Leaderboard

Got a list? You know, the ones that are faking this????? Inquiring minds would love to know.

@dmaker on the first point its simple most people come from a position of belief. they already know it exists therefore any evidence no matter how shoddy is welcomed with open arms because they feel vindicated by it. it would be cool if people had a more scientific approach to the subject but most dont. so they simply try to explain away lack of evidence with absurd notions. trust me, none are needed, i do not feel like its absurd that a shy nocturnal, rare, ape could still be out in the wilds of n america still undiscovered by science. the odds are low yes, but i do not have to give it shape shifting traits either to make it make sense. alot of wild country out there and its getting wilder as more humans become urban dwellers. on the second point, no i do not think squatch is human intelligent. but i do think that a north american ape isnt a stretch of fancy. i think our ape like ancestors did just fine outside of africa in long winters and seasonal food sources without hibernation. again its plausible, unproven but plausible. and again homo florensis was a native boogeyman myth until very recently and then it wasnt.......... little hairy people of the forest did indeed coexist with modern humans. so again plausibility...... i think we tend to be jaded in our view that north america has given up all of her secrets while a small jungle island somewhere is still mysterious. i do not subscribe to the notion that squatches are everywhere nor that they hang out in the burbs. to remain elusive as they are they must stay pretty well hidden in our vast forests close to wilderness areas in my opinion

You know Tontar, I think we once had a discussion very similar to this. If you need a refresher about the facts at hand: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7225-the-ketchum-report/page__st__5380#entry591565 In the end, any discussion that goes on here isn't really about the facts of the situation. It seems to be more about removing intellectual dishonesty. This is the discussion, as I see it. Skeptics maintain that we have no proof. This is true. Proponents maintain that the evidence suggests that we are missing something, specifically a 7-10 foot tall bipedal ape. This is true. Skeptics maintain that you can't say that without proof. This is not true. As far as I know there are no restrictions on the hypothesis chosen in the scientific method, except that it must make sense based upon what has been observed. As far as what has been observed, I make a pretty good accounting of that in the link above, and it seems to me that a 7-10 foot tall bipedal ape is an acceptable guess based on that evidence. If you believe I am incorrect in saying that 'Bigfoot' is an acceptable hypothesis, please tell me why. And no, "There isn't any proof" or a variation thereof is not an acceptable answer, as stated above. I'm not sure how they convinced themselves that it made sense to say that we cannot attribute evidence to a conclusion before the conclusion has been proven true. Putting the cart before the horse, don't you think? Without assuming a conclusion, we cannot properly make steps towards proving if that conclusion is actually accurate or not. If one does not want to consider the possibility of that conclusion being true, then one is not being scientific. Which, in the end, is no problem, as long as you are not trying to make other people believe that you are being scientific. Perhaps you'd be interested in maintaining another hypothesis, maybe that all Bigfoot evidence thus far has either been a hoax or misinterpreted. If you wish to maintain that hypothesis, you have a lot of work ahead of you and I wish you luck in your endeavor. Whichever hypothesis or conclusion you support, you cannot avoid the truth of the matter. That this entire Bigfoot issue is, as DWA says, unresolved. Statements to the otherwise are a misrepresentation of the issue, whether purposeful or made out of ignorance. It would be foolish of me to think that people will see the truth of this post and change the direction of the discussion. Instead of going back and forth about the validity of Bigfoot, something which cannot be proven over an internet forum, they might begin to discuss how better we could go about collecting evidence and, eventually, proof. Then, at least, progress might be made to that eventual goal. If we keep on like this, the Bigfoot issue is still likely to be unresolved another fifty or sixty years from now.

im curious about several of your comments, a) why is it that the personalities within the bigfoot community convinced you that the creature did not exist? what do humans have to do with it? this strikes me as someone relying on being spoon fed info and lost trust with the people holding the spoon. it also sounds abit like sour grapes. i do not rely on biscardi and bobo to spoon feed me anything i instead rely on my own experience, my knowledge of the forest and other lay peoples experiences that i find credible and compelling. B )it is not inconcievable that a sasquatch exists. the history of the ape family tree is very large and bushy and we are still finding new species to add to it all the time. if squatch was reported to be a two legged bipedal land shark or a three headed hydra then that would be inconcievable from a biology stand point.

Rayford Wallace. I just said I typed the name wrong and then read it wrong in your post. I've been going in contact with so many people, I am perfectly fine saying I got Rayford and Raymond mixed up for a minute. A typo isn't a contradiction though. A contradiction is would be if I said he was a doctor, and then later said he wasn't a doctor. You can go look at the article though. A typo in a forum post as opposed to errors and contradictions in a scientific paper are completely different things. Do I make mistakes? Absolutely. The difference is I own up to mine.

Why would I chase down hearsay- and from a very biased source? I just go on the assumption that it's tainted by the agenda that drives that forum. Hearsay is convenient to keep the "conversation" going, but it isn't reliable evidence in my estimation. I'd like to stay focused on the facts. Tim B.