Leaderboard

Hello, hiflier Yes, I agree. Some Scientists have contributed a significant amount of effort in regard to this and they have come to some very interesting conclusions. John Green's database is amazing. As you probably know, John Bindernagel, B.S.A., MS, Ph.D. said: "I am now satisfied with the available evidence for the existence of the sasquatch in North America. My view is that not only do we have sufficient evidence to treat the sasquatch as a bona fide member of North America's spectrum of large mammals, but that we already know a great deal about its biology and ecology." I completely get where those determinations are coming from, NathanFooter. And for the most part, I agree! What I don't get is why these animals don't seem to be "normal". I bet that whenever ape species X first began to understand (for instance) wolves and lions, they probably didn't know that those animals have night-vision. I'm personally just reserving a few determinations of what Bigfoot might be until we know more.

My bad, I did not intend that as a direct response to you, your post just summed up a share of the directions other posters where going. I simply want to point out that the data collected over the last century shows a much stronger case that Sasquatch are just normal creatures surviving in the natural world. That is the beautiful thing, science is deeply related to the repetition of cause and effect. Reports do show and represent the same behaviors in the same places ( or places of renewed similarity ) at the same times year after year. Fictitious data does not align or form a pattern, the picture painted by these events over time shows us a strong presence in biology.

I'm sure it does, 2 or 3 had what looked like semi-dried slobber on them. Waste of my money to have them tested though, IMO......believe me, they are better off as a Cryptid, and more fun for us.

No, it wouldn't be, you're right there. Like most evidence, especially witnesses, you always gain something and lose something at the same time. The calculus always is to figure out if you are likely to achieve a net advantage. I can also tell you from hard experience, your client and your own witnesses are always your Achilles' heel. When you can get your client down off the stand without your entire case blowing up, you always heave a sigh of relief. And your own expert witnesses? They are the worst of all the vulnerabilities. Walking mine fields. I avoid the necessity of using them at all costs.

Good info WSA. Still want to see it lol. I could imagine the PGF film showing how the BF avoided confrontation and willingly exited the scene stage right at a quick pace. That would not be good evidence of BF being a threat to the great citizens of Cali, at least not on that day.

Hi, xspider1, it depends on how much stock one puts into the reports. John Green's database does have instances of most if not all the things on NF's list.

To be honest, I kind of miss it. My kids loved it, and got excited when a new season would come along. It was something comfortingly mindless and formulaic we could watch together. It really had a camp aesthetic in my opinion. It was like watching “Scooby Doo” on Saturday mornings as a child. You knew the formula: the gang would drive together in the Mystery Machine to a new locale, learn of a ghost or monster from the locals, then devise a plan to catch the beast. Bobo with his dog Monkey, made the perfect Shaggy and Scooby. And Renae was a spot-on Velma. Between Matt and Cliff, it’s arguable who fit the Fred mold best, as they both took the role of devising a plan to catch the mysterious monster. They only lacked the hot eye candy of a Daphne. They could of used a Daphne!