Leaderboard

From this response its apparent you did not watch the video. The witness was explicit that no-one was across the river and there were no motorized vehicles over there, no people for several hundred miles, etc. You may regard your comment as debunked.

I look at it differently. I think you've got to be smoking bad dope to truly see a person on a wheeled device in that vid. I can see not buying into it being a bigfoot. "I'm not convinced" is a good answer. I'm a proponent but I'm not convinced this time. I don't see any reason an honest skeptic can't feel the same way. Taking it too far, making up ridiculous stuff that's just stupid considering the setting ... looks desperate. Looks like a faux-scoftic trying to convince themselves they don't believe. Do the denialists really need to go that far down that path? MIB

I don't think it does, I read it the first time and it didn't do a great deal for me, second time round it still doesn't do a great deal for me to be honest especially when before it, it has "eyewitness sightings mean nothing" written. Eyewitness sightings may be inaccurate at times, a complete outright lie even at others, but they certainly don't "mean nothing", especially when you have thousands of them invariably describing the same thing over a period of 100 or so years now. If they really did "mean nothing" you simply wouldn't have people standing in front of a courtroom giving a description of what they saw day in, day out being allowed to influence the decision of others in sending X and y to jail for years on end. Of course as always so much of this boils down to what you're understanding of this subject actually is. The cryptic guy never seems to know if he's coming or going and seems to change his stance on the subject more often than I change my socks, not sure what your stance on the subject is Incorr in the years that have past since I've "known" you but I'm pretty sure you're not a straight up knower/witness, neither is cryptic, so it's pretty easy for him, and maybe you depending on your stance, to dismiss 10,000 or so eyewitness reports just like that.

"Taps fingers"

More seriously, the fact that these creatures are so elusive, even when you have them in close proximity to you, well that leads people into a lot of speculation. I know they are masters of blending in, staying still, or fleeing up a tree. You cannot be sure where they might hide. Eyewitnesses have seen them gliding through forest making very little or no sound when seeking to avoid detection, and then on the other hand when trying to drive out an unwanted individual from an area they might sound more like a semi-coming through the forest. The ninja like moves, easily seen in the stacy brown thermal, shows the catlike skills they deploy in evasion. This is true not only during daylight when they retreat to dense or remote areas, but even at night they are wary and hiding behind trees and bushes. If human avoidance is your evolutionary niche, and you perfect that art, well then you are certainly a difficult creature to prove reality.

I read the reports a good while back about it being one of the production crew members. It was stated as fact. But now we see that was completely made up. Debunkers can call things a hoax while perpetrating a fraud of their own by how they present their facts. In order for that four wheeled vehicle Salubrious posted to glide smoothly along it would have to have magic shock absorbers, as Wendijo said, unless its driving down a level road like in the picture.

I am absolutely agog that anyone takes anything that coonbo or bear says seriously. It IS true that they make fantastical claims that are outside even,the rather quirky sasquatch "bell curve" but if you are suggesting that their claims are true I only ask you to explain why you feel that way.

Incorrect as usual, Crow. Bigfoot is very worth my time. It is YOU that is not worth my time. MIB

Thanks, jayjeti. I think that some people believe they have real reasons to think poorly of others, and that's fine. Everyone has their own yardstick, their own litmus test to determine whose observations will be persuasive to them. The problem comes when the doubter thinks the failure of his own personal litmus test entitles him to broadcast that "failure" to the public. It doesn't. Failure of a personal litmus test is a matter of interest only to the person administering the personal test. It is not a "fact" that could hold up in any investigation, as this particular case clearly illustrates. (Subsequent investigation has proven that the initial accusations were unwarranted.) And a public statement of suspicion -- in other words, an opinion -- offered as if it were fact risks damaging the reputation of an innocent person. That's just plain irresponsible. You need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you're saying is true before you attack someone's reputation publicly.

It doesn't sound to me like he's looking to cash in on anything. Sounds like he wants to form a research group to reconsider, among other things, the use of weapons against Sasquatch people; to assemble evidence of the existence of the Sasquatch people; create a documentary (and a possible series) about the Sasquatch people designed to show people that the Sasquatch are not monsters to be feared; and encourage people to learn for themselves about the inhabitants of the woods and post the information they gather in some central place.