Forums

It is my contention that the Jury of Public Opinion is intentionally being managed by government to maintain an aura of mythology, and now the Chamber of Public Commerce has taken that aura over and created an industry, anyway, without a body or even a shred of intelligence. Koko was diagnosed an IQ of 70-90? That's pretty impressive when compared to the IQ of most humans with regard to sasquatchery.

That is more a conviction of "scientific consensus" than it is about that particular gorilla's intelligence.

"Best Circumstantial Evidence"   I am no lawyer but I think of Bigfoot as a legal case where the believers need to put out their best case to convince the Jury of Public Opinion.     It is even a victory if Roger and Bob can't prove the PGF is real as much as a jury unwilling to convict them of a proof hoax.  The lack of proof of a hoax leaves open the option the PGF- and thus Bigfoot itself- is a real thing.      That is how it relates to the PGF.   What is the best case to make the case for Bigfoot?  In a sense all evidence apart from 1) a Body or 2) an iron clad modern video is somewhat "Circumstantial Evidence"   What ARE the best case items to make the case for Bigfoot being real?  If you were the lawyer, top 3 or 4 things make the best case?   The other side (There is no Bigfoot) is actually pretty weak.  Their list looks like this:   1) The consensus of science at this time is Bigfoot is not proven to exist. 2) The PGF is too blurry (or pick some other way to say it) to tell us anything convincing. 3) Reasonable arguments about what Bigfoot eats, and so on  4)  Why no new PGF or better film when there are cell phones everywhere?     Other than some shaky witnesses (Bob H ) and personal attacks (Roger was shifty in some matters of money) there isn't much else.     I think it's fair Bigfoot has the burden of proof.    Here are some of Top Things making the case for Bigfoot:   1  #1 has to be the PGF   it is impressive and continues to withstand any effort to prove it is a hoax.  It may not convince all.  But again, if it continues to avoid being proven to be a hoax it gets stronger and stronger as a piece of evidence.   2   Many eyewitness reports.  They must be seeing something and they ALL can't be lying.  Add the fact many of these witnesses seem like normal credible people makes the case even better.   3  Footprints.  They are one of of the strongest case items.  Sadly, this ends up being a very weak because the public assumes anyone could and would fake and prank tracks and it would be easy to do so.     4  Ego:  People don't want to accept things where they worry they would be later shown to be fooled.     With this in mind here is how to quickly lose any case For Bigfoot:   1)  broken limbs = proof of bigfoot.  Sure, there couldn't be other reasons limbs break. 2) Noises like twig snaps -= "It's a Squatch!"  This is esp. true when city slickers have no idea what normal sounds exists routinely in the wilderness.  3) About any episode of Finding Bigfoot.   4) Overconfident statements about Bigfoots diet, powers and abilities, and so on.   I ask:  What are the BEST case to put to a jury of public opinion regarding Bigfoot?       Final point. The more you have Munns, Meldrum, Anna Nakaris, and so on the more open the public will be to even hear the case.  The more you see cartoonish faces of the Bigfoot argument, the more likely the public won't even listen.     Pretend you are given an hour on TV with 25 million viewers to make the case for Bigfoot.  What top 3-4 points would you focus on?  Who would you have to make the case?   This guy?   These type of guys?  

I think so. I think there are mysteries still not understood by modern science.   I won’t get into religious overtones here. But the Book of Enoch (which is not found in the Protestant or Catholic bible) holds some profound statements in it about our origins.

Those are good points, to be sure.  I still wonder if something(s) didn't set humans off on our meteoric rise to 'intelligence' and capability.  And, that perhaps set Bigfoot on the path of classification avoidance.  Left to normal adaptation and the occasional, 'good' mutation, how long would it be before Koko's other kinfolk (or octopuses, or frogs) would be developing smart-phones, autonomous robots, AI and even preparing to send their kids to Mars?  To me, the circumstantial evidence for Bigfoot is undeniably pointing to pieces that we are missing from the puzzles.