Leaderboard

For the sake of curiosity, what makes what you are doing any different? At least there are solid parallels for DWA's position. Only a portion of any disease is identified. Only a portion of any particular type of crime is reported. You can ask any epidemiology specialist or law enforcement professional, they can confirm this. So there is some rational basis for his claims. Your position, on the other hand, only seems to be backed by your own wishful thinking. Can you cite examples to back your claim? If not ... the argument you offer is invalid. MIB

Except in field where hoaxery and lies are rampant - which is undeniable in Bigfoot. I can give you many many examples of people lying and hoaxing about Bigfoot. Start with Rick Dyer and youtube. Show me similar in garden bird surveys, and your point holds water. Note that I will provide these examples if you can't find them for yourself. I'm still waiting for your examples of DNA results showing unknown primate. You know, the ones that you insist exist even though you refuse to reference any examples whatsoever. This is comical. You continually dismiss my supported arguments as "simply because I say so" and then post your own and what's your reasoning? "My own life experience makes it intuitive". Wonderful.

Hello All, Why would anyone need a Sasquatch to be known in order to protect it's habitat in the first place. Protecting habitat soley for the sake of the habitat itself should be enough IMO. I mean why should it take a Spotted Owl for us to practice good stewardship?

Hi JDL, I have read the 411 books. I don't think Paulides made the case that BF were the culprits. Paulides made a lot of errors and faulty assumptions about human behaviors that have been pointed out by SAR experts. I do grant you that the Dennis Martin case was ambiguous but the sighting of the ragged man carrying "something" did not rule out a human. I question the assumption that BF or certain populations of them prey on humans. . I cannot imagine a behavior more likely to reveal their existence (if indeed they do exist) than to snack on humans.

The skeptical fallacy coupled with the stipulation that all reports are false by definition because bigfoot cannot, therefore, does not exist. Classic circular reasoning that goes so far as to invalidate even the formulation of a hypothesis. Worse, their position is based on nothing more than their own belief system. They can't prove their own negative hypothesis, so they regress to attacking all evidence that does not support their own belief based, negative hypothesis.

If someone brings in an actual body, and it can be determined that it is just an animal after all, I will be forced to alter my stance. But for now, I think Hypothesis #1 is the most likely truth....