Best Evidence In Your Opinion?

[Guest unixguy]

For me, it's the Native American traditions concerning Stick Indians, etc. I'm pretty sure there weren't a lot gorilla costume rentals available in the PNW 400 years ago. The documented artifacts, including totems and petroglyphs, are pretty impressive as well.

As others have said, the sheer number of eyewitness accounts is compelling. I do think you could throw out a large portion of those, but if say 5% are accurate, you've got a whole lot of sasquatch out there.

Regards,

unixguy

[Guest]

It's the sum of all those things that does it for me:

Thousands of witness reports (even if not all credible).

Trackways (Minnesota and London, especially the background story to the London trackways is awesome).

Thermal footage like the Wood pile BF, wish there were more like this.

Vocalizations.

And the fact that many cultures around the world have similar legends and stories about Bigfoot type beings.

[Guest]

The Native American accounts have always been really cool for me and a bit of my foundational leaning towards belief.

But the things that keep me most interested are the continuing sighting reports from folks that are tenured, I've known for years within the community, and just trust.

Don't see what they stand to gain for posting their encounters/sightings other than ridicule from those more skeptical.

Such really pisses me off but little I can do about it.

I think the *ridicule* factor keeps many from coming forward and sharing what would probably prove to be pertinent material to resolving the *mystery*.

Hopefully, we are on the verge of coming up with our own Sightings Database/Witness Report section that will be conducted in a manner that allows people to come forward with their reports with zero fear of ridicule as it would be numerically based so that individual anonymity is preserved.

Still a little work to do among FMT, SC, and Tech but we are awfully close I think.

Probably *Read-Only* so as to eliminate clutter with responses within that forum but such could refer to a number of a *report* and be discussed ad nauseum in the General Discussion Forum of the PMP Area.

Gonna be part of the PMP though and viewable by PMP members only I suspect.

Hope to set it up so that the reports can be filed by both General and PMP members though.

Just another level that makes it even cooler to be a PMP member. There are 20 or so additional forums currently for PMP members that the General Membership does not see.

If you have over 75 posts, are over 18 years of age, and have a warning status of +2 or less then you should join the Premium Membership Plan as you will realize a ton of bang for your buck with additional content.

We're going to keep the General Forum Areas updated and cool as well since we have a lot of new members that do not meet the post requirement of 75 to join the PMP as well as a few with elevated warning levels that would prohibit their joining.

The conversations going on right now in the Premium Areas are mind-blowing.

The rules are relaxed in The Tar-Pit section of the PMP and we are presently discussing/arguing over political, religious, environmental, and other off-topic stuff that is just forbidden on the General Forum.

Really cool and only costs $20.00 for a yearly membership which equates to a paltry $1.67 per month.

[Guest Flatlander]

I've never seen or heard one, and don't live anywhere I can, but I've been interested in the topic for over 30 years.

The thing that really convinces me is the scientific outcome that has come from all the film and track evidence. The analysis of the PGF shows proportions that are not human or primate, but somewhere in between. Same with the tracks, they are neither human nor primate, but some odd combination of both.

I think, when the evidence is actually put to a scientific test, it plays out that it is not some strange hoax that has been recurring for several decades, but instead a real living creature that is not quite human but not quite ape.

[Guest Hndrx]

Personally, I find it very interesting that persons in complete isolation from each other over a long historical period seem to have all reported the same type of animal. I'm not 100% convinced that bigfoot exist or not, but I feel that the volume of reports over several centuries can't be completely dismissed.

[Guest BFSleuth]

^ The historical period for sightings if you consider Asia, Europe, and other regions go back thousands of years.

I agree that there is a fairly high degree of similarity to reports and that the sheer volume of reports from a number of credible witnesses (many whom are members of this forum) is very convincing. It is difficult to consider that all the reports are hoaxes or misidentifications, so even if only a fraction of reports are true, then BF has to be a real entity.

There is also the consideration of sign, in particular trackways. The three mile Minnesota trackway and the London, Oregon trackway are two examples of trackways that IMHO are impossible to fake, and I've challenged anyone to try and attempt to do so. Trying to explain them away as misidentified trackways or in the case of the Minnesota trackway to consider that a hoaxer would have to know that somebody would come along to look at their three mile effort in foot deep snow in the middle of nowhere in a Minnesota winter... that just is laughable.

The bell curves of track size distribution also point to a hole in the skeptic argument, the idea that a collective of hoaxers are preplanning track sizes to continue a decades long hoax and create the illusion of a distribution of a population with youngsters and adults.... well, there must be a well planned, highly coordinated, and very secret organization of hoaxers to pull that one off. Occam's Razor would indicate that isn't very likely and argues against the idea of hoaxing to explain the majority of tracks.

While I'm keenly interested in definitive video or photographic evidence, to date I think nothing really achieves that... not even the PGF. Pretty much everything that has been done with video of BF is sadly inadequate. While HRP and others have hinted at some pretty amazing video, I understand and support their decisions to abide by their agreements. Hopefully the day will not be too far in the future when we can all have a chance to see.

Probably the single most important thing for my strong proponent stance regarding BF is being able to talk directly with witnesses (including my own brother). One of the great things about the BFF is being able to converse directly with witnesses, some with experiences that leave no room at all for equivocation about what they saw. Being able to talk with them by PM and find out more than they are willing to share in the open forum, and creating friendships, that is priceless.

I hope that soon we will have published DNA evidence, and hope even more that I will be able to become a witness myself. Until then, I continue trying to contribute on this forum and doing my own research when I am able.

[Guest DrBanner]

+1 Mulder- that was EXACTLY what iced it for me. I would say that bell curve is borderline impossible to hoax. I first read about it in "Legend Meets Science".

This is a common misunderstanding. If you ask a number of people to invent a story about a tall hairy monster in the forest, the height of the creatures that they imagine will also approximate a bell curve.

[Guest]

Has there ever been a recorded case in which a number of people have been asked to invent a story related to BF?

If so I am completely unaware of such and must be out of the loop.

The exact opposite occurs...

Folks see BF and may or may not report their sightings.

Given the skeptical opposition received they usually choose not to report it.

So, I dunno, that was a heckuva a first post DrBanner.

If your point is that heights/sizes might initially be overestimated then I'm cool with that.

But you used the word *invent* didn't you?

That suggests something nefarious and I would ask if you care to substantiate your assertions?

You do realize that our membership is diverse and includes folks from all walks of life don't you?

Most of those who relate encounters are credible witnesses and are not part of any conspiracy to *invent* anything.

Just good and honest folks who encounter a Sasquatch.

There is too much there for there not to be something there.

But please, back up your assertion that folks who have witnessed a Sasquatch/BF are involved in some mass *inventing* of their claims.

Good luck with that.

[Guest DrBanner]

Has there ever been a recorded case in which a number of people have been asked to invent a story related to BF?

<snip>

So, I dunno, that was a heckuva a first post DrBanner.

<snip>

That suggests something nefarious and I would ask if you care to substantiate your assertions?

<snip>

But please, back up your assertion that folks who have witnessed a Sasquatch/BF are involved in some mass *inventing* of their claims.

Good luck with that.

You misunderstood my point. I am not accusing anyone of anything, I am just pointing out that the existance of a bell curve distribution in the reported heights of sasquatch is not proof that sasquatch signtings must be real. It also does not require that the sightings are part of a coordinated conspiracy. The bell curve would also arise naturally from a reasonable number of hoaxers, all independently describing a tall hairy creature, without requring any coordination on their parts to ensure the reported heights fit a normal (gaussian) distribution. Again, I am not accusing anyone of anything here at all. I am just pointing out that the normal distribution is not proof that real creatures were observed.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Regarding the bell curve issue, I think the point that is being made in support of the bell curve analysis is that if someone is attempting to hoax tracks or a sighting "of a tall hairy monster" then they would normally want to hoax a large track or a large hairy monster. However, when you consider that tracks have been found as small as 4-5" long and sighting reports of creatures as small as about 4' tall, then it begs the question of why a hoaxer would choose to see a small hairy monster instead of a large hairy monster?

If hoaxers are trying to create big hairy monsters then the curve of tracks and sighting reports would obviously be skewed to the larger end of the scale.

[Guest COGrizzly]

Sightings by people I know and trust. Sightings by good people here. Sightings by NA's for thousands of years.

And there happens to be one lucky duck right here on the BFF that has seen a 7 minute video that convinced him. And I respect and trust that person so much that if convinced him, that's enough for me. I'd still like to see it though!

[Guest]

Regarding the bell curve issue, I think the point that is being made in support of the bell curve analysis is that if someone is attempting to hoax tracks or a sighting "of a tall hairy monster" then they would normally want to hoax a large track or a large hairy monster. However, when you consider that tracks have been found as small as 4-5" long and sighting reports of creatures as small as about 4' tall, then it begs the question of why a hoaxer would choose to see a small hairy monster instead of a large hairy monster?

If hoaxers are trying to create big hairy monsters then the curve of tracks and sighting reports would obviously be skewed to the larger end of the scale.

How do we know that the 5" track was from a bigfoot and not a human?

IMO track stats are totally worthless unless some unbiased group throws out all the hoaxed tracks and misidentified tracks. The remaining tracks should then be plotted.

[salubrious]

^^ Simple. Human and BF tracks do look similar, but there are differences such that one cannot imitate the other, even if they are the same size. BF has that 'mid tarsal break' and it looks different in the tracks- and not human at all. IOW, the more you know about tracking, the more you know that something is out there...

[Guest]

Nothing yet.

[Guest]

For me it's the number of reliable eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the animal.