Leaderboard

But it's not like the emperor really thinks only he and a select few can see his fancy new duds...he knows full well that he's jouncing about all nekkid! Like he's really gonna believe a tailor! He's laughing because he knows he's naked, everyone else isn't, and they all have to say he's clothed as well. There is a parallel here.... The creature is better known than we are led to believe, it's just that everyone under the emperor has to say "it's just a myth....." Science/gov/military knows..not all of each them do, but some of each of them do, you can rest assured of that!

Hmmm...I took it he was referring to either those outside the forum or perhaps a select few here who while unnamed know who they are, which I hope isn't me because if I'm one of those, I had no idea! Upon rereading the post in question, I m rather sure he's not stating that everyone is ignorant, not reasoning nor inattentive, but rather those who still maintain the position that there is i)no supporting evidence, ii) insufficient amount, or compete absence, of multiform evidences to even consider justifying acknowledgement, much less upper level(university level, significant financial backing, etc) investigation, of some tabloid fuelled myth of a hairy apeman running amuck in the woods, iii) no really am basis to be found within witness reports, iv)anyone with a bucket and some plaster can make a big footprint, v)it's already been proven a hoax, vi)if it was real, science would know, since they don't, it isn't...I could go on forever(as many of you know..) The point being that I read that post as in reference to denialists and obstinate sceptics who (sorry bout this there big D, but I can't resist it....) obviously haven't read the witness accounts, which when viewed en masse show a cohesive consistency which simply cannot be the result of widespread individual hallucination or misidentification of known species of their region. And if that's what he's saying, well, then I do kinda have to agree. As for peer review, well, that's a significant element of standard scientific publication of one's research. Of course, as melba discovered, this subject matter presents difficulty in getting the scientific community to even consider such review due to any number of possible inhibitors(whole 'nother thread!) And there in lies the problem with proper peer review procedures for any scholar attempting to publicly broach the very topic. The downside of the scientific establishment, indeed......

Yes, admittedly........a degree. But the generalities of ignorant, unread, and not paying attention? He is overdue for being more specific. Most here read, and most here are not ignorant, and most pay attention. But most need more than what anecdotal, and soft evidence supports. I see no pursuit to dig up and verify under peer review things like unknown primate DNA. DWA is satisfied with the idea that everything points to a real creature and that's all he needs. But for most who read, are not ignorant, and do pay attention it is simply not good enough. And there's been enough battling on the subject over the years to support that the evidence not good enough.

But there is a degree of validity in what he says........

I have roughly estimated that where habitat is adequate a small family group is probably using a 300 mile radius or so, where habitat is abundant that area may be smaller. I am guessing completely, but given the intervals I experience of them coming maybe once a month they are always on the move, and I think this also helps them stay hidden as these movements are in the early am hours and are not noticed by people except the occasional road crossing. If they stay in one area too long their presence is likely to be detected by someone, so constant movement keeps them unpredictable. I also think they are on the move within an area they are using, like drawing little circles inside of a big circle. The big circle is the overall area they use, and the little circles are different circuits they use within each area. Say a farm field one night, a meadow the next, a marsh another night, all within several miles, then it is on to another area further away, perhaps 20 miles or more from the original starting point. It is obviously not circular movements, just varied movements within a certain radius. That is why it is so hard to pin them down. They probably have variations on every theme as well to further complicate the deal. Perhaps they move that 300 miles circle south a bit in the winter, and it eases back to the north in the summer, then every so often it moves east or west. It is a pattern used by a large predator always on the hunt, but also of an omnivore always capitalizing on available resources. This pattern might be more a midwest farmland situation vs. a midwest forestland situation farther to the north. Some habitats could sustain them for long periods of time with little movement, and if those areas are remote enough to avoid detection, well there is your most predictable sasquatch, one that stays within a small area to capitalize on abundant resources year round.

I imagine any good skeptic wouldn't make a claim one way or the other. A skeptic would ask: Where does the evidence lead us? So a skeptic would look at the evidence of elk in the vicinity, including countless elk prints around the cast area. A skeptic would request that elk experts be allowed to inspect all the evidence. From what I've read on the topic, it would appear that such experts have been denied close examination of the evidence. And a skeptic would note the distinct lack of supporting bigfoot evidence, including the lack of bigfoot footprints when so many other elk & human prints are readily apparent. And then the skeptic would say the evidence leans heavily in favor of an elk-lay. A contrarian, on the other hand, might make all manner of claims irrespective of evidence.