I would like to believe in Bigfoot, and I don't entirely discount the idea that there might be creatures in the wilder areas of the world that haven't been discovered or officially recognized yet. There are recognized species that were considered cryptozoological at one point, so that's not unheard of. I have listened to a lot of people talk about Bigfoot on the Art Bell show and on the current Coast to Coast show, hosted by someone that my wife and I refer to as the fake Art Bell, and I enjoy hearing about Bigfoot. I have also watched quite a few documentaries on Bigfoot, and find them to be quite unconvincing. Like most of the ghost-hunting shows that I have seen, there always seems to be much ado about nothing. Often, they talk about being hundreds of miles from the nearest human being, yet someone is filming them. Yeah, filming equipment is rather compact these days so it's not like they have a film studio truck with them, necessarily. However, when they talk about being in the deep wilderness, too often the terrain that they show on film looks as if it has been managed. Rarely is there thick brush between the trees, and I find myself thinking that they are probably within a few minutes of a navigable road. Whenever they come across a fallen tree, we're supposed to believe that Bigfoot knocked it over. Most importantly, however, technology today allows us to take remarkably clear photos with our cell phone, and very good wildlife cameras are available for $100 or less. With very little cost, they could set up enough cameras to cover a very wide area, and that's apart from whatever they're using to film themselves. Yet every photo of a Bigfoot is either blatantly fake or so blurry that it's hard to tell what it's supposed to be. Why are there no clear photos of Bigfoot? I am watching a Bigfoot documentary right now, called Discovering Bigfoot, and it's laughable. The guy takes the time to travel to an area in the woods that he describes as being hundreds of miles from the nearest human being yet he doesn't bring a camera with him that will take a decent night-view photo. We hear noises in the woods, but see no animals, yet he describes the noises as belonging to two juveniles and a large male Bigfoot. Really? Oh yeah, we have to take his word for it, since he seems never to be able to get one of them on film, although he claims to have seen them several times. We see a few tracks, but then I have to think back to my Boy Scout days and remember when I faked a bear track in order to get a clear plaster cast for a merit badge. Yeah, I know. I'll probably never be elected president now, but my point is that we have to take his word for it that this isn't something that he created himself. At one point, he's supposedly tracking a Bigfoot in the snow but, although he showed us one track on the film, he never filmed the continued tracks that he was supposedly following. Had he showed several tracks, he might have earned a credibility point or two. Then, we see something dark, that could be a shadow or pretty much anything, but which he described as the back of a Bigfoot. Of course, as he moves toward it, he trips, his camera goes flying, and when everything is put back in order, the Bigfoot is gone. Then he has himself filmed walking up to where the Bigfoot had supposedly been standing, he doesn't bring the camera with him, so we never see the tracks that would certainly have been there in the snow. Every time he advances toward a Bigfoot, something goes wrong. He trips, he drops the camera or, as he did once, he claimed that a Bigfoot had thrown a tree branch at him. Of course, he falls and drops the camera. Well, someone is filming him despite the fact that he continuously claims that he is all alone in the wilderness, hundreds of miles from the nearest human being, because not only does he often have a camera with him, but someone is often filming him. So there are at least two people with cameras; why couldn't one of them get a picture of Bigfoot? Did Bigfoot throw a branch at him or was that the guy who was with him? Might that have been the one who was making the noises in the dark, as well? He also sets apples out at night and then is convinced that Bigfoot is taking the apples during the night, although his cameras never catch Bigfoot taking the apples. Might it have been a raccoon, a bear, or any of the number of other animals that eat apples? Maybe his cameraman ate them. Why are we to believe that it was Bigfoot? If I can't find my keys, I don't automatically assume that the Russians broke into my house at night and stole my keys. Anyhow, I am not impressed. Later... Toward the end, he does show some still photos that are quite clear, but I don't know if they're real. So much of this stuff is obviously fake that it's hard to believe any of it. He also shows some video that does indeed show something, but he had to "enhance" the film in order for the supposed Bigfoot to be clear. The latter part of the documentary was more persuasive than the first, but I remain unconvinced.