Leaderboard

I'm on board with Bipto's group being among the best chance for scientific acceptance of the creature we know as bigfoot. I'm fairly off board when tales of creatures rocking trees and causing them to break are spun. It diminishes much of their good, fine efforts.

You're droning on, posting after posting, your belief "science is to blame for not realizing the evidence proves existence of unnamed North American primate." We get it. You've made abundantly clear your thought on the matter. That you continue to make hundreds of postings stating the same thing doesn't bolster your opinion. In fact, it certainly makes many of us dread seeing your postings, as we've read the same one, hundreds of times. We get it. You claim to speak for "science."

100% sure that they exist, since my own sighting about 35 years ago, but not sure where to place them on the "ape/human/what the heck" scale, as my view was from the rear side only, so no facial features seen at all. The behavior was very "Patty-like", as the reaction to noticing my presence was to simply walk away, up a hillside on the far side of a large creek from me.

Well, how very adroit of you. You choose a known phenomenon that has absolutely no parallels to the actual event as described, you ignore other described observations in the process (which, of course, won't fit your hypothesis) and you hide behind a manufactured invitation of disbelief to wrap it all up. Nice. There is quite a bit of difference between taking cover behind Bipto's frequent reminders to not take what he describes to be PROOF, and using that as a method of ignoring evidence. And I doubt he means to invite you to call him a liar, if that is where we are heading. I'm not asking you to believe anything either, so stop with that for once. I'm asking you, as a thinking person, to craft a scenario that fits all of the event as described. If you can't, just be man enough to say so, would you please?

Ditto! And I'll add one more thing and that is, keep it to yourself because if the location is leaked you will be accused of someone hoaxing you. Good advice from Midnight Owl and others here for complete and total secrecy. And for the record, killing one would be not only a crime IMO but a sad, sad statement about our "civilization" and what we are doing to this species and others for that matter.

The perspective is entirely human centric. It assumes that the success of a sapient species is dependent upon it's ability to develop and use technology, and also assumes that technology is the only measure of sapience. It also defines "human" based on these constraints. I would submit that a non-technological approach can also be successfully pursued by a sapient species. Keep in mind that as we create technology that increases success, we also create vulnerabilities that increase failure when deprived of that technology. Drop 99% of the human race in the woods naked and they will not thrive. Put 99% of humans up against an aggressively competitive group of other humans willing to kill to survive, and they will not thrive. In fact, we create specialists within our society to protect us from such people. Deprive humans of food distribution, electricity, gas, and water, and many will die. Many more in cities than in rural areas. To say that I am superior because I can develop and use tools (which many people actually cannot), is little different than saying one is superior because one can be a Vegan. But, loss of tools is the short route between thriving and dying. And starvation is the short route between Vegan and cannibal. The more technologically successful we become, the more dependent upon our technology we become, and the less important physical weaknesses become. Something as simple as near-sightedness, once a major impediment to successful hunting and avoidance of danger (i.e., survival), is no longer an impediment to success, provided that you have access to, or can make, corrective lenses. But take the technology away and the simple weakness impedes your survival, and impedes your ability to pass on your genes through a selective mate. An additional measure of intelligence might be considered the ability to survive in a world humans dominate. Without speculating on their specific origin, Squatch certainly developed in tandem with us. They had to adapt strategies and find a niche that allowed them to survive in a world where we aggressively eliminate competitive threats. We're very good at exterminating our own and exterminating others. How smart does something have to be to adapt to that and survive? Permanent structures, fire, and recognizable tools left about are all evidence that a competing hominid is present, allowing the dominant hominid to detect, locate, and eliminate them. To coexist with us while simultaneously employing strategies of elusiveness and pilferage has to say something. Many of us feel like they are running circles around us when they want to in their environment, and in shared environments. In our environment they can't do that, but they can simply rip our heads off and return to theirs. How smart do they have to be to out-smart us?