Leaderboard

I don't think scientists want to proclaim bigfoot is real without proof, proof is what scientists want first before they publish. Science has to act first to have proof in the form of DNA. I'm amazed at your ability to not see this vicious cycle where doubt can cripple the action. I do think the bar is higher for bigfoot, because it has been so long without proof, and ofcoarse it's existence is portrayed to be so extraordinary, which demands the extraordinary proof. You wouldn't settle for less now would you? BTW, since when was peer review done at science meetings? Criticisms at such meetings doesn't sound like it is a formal and independent analysis of data. Should I call this a strawman below? Sorry parn, not on this controversial topic.

Bigfoot believers musta shot your dog or something, because you seem to have a lot of dislike for them. I'm a skeptic, but have no problem whatsoever with those that believe in BF, you sir, on the other hand seem to have a Bigfoot believer chip on your shoulder.

Anyone who has interacted with them learns this very quickly. It's the primary characteristic that defines their behavior toward us from our perspective. Too often people view any wild creature as universally beautiful, benign, and harmless to humans in this day and age. A lion on the other side of the glass is fascinating, even if it is trying to claw through the glass to get at your kid. A cougar in the suburbs is a problem, and it's not nearly so beautiful when you're looking down its throat because its got its fangs in your head. Folks who know squatch only from reports keep offering the "They're so elusive that they must fear us, but they seem to have this overwhelming curiosity about us" viewpoint. It leads to the perception that there is some fundamental dichotomy with regard to bigfoot behavior. So afraid of us, but, like children, unable to help themselves. Drawn to us against their better judgement and will. "How do we explain this inconsistency?" Here's how. The elusiveness and stalking are the behavior of an ambush predator. If one acknowledges that they are predators, the behaviors become consistent, rather than inconsistent. There are plenty of other predators that exhibit exactly this same combination of traits and behaviors. Tigers avoid humans, but are drawn to human communities because of the availability of prey in the form of livestock, and the occasional unwary human. When is a sasquatch not hungry? When does it have the luxury of simply kicking back and not worrying about where food for the rest of the week is coming from? They're always hungry. They're always looking for food. And that's why they're always around us. We have food. We plant gardens, keep crops, keep livestock, keep pets, attract prey species like deer and rodents, and discard large quantities of edible garbage. All a squatch has to do is watch and wait, then grab the food when no one is watching. It's been this way ever since we started managing food resources. They've always been out there, ready to steal our kills when our backs are turned, raid our food stores, or swipe our goat. Before that, we were likely their prey when other food was scarce, and the only thing that kept them at bay was the fact that we would band together for mutual protection. At some point we actually started chasing them off when we saw them. This makes it harder to get our food. So they respect us the same way we respect bees. Individual bees can sting and a hive can be aroused. So they watch and wait. If they're seen they withdraw and find another place to watch and wait. When the time and circumstances are right, they go for the honey. And sometimes they eat a bee.

Here's a paper- http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Mayak%20Datat%20Hairy%20Man%20Pictographs-1.pdf I know you won't like the source- that's okay- the journal has more scientific standing than your argument does so I'll go with that. You simply have to see- "Science" is an vague, inaccurate entity that can't be used as a standard of proof. To not admit to that shows the lack of validity of your argument. Generalities are the death of accuracy. Tim B. What's your thresh hold or standard for recognized species? Tim B.