Leaderboard

Sas, Dunning simply pronounces that there is no evidence. I'd like to see a serious investigation into the contemporary acquisitions and holdings of those institutions to which such material would have been sent back in the day. Many of us believe that such an investigation will bear fruit. It is an achievable task with quantifiable results. So far as I can see, Dunning is no more than a modestly successful pundit with an agenda.

One other interesting aspect of utilizing NPS lands is that they also charge for commerical and still photography for profit. I get Special Event Permits issued out of the Lake Mead NRA and when I am trying to use film or photos for publication, I am required to get a film permit in addition to my special use permit. If the groups are intending to photograph and later use that photo for commerical purposes, ie: websites, etc, a permit is needed. From the Lake Mead NRA site: Film and Commercial Still Photography Film/Still Photo Permit Application All film and still photography permits have location fee charges per 16 USC §3a and 16 USC § 460l-6d. Commercial filming is defined as digital or film recording of a visual image or sound recording by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience, such as for a documentary, television or feature film, advertisement, or similar project. It does not include news coverage or visitor use. Still photography activities require a permit only when: The activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; The activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or The park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity; The park needs to provide management and oversight to: Avoid impairment or incompatible use of the resources and values of the park, or Limit resource damage, or Minimize health or safety risks to the visiting public. All commercial filming permits and still photography permits are subject to cost recovery and a location fee. No waivers are allowed. The location fee is calculated per day and must be based on the following schedule and is determined by the type of activity (commercial filming versus still photography) and the number of people on park lands associated with the permitted activity. There is no deviation from the schedule. Commercial Filming/Videos Still Photography 1 - 2 people, camera & tripod only $0/day 1 - 10 people $150/day 1 - 10 people $50/day 11 - 30 people $250/day 11 - 30 people $150/day 31 - 49 people $500/day Over 30 people $250/day Over 50 people $750/day Follow the directions found in the application form then mail the completed form to the park headquarters address. Forms will only be accepted via U.S. Mail. Forms that have been faxed or e-mailed will not be accepted for consideration. 10 business days notice is required. A $100 non-refundable application fee is required. Please send a cashier's check or money order payable to National Park Service. We are not able to accept credit cards at this time. Additional administrative costs, cost recovery or facilities use cost may also be charged. I am guessing that this expedition might also be in need of a film permit in addition to the special use permit. I wonder how recorded thermal imaging fits into this? The whole liability insurance issue is another thing as I have a $1M policy for liability for the events I conduct on NPS lands. These guys should have these as a CYA regardless of where they are conducting thier group outings. What a paradox - needing a Special Use and filming permit to go after something that you cant prove exists without pictures! I guess you could say that this is the governments tacit admission that these animals do exist if they require you to pay to view them???

I didn't bring my post above back around to the thread, so it appears off-topic. Point is, there've been scores of reports of very tall indian skeletons excavated from mounds throughout the 1800's, all of which were spirited off to various institutions and never seen again. It suggests that there was a race of tall native Americans that went extinct. These remains are lost in the bowels of various academic and scientific institutions and may never again see the light of day. With advances in DNA we've been able to sequence the neandertal and denisova genomes, and in the case of denisova, this was done with very little to go on. Yet here we have evidence of a possible new species already in possession by academic institutions who have access to technology that could easily tell if they were simply tall humans, or another species and no one's checking it out. The Si-Teh-Cah skeletons may be of the same race. Their height indicates the possibility. They could also be unique unto themselves. Either way, their remains exist and an enterprising academic could make a name for himself by tracking them down and sequencing them. It seems to me that the larger scientific community does have some inherent bias when it comes to such remains collected almost a century ago or more. Neandertal were very clearly not modern human so they got special attention, but others, that were close to modern human, but still consistently anomolous have been looked upon as simply tall people. If someone excavated a mound today and they were found today, they would be all the rage, but now that the science of DNA has caught up to the bones found a century and a half ago, no one seems interested in revisiting them. Why is that? Do the attitude toward this particular set of type specimens and the attitude toward bigfoot evidence stem from a common root bias among thought leaders in the related disciplines? "Bring me a body to prove you have a new hominid species." But academia has bodies that are probably from at least an uncatalogued native American race, and possibly from an uncatalogued hominid species. All they've got to do is locate them in the basement and apply modern science. Why isn't this being done?

The burden on evidence goes both ways, and there has been sloppiness on both sides, but this statement is correct for the current situation. There has been a rather significant amount of evidence collected which strongly correlates to the existence of a species or race of large ape or human roaming wild. Meanwhile, this evidence fails in "proving" the existence of bigfoot because there still exists some small possibility that all of it is the result of widespread hoaxing, incompetence and mistaken identity. This is where the sloppiness comes in, especially on the skeptic side. It is fine to brainstorm alternative explanations for the evidence, but then taking the brainstorming as proof to dismiss the evidence is just as foolish as using belief or knowing as proof to accept the evidence. If one wants to disprove some evidence which has been analyzed and a conclusion draw, then they must go beyond brainstorming to create and test a hypothesis. This seems to be rarely ever done on the skeptic side. Instead, the skeptic favors to be intellectually lazy and place the burden on the proponent, and when the proponent meets that burden, to then fall back on belief of non-existence.