My current view on Bigfoot is that he is an imaginary creature. I never sat and thought about my belief on him, I just grew up seeing him on commercials, or on cartoons, or read thing about him on the Internet.
In the first Wikipedia article I felt the most important piece information was that Bigfoot is described in reports as a large hairy ape-like creature, ranging between 6-10 feet tall, weighing in excess of 500 pounds, and covered in dark brown or dark reddish hair. Another piece of information I found interesting was that many of the sighting of Bigfoot are hoaxes or misidentified animals. With the new information I read my view still hasn’t changed because it gave me even more reasons and facts not to believe. I think the Wikipedia presentation is biased against the existence of Bigfoot because it is just giving information about how he is a hoax and it’s just a misidentification.
In the second UC Berkley presentation the most important piece of information that I learned is that Bigfoot is known to roam around the dense forest of the American Northwest and British Columbia on two legs. I also found it interesting that a museum has a cast of what may or may not be Bigfoot footprint. Lastly I found it interesting that there was an ape named Gigantophithecus that could exist in the Northwest Territories. My view on Bigfoot in light of this new information is still the same. It has not changed because I was still not provided with any actual proof just beliefs. I think UC Berkley’s presentation is for and against of existence of Bigfoot. I feel this way because they are trying to keep an open mind by letting it be an open question.
My reaction to the video footage is that it was very interesting. The evidence was pretty compelling. Some strengths was being able to here his story and seeing the footage of what he thought was Bigfoot. Some weaknesses were that his video…