Still no Bigfoot body?

I used to believe in Bigfoot, still believed as of about 5 years ago.

Back when the year 2000 rolled in, there were lots of lists going around, "What's going to happen in the next decade?" On some of these lists were folks saying that it was very likely that Bigfoot would finally be conclusively proven, meaning a part of a body found, even just a fragment, containing DNA evidence.

People were more likely to be carrying cameras, as digital cameras came to prevalence in the mid to late 90's. Trail cams, also called trap cams, were also becoming more common as cameras became cheaper. And of course since the iPhone launched in 2007, almost everyone now carries a camera.

When 2010 came and went, with no conclusive Bigfoot evidence, I began to grow more skeptical. Surely someone would have found something by now.. but no, nothing. Just stories, as usual.

Now it's 2016, and the absence of Bigfoot evidence becomes more glaring with each passing year. Yes, I understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Remember, I used to be a believer, so I am very familiar with that logic. I said the phrase many times.

But there's other logic too. Logic such as, if Bigfoot is a real creature, eventually real evidence will turn up. And the more sophisticated our DNA technology becomes, the more cameras people have, the more trail cams are out there, the more likely we are to get conclusive Bigfoot evidence. So every year that we don't find conclusive evidence, the notion of Bigfoot being a real creature becomes more suspect.

I wish Bigfoot was real, but this dog just isn't barking. Oxford University examined every submitted sample of supposed Bigfoot DNA, and in every instance, all submitted samples were found to be from already known animals. (http://time.com/2949457/bigfoot-dna-bear-animal/)

I used to be very convinced by the Patterson/Gimlin film. I didn't think it could possibly be a fake. Until I started researching Roger Patterson... it turns out, he was kind of a shyster. He was known for unscrupulous behavior, such as stiffing people and companies whom he owed money to. For instance, the camera he rented to film the famous Bigfoot film, he didn't pay the bill afterward. Here is a note on that, as well as evidence that Patteron plagiarized artwork for his Bigfoot book: http://orgoneresearch.com/2012/01/11/roger-patterson%E2%80%99s-plagiarism/

As many of you know, Roger Patterson was dying of cancer at the time this film was made. As far as I can tell, his wife is, and was, a homemaker. She did not have an income. Last I heard, Patricia was charging $10,000 to license use of the film. The film has been licensed and used numerous times, probably hundreds of times. It is very likely that Patterson's goal was to be able to secure a steady income for his wife before he died.

True, Bob Gimlin has always said that if it was a fake, he was not in on it. But would Patterson's friend Bob really want to yank that income out from underneath his dead friend's wife? Not to mention, Bob goes out on the Bigfoot circuit now and gets paid for these appearances, so he's making money off it too at this point.

Anyway, apparently I could go on forever about this. Basically, my point is, the longer we go without a body, or part of a body, or even just DNA, the more Bigfoot appears to be what we all feared.. a man in a suit, and a bunch of folks telling stories.

(Where my WhoToTrust at? Shout out to my bro!)