Leaderboard

There seems to be a whole lot of people on here that want to change the fabric of science to NOT ask for physical evidence in biology. Not OK......it's a Pandora's box. Is there a stigma attached to Bigfoot? Absolutely there is. And it's for the very reason DWA always touts. We have a mountain of circumstantial evidence (tracks, pictures, video) and not one single piece of physical proof. A tooth, a finger bone, etc. Which leads people to the conclusion that it's a hoax. Produce physical evidence? And science will run you over. Until then? Not all of the screaming, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, nor the reports, nor the foot casts, etc. Will even make them look your way. To all of the researchers out there, some of which have turned in samples to be turned back contaminated or lost? I'm sorry, truly sorry. All we can do is trudge ahead. If it's out there? We need physical proof. But Im not willing to change science to make it any easier on us for this one particular case. No defacto discovery....... It's gotta be the real deal.

Here's an update for those of you that are interested. 20 plus nests found, many woven uniquely, wildlife biologists been there saying no Bear, no Bird, two rocks found in the immediate vicinity that appear to have been hit on each other or hit on something, and the nests are allegedly identical to that of Gorilla's. Unfortunately it is not thought that anything subject related has been back to them for at least a year however. Enjoy.. www.blogtalkradio.com/monsterxradio/2017/05/14/bigfoots-bedroom-update-on-the-nesting-site-in-washington

One needs to be popped, it's as simple as that, all the other stuff going on is just a load of fun and nothing more IMO. Nobody has the funds nor time outside of every day life to be able to make that happen though unfortunately.

Yes, very true. Gigantopithicus alone shows something like what we think BF is did exist at one time.

Something similar worked for two old cowboys some time back! To bad they had to settle for shooting it on film only.

Who is this "we" you so blithely lump us in with Norse? What you call the circumstantial evidence (and what I call "evidence") tells me physical remains exist. How could they not, if I trust my conclusions? BF remains would be certainly interesting, but I could probably predict with some degree of certainty what they look like, and many others could too. I'd be willing to wager as well, there is more than one person who would read this and say, "Well, they look like this here..." Don't think you have access to everything that has ever happened in this world, even though Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Al Gore wanted you to believe that.

I agree there are huge non scientific assumptions in this field. Bigfoot shape shifts, moves through portals, uses infrasound, has night vision, wood knocks, on and on. Based on what evidence exactly? Never mind fact that the damn animal is currently a myth!!!!??? If we were trying to prove Chimpanzees we're using infrasound to stun colobus monkeys while hunting at least we would have a leg to stand on. The premise isn't that Bigfoot could not exist..... it's that we have zero physical proof that it does. Most often in biology the search begins when some piece of physical proof shows up in apothecary shops or bush meat camps or archeological digs. If that were not the case? Science would be looking for pixies, gnomes and leprechauns!

Not at all Norse. As in a lot of disciplines, the tertiary choice is the best one, and it is here. I'd settle for practicing Science without the assumptions. And in this field, there is a YUGE assumption at work. For any scientist, the first and most important question when making a preliminary conclusion or framing any hypothesis should be: Do I know what the evidence/lack of evidence is saying to me to be impossible? The answer almost ALWAYS should be: No. Big risk there in taking that stance, admittedly. But good science requires you to approach it that way. Reputation, schmeputation. Those who resist the idea of BF as a premise (and don't let them convince you otherwise...they surely do) is because they are way over-invested in this whole primacy of man thing. In other words: You find stone tools and any alternative explanation is impossible to consider. And they can't blame themselves, and they have plenty of company. Some have asked me how I reconcile my interest in the Hominid fossil record with a conclusion that BF is likely to exist in our time. I'm always mystified by that question. I mean, would anyone who has studied both come to any other conclusion? So...like what? The laws of nature were suspended or operated differently to allow other bi-pedal hominids to exist at the same time as our ancestors, and somehow that can't happen today? We had terrifically small, and tremendously big hominids. These are not different cases, these are the SAME one thing: Life finding bewildering ways to manifest itself. So I agree with your conclusion that only a body will settle this, but I'm also stuck on asking the question: Why? Because we have to get over the self-handicapping idea of BF being an extraordinary possibility, bordering on impossible for vast numbers of people. Well, maybe on some other planet, but here on terra firma, it doesn't even make the top 10 list of implausible events. Or maybe they do only have themselves to blame. I guess it could be poor potty training, or lack of access to children's literature, but atrophied imaginations account for most of it. "Imagination" has taken on a negative and condescending context too, don't you think? As in, [chuckles and rubs his head] "Little Johnny sure has an over-active imagination, don't he...?!" The unspoken fear is Little Johnny will grow up be that dippy John Lennon fella, singing blather about imagining crap?! Just try getting that published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal one time. Me, and some others around here were raised in a rare period in our history when people had the audacity to question just about every premise they were handed. Yeah, it went too far at times, but look at the positive results. For whatever the reasons, we've become much more timid in our view of the world. If this persists, this planet is likely to truly have only one bipedal hominid in residence, and it won't be us.

There will never be a moment in time when your mountain of witness reports collapses our scientific process. And if it does? Human society will slide back to the dark ages. Back to reading chicken bones and bleeding people to cure them.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SASQUATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do all caps penetrate the anti science recesses of your brain??? Produce one tooth, one finger bone....and be prepared to be ran over by science. Your like the guy that cannot ever get a date, but ignores the advice of what women want in a mate. It's surreal.

Even the name reminds me of Mongo that was a character in Blazing Saddles. Perhaps that is the intelligence level that is targeted?

I'm fully aware of memory retention and its limits too, i can assure you, i just completed the toughest memory retention geography test on the planet. Do/Did i write down info on every Sasquatch video i watch ? Absolutely not. Can anyone back me up on this ? I have no idea. Is there anything in the BFF Archives about this ? I don't know, have a look. Anyone willing to check ? Not me, i couldn't care less if anyone believes what i'm saying or not, i'm just telling you that the first time i saw that video it was purported, by whoever and wherever the video was being put out there, to be from the Olympic Peninsula and i know it was well before LFTBM came out for sure. I take an interest in all WA related Sasquatch bits and bobs and this one for some reason, stuck. If you're so interested in this for whatever reason, i'm surprised you're asking if there are others willing to spend their own time finding x and y for you. That's not really how it works. In the words of my great late Nan, "Get off your **** and do it yourself."..;)