Leaderboard

Hello BipedalCurious, With your attitude "BECAUSE" is all you get. Try something positive for a change. A positive move is getting John Green's database opened up for anyone who wants it. A positive move is trying to accomplish the same thing through contact with the BFRO. Anyone else doing that? NO. It's challenging enough without more challenges from you. I don't meant to be unkind here but I'm have difficulty understanding your combative approach.

Yes show 55 was fun, they are all great. But I am sick of the skeptic "memory is so unreliable" card, spouting off with the we can make people think they saw this character at an event where it is impossible, or saw something at an impossible time, etc. Who cares, so you can stick a spoon in someones streaming background memory material and stir it around a bit. Make someone think they had a class A bigfoot encounter and you have something, otherwise shut TF up...

DNA will always be informative and definitive in regards to species ID. Sykes wouldn't be involved if it wasn't. Describing a new species from it may be difficult if BF DNA is human, but then so would it be with a specimen and the same DNA.

Hello Hellbilly, Oh I'll get something alright.......Banned LOL

Hopefully..........

I do think your guest is a very articulate and intelligent individual Bipto. There is just an E-quotient missing in her view of witness accounts. I think most of the ill feelings that develop between witnesses and their accounts and skeptics is the fact they have very different goals. Science wants, as it were, to use the personal account as a step towards proof, but can't or won't. The witness usually has no goal along those lines, as he/she has already arrived at a very satisfactory level of personal proof. This public v. personal proof collision fuels a lot of the misunderstanding. It is not helped by how someone is likely to resent having their sensory experience chalked up to hallucination, as she apparently does. And there is this too: You asked (to paraphrase)...What is the harm if someone chooses to believe in something that doesn't exist? (Great question, BTW). She could only toss out some lame examples of how govt. resources would be wasted (Yeah, THAT never happens otherwise,right?) or misguiding your children. What her failure to articulate anything really detrimental tells me is there is a resentment at work there. The source of that resentment, I believe, is the idea that somebody may be having an experience she and her chosen discipline can't share in. What else is there left to do but tell everyone else they are not having as much fun as they think they are? Very parental and so not useful.

For me this is exciting , this just shows how variant a species can be. It looks more likely all the time { in my mind anyway } that the modern sasquatch could be a severely adapted human or human like species that has abandoned the standard human social structure for a more animalistic way of life in select family groups. Perhaps their mental capacity is now designed more around survival and avoidance abilities rather than our technological development through the massing of minds. The strange body size , proportions and bone structure could be result of the all the generations of adaptation in the forest in this manner. Only the strongest and most resistant can survive, the radical change in environment quickly weeds out the weak and creates change. Change or die , this has always been the rule of nature.

Short answer. Whatever Cryptid is closest to this place: