Leaderboard

Can't and don't fault your position at all. Reality is that, short of a type specimen, there needs to be enough mutually supporting evidence from a single encounter to be irrefutable. To my mind this indicates at least both video and DNA (not photos, because a still can be readily faked, whereas a series of motion frames provide physiometric data that is either consistent, or is not - and, preferably, the video shows the deposition of the DNA). The means by which the DNA is collected also needs to be well documented to later demonstrate proper handling and chain of custody. Footprint data and other secondary forensic evidence is of lesser value because it cannot be tied directly to the individual that left it without the individual itself to compare it to. It is, however, icing on the cake if the primary evidence (video and DNA) are already available. I don't mean to denigrate footprint evidence at all. The body of footprint data has provided a lot of meaningful information. It is just that any individual print, or limited number of prints can be faked, and so, for a specific encounter, it needs to be coupled with enough other evidence to preclude the possibility of a hoax.

You seem to be discounting footprint evidence and Dr Meldrums contention that many of them are genuine and not human. Many sightings have accompanying footprints. I might believe your analysis of the footprint data and accept disagreement as to origin if you had a background equivalent to his. Until or unless you do, I would accept his evaluation of footprint evidence over your judgment that evidence does not exist.

I have experienced just how elusive the Bigfoot/Sasquatch subject can be in many situations, but I have also had the incredible experience of being openly approached by a family group because they trusted the land owner I was with. These subjects do establish relationships with people. I have seen it on more than one occasion in different places with different folks. From personal observations, I have come to several personal conclusions most folks have trouble accepting, but it doesn't change what I have experienced one bit. 1. The Bigfoot have intellect and cognitive thinking. To treat them as if they are just a dumb animal to be driven, baited and hunted is a recipe for failure. Just look at the groups who hold this position and show how that has worked for them? Many have never even seen one, yet profess they are experts about who and what these subjects are! 2. The Bigfoot clearly understand intentions. They will not amuse or perform on command. They are a curious lot and will respond to someone who is genuine and reaching out with no strings attached. 3. The young ones are usually the ones on the perimeter of a family group that are used as sentries. They will alert the group of your presence and often distract and lead you away from the group. They toy with getting close to you, but never being seen. It is a big game with them. To be found out is a bad thing. 4. They do understand spoken language and some folks-including myself-have communicated with them. That's not my opinions, but are my personal experiences for what its worth. If you think its BS, no harm done, just treat it as fiction and believe what you will. Have a very blessed day! M.O.

Distinct possibility. The sheer volume of close proximity reports cannot be denied or glossed over. Are each and everyone of these errors or lies? Some? Yes undoubtedly. Most? Quite possibly. All? Highly unlikely.