If this doesn’t convince you, nothing will. David Arceneaux apparently saw two bigfoot-like creatures in Port Neches, Texas. Considering there is no physical evidence that bigfoot exists, descriptions of the creature vary wildly, and pictures are usually fuzzy and out-of-focus, I find it odd for something to be described as “bigfoot-like”. When there is some sort of unknown entity, shouldn’t the “like” part be attributed to something fathomable that others can relate to? It should be a reference point for the rest of us to know what the person is describing. For example, if I were to attempt to explain the Weekly World News Bat Boy story, I would likely start with the description of him as a batlike child because we all know what a bat looks like. And, in fact, Dictionary.com’s definition of "batlike" uses its own likeness example in the definition (batlike — n. any placental mammal of the order Chiroptera , being a nocturnal mouselike animal flying with a pair of membranous wings).
Fortunately, we don’t have to depend solely on such hazy descriptions. Arceneaux was able to snap a photo (providing arrows and all) to silence any skeptics.
That photo, along with a detailed report of his encounter, should put any doubt of bigfoot’s existence to rest. This evidence is irrefutable. Not only does it prove what he saw, it gives the rest of us a distinct image of what to be on the lookout for. I have personally found this story to be a revelation and now that I have a vivid likeness of bigfoot to reference, I have discovered that bigfoot does indeed exist and I have proof of my own to share.
No comments:
Post a Comment