Leaderboard

I don't think I've ever seen such misinformed, mistaken assumptions and criteria for the existence of these things. I don't understand the time spent arguing in circles, simply because those who are skeptical - and then go so far as to determine their own personal standards of what constitutes "proof" - on the existence of something they discount. Wolverines. Bears. Cougars. Possums. Raccoons. Wolves. All caught on camera, all have something in common. One, big, commonality. A shared characteristic. And this shared characteristic or commonality is what you base the "what constitutes proof" argument on? That's pretty simple-minded. That's lazy. More to the point - that's just stupid.

They are real?

Exactly. A video by a hunter where the Bigfoot meanders into range, smells something it doesn't like, and heads off into the grass. Instead we have the classic Bigfoot videos of the guy walking left to right, and making a look-back, and the arms swinging, then it disappears behind a tree. A legit video would be similar to the Florida panther video above. No tells of a set-up, just a surprised hunter catching an unaware GIANT HAIRY HOMINID on video. Even if the video can't establish scientifically that the creature is a living species, a decent video would allow hair catchers, and scat surveys to pick up DNA within days of the video. Did you see the wolverine study? did you see the large number of DNA samples they gathered AFTER the game cam photo? A Bigfoot will not look like a bear on a game cam video. It will look like a massive friggin gorilla with hair, and teeth, and we will know it.

Then this thread is a moot point. A trail camera is not a Nat Geo film crew......

Comparison for clarity: The word "clear" is defined as easy to perceive, understand, or interpret. Surely, the term "ambiguous" (i.e. open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning) would be more accurate given that even the provenance of that Bigfoot video is unknown... The issue is that there are no "clear" examples of Bigfoot evidence. Even the PGF and its provenance have sufficient ambiguities to question its authenticity. There are, however, many clear examples which demonstrate a culture of fabricating Bigfoot exists. Reviewing the comments sections under this particular Bigfoot video shows that there are just as many (perhaps even more) who clearly see it as fake - CGI or costume... If seeing is believing and one see clarity where there is actually great ambiguity then perhaps it would be more fruitful to question the reliability of one's own perception and beliefs... proponents and skeptics alike...

One does not reasonably expect ample evidence of bigfoot. That expectation is rooted in ignorance. Even where evidence is comparatively ample, unless a person accepts that bigfoot is a possibility, that evidence is such that it will be dismissed as an oddity of some more normal type. Denial is self-reinforcing, it's not until you accept the real possibility of something to find and examine what you do find in detail that you develop the sophistication to separate one thing from another instead of lumping it all into (the wrong) one. This truth is obvious to the honest skeptic and inconceivable to the scoftic. MIB