Leaderboard

Check this out. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/03/22/bear-bone-found-in-1903-alters-story-ireland.html?intcmp=hpbt4 A single piece of evidence, obtained decades ago, re-examined using modern forensic techniques, rewrites history. That's the scientific process. But our resident skeptics insist that: The PGF, obtained decades ago, re-examined by NatGeo using modern forensic techniques and determined to depict a non-human subject, isn't part of the scientific process. The scientific process is the scientific process no matter what subject is being examined. I think our resident skeptics make up their own version of the scientific process to suit them. And it changes by the post.

The Orang's beard seems most like yours.

Because it will re-write history.

Leaftalker in post #200 you seem to be responding do someone else's statements in blue with your red comments. The statements in blue or red are not mine. As a matter of fact they appear to be yours. Then you turn around and criticise your own comments by adding red for emphasis then criticize me for not knowing the difference between all and some when "all" are not even my words but someone else. It looks from reading the thread that you cannot tell the difference between what you said previously or another persons quote and what I said and perhaps even criticise your own response. I am at a loss to even try to figure out what the problem is. .

So most of you might know that I am a golf pro, I worked at Medinah Country Club two seasons ago, little did I know that in John Greens data base two sighting actually occurred right on the property, well that is just to weird considering I said early in the year that I thought it doubtful one might come to the property, but in the distant part of my thoughts I said, or is it. Well now I am working in South Milwaukee, just north of Oak Creek, in fact Oak Creek flows right along side of my golf course where it dumps into Lake Michigan, which I have a lovely view of from my Clubhouse. Well upon interviewing for the job and driving through the area the urban bigfoot thought re-entered my mind, and with what I already mentioned above, well I had to see if any sightings were close by. The area has many supposed haunted sights, including the seven bridges trail in the park I work in and the clubhouse I work in which dates back to the 1870s, well those paranormal investigators are out in some of the same areas as the Sasquatch, or urban sasquatch as is the case here. The area just south of Oak Creek is ideal semi rural bigfoot habitat, with railroad and power-line easements as well as streams that feed into lake Michigan. Salmon run up these streams to the nearest blockage in the spring and fall. Fishermen are out in force during daylight attempting to catch the elusive rainbow and steelhead trout that are currently using the streams. Abundant and large deer herds roam the entire area, as well as raccoons, coyotes, skunk, possum, badger, and you name it. So one of these paranormal investigators was staking out a supposed haunted road just south of where I work and was approached by several sasquatch, whose eye shine was caught on camera, and apparently had killed a deer. The were in a soybean or pea field presumably pursuing deer. So I once again have renewed faith in my theory that these creatures indeed use areas very close to urban centers, just outside of them actually, where the last stretches of cover allow them too. Taking into account all the surrounding area and what it offers as well of course.

Apes are human looking because humans ARE apes!

Crow, more often than not there is no Universally Accepted Scientific position. There are still people that think the world is flat. Your beliefs cannot alter facts. Your refusal to accept facts does not alter facts. Most of the time your strategy seems to be to try to win debates by yelling louder than others and attempting to suppress other opinions. You're not going to convince all of us that the evidence doesn't exist so that we can all move on to "more important natural science". You, however, have the option to move on whenever you choose with our blessing.

And some time after that, it does again, a lot, unless you've crossed the line into sociopathy. It's not a line, it's a circle. MIB

And this still holds your interest, when there are other more important natural sciences? I don't see anywhere on that object any credible, accepted scientific evidence or scientific proof that Obama won the election in 2008. There's no scientific method to test that fact. No possibility of scientific proof. Oh, you may can do an investigation to indicate he truly did win that election, but the method for proving historic truths is much different from proving scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable. Science can't prove some things in a timely manner, but we have other, more intellectual methods of determining a truth. One cannot prove intuition, but it's widely known to be an important element of the human experience. You can't tell me you have never successfully relied on your intuition. But you can't prove scientifically that intuition does or doesn't exist. Science is pregnant with theories. They are widely accepted as truths, but technically, they can't be proven and yet are widely accepted as scientific truths. They're taught. They're presented as truth. Truth is, they rely on multiples of faith. So much for scientific "truth."

Except in the fossil record...... So its not a question of existence but time frame. Are there any Ape men who are still extant? As of right now we have no proof that they are, but we do have proof that they existed. I think its a distinction that skeptics fail to recognize. And its not the same as a dinosaur, many of these Ape men were around until very recently. And its not like a Chupacabra that has no precendent in the fossil record.

Well boys, I'm a bit different from either of you. Always, low in my conscious background, I know there's a boggerman out there, and what's troubling is that so many others DON'T know there's a boogerman out there. I've read the narratives of folks and families that go out to enjoy the outdoors, and under very unusual circumstances - someone - worst of all - children disappear. Out of curiosity or as a food source, both possibilities trouble me. It troubles me doubly as so many people are either disbelievers, or worse - ignorant of what's out there. I know what's out there now, but I didn't most of my life. I want it recognized and realized. So everyone will at least be aware that pumas, bears, wolves and coyotes are not the only potential threats. So, I want one dead - at my feet. I won't second guess myself, I won't concern myself over it. My sensitivity toward humanity as such was abandoned as a young man - as a matter of survival - so my sensitivities are not my foremost thoughts, and my sensitivities don't motivate or limit my determinations. I don't care about their affected habitat, I don't care about their regional limitations, and I don't care about any other environmental sensitivities. I know its not human. It may be half human, but it's definitely not human. 96% of our DNA is the exact same as a chimpanzee. 99% isn't human. 99.5% isn't human. And that's all I need to know.

Can you word things so it's not a put down and we all will learn more.

Day before yesterday went out into an area I normally do not go that far to look around. Washington State forests are being heavily logged right now which is really surprising with the present political climate. . That loss of habitat has to have a dramatic impact on BF survival. Quite frankly while I am not exactly anti logging, thinking of BF it made me sick to see all the recent clear cut. Since all that logging has started, an area that was active all the way back into the mid 90's has gone inactive. My worry is that BF will get so rare that it is no longer seen and sort of drops off the radar for most people. And an extremely rare thing makes for a difficult research subject.

Going back to the OP, the original question was "Are Bigfoot animals, like any other animal, including humans?" But the discussion indicates that it also matters whether or not Bigfoot are intelligent, and beyond that, whether or not Bigfoot are "human", with respect to their ability to think, reason, develop a strategy, and then "choose" to do one thing or another. From personal experience, they behave more like people than animals. And having looked one in the eyes for 45 seconds as we each waited to see what the other was going to do, I can tell you that I did not perceive it to be any less intelligent than human, and that I believed it to be human, though freakish in aspect (I had never heard of bigfoot prior to the encounter). I can also tell you that they do very much appear to think, reason, strategize, and choose their actions. Our behavior, with respect to sheltering in caves, or surreptitiously scratching our posterior when no one is looking, is situational, because we think, reason, strategize, and choose what to do and when to do it. We do something because it is advantageous under a given set of circumstances, and may not do it under another set of circumstances. As someone earlier stated, they may do one thing one time and another under a different set of circumstances. Their behavior is situational, and this aspect of their behavior should not be taken lightly. What other creature in the world manages to consistently befuddle us and get the better of us? This is because they modify their behavior in accordance to ours and in response to the relative levels of risk and threat. Where they do correspond to animals more generally, is that they are predators, but so are we. And if you think about it, a human that exhibited the same lurking behaviors that they do would be considered a threat. They are, in a very real sense, boogey men - boogers, as some call them. If they weren't so human, not just in aspect, but in behavior, they wouldn't creep us out so much.