Leaderboard

Not to pick upon anyone in particular, however using Norseman's contention he would reach for the rifle first and camera second which is to presume he's actively hunting with a firearm, consider the following from a forensic/legal perspective: 1) How does anyone know exactly what it is they're hunting? 2) What proof do they possess to support any contentions of what these things are? IMO, basically, if you cannot validate these items, you are engaging in a shoot first, ask questions later proposition, from a forensic and legal perspective. I'm aware of two separate incidents where "something" was shot and blood samples recovered with DNA analysis allegedly being conducted. The latest such event supposedly was perpetrated by individuals affiliated with what was the TBRC organization but I understand they have subsequently changed the name of their group to something with Wood Ape in the title. A subject was allegedly shot somewhere in the Kiamichi mountians in SE Oklahoma with blood samples recovered and supposedly sent in for DNA analysis, etc.. Has anyone heard of what the results of this analysis yielded? 1) Was it some unknown species? 2) Was it a bear or some other known fauna? 3) Was it human? The point is simply, before you load up the elephant gun and head off to the woods to shoot one, shouldn't you have a firm grasp of what an elephant actually looks like?

The one element of this topic that has always swayed me more than any other is the seeming integrity and believability of so many of the witnesses. Personally, my belief is that if you do not believe in the possibility of Sasquatch's existence, you are effectively saying that thousands of people across the globe are either lying or gravely mistaken, oddly enough while reporting startlingly similar things. It just doesn't pass logic muster for me. So when I watch the related shows, all the green lit night excursions and outdoorsy stuff doesn't really interest me as much as the interviews with the witnesses. I imagine others agree with me. What I propose is a series based simply on witness testimony. I suppose you'd have to have the requisite "recreations" to graphically display the encounters, but that's it. No campouts, no hiking or pointing into the darkness or whispering under the breath. Just witnesses. I think there's a huge untold story not just of "are these people telling the truth?" but moreover, how has this experience changed their lives? How are they different now, how has it affected relationships with family, friends, co-workers? Has it changed their views on anything, including science, or religion? I really would love to see something like this, but of course it will never happen. Anyone else agree?

Scientists view both as pointless since they want something concrete to examine - not ponder existential possibilities like philosophers. It's why sighting reports aren't evidence and why despite continual braying by some on this forum they never will be.

I strongly disagree. Wildlife shows that actually include wildlife are far more interesting than watching people bumble around in the dark.

Absolutely!!!! Know your target........... That? Is what I'm hunting. What it is? Is for a bunch of guys in lab coats to decide! Right now? What it is? Is a freaking fairy tale. About the NAWAC blood sample, I believe the blood sample was contaminated and DNA was impossible to pull from it. Lastly, guns are a heavy responsibility, if you shoot a Bear out of season because you thought it was a Sasquatch, you could be convicted of poaching. If you shoot a dude in a black running suit? You are probably going to be convicted of murder. Nobody cares if your sorry, didn't mean to do it, scared, whatever.............that is the crux of it. Of course this is the same responsibility that tens of thousands of hunters face every year during hunting season. Is it a deer or uncle bob? Is it a white tail or a mule deer? Is it a male? Is it a legal male by counting antler points? Target confirmation is not an impossible task...........and when in doubt? DONT SHOOT.

Wouldn't the lack of cover and possible snow on the ground make them much easier to track? And it would give you guys a break from the heat and bugs you've mentioned in the past.

I see a lot of people make that claim, but I don't understand why it would mean the end to a show. It's not like interest in BF would end if a specimen is found, instead the interest would skyrocket in my opinion. They might have to change the name of their show, depending on which one you are talking about, but it wouldn't neccessarily end the show, just open up new avenues. I think that's more due to there not being a BF there to begin with.

You impute thought processes to me in which I do not engage. I consider other reports data and evaluate them accordingly. My only bias is the reverse of the denialist's bias. Since I know them to exist, I'm past the question about whether or not the subject of the report can exist to begin with. Shed of that "burden" I then evaluate the report for consistency, degree of confidence, and value. None of the reports I read have any value to me with regard to proving bigfoot's existence. That's no longer a question for me. As a matter of fact, I generally don't go out of my way to read reports at all any more, because the vast majority only say I saw or heard a bigfoot here at this particular time and place. That is meaningful geographic data, and if the bigfoot happens to have some sort of distinctive coloring, that can add value with regard to possibly tracking that individual, but the statement "I saw a bigfoot" is a big "So what" to me because it provides little or nothing in the way of new information for me, little or no value, no matter how reliable it is. I will tune into a report if it engenders discussion due to ancillary data that may provide additional insight into their behavior, intelligence, how they interact, etc. This is more meaningful to me and has greater value. And if a report includes Fortean aspects, I assign a low rating to it with regard to consistency, degree of confidence, and value. When a bigfoot is caught, you will marvel. If that bigfoot, after being caught, demonstrates the ability to mindspeak, I will marvel.

^^ No. Unprovable is unprovable. It is your subjective bias that leads you to think that anonymous bigfoot anecdotes that are unprovable, should be treated differently than other unprovable anecdotes. If the nature of the anecdotal claim renders it unprovable then that is all there is to it. It's unprovable. It is not because it is a bigfoot claim, it is because the nature of the claim is one that cannot be proven. For example, there is a bigfoot in that box ( Schrodinger we'll call him) is an example of a provable bigfoot claim. Open the box, say hi to shrody and the claim is proven. However, " I saw a bigfoot last night in my backyard" is unprovable by it's very nature. Replace bigfoot with Elvis, or Santa or a raccoon, or a bobcat, it makes no difference. The claim cannot be proven, period. All bigfoot anecdotes fall into the category that renders them unprovable. Even if one traveled to a claimed encounter spot and there was footie picking his teeth and whistling Dixie, it still does not prove the claim. It just proves he is there right now. No one can prove, or disprove, what someone claims to have seen.

^^ Seriously. Don't tell me what I have read and have not read. And I will kindly ask you to stop lecturing like we're all a bunch of children. You can get your point across without the tone if you try. One cannot "counter" an anonymous anecdote.