be a plethora of films and photos lately alleging to show images of hairy bipeds known collectively as Sasquatch and Bigfoot and Yeti, and while these are intriguing and interesting, I suspect the vast majority of the subjects in these photos and films are either hoaxes or misidentifications, especially all the videos we see on YouTube. But, I have to wonder, are films and photos enough to prove the existence of hairy bipeds, especially with the fact that for the most part, they are hoaxes or misidentifications? I say they are not enough, because (reluctant as I am to discuss this) it has been 40 years since the Patterson/Gimlin Movie was taken, and it is in dispute because of the controversial nature of Roger Patterson and this individual Bob Heironimus who claimed to be in the suit. But I will not dwell on it because there is no point in rehashing it. In 1967 it was hard to doctor a film or manipulate it; nowadays it can be done with the click of a mouse, through Photoshop and digital video manipulation. It is quite simple nowadays to create a convincing film or photo which can fool some people, but not all, especially sharp-eyed researchers who know digital manipulation when they see it. So, photos and films are not proof, and do not let anyone tell you different. A good film or video MIGHT go a good ways towards proving the existence of hairy bipeds, but the best photos or even National Geographic-quality footage is still not enough for the skeptics ,and sometimes not even for the Bigfoot Community. A body or piece thereof is needed. I will leave you with this quote from Jay Michael which is in the header of my blog: "There are no photos of Bigfoot; there are no videos of Bigfoot. There are ALLEGED photos of Bigfoot; there are ALLEGED videos of Bigfoot."