Leaderboard

How is binary thinking a pitfall in biology? Either Bigfoot exists or it doesn’t. The state of California declaring it to exist without evidence is no different than you an I claiming it exists with no evidence. Don’t take this the wrong way, but lately you seem to be taking up causes and becoming the champion of them. And you take it very personal if people disagree with you. What I find odd is that sometimes these causes are in direct conflict with your book? Either way this California case has no Bigfoot evidence. No matter what they decide...... So why feel so strongly about it? As far as California DFW knowing if the creature exists or doesn’t? We don’t know that either. But if they have physical evidence of the creature? Petition the court to make them release their findings....now that would be an exciting case!

What did I write that went behind disagreeing? How was I being condescending to you? I wrote that while I normally do not agree with what Squatchy posts. (Which I don’t, you can ask him if he agrees) That in this case he was spot on. Meaning that Sasquatch will not become a scientificly recognized animal because of this court case...... Not that I agree with every post Squatchy has ever made. You seem to hitch your caboose to these crackpot approaches for recognizing Sasquatch as a real animal. And then when someone points out that it’s a crack pot approach you take their head off. Has Melba Ketchum proven Sasquatch real? No. Neither will this....a civil court case based on witness testimony. It’s been tried before. You know what will prove this animal real? You wrote a book on it remember? A chunk of the animal itself......that sort of evidence is irrefutable. I for one would NOT sit up and take notice even if the state of California recognized the creature to be real, based on eye witness testimony. This isn’t a foot ball game with a scoreboard. It’s black and white. Does the creature exist or doesn’t it? And if it does? Show me the physical evidence.....a bone, a tooth, a body. It would be a very hollow victory indeed. And would shake my confidence in the California Justice system more than anything. It’s simply the wrong approach..... physical evidence should be the only marker for the existence of any creature that is currently a cryptid. IMHO

Drove to Pacific City on the Oregon Coast yesterday to introduce two camp companions to Mr. Peter Byrne. Peter is 92, approaching 93 and is in great health. He guided us to a first rate little seafood restaurant and exhibited a good appetite. His sidekick Hal Halderman came to lunch. As an aside Hal, who I've known for about 20 years, quietly and happily reported Peter is still in great shape, climbing slopes and setting cameras. Peter was in good spirits and conversational; he solidly impressed my friends. After losing John a month ago, I was relieved thinking it great news. Joe Beelart here Peter spent a lot of time on and about the east, west and north slopes of Mt. Hood, but amazingly enough no time at all from south of Mt. Hood from where I took this photograph. Please don't steal this click without my permission. It was difficult to access the site and wait some days over a summer to take this photograph. Wow ! That didn't take long ...... In the USA esquire is normally attached to a lawyer or diplomat's name. Esquire is an honorary title of respect in the British Isles and commonwealth. Since Mr. Byrne was born in Ireland; and is certainly a diplomat of scientific research, I strongly feel Mr. Byrne deserves the title.

What is the expression Norseman? 'When a man holds a hammer, everything he sees looks like a nail"? You might be holding the "existence" hammer. Look, I realize your sine qua non, plus ultra is to get a body to confirm existence. It is not mine (not that I would treat that as bad news, on the contrary) and it is not necessarily the motivation of all who post and read here. There are ways out of that, if you want it. My post above was just an explanation of how some might move to looking at it through a different lens, and allow us to write a different menu for predicted outcomes. It is neither an outcome that confirms existence, or disproves it. It is a useful approach, a third way. It takes us above and beyond the zero-sum debate that seems to eat up most of the discussion around here. The reason I know it is useful is because neither the hard-core proponents or the dyed-in-the-wool opponents find it an entirely satisfying outcome. That tells me something. So this: The state of California declares there is insufficient evidence to declare if BF does, or does not, exist with any degree of reasonable certainty, BUT, given the compelling evidence for existence, the possibility cannot be entirely dismissed when matters of its citizens' safety and welfare are concerned. While this court is not able to grant all the relief requested by the Petitioner, it is ORDERED...

Most likely the reason is that they simply don't exist.

Funny; I've compared and contrasted the "human caused global warming" phenomenon and Bigfoot phenomenon many times. Primarily because, in my mind, there's more evidence of BF than the former. Yet, ironically, one gets made fun of if they give BF evidence any credence, and called a "denier" if they DON'T give HCGW evidence credence. Like WSA, I don't want to get in the political thicket. I just think the divergent paths of the two phenomena show how public opinion can be molded.

? Yes I question anti killer motives as they want to perpetuate the myth in my mind. But if one was shot and proven? Sasquatch craze would be on like Donkey Kong. Everybody would be tuning in to catch a glimpse of the legendary creature. Squatch tourism would be off the hook.

Here is the entire court filing. I apologize for the quality, but had to save it page by page as .jpg files rather than text.

hiflier, your on a public forum stating your opinion. Expect some people to disagree. And I’d hardly call it people coming out of the woodwork when we are all pretty much regulars here that have been commenting.

^ They look like flesh and blood man-apes for sure; but we don't know that's what they are for certain, do we? This is a very interesting topic, imo and there is some fascinating discussion above! Sometimes it seems like none of the 7 subjects in the OP will ever be confirmed to 'All'. That's weird, but it is what it is... To a woodsman, I can see how a Sasquatch might be less intimidating than say, a ghost or an alien but to city folks, that might be different! lol I saw a very perplexing UFO many years ago and I have limited experience with ghosts which was enough for me to, shall we say, "believe"? It seems certain to me that there is other life in the Universe (with there being billions of other planets and all that out there you know) and I would guess that some of that life has probably been to Earth in the past 5 billion years. As for fortune telling and people moving objects with their minds, I dunno. As for the low percent "belief" in Bigfoot, I contribute that to (among other things): BF hoaxers (as mentioned above) BF costumes (which always and can only look ridiculous) The goofiness of the name "Bigfoot" itself ("Sasquatch" sounds much more serious) Silly movies about Bigfoot (They are not always so comical if you think about it...) There are some things living in the woods that look 1/2 like big hairy humans and 1/2 like non-human apes that walk upright. I am as convinced of that as I could be without having a "close encounter". Again, great topic. Thanks, y'all.