Leaderboard

I don't think that's the claim being made. Maybe. Dunno, can't read DWA's mind. What I think is being said, though, is that it is more probable someone would assume a sasquatch is a bear, mistake a sasquatch for a bear, than the other way around, particularly if they're not sure what they see but they don't believe sasquatch exists. I can certainly lump my father into that group. He tells of seeing a 9 foot tall stump with arms in a snowy field one day that sure looked like what a bigfoot would look like, and it was gone when they came back, but of course it couldn't be a bigfoot because bigfoot doesn't exist. There's the thought process that biases against confirmation. Same thing .. the hairy thing y' only get a glimpse of sprinting away on two feet must have been a bear because bigfoot doesn't exist. I hear that a lot. MIB

Just more talking down to people by DWA, making claims that he as a Super Scientist cannot back up. Do you have verified studies proving skeptics cannot identify wildlife? Or in you case, what you consider proof, tens of thousands of reports?

I did and rather enjoyed it. Good evidence compels me. Proof convinces me. His opinions and so called evidence is no better or worse than others. 1963 is a long time to speculate and not have definitive proof. You do know this is 2016. Like I said nice fellow, but he certainly does not have all the answers. Neither do you and neither do I . You are welcome to keep talking down to me. Your strong convictions make me smile. If you don't mind myself and the 90 % of the rest of the world will go about are business as the creature is never documented. Don't you work for the government ?

That's an empty guarantee you can't back up without falling back on "prove they exist." The last clear wood knock I got was about a quarter mile from some nitwit campers' generators. I'd say "check your assumptions at the door." When assumptions conflict with observations, the assumptions lose. MIB

Which is ludicrous.....no offense meant.

Norse, If it has been hashed out here before, my apologies. But in the strictest of definitions, "fossil" describes bone or other organic matter preserved (either by direct replacement, or just an impression in rock) in petrified form by mineral replacement. "Really old bones" are not a fossil, strictly speaking. Of course, I don't know in what sense Randy was using the term, and that would be up to him to say. I had assumed he meant fossils in the classic sense.

Fossil? No. Skeletal remains, yes, but I don't believe they were fossilized.

Same here most outdoorsman I know are skeptics, but to claim that they don't know how to identify the animals in their area is hogwash

I have read him. Kind of reminds me of you. He proclaims the creature exists based on evidence ,but says his peers wont accept it because they consider it tabloid. Never saw the creature but, has collected foot prints . Claims to have heard them. Nothing compelling at all about any of that. Consistently being wrong is not very scientific at all.

Fossils ... ugly head ... yes. And it is something that has to be accounted for eventually but that may not happen 'til after discovery is official. We had proof of chimps long before we had fossils of chimps. I'm not so inclined to look for high altitude burial, deliberate or otherwise. There isn't a lot of food up there so a BF in those locations was probably traveling through, not living there. An older, unhealthy one probably couldn't get up there to die and be buried. Unless they're packing their dead a long ways for burial, I think low elevation burials are more likely. Lahars which travel a long distance from the mountain source remain good candidate areas to look because anything caught in the stream bottom, even miles from the mountain, could be killed and buried. The lower Toutle and Cowlitz rivers from Mt St Helens, the Sandy River from Mt Hood, and maybe the upper Rogue from Mt Mazama would be places to look. Some places with very heavy ash-fall could hold fossilized remains, however, accessibility is an issue if they're under 30-50 feet, or more, of ash. It's a needle in a haystack search. MIB

Boredom sets in when the "goal" is set too low. After a certain amount of "scientific" discussion mostly limited to tracks, calls, hair, cameras, & the proper gun to "harvest a specimen" (which must be 100% flesh & blood), there's no doubt that boredom will eventually set in. Raise the goal, & rise above science's self imposed limits, & boredom will disappear.