Leaderboard

If I could time travel I would drop in on Crows high school science classes and hammer home the difference between evidence and proof. He cannot seen to discern the difference. This is a trap Crow. I have submitted several examples of evidence here on various threads in the form of footprint pictures. Here is your chance to find them and prove they cannot be bigfoot. That is the only chance a skeptic has to prove anything since you cannot prove something does not exist. I do not recall you commenting on them when I posted them. If you are not familiar with them that is your problem not mine. If you are objective you would look at all the evidence presented here and elsewhere and be at least be familiar with it. But skeptics do not seem to acknowledge any evidence is ever presented, because why would they need to look at evidence when they "know" BF is not real. My footprint findings are not proof, they are evidence. Evidence you claim has never been presented here. Oh by the way circumstantial evidence in a court of law can put you away for the rest of your life if the state thinks you killed someone. Hint! Footprint pictures are physical evidence. Let me make it more clear. If you kill someone, wearing your favorite pair of tennis shoes and leave footprints in the mud, you will see pictures of that footprint and your shoes in court as evidence. That will not be proof you killed someone but good evidence you did. In court, proof is in the head of the jury. In science proof is in the head of those doing peer reviews on papers presented with sufficient evidence to be accepted.

Gumshoeeye, Is providing laundry lists of supposed encounters really helpful? If these headlines were ripped from the front page of the National Enquirer (e.g., Susan Sarandon: Bigfoot Was Stalking My Child!!" MI), it should pretty much be dismissed out of hand. It's not just the quantity of reports, quality is worth evaluating as well.

Terry I am with you at heart, but with all that we could avail ourselves of in this present age, the technology, the growing knowledge of the outdoors...wait...that is the problem here, we are speeding up technology in this field, but less and less time is spent in the woods with boots on the ground, and thus we have few individuals that have the outdoor instincts that were common in prior days. I grew up fishing and hunting, but mostly fishing. As a young adult I spent somewhere between 20-30 hours a week fishing a local river at night. I did not even start fishing till midnight, and most mornings I would return just as the sun was rising. That is what I call dedication to your hobby, or interest. If some of todays young folk could invest that same time into the study of these creatures, NATHAN, as say I did with fishing, I guarantee we would be learning a whole lot more than what we are today, problem is this next generation is mostly addicted to technology, and do notspend their waking hours exploring and learning from nature, as did some of us older generation folk. Though I am sure there are exceptions like Nathan and others that will carry on the torch. When I retire, if that ever happens, I plan to spend extensive time in the woods to unravel for myself whatever I can, until then I hope to at least get some longer camping in, like I used to do in Northern Minnesota. It can be very rewarding to spend a week all alone pondering your existence, realizing what does not really define you, and returning to civilization with a whole new perspective

That's a no-brainer. Neither. It's mostly bluff. If they were truly hostile, truly meant harm, given that they're faster than us and bigger than us, they would catch us, not merely chase us. They would also not merely be investigating our camps when we're vulnerable, they'd be killing us. What it means, then, is that we got closer than they want us to be to something they care about ... but not enough to kill over. Shows considerable forbearance I'd say. MIB

As I've said many times here, the future state of BF research depends on some kid who is right now pulling up the sighting report database for the first time and going..."HOLY CRAP! That is exactly what my uncle/dad/mother/cousin/friend said he/she saw that time. I believe them and I want to confirm this for all the world." The state of accepted scientific dogma changes one obituary at a time. Take it to the bank, it is a loooooooooooong game.