Leaderboard

I'm counting two.

I can't help but point out that nothing "outlandish" hurts Bigfoot research since the whole idea is outlandish to begin with. This is my same problem with folks getting upset about paranormal proponants having an opinion on the matter. Ask people like Parn and Saskeptic. "Enoch" isn't going to hurt ongoing research into Bigfoot. The very fact that someone brings BF up is enough to sour science towards the discovery. Get used to the fact that unless someone stumbles over a corpse or shoots one of these things or the DNA thing is so air-tight that no one can dispute it (which doesn't sound likely) we may as well all believe these things are stepping out of UFOs like the other thread out there talks about. Bigfoot just for what it is, is it's own worst enemy to research. You can't just clean up the Sasquatch image by getting away from what the people in the know about the subject feel is fantastic. It is all fantastic to the average person (including scientists). Again, get used to it.

I don't believe a Sasquatch (provided they exist, of course) needs to be killed to prove anything. I don't believe one should be captured or otherwise inconvenienced, either. I know that the current paradigm is that "science demands a body" but, to me, that is "science's" problem. Once there is enough "proof" that they DO exist (and I believe that DNA should be enough), I believe there will be more people/organizations that are much better equipped (resources) out looking for them. Once an individual/family group is located, I believe that a simple study should be enough. Over time, I would think that a body would become available for science to play with thru a natural course. If Sasquatch exist, I don't think they need any protection, either. All I would ask is that we recognize their existence, study them so that we are able to determine their needs, take those needs into consideration when any decisions are made that could affect them or their habitat...and leave them alone. They have obviously survived without our "protection" and, if left alone, will continue to do so.

Frankly, I wonder if DY would have been so quick to use his ichnologist's skills on a painted copy if he'd seen the video with the close-ups of the actual impression first. There are possible foot and fingerprints and one (one is a number, right?) hair identified as primate. So what if there was filming for a TV show? Does this mean the impression was deliberately misidentified or faked? Y'know I really wasn't all that convinced but after seeing the video several times and reading all these skeptical arguments (again) I think I am now. If others want to see elk (or casting artifacts or guys in a suit) that's their right. Free country.

Got anything new, kitakaze? I'm enjoying the video - again. It answers all sorts of questions such as the length of the forearm, the position, the behavior - even how far the reach to the fruit would have been. I'm surprised at how much was thought of at the time at the site. Much more informative than just another look at one of the copies with a cow elk hovering over it, IMHO.

Oh, and just to clarify which direction those elk tracks were going, this is what an elk hoof looks like:

So the elk placed it's feet outside of the impression, just like this: The whole feet in impression argument is now out.