Leaderboard

I have a theory that proving the existence of sasquatch may corroborate accounts from the scriptures and apocryphal writings of the religions you malign.

I am definitely NO KILL because I have seen one very close, several near misses, and really don't care who believes me or if they believe that the creatures exist. I used to feel differently, but strongly believe this creature should stay a Cryptid. Think about it, nothing good can really come from 'proof' except more controls & restrictions, is that what we really want? I guarantee bodies have turned up several times over the centuries, but quickly disappear, and there will always be those that DO NOT want this creature to go 'public'. Religious reasons had a higher calling in the past, but it's more about the money now I suspect. Think of the money involved to legislate new laws & restrictions, enforcement, and what the heck would they say in the printed & on-line brochures for State & National Parks? The Park's are for FAMILIES, and Bigfoot would be very bad for business! Of course, if I was being attacked by a Bigfoot, then all bets are off, and blast away.

You are so backwards on this. Any decent scientist would not say this is a bunch of hooey. A decent scientist would say something like Dr. John Hawks said about the DNA study. (And Dr. John Hawks is not a decent scientist, he is probably the best in his field) http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/pseudoscience/bigfoot-dna-press-release-2012.html That is how a real scientist would respond to a claim about Bigfoot. It is how I have been responding to claims about hair samples, scat, dna. I have the priviledge of being able to offer my personal opinion, which is based on the lack of any of the above and their test results. A real scientist doesn't give opinions on something that has no data.

For bigfoot knowers/belivers only, I see it like this: If BF exist, and if they spend any significant amount of time in our dimension as corporeal, flesh and blood creatures, then I find it difficult to believe that the gov't at large (and most likely academia), or at least a certain group (or groups) within, does not have knowledge of their existence based on remains, physical traces, or film/photos/video. If BF exist, and are not F&B beings, then the gov't/academia may or may not be aware of them, but if they are, then the knowledge of their existence would obviously need to be based on something other than physical evidence. Of course, if you do not believe that sasquatch exist, then the question is moot, an exercise in folly.

probably cause "some people" keep seeing them. not talking about the loonies or attention seekers either. regular folks with nothing to gain & a rep to lose still come forward with some regularity giving at least a similar generic description matching supposed BF attributes....yeah eyewitnesses can fail, people lie etc, so while it isn't proof, theres enough history there to make it worth a look ( & inspire years worth of circular debate )