Leaderboard

I stay abreast of the topic because, honestly and truly, I want to see how deep down the rabbithole some of you folk will go without a shread of reliable evidence. This is where ignoreboy will scream about the difference between proof and evidence, but I'm not asking for proof. Just evidence. Like it or not, Tontar's head fits into a mask and Patty's profile. This isn't proof, but it's evidence that Bill's claim is suspect and incorrect. Or we could all agree and high five and no discussion would ever occur.

In order for the skeptics' position, that BF does not exist, to be true, every encounter, sighting, footprint, trackway, report, and Native American belief, must be a hoax or misidentification. Not most, not many, ALL. In order for proponents position to be true, only one needs to be real.

Divergent1: "3.) Some prints are more convincing than others because of where they are found. The circumstances vary, if they are in a place frequented by humans on a regular basis it allows for other more plausible explanations." I find the more plausible explanation is: Some of the footprints are real, because some of the trackways were unHoaxable. (edited by Oonjerah)

From my perspective the third type of hoax victim is the indirect victim, who is subjected either to blind belief from the first type, or the disinformation efforts of the second.

One article about Mitchell Townsend's find made this statement: "This is where Townsend gets controversial. He says the dental evidence and bone stacking suggests the creature is part human and plans to prove it is a hominin species that evolved from the the breeding of Native Americans and a giant ape. 'My theory is it’s not an ape, it’s a hybrid that has been interbreeding with Native Americans for the last 80,000 years. That’s why it is so smart and it has human teeth.' " http://mysteriousuni...oof-of-bigfoot/ First off, Native Americans have not been on this continent anywhere near 80,000 years. Secondly, it likely has human teeth because it is a relict hominid, a species of man, not because apes interbred with humans giving it humanlike teeth. He's an unpaid continuing education instructor at a college. Perhaps he can allude more to his background, but it appears he has no real credentials or expertise in this field like a Dr. Meldrum or Bindernagle. If he writes a paper with screwed facts about Native American heritage and ape/human interbreeding any scientist who would comment on his work will laugh it to scorn. He may however have some descent info on stacked bones, which animals would not do, and also on the types of teeth marks he believes he sees. But there is no smoking gun in any of this that is going to make the scientific community take notice and declare sasquatch as the likely cause. I would like to see photos of all these stacks of bones and teeth marks explaining the findings? I suppose that will be in his paper. His research may add some important facets to sasquatch study, but it might also include some nonsense if he doesn't do a better job of researching this subject.

In regards to the seemingly sudden expansion of not only the reported range, but also of public interest/awareness, one might consider the state of information delivery and its relative evolution and progressive effectiveness over the period of time in question (1950's to present) as this may well play a significant role in understanding the dynamics of the phenomenon. Television was just warming up, few national networks, papers were largley local in relation to todays(well..newspapers...yeah)and the internet was but a glimmer in its daddy's eye... There was little means for people in a given region to hear reports of these creatures in distant locales, if the locals were even relating such experiences to media outlets, more likely they kept mum due to potential ridicule, thereby preventing accumulation of sighting data and development of more comprehensive grasp of possible habitat viability and range. As we all know, the first nationally reported account was the bluff creek/jerry crew event, and that was in part due to a set of circumstances that lead to the article being pick up by the national press. Maybe by making up a new name, along with no image of the creature, widespread recognition, that "hey! Thats kinda like the quarry trolls we used to see when we were kids" or "wow! That looks just like the footprints out by the petting zoo..." was hindered, as each region had its own names, local lore and superstitions for these creatures that few chose to speak about openly in the first place. But that hardly means they werent there in the various regions and habitats before becoming known in the mainstream, the info just wasnt getting out, gathered, or put together as representing a single actual type of creature, but rather folklore to keep the kids in at night, or to scare the smug city dwellers that arrive on occasion, thus discredited and dismissed. But over the years technology advanced, media coverage became more comprehensive, accessible,widespread, pervasive, influencial, cohesive/consistent in terms of content presentation and selection, and controlled by progressively fewer individuals/groups. This sallowed for the discussion of sasquatch to develop from thinking of them as only existing in the PNW, to realizing that allthese regional monsters and boogers all across the continent may actually be the same critter. Then the first brave few began telling of their experiences, and despite the ridicule, others then spoke out. And the media ran with it, and over the decades, transformed the image in the eyes of the public, all the while never actually confirming its existence. There is a parallel in what might be seen as a rise in domestic abuse or child molestation within our society. However, i'd bet its more a case of media coverage/discussion coupled with those who broke the silence and dared to speak openly about these horrible aspects of our lives. You never saw june cleaver talking to the boys about rape from the woman's perspective, but over time these issues entered the national dialog, despite ingrained beliefs that one simply didnt talk of such things. Now days these topics are addressed 24/7 in our media in virtually every context and format. Now is sally jessie raphael responsible for rape being so prevalent? .org course not! These things have most likely been with us since before we thought the first floor (ie the savannah...out of the trees..)might be an ok place to raise a family, and only relatively recently have they been addressed openly on both personal and national levels. This may be a similar situation as the sasquatch explosion that you seem to think disproves their existence, when it is indeed a gradual acknowledgement of at least the possibility that there may still be substantially significant elements of our planet that we have yet to grasp or come to know, one of which is our closest extant relative,(who never calls.... or writes...)sasquatch.