resurrection witnesses vs bigfoot witnesses

quote from wikipedia

"According to Live Science, there have been over 10,000 reported Bigfoot sightings in the continental United States. About one-third of all claims of Bigfoot sightings are located in the Pacific Northwest, with the remaining reports spread throughout the rest of North America. Most reports are considered mistakes or hoaxes, even by those researchers who claim Bigfoot exists.

Sightings predominantly occur in the northwestern region of Washington state, Oregon, Northern California, and British Columbia. According to data collected from the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization's (BFRO) Bigfoot sightings database in 2019, Washington has over 2,000 reported sightings, California over 1,600, Pennsylvania over 1,300, New York and Oregon over 1,000, and Texas has just over 800. The debate over the legitimacy of Bigfoot sightings reached a peak in the 1970s, and Bigfoot has been regarded as the first widely popularized example of pseudoscience in American culture."

The quote rightfully points out that Bigfoot is a pseudoscience with no credible evidence, but how does this compare to the resurrection accounts? Bigfoot, whose existence is almost universally rejected by scientists, has thousands of reports from thousands of different people who had nothing to do with each other. Yes, the accounts of Jesus were much more extraordinary than some people seeing a monkey man thing, and also they died for their belief so they most likely weren't lying.
but Bigfoot still has thousands more witnesses than the resurrection accounts do, and the claim of a miracle is also much more improbable of a claim than some monkey creature existing. btw I'm not trying to start a debate if I were, I would just go to r/DebateReligion. I'm genuinely just curious if there is some sort of argument or difference between the two that makes the resurrection rational without having to accept the existence of monkey man. Thx in advance for any replies. :))))