Leaderboard

Cliff is a natural teacher. He's very good at what he does. Is he infallible? No, of course not. But he's giving solid information in a fast-paced, logically ordered presentation. Kudos to him!

If not for my own suspected encounter I would 100% be on the same side of the fence as Patterson-Gimlin. Proof of BF is non existent and evidence of BF is subjective and objective at best. The fact that in the 50+ years since the PGF was filmed we have not produced anything remotely close to it is NOT promising. Sure, there are claims of better evidence, there are countless stories by people that are 100% confident in what they saw, there are countless reasons why proof is not able to be validated. In the end it has added up to nothing tangible. DNA has added up to nothing tangible. We believers are on the wrong side of the fight, we are the ones with a burden of proof. IB4 we are not trying to prove anything.

It seems like there is a logical fallacy among skeptics. We cannot talk about evidence without proof? So if Bigfoot does not exist? Then we cannot talk about foot casts, films, etc. Because they MUST be a hoax…. Its all junk. Im not trying to shift the burden of proof. Im only asking that we examine the evidence open mindedly. Because some of it is not easily explained away and could lead somewhere. Just as Cliff stated its going to take a body. No one is arguing that point. So in this thread we are talking about evidence. Not proof.

Some are pretty "darn" remote. The first tracks I found were not "far" from a trail but they were across a deep, swift river in a section very unlikely to cross without a boat. Since they were fresh, definitely less than 4 hours old, and there were no boats other than me in the area, that's practically impossible. Not absolutely impossible but vanishingly unlikely. Other tracks I've found in places where I subsequently set up trail cameras, often quite a few, and in a period of over 4 years I got NO humans on camera in those places. This means if someone was ever there, they never came back. In other areas not so far from those spots I did indeed get pictures of people on camera, rare, maybe 1 (or if 2, they were together) every couple years, so that confirms that I'm setting up the cameras right to catch glimpses of any humans passing by. All in all, I think the better question is with so little human traffic, how much more evidence is available to be seen that nobody ever does see?

Humans can get to any point on the surface of the Earth, the surface of the moon and walk on the ocean floor. So by your definition nothing on Earth or the Moon is “remote”. And yet? We find new species every year.

1 in 13. https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/some-people-are-still-running-around-bendy-chimp-feet/ Now how many of those people have a 20 inch foot and walk around in the PacNW with no shoes on? (Shaquille O’Neal has a 16 inch foot, size 22) I do think that the representation of a mid tarsal break in a foot cast shreds the notion of wooden stompers being responsible.

I think we can make an educated guess on what is between 98.9% and 99.5%. That leaves .6% of unknown territory which is quite a spread in evolutionary terms. Certainly would be an ambiguous enough bracket to confound an average lab technician or geneticist not looking for an unrecognized primate? But it also tells me that there is more than likely something in that .6% that is known by those tasked to look for.....that something I mean why wouldn't a qualified scientist take an interest in that half-percent window? I'll bet there are some that do indeed take an interest. After all, that half-percent represents over 30 million possible cross-over or unique base pair. Ya can't tell me no has studied that.