Leaderboard

Blurry- Sorry, but I think that amounts to playing wordgames. Those who believe BF, IF it is" real", to be an animal, offer no such" unverifiable" claims. They expect BF to leave tracks (and believe we have such tracks- see Krantz, Meldrum, etc), and other physical traces. They believe folks should- and do- see BF. They believe BF should be photographable, etc. In other words, they fully expect BF to be as verifiable as any other (rare, elusive, possibly very intelligent) animal would be. These expectations are in direct contradiction to what Sagan was discussing. When pressed to explain why we don't have MORE such evidence, right now, they may indeed offer speculations as to BF's possible rarity, etc. But on the central, key, relevant question- is BF a living, breathing, tangible animal- I respectfully suggest there are no unverifiable claims being made.

Are you trying to use the fact that he had an interest in UFOs to discredit a very logical point he made regarding scientific study (what he devoted his life to)? 1) I will quite happily do so if others deny similar "logical points" with regard to sasquatchery 2) His fetish for extraterrestrials (and the massive funding for calling them) simply makes his comments regarding "dragons" in "garages" the most hilarious kind of hypocrisy 1) It most certainly does 2) Continue to make a god out of him, and I'll take great joy in "ad homineming" him right back down to Earth. In the same way that official wildlife biologists appear to have no interest in sasquatches. He sure "believed" in massive funding to call them with a very expensive radio. He appeared to reject dragons in garages out of hand. I sure wish more biologists thought that way with regard to sasquatchery.