That picture is from the Patterson film, which everyone now knows to be a hoax.
Science can neither, at this time, prove or disprove the existence of Bigfoot. This is the "fairy" argument- science cannot prove that fairies don't exist. They can look and say they're not there but that does not preclude existence.
There have been countless hair samples taken from sites where the DNA is primate but unknown. This means, expressly, that there is an undiscovered species of primate. Billy Redneck and Tom Hoaxer can't whip up a batch of fake DNA using a whiskey still.
Second, the dermal ridges and anatomical specificity of the casts have convinced renowned experts in various scientific fields.
My belief is Bigfoot is more substantiated than your non-belief in him. I have evidence to support my claims, whereas you only have a lack of evidence.
who's claiming to be expert? but hey, what are your
qualifications there, science-boy? where are those documents we asked about? come on, learn us.
you probably not believe in evolution, either. one of julie's favorite creationist arguments: science can't explain everything. yours here is pretty close to it: julie can't prove bigfoot not exist. julie freely admits this, and even will save you some time and admit same as to unicorns.