Leaderboard

DWA: "I know. No rational person bets that one either. All one needs to do to get to the rational presumption that these animals are authentic...is approach it objectively." The difference between skeptics and those proponents who are either witnesses or had "it could only have been BF" encounters is location, luck and time spent in the field. I do not get the impression from any skeptic here on the forum that they have spent significant time in the field in a region where BF are at all common. One can see where they could come to the conclusion that nothing is there to see where they live, but that does not mean that applies to the whole country. In the PNW sightings are so common that if you ask around, you will frequently find someone that has had a sighting or knows someone that has. I do not think that happens in most parts of the country where sightings are very rare. It is a whole lot easier here to be open to the possibility of existence.

True it's not evidence of fraudulent intentions. But he has admitted to tampering with the audio in one of his videos (After it was pointed out by someone). And wouldn't you know, that's when the claims of harassment started and the videos went dark. A link to the video or post where he makes his admission would be appreciated. It's been over a week ago that I saw it on my Newsfeed. It was about the Monument Wallow video. He may have taken it down. After it was pointed out that the audio had been tampered with...(something about it being in stereo?) the guy came out and said that yes, he had "enhanced" the audio. What he did was enhance it so that is sounded like something was there, when nothing was there. I heard it, concluded that the guy is a con, and moved on. I will see if it is still up, or if he pulled it down.

The only people for whom Bigfoot is real are those who have witnessed one. The rest of us are voyeurs, and stand like the spear carriers on the back row of the chorus of the opera while the large lady out front in the horned helmet sings her aria....we know something is happening, we just don't know what it is, do we Mr. Jones? Most of us with half a brain understand it is rude to appear to know it all when we haven't done the homework. Naish appears to be of the other kind. That you could get a piece published by Scientific American by trotting out all the old tropes and bundling them up as authority because, you know, you are a SCIENTIST! is not too surprising at all. But, (As DWA would remind us all...) Science is as Science does. A million Naishes spouting that view is no more valuable to science than a million bee-lee-vers spouting the opposite. They are cut of the same cloth, and neither help get at the truth. And I'll say it again, if this all a social construct, THAT headline renders the idea of BF ho-hum. But let's play that game for a second, Mr. Science Man: You have your hypothesis, now tell me how you test it. I'll tell you how, and this where every one of these poseurs shirks their responsibility to their discipline: You make a serious effort to prove existence, pull no punches, take no prisoners. (Don't waste your breath telling me that has happened already...HA!) Failing to find it after that is done? Well, I'd switch my bet, I can tell you that. Until then, blog away.

I'm a bit surprised that article made it to puplication in Scientific American myself. It seems that, pro or con, that could have been a lot better. Most of Science seems spoiled to using cookie-cutter approaches when describing animals. That doesn't seem to work with Bigfoot any better than it does with humans.

You're more likely to catch a Bobo Fey doing that. Once again I appreciate your perpestive. I would bet on your explanations. I am a scientist and have concluded that the creature does not exist. I so wish it did. . Sadly, it does not.

You know if you dug in and helped the community research and solve the problem in the field instead of just beating up on them all the time the subject may progress faster and more to your own satisfaction. You'd waste less time and get better results as an ally in getting to the concrete bottom of things than jumping onto threads and calling members wrong all the time. Sometimes you get more bees with honey. But if you only care about the debate and the smugness in that no one can prove you wrong then it will continue to be a sad state of affairs for both sides. Where's the enjoyment in that?