Leaderboard

A short column in Scientific American, by Darren Naish. He's unconvinced, and finds the evidence lacking. "I do not think that the data we have at the moment – this includes tracks, hairs, vocalisations, photos, and the innumerable eyewitness accounts – provides support for the contention that Bigfoot is real, and have come to the conclusion that it is a sociocultural phenomenon: that people are seeing all manner of different things, combining it with ideas, memes and preconceptions they hold in their minds, and interpreting them as encounters with a monstrous, human-like biped." http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-bigfoot-were-real/ I don't wish to offend with an article from a doubtful author, but do feel this will stimulate some worthy discussion!

P-G: Not bothered at all. They use many of the same food sources so of course they SHOULD be found in the same places. Considering them from a biological standpoint, I would be more bothered if it were otherwise. I know bears. I grew up in a bear preserve. We'd see up to a dozen a day. At certain times of year we had a lot of problems with them getting into fruit trees, garden, and trash cans as well as our boats which sometimes smelled of the fish we caught. When I was guiding with customers bears were a regular thing. I understand bear anatomy, physical proportions, size, behavior ... What I saw was no bear. Not the first, not the second, and not even the "maybe" because whatever it was, it had broad shoulders to the side of the torso, not arranged under it to carry (I almost said "bear" ) weight. MIB

Close the thread. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I just bought the book, thanks Incorrigible!!