Leaderboard

Moderator statement: There will be no more discussion of unicorns. Take it down a notch.

1980squatch, Don't like the term either, smacks to much of a religious experience. Either it exists or it doesn't. But I know this is a poll for information. So I guess I'll play along.

Bump. This thread contains my original work and covers our findings about the impressions in the bones. The photos and discussion about the impressions are in the first few pages of this thread. I will be continuing my analysis research in the research section and be adding further comparisons as I have the time. However, that means a premium membership is required to continue following. Which I would urge everyone to get. Not just to follow this but also the other research that is being done and to gain access to the SSR database.

"Native legends" is not only racist but beyond ignorant; it totally discounts the superb observational skills and ability to follow up and develop knowledge that have allowed our species - wherever it is and however much it has hitched its wagon to so-called progress - to succeed as well as it has. This doesn't even make sense. You are all over the map. At one point you will extol our species observational powers, then at other times, when it suits you, you will talk about how utterly helpless and clueless we, as a species, have become in the wild. Also, native legends is not racist by any means. Native legends are full of mythical creatures that cannot possibly exist. How is that even remotely racist? "Regardless, the use of unicorns in an attempt to establish that bigfoot do not exist is specious." JDL Where did I do that? I simply used unicorns as an analogy to demonstrate that your logic could be applied to any subject, regardless of how ridiculous it may, nor may not be. The point being, that if your logic can support even the most ridiculous of notions, then maybe you don't want to use it to support bigfoot.

good grief. Just for once, could you spare us all the same comment over and over and over and over and over again? Seriously, man! We get it.

Really? That is hard to believe. Your veiled fallacy is just as obvious as if you had fully voiced it. Anything else you would like to poll the general membership about regarding what they believe and don't believe? No? [because...naaaah] DWA Best post of yours EVER. If you could do that more often, that would be awesome.

Or maybe he was slinging woo.

Well, DWA brought it up most recently in this thread. I simply mentioned unicorns along with tea pots in space to illustrate a point. You don't wish to pursue your argumentum ad populum?

I don't believe in bigfoot. Being confronted by one kind of puts you past that stage.

He was probably just a skeptic.

Ok, let's play: THERE ARE NO BIGFOOTS, THERE ARE NO BIGFOOTS, THERE ARE NO BIGFOOTS. Now, go have a look outside. No bigfoots.. Analogy Failure 101. Thank-you for the demonstration.

Here is another response from someone at the University of British Columbia after I explained that bigfoot enthusiasts think bigfoot is responsible for some of these types of tree breaks: I hadn't realized this was a thing. Well, there are plenty of trees that twist due to a number of reasons, and the twist isn't revealed until the bark is removed (or the branch broken). An example of these that are readily spotted in British Columbia's interior are ponderosa pine trees. Here's a study on the biomechanics of grain spiral in ponderosa pines: http://www.math.utah.edu/~cherk/publ/spiralf.pdf (Why grain in tree trunk's spiral: a mechanical perspective). From that study, they found that if the grain angle was greater than 37°, the failure prediction (of breaking) increases dramatically for that species. That angle could be higher or lower for other species. It just seems like there are easier explanations to me for the phenomenon. Research and Biodiversity Informatics Manager University of British Columbia Botanical Garden and Centre for Plant Research

Hold on. Bhodis question is exactly on topic. The topic is tree breaks, what is the evidence? What could better support the assertion that bigfoot might have twisted the limb than to collect something like unknown primate DNA from hair or skin cells found on the limb near the break? How is that not on topic?

And not a portal in sight! t.

Perhaps not the same as yeti proofing a house, but cultures all over the globe are rife with talismans and such to ward off evil spirits. Some of these would be placed on doors, window sills, etc.

I think part of why there maybe fewer sighting reports is that the local people are being told that what they saw was not what they saw. In a lot of cases with things, a person from a more "civilized" part of the world comes in and examines what people are saying they saw. They at once say well it is just miss-identification of a known animal. In some cases it might actually be this. It than becomes a mission to explain away almost every aspect of the creature. To try to find a way to link it or tie it in with a known animal. Things like this did happen in history before. When sailors returned from Australia and told of the animals they saw many thought they were making it up or some in the scientific community, that they were seeing known animals and exaggerating their features. I am not saying this is the full truth of it or that this is carved in stone. Rather I am putting forward an idea.