Leaderboard

Norseman, You don't have to agree with MM to accept or consider that claim as possible. The claim that BF are seen in almost every state of the Union is based on anecdotal reports collected from all those states (not just by BFRO, but also by other investigators and groups). These reports are very similar in quality and description. You can pick a report at random and describe the general incident without telling the State of origin - and many of them will sound very similar and not particularly location centric. If you want to only accept the reports from PNW (WA, OR, CA) and reject those from OK, TX, FL, GA, SC, etc. then you are not being consistent on your acceptance of reports as evidence. BTW, I don't like this observation either. But, I won't reject it just because I don't like it. I also do not like the fact that there is no physical evidence after more than 50 years of people searching for it; specially if you believe that these creatures are all over the US and Canada. It is hard to believe that such a large primate or hominid could get away with living among us and not leave physical trace evidence or be already detected and documented by the hundreds of thousands wildlife biologists studying our fauna. I don't put much evidentiary weight on footprints, stick structures, photos, sound recordings, or even DNA samples that were not taken directly from the animal itself (blood sample, tissue sample, hair sample). So what do we get after 50 years of research? Not much but stories. It is a mystery and it is not zoology or biology as many of you will like it to be. It is cryptozoology and the collective sum of the anecdotal reports don't make a lot of sense if the animal behaved as expected for a big ape roaming all 49 states + Canada. Granted, you can discount the anecdotal reports, and then we got nothing. I agree with others that the PGF film is not the key driver for the claim, but a side show. IMHO, NAWAC is the only organization that is taking seriously the idea of collecting a specimen and are intelligently putting resources to that end. If they don't succeed with all those resources, then the nut must be very difficult to crack.

You are correct. While BF proponents may tout the P/G film as evidence, I find it ironic that unlike some new species of monkey in the jungles of South America, where a picture has sufficed to establish a new species, the limitations of quality, . layman involvement, and reputation of those involved in the P/G film are the primary reasons for disinterest by the scientific community. The P/G film is part of the problem convincing science. Had it been made more recently and of better quality by some graduate level biologist, the story could be very different evoking interest of the scientific community. That would have led to the acquisition of a body and ended the existence debate.

As well it should hiflier since his sister was a professional make-up artist! Lest we forget! If Standing ever coughs up a legit pic I will eat the weasel's hairball, electrons his announcement page contains along with the cellulose from the printout!

Neither scientists or anyone with crtical thinking skilks will care about these supposed otherworldy ratios because.... It cant be proven its not a costume. Ratios are meaningless if its a costume.

Hi, Pat. Absolutely, I remember you doing that This why I am giving those PhD's all of the credit for presenting the issue in the first place. It was just at the time I began to push the idea I was not aware of previous scientific statements on the matter. I stopped taking credit when I first read Dr. Krantz' comments from back in the mid 1990's and subsequently Dr. Fahrenback's and Dr. Bindenagel's comments as well. But they are no longer here to promote the subject and I don not see anyone else currently raising their hands trying to promote it now. I bring Patty's shoulder width up as often as I do because it is a point that has scientific dialogue behind it. The more people that become aware of it the more important the issue will become. And rightfully so. And you were good to inform me of previous research on that. I needed to hear it and your timing couldn't have been better.

No, you did not. You posted something alleged to be a clear picture of bigfoot. That it is both clear and alleged to be of a bigfoot does not make the point you think it makes. There is no chance that picture is not Todd Standing in makeup. You would be better served trying to make your point with photos of costumes or makeup effects of known animals. At least you could try to use that method to demonstrate someones inability to separate real from fake. For example, is this a gorilla or a costume. That sort of thing. You would still be lacking any bigfoot photos to test with, however. Showing me a photo of Todd Standing in makeup proves no point whatsoever.

And I concur that is public consensus. It has two arms, two legs and a head and shoulders. Add to that the consensus that there is nothing left to discover on Earth other than the odd insect? I find it predictable.