Leaderboard

^^^^ Dearth of evidence compelling to YOU. There's plenty of evidence. The sheer volume and consistency are sufficient to be compelling to someone doing real science. That is, in biology, the basis for chi-square, a measure of repeatability. And, as we've heard over and over here, scientific repeatability is the key to something being real or not. Compelling indeed ... for a scientist. MIB

(Fetch me that 2x4 one time. Time to edjicate) ^^^^ So, gravity? Useful fact only to you I suppose? Here's a generally useful fact: The thousands of witnesses who've been in the knowing presence of a Sasquatch? They universally find the confirmation of their experiences by other witnesses to be generally useful. Like others experiencing gravity, they find 100% confirmation from those who've experienced it too. I guess what I'm left with is just an abiding sense some just resent being left out. I would probably feel that way too if I ruled out the probability of everything on earth I had not experienced personally. Must suck.

jayjeti, You use the word "definitely" where I likely would not. I suspect our differences regarding what constitutes scientific evidence and proof would differ as well. Not having seen a Sasquatch personally, I can only evaluate the material online from the perspective it provides. So far, I've seen nothing that rejects the null hypothesis that there is no zoological Sasquatch. Indeed, despite its many promoters and believers, Sasquatch is not recognized by "science" for precisely the same reason - a lack of good evidence. I remain open to the possibility however and find it an interesting thing to think about. But folks like Utah Sasquatch and Impossible Visits etc. seem to not have the same level of discernment and skepticism I do. Having watched all of the videos posted, I saw nothing that would convince me and much of it seemed foolhardy to be frank. I won't say it's a hoax, just that I disagree with the conclusions reached by these videos. I also disagree with several of the anti-science/anti-evidence promoted by these folks. I think they do the entire community a disservice and of course this doesn't help with science literacy in this country. I do think the NAWAC is doing a much better job. While they have no come up with anything solid yet, they are at least aware of the fact that nobody ELSE should conclude Sasquatches exist based on the evidence they've collected this far. They agree to the basic ground rules of science and are not at all surprised that other people require them to provide DNA or a type specimen. That counts for a lot in my book because without and agreement on what actually comprises the scientific method, we get nowhere. It's a good system and it's moved humanity from the horse and buggy to CERN discovering the Higgs in well under 100 years. Proving that Sasquatches exist is not an impossible task - if there really is such a creature.

About 4 years ago Thomas arranged for a few of us to have lunch with John It was a special afternoon, actual talk of sasquatch and sasquatch research was far less then half of what we all talked about. He was a interesting man At one point I brought out my copy of On the track of sasquatch I showed him the inscription inside where my grandmother signed it in 1975 with a note. I told him that 1 was 10 at the time, and this book is what cemented my interest in sasquatch And that he was the reason that I became fascinated with the subject I fondly remember the smile on his face when he signed the book I was saddened when he apologized that it wasn't his real signature, because he was too old to sign it properly Of course we said, that was not true, he was still the man that he always was For the first and only time in my life I "fanboyed" my wife still laughs about it Later I was fortunate enough to have lunch with John and Bob Gimlin That was another great day I will always cherish those memories and be grateful to Thomas for making them possible

Mostly same old news. Just a rehash of what's already been said. The peer review part mentioned relates directly to our reference sources, which have been. But of course that point is missed completely. But attack the person and don't bother to look at the evidence. Usual ploy. One of the reasons bigfoot science is stalled is because the people that consider themselves experts in the field constantly attack anything bigfoot related that they didn't have something to do with themselves. The author of that article and another also quoted in the article for example. That being said; one point I am trying to get across to Mitch is that it's not proof until it is accepted as such. Present it. Let the evidence and the research be reviewed. Let others make that decision. I will say it. It's a mistake to do otherwise. As to that attack about one of his students (me) doing this because of his class, that is simply a joke. Whoever wrote that has no idea what my background is. As I said, just another personal attack. Also to assume that before we presented this line of inquiry, that others were out in the field looking closely at the bones for this type of feeding behavior is false. John Mionczynski is one of the few people that has presented much of anything related to possible bigfoot feeding behavior. Unless someone is a paleo-anthropoligist, this type of evidence is only looked at in fossil remains. I have no respect or patience for people who constantly attack others to make themselves look better. You want to look at the evidence. You want to discuss the evidence. Fine. We've always said we were willing to do so.