Leaderboard

The ones I saw were in Colorado near the town of Ridgeway. I don't think that is considered bear country. Despite that, when I saw them I did spend some time looking at their heads which I could see in side profile. There was no snout- that was the first thing that really caused me to think I was seeing something weird. Actually I think it might have been more frightening if they really were bears because if that is what they were, then bears in the lower 48 can get a lot larger than anyone had any idea!

You can't win that one even if you were right, the closest you could get is not losing yet. Can't prove negative existence, you can only prove you didn't find anything. Equating the two requires invalid logic. If I were going to take that bet I'd play lawyer and find some way to word it so that I could win. The thought behind your choice certainly is a thing we all should ponder in own ways. I know they're there, I've seen what I've seen. So how, and why, and all that, do we not have proof? I'm not deliberately heading for the rabbit hole but if the tracks lead there I will follow. Real science doesn't refuse to examine uncomfortable evidence. But .. yeah .. how (not), and why (not) ... (yet) ... that's a real puzzle. Somewhere, somehow, our assumptions, maybe assumptions we aren't aware of making, are misleading us causing us to look in the wrong place, not notice something obvious ... or something. We need to get a better grasp of all the things we assume and recheck their validity. I think 'til we do that, we're going to stay stuck with no further progress. MIB

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.

Who could expect a scientist to take an interest after all the portal and mindspeak nonsense the community is saturated with? t.

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.