>>279801There is controversial evidence within the field of study, such as the as the validity Patterson–Gimlin film or the presence of a mid tarsal break in many foot castes. It's obviously not by any definition unambiguous but rarely do you see a single piece of evidence that truly is.
Cumulatively, this is not an invisible dragon. it's either a highly complex hoax, one that spans generations and that has employed biomechanical knowledge and technology far exceeding what was available at the time, or, a yet undiscovered species.
I concede the fact it's more likely a hoax, but I cannot advocate the stance that it should be simply dismissed because the findings available aren't unambiguous enough for you.
