Leaderboard

No issue with honest skeptics here. I have an issue with dishonest scoffers who call themselves skeptics and masquerade outright abuse of witnesses as "honest questions." MIB

Meh....you'll never get a satisfactory answer to that one, I'm predicting. It is rooted deep in the self-identity of the particular skeptic, and that is proven to be a no-go zone for most. The same reluctance to examine the evidence on an engaged level is the same thing that drives the aversion to any analysis of why they feel that strongly. I've learned (for me at least) my interest in the question of BF is a nice academic diversion on which my sense of identity doesn't depend. Judging from the positions of some others here, they may be just a tad too invested in this field of inquiry and egos can be rubbed wrong very quickly because of it. If I had one wish to be granted, it would be that we all try to enjoy ourselves a little more here. This is not life or death as far as I can tell. Sure seems that way at times though, and I don't just mean the skeptics. Of course, if I saw something I couldn't explain, and was greeted with a giant rasberry from others who had never seen such a thing, or would even admit to the possibility/probability of that being true, I might get a little miffed too.

The OP is lamenting, not skeptics or a lack of scientific evidence, or even the skeptic's unwillingness to accept the proffered evidence, but instead the refusal of some skeptics to admit even the slightest chance that bigfoot exist. It has nothing to do with whether or not they accept any particular evidence, and has more to do with a denial of possibilities and a dogmatic acceptance of nonexistence almost by rote.Why they take this stance is open to speculation, but it leads me to believe they are not (at least not primarily) interested in new knowledge and possibilities.

Dmaker, the floor is yours. I'm off to get the popcorn.

There are certainly photos that exist in the private domain. The PGF is a whole mess of them. People don't like to take photos and have them wind up in public domain, or are you not talking about copyright? The evidence that Patty is the real thing has been tested. In fact, attempts to show that she was a suit have backfired, and actually shown that she was the real thing in spite of themselves. So we are in fact beyond that. Whether a person can **accept** that is an entirely different matter! I think a lot of people experience cognitive dissonance as the reality is too challenging for their worldview.

Until these critters are proven to exist and can be studied, there are no answers as to what they eat or the calories needed to sustain them. All we can do is guess, no one can truly "say" what they need or don't need or what range they have. We can compare their needs to bear, cattle, humans but there is no way of knowing.

I don't know how active that area was during that era, but there may have been more than one site where men were working the area. There were places and times where prospectors were thick as fleas. The area where I grew up northwest of Reno had a wealth of old mining sites, and the terrain had actually been shaped in places by deforestation and hydraulic mining. I recall three or four times when someone fell into a shaft or got lost in a mine and had to be rescued. In the 90's folks actually started dynamiting the entrances to the old mines to close them off. Not saying they didn't find the right cabin, just that there might have been more than one up that way. So few artifacts are attributable to a specific person. Don't think it really matters, though if you're just looking for evidence that someone was up there at one time. Has anyone actually looked up the old mining claim they must have filed? It would have some official description of its location that could help. Those records would also indicate if there were any other claims in the area. I take it that Ape Canyon was not changed geographically by the eruption?