Leaderboard

This is a Bigfoot discussion forum. It is not a laboratory for evaluating field samples of possible evidence. If you are looking for proof, its in the field. Have to ask: If you saw a Bigfoot in broad daylight at close range would you recognize it based on how other people have described them? To you personally, would that be proof that they do in fact exist? Respectfully

I believe Neadertal would be more correct. Neander is a river in France, "tal" refers to a river valley. The fossils first identified were in the Neander river valley and the name refered to the people who had lived there. The NeanderTHAL is sort of a mistake in the english-ization. At least, so I'm told. I've been told wrong before, though. The insistence on equating tools to genus Homo is wrong. We develop tools to offset physical attributes we lack ... clothes to protect us from the cold because we don't have a lot of insulating hair, pointy rocks to make up for a our lack of claws and sharp teeth, and so on. There's no reason for a being of genus Homo that had more hair and either (teeth + claws) or sufficiently greater strength to get by without them to develop the same sort of tools we do. They might find tools made sufficient by their greater strength available on location and not need to invest so much effort into production of better tools. Beng able to stay warm enough without shelter, being able to obtain food without complex tools changes EVERYTHING. It means the assumptions about what makes us human are only a specific subset of a bigger picture instead of the whole answer. MIB

Flaking stone is well over one million years old............so if Sasquatch is truly a member of the genus Homo? That's a lot of devolving to do. Picking up sticks as tools or placing some branches over your head when it rains, is well documented Ape behavior. Flaking stone to make tools is something much different. I'm afraid I don't see the evidence for Sasquatch being a member of our genus as you do.........other than bipedalism. Which could be a parallel adaptation as well.

seems to me there was an attempt at global cooling at some point..... of course the ongoing flouridation controversy then there's the whole health care industry where doctors and scientists knowingly falsify data: http://naturalsociety.com/scandalous-scientists-and-doctors-falsifying-data-for-research-to-be-published/ So...it happens.

And yet, there is little difference between anecdotal evidence and witness testimony, the basis of our legal systems and on which people's lives often hang in the balance. Further, based on the standard you have applied, every 911 call could be dismissed by a skeptical operator as anecdotal, thus giving that 911 operator/dispatcher, in their own absolute and self-assigned authority, cause to not take action on any 911 call, because they believe witness reports to be so flawed that they can be universally ignored. Life's a lot easier if one has at least some faith in people. One cannot, with certitude say that all witnesses are flawed without acknowledging that their own opinions may be equally flawed. To maintain that one is not flawed, but everyone else is, puts one in the realm of another scientific discipline, psychology, and psychologists have a standing diagnosis for such a condition.