Leaderboard

See, that's the problem. For every piece proffered as evidence, we get an argument as to why it is invalid. People chose sides and the arguments ensue with no solid resolution. The only thing left to do it to decide for ones self what you will or will not accept as evidence (notice I didn't say proof) and weight both sides and decide for yourself whether it is or isn't evidence according to you. The whole realm of proof is another thing. That argument is much like the argument for evidence but with much more passion. LOL. I guess the old adage holds true for that argument. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

I have literally known Dolphins, Cats and Dogs, that were far more intelligent than 90% of the humans I have ever had the misfortune of having to interact with. Fire and inventions = WOW!.... I learned how to use a tool. And as a scientist you came to this hypothesis how? 90%........wow indeed! I didn't miss that either. I would want to see one to finally judge what it was. If I saw a human then I'd have to turn you in. If I didn't then I might say you shot a bipedal ape that could still ultimately be classified in the genus homo but not sapiens. You might get a pardon from me on that one, but only if it didn't have a modern human mitochondria. Ketchum owns that. Its not going to have modern human dna...... in the words of Todd Discotell, 15000 years ago? Us was us.......,.,

No I didn't , sure at some point a hominins ancestor was a hominid. Check this out from your link. Then clicked on hominin and got. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominin Hominini is the tribe of Homininae that comprises Homo, and other members of the human clade after the split from the tribe Panini (chimpanzees).[1][2] Members of the tribe are calledhominins (cf Hominidae, "hominids"). The subtribe Hominina is the "human" branch, including genus Homo. So the Laetoli tracks are still Human or pre-human. The term Hominid refers to the family Hominidae which includes all great apes, though their tracks are markedly different from homo and it's more direct ancestors. This is why the tracks from Australia are human tracks and not potentially some other hominid. So if I follow science, I see human in bigfoot tracks. Thats logical right?

I look at it like this. Science doesn't kill hominins to find out they are indeed hominins. They have good reasons for that. Take this example below. When Science studies tracks like this which are fossilized, they see "Human" tracks. When a bigfooter finds these same tracks in fresh muddy soil, lets say a remote place in the PNW , they are seen as being made from some convergently evolved ape which seemingly slipped under the radar for millions of years. Who's being more scientific? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060803-footprint_2.html

Daggone amateur researchers... So where is the accredited training program to become a professional bigfoot researcher? How many box tops and coupons do I need to collect before I can be admitted into the program and get my decoder ring and golden ticket?! So ptangier, are you a law enforcement officer or judiciary member? If not, where do you get the right to interpret the laws regarding shooting something that doesn't officially exist?

Cotter, I think the average human attention span was not selected to entertain such long-range mysteries, don't you agree? Most of the impetuous whinging we see out there on the subject of BF proof really amounts to just a complaint that confirmation hasn't happened quick enough, or that preferred deadlines are not being met. Quite a normal human failing to want proof NOW! I wish the world would operate on my timetable, and I'd be much more content with the state of things, wouldn't you? I've said before, many talk as if they have money riding on the outcome, and can't stand to wait a minute more to know if their wager was good or not. It is no doubt difficult to have so much of a personal investment in this outcome so as to feel slighted by the lack of resolution. I would not want it.

@OS, a year of on-line 'research' for you to determine there is not much compelling evidence put on the internet? Yikes! Question - in that year, how much field work have you put in? Y'know, boots on the ground? Any investigations you've participated in? It's kind of like having a bad day fishing on a lake and declaring there are no fish in the lake....

Habituation occurs when one group or individual attempts to modify the behavior of another group or individual through repetition of a particular stimulus or behavior. Location wouldn't seem to be a factor.