Leaderboard

I don't care how he "knows". It's a ridiculous assumption! YOU ask him if you need to know. And why not ask him for proof while you're at it? After all, he's a scientist & they supposedly always have proof for everything they say. The name of the thread is "Waiting Out Sasquatch's Extinction" & I said they aren't going extinct. Seems pretty much on topic to me.....

Regarding populations, nobody will ever be able to get close to an accurate number because of Canada and Alaska. Canada and Alaska, IMO, blows the entire subject out of the water because of the size of its habitat and the lack of people in which the vast majority are restricted, in Canada anyway, to within 100 miles or so from the border. Alaska only has less than three quarters of a million people in it, with over half of those in Anchorage. Canada's boreal forest alone has close to 1.5 Billion acres, Alaska has nearly 130 million acres which is more than the 6 most heavily forested States in the lower 48 combined. I don't see these things going extinct any time soon personally, not even in the lower 48 let alone up there.

I most definitely take the word of the scientists that are actively trying to solve this mystery over any hardcore skeptic any day of the week. If you don't believe, fine then just move on along. You have said your piece. I and many other others like me have no problem with honest skeptics that are trying to help in a constructive manner. All and all, It is really simple, the BF mystery will not be solved by the back and forth arguments on this forum no matter how bad anyone wants it to. For those that have lost their passion after decades of searching to no avail, need to realize that others have not.I for one will never let my beliefs be jaded by what goes on in a web forum. There is no hurry folks, and there is nothing that can counter that position with any certainty. Many out there believe that there is no evidence at all, and others that believe what we have is incredibly weak.That is certainly your prerogative. Whether you wish to believe it or not there are scientists out there, and they are actively trying to solve this mystery. Much of the evidence collected to date falls in the "Trace" category, and many will dismiss it off hand, but for those that analyze the data, and compare it against evidence already in hand soon realize that it can't be ignored. To this day I am still amazed that sightings are treated as nothing more than stories. It should be obvious that sightings reports are not and will never be proof. They are the first piece of the puzzle. They are what helps determine a course of action. There are most definitely many fake reports, and many reports that can be explained away as mis-identifications, or just not have enough information to arrive at any type of conclusion. There are however many that cannot be ignored and will provide the impetus for further investigation. The researchers that are armed with this information and get out in the field are the ones that will ultimately crack this case!

The hypotheses of the scientists I used as examples have not been proven to anyone, including the scientists who proposed the theories. I specifically pointed to Dr. Disotell, Dr. Fahrenbach, Dr. Meldrum and Dr. Sykes as examples of why we all should admire a skeptical viewpoint and push for testing rather than relying on sighting reports. If you have a specific scientist or hypothesis in mind I'm more than willing to discuss it. I see no point discussing hypotheses that haven't been stated or tested, much less confirmed scientifically with those that have went through the process as though they are on equal footing. That's the whole point of science and a skeptical viewpoint - all theories aren't equal and it takes work and a skeptical outlook to succeed. Pretending otherwise is why bigfootery has the problems it does.

To the avid proponents: How can you not understand a person's doubt that a 600-lb giant apeman/creature walks the woods? The onus is on you, and the meager evidence proffered thus far is hardly enough to sway the average citizen's mind that the unbelievable could exist. Your personal witnessing is not enough for most people (rightfully so, sez I), and like the old gal from the Wendy's commercial, they will ask "Where's the beef?"

My understanding is that populations of other large wild animals (bear, deer, moose, catamount, pig) have been increasing since the 1960s. This is in part due to increased conservation of land and - I believe - a decreased interest in our population in active hunting and being outdoors (at least away from well-marked hiking trails). I know that my own state - Vermont - has shifted since the 1920s from being something like 20% forested to being more like 70-80% forested. We are moving away being an outdoor-agricultural-driven state to being a road/home/office bound culture. We are simultaneously creating more habitat for a large reclusive animal and being less aware of "what is going on in the woods over there". if the only evidence of extinction is absence of proof of existence, I don't think the argument is strongly supported by the lack of wanted data. Tim

MNSkeptic, in your first post, it seems that you're questioning the interactions here on the forum(s), but later you specifically mention family and friends reactions to attempts to discuss bigfoot evidence. I think there are two very different possible explanations to each scenario, but I'm just going to go with the family/friends reactions. I had the same problem with family years ago. Any attempt to discuss actual reports were met with "ah, that's just people high on something, people from the city who don't know a bear from a billy goat...etc." I quickly realized those were conversations of unequal footing - I had knowledge of what others were reporting or investigating, while my family members didn't. Since in their opinion bigfoot was akin to fairies and unicorns, they had no interest in learning more either. As soon as family members saw some show on TV they suddenly opened up to the possibility that maybe there was something out there. I guess 'if you see it on TV or in the newspaper', it must be true for them. But I did get excited that maybe now we could have a conversation, but I was wrong. My family members and I were still on unequal footing. I guess that's why there are forums where you can go talk to others with like interests...

Hmmm .. can't seem to edit again so ... I forgot something. Given my personal experiences the question of "whether" is not valid or worth my time to debate. The question of interest is "how do they see in the dark" or possibly "how do they give the appearance of seeing in the dark." I don't see that answer to be found in debate with scoftics or even discussion with armchair proponents, it's not to be located on the internet nor in a book. It requires investing some time and money on field experiments. Unlike high school science class, unlike science on TV, there's no promise of an answer within the allotted hour or even semester, it just takes as long as it takes. MIB

Most animals have their eyes approaching the side of their face...i.e. deer. A good reason for this is there would be far less incidents of them poking their eyes on brush. As many here know who tramp the wilderness, getting your eye poked or scratched is dabilitating and painful. Worst case scenario is an eye could be lost. It there is such a thing as bigfoot, the positioning of the eyes on a creature that we are told runs around at night and in the thickest of brush isn't a good thing and there would be cases of severe eye injuries. At least I would think so. t.

I have noticed a correlation between ravens and BF in my research area. The ravens seem to locate me, circle above, and squawk loudly. When that happens more often than not it seems that I have some sort of contact with BF. I wondered why the ravens would do that, then had a grizzly thought. Do the ravens locate prey for BF so they can eat after a kill? Not a good thing to think about when you are solo in the field.

I'm like WVF... a sucker for anything BF. I think it has raised awareness and had hoped it would make people have a more open minded attitude toward enthusiasts. Unfortunately, I don't think that has been the case. I don't really think I want to be likened to a MM or BoBo. I'm actually more like Renae, except I don't deny that I believe in the possibility of an undiscovered bipedal ape/whatever it is roaming the woods - she may deny it, but I think she does. But that could be because they pay her to be the non-believing skeptic, so she can't admit it... I don't know. I like Cliff. As nerdy as he comes across (It's cute how he always sounds like he is teaching an 8th grade science class) I think he is 100% an honest and a good guy with good intentions. Which probably why he has a good reputation within the BF community. But it's not about what I think about the individuals - I just threw that in there. I think it has hurt in that more people are out in the woods calling and knocking, causing more misidentifications and human responses -causing calls and wood knocks to be less credible evidence now, IMO.

I believe that the show "Finding Bigfoot" had an affect when it first came on, but with never really getting much evidence, I think the average person lost interest rather quickly. The total non believers, this show had no affect at all. As for the rest of the population which includes die hard Squatchers, Skeptics, and even Knowers, I believe the show is entertaining. Most of their tactics are pretty far fetched,IMO, but Like alot of members here on the forum, are suckers for anything Bigfoot. I don't expect much and Ranae really gets on my nerves, but I still watch all of the time. I am just that interested in the subject of Bigfoot, I am drawn to anything Bigfoot, like a Moth to a Flame. On the negative side, I think that the show may be behind people returning vocalizations during research. Lots of knuckleheads out there.