Leaderboard

You'll find, typically, those who think the probabilities for Sasquatch are low in the particular location where evidence might indicate otherwise are those spending their lives OUTSIDE of where the concentration of sightings and other evidence are being reported. This is only human nature to believe the reality in front of ourselves is the one that matters most. Those in northern NA climates will tell me I can't imagine a winter in Ontario. They would be correct, because my time in Ontario was confined to a very nice two weeks in June about 30 years ago. Have I wintered in Northern climates in other places, and spent considerable time outside in those places? Yup, but I can truly say I only know those places, or think I know them just a little bit better than someone who has never been there. Take Mr. Branco as a very good example of this. One of his areas of investigation Is just south, not too many miles from where I reside, but it is as different to the members of my urban/suburban neighborhood as the other side of the moon. I've spent my time there too, enough to know I have no hope of ever really knowing that place and people very well in the short time I have left to live. I would have to immerse myself in it to the extent that Branco has to even come close. That is why I tend to listen to those who would know better than I would, because, you know, that is the smarter approach to life in general.

The place that I think Sasquatch does not and will never exist is in a closed mind.

Absolutely NOT off-topic! You can't make claims, then ignore follow-up the follow up questions pertaining to your claim. Below you posted: You claim there are no sasquatches b/c in 47 years you've lived there you have not seen a BF, but have indeed seen all sorts of hairy humans. I simply inquired if you saw any Sierra Nevada Red Foxes, a rare creature of the Nevadas as well. Thus, I was challenging your logic on why you think BF doesn't exist b/c you haven't seen one. We're trying to limit the potential area of BF's livable range. I don't necessarily want to throw Nevada out b/c 1 person has lived there almost 50 years and hasn't seen one. So I say we keep Nevada on the table!

I'm going to irritate most everyone here, but that's not my intent - as some really good folks have done a lot of work on this, and of course it would be great if a correlation on bigfoot activity could be connected to phases of the moon. Here goes nothing: There is zero neutral basis to measure increase or decrease in bigfoot activity. If this is based on sightings - you have yet another population of independent biologicals to account for. And THAT is going to be an immense task - accounting for this additional subset of data that must be accumulated and accounted for. Here's what I'm saying. Are there more sightings on evenings with a light breeze, strong winds, or no winds. Does wind chill enter into the activity level of the observers. Is it a workday, worknight, or weekend that the observers had more observations. At the time of observation, what activities were they engaged in, and where, and under what conditions? I mean, there may be more people out on cool evenings on weekends - regardless of the moon phase - which could skew results obtained just by examining moon phase. If folks are up to their butts in snow and high winds, there's a greater likelihood that few observations will be made regardless of the moon phase. Were the observations made from vehicles? What type of road - surface, width, straight or curved - had the local football team just finished and more cars were on the road? Or were conditions icy, and thus fewer cars were out and about. And THEN, what time of day for each of these incidents? Temperature and relative humidity affect the ability or preference of folks to be outside, as evidence by what we call the Heat Index. It's just that we humans have so many variable that affect our own activities - which in turn may result in more sightings - which may or may not be affected by moon phase. But I've been wrong something before.

Um, Jiggy, is that you?

I disagree that we should just dismiss all trackways as a hoax, especially snow trackways because they are mucher harder to hoax. And the deeper the snow? The more the odds of a hoax go down. With that said, as a hunter I do agree with you that we should be seeing more tracks in winter. Do they migrate? Do they store food and hunker down in a lair? Do they hibernate? What happens? Its a important question for us proponents.

In my opinion it's pretty well impossible for bf to exist in snow country. The odd reported tack line is probably hoaxed. BF, single or in groups, would leave a heck of a lot of tracks between snowfalls. Here in Ontario there is no such thing as bigfoot. Ask any real outdoorsman. t.

Thats a pretty common mindset really, if you dont harm me I wont harm you sort of thing. I hear it often.

I agree with this. It is the reason we didn't go for DNA testing on the bones. Even if you had a full test done, you would still have problems with the contamination issue if there are any human markers present. Only with a body or a verifiable part thereof is DNA testing going to be of any use. Then comparisons will be able to be made.

I would not say absolute zero chance anywhere. I think the probability might be vanishingly small, but not zero. I think your approach of eliminating places to look is invalid. Since it only takes one to prove existence, every single place has to be checked ... simultaneously ... because that's the only way to absolutely eliminate the possibility it was there, just not while you were there looking. I would say instead the productive approach is to start with the most probable locations. You can look at report history, look at weather, topography, everything you think might modify the probabilities. Look at those with an eye towards proximity to your location so you're not wasting any more time than necessary traveling. Finally, look at your resources and don't take on what would be an otherwise likely seeming spot but your limited resources turn your search into a needle in a haystack approach. Start at the top of your "value list" and work your way down. There is no end. There is no proof of no bigfoot. There may be a point where you've reached a personal limit in your search. That's fine. But that's not an answer, it's just an end of your search. MIB

Hello dmaker, I'm in agreement with everything you posted. In two paragraphs You summed up my position perfectly and why I hold it. BC Witness is one of those people though that in relating his history I lean toward being a proponent for existence. It may seem incongruous to hold seeming two realms of thought but for me it works out pretty OK. @ Bodhi, I'd be off topic to go into details

And just to be clear, since this is the existence thread, I am not saying that bigfoot does not exist. I am saying that given the current evidence, I do not accept the claim that bigfoot exists. Bigfoot exists is a positive claim. With a positive claim comes a burden of proof. That burden has not been met. Not accepting the claim, absent the required burden of proof, is not a claim in itself. Nor is it a denial of anything. I am simply saying that without meeting the burden of proof, I am not going to accept the claim that bigfoot exists based on the current evidence. If compelling evidence came along that met the burden of proof, then obviously I would accept the original claim. In the meantime, I don't believe that bigfoot does, in fact, exist. If bigfoot does not exist, then the evidence, as it were, must be explained by social construct. That bigfoot is a social construct is my provisional explanation based on the current evidence. One could call this a negative claim, I suppose. Negative claims do not carry a burden of proof.