Leaderboard

No you said they are "as wrong and dishonest as anyone else out in the woods". You have to assume that because your belief system will not allow you to accept what they saw. Then you jump in with the mistakes and hoaxes argument. Which is exactly what said you do. You guys really need to get a different playbook. The one you are using is worn out and quite frankly tiresome and very very off topic. Have you had any Tibetans tell you they take Yeti as a matter of casual fact? Or is it a supposition because it supports your view? Bad example since you make the same sort of judgments about what Tibetans think that you accuse me of. How many Tibetans have told you that Yeti is a myth and fantasy? Perhaps you need to go there and lecture them on their own sightings and mistaken animal sightings? You and Bobo could both be famous there and chased out of the country.

Waste of time even engaging the denialists. The proverbial BF will be on the proverbial lab table and these same people will be questioning the credentials of those who examined it and determined it is a previously unknown to science species. What do PHDs really know anyway? Just another delusional Ketchum or Meldrum wanting to get rich with a hoax. They will not simply tuck tail and fall silent. They will not admit they were wrong. They have too much invested in their belief system to simply walk away. Part of that is their constant mantra about no evidence existing. Because some videos have been faked all are. Because some footprints have been faked they all are. Because some hair samples don't show any viable DNA, they must all be something else. All evidence, good or bad has to be dismissed because they cannot even let the possibility they are wrong into their mind or the discussion here. Thousands of witnesses spanning hundreds of years are wrong and misidentified what they saw. It makes no difference to them that many of these are life long woodman who know what they saw was not a bear. Only the enlightened skeptics know what is real and they will not be satisfied until everyone thinks like they do. Oh there are delusional people here on both sides, but the most delusional of the lot are those that think they can know what every witness must have seen. At least a BF witness does not have to think themselves an omnipresent demigod to know what is seen in the woods.

MIB, again, no. You are trying to sneak in the word evidence unqualified. That is inherently dishonest and misleading. Evidence can support a claim, yet not be proof. You want every piece of putative bigfoot evidence to be called evidence, as if it were evidence that supported the claim. Even when that evidence is tested and comes no where close to supporting the claim. Is a cast of a hoaxed bigfoot track hard evidence? There are plenty of those and they certainly do not support the bigfoot claim. Not many would point to a proven fake cast and call it hard evidence for bigfoot.

No, I've been totally absorbed in fishing, not a tense thought on my mind, then realized everything had gone silent. Antelope know the difference between a well fed lion and one that is hunting, probably due to behavioral cues. In this respect tension may be part of it. Smaller creatures are likely capable of perceiving possible threats and go silent to avoid calling attention to themselves,and it spreads from the central source because each neighboring creature doesn't want to be the one still making noise when something is looking for a snack.

Hoaxing is so rampant in this field because the people continue giving them the benefit of the doubt, regardless that they've committed obvious hoaxes. It's like a never ending circle of being fooled, but it almost seems like people want it that way.

I agree that we need a body to establish existence. That is the most direct way without an incredible streak of good luck in finding a body, skeleton, or fossil. Gigantopithecus was defined and accepted from finding a few teeth and a jawbone. We have nothing like a complete skeleton so for all we know it might be BF or an ancestor of BF. We certainly have not established a familial line leading up to Gigantopithecus either. You don't suddenly have a giant ape without a familial line of smaller ones leading up to it. All of those ancestors are missing in the fossil records. So it is hardly surprising that BF ancestors are missing from the fossil records too. The Pleistocene fossils you mention are not in BF habitat. I can not recall a single BF sighting in the Willamette Valley. BF would not leave the safety of the mountains. The mastodons and other finds are in what used to be grasslands between the Coastal Range and the Cascade Mountains. The same areas inundated by the Missoula floods during the last Ice age and possibly the reason for finding those mastodon bones and fossils there in the first place. And the fossil beds associated with inland lakes in Eastern Oregon and Washington are in an arid region that is also not forested and likely BF habitat. No BF sightings in those arid regions are reported in the present day. . You basically cannot expect to find bigfoot fossils or bones where it has not lived. If humans migrated to North America towards the end of the Pleistocene one would expect that BF did the same thing since there is no history of human or prehuman ancestor habitation in the Americas before that. So not only geography but time would have prevented formation of fossils in the Pleistocene in the PNW. . Since the Pleistocene started about 1.8 million years ago, that far back we could have had common ancestors in Africa and as those would be smaller we could not make any association with modern day BF. It could be that BF beat humans to North America. We have no idea without something to date their arrival. But once humans did come, there went the neighborhood and BF adopted their present human avoidance tactics which they probably used when they cohabitated with humans on the Eurasian continent. Human history is one of killing everything that moves to eat and that probably includes BF. If I were to look for BF fossils or bones I would look in the Ohio and Southern Illinois area where BF sightings are common now. The soils are not as acidic, the rivers in the Midwest flood nearly every year, and so bones of BF trapped by flooding might be possible to find washing out of river banks. Of course a tree climbing creature is going to be hard to drown in the first place.