Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest]

Such as?

Read this

http://books.google.com/books?id=jDr51XX_YjEC&pg=PA306&dq=bukwas&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8SEYUc6UGefy0QHrg4H4Dg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=bukwas&f=false

[norseman]

Read this

http://books.google....=bukwas&f=false

The link you have sent me to doesn't give much of a physical description other than the fact that it's gaunt wild man.

All I can say is that the face mask supposedly portraying a Bukwas:

Certainly looks like an ape to me. No chin, deep set eyes, heavy brow ridges and baring it's teeth.

[Guest]

The so-called brow ridges look more like eyebrows to me. Plus the chimp's brow ridge is not pointed and its forehead is hairy. The Bukwas has human-style hair.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[norseman]

The so-called brow ridges look more like eyebrows to me. Plus the chimp's brow ridge is not pointed and its forehead is hairy. The Bukwas has human-style hair.

It's just my opinion, nothing more.

So your thinking Bukwas is nothing more than a feral human then?

[Guest]

Seems to be modeled after one.

[norseman]

Seems to be modeled after one.

Cool.

[Guest LarryP]

Correction, a select few modern Native Americans exposed to the Bigfoot culture.

Proof ?

[Guest]

I could ask the same of you.

By the way, indigenous cultures do became tinted by the dominant culture.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

Well larger are rare, I think the latest was 1957. The wood bison was discovered in Alberta Canada after thought to be extinct since the ice age. I know this doesn't prove anything other than a large species that isn't known for it's ability to avoid detection, avoided detection for along time.

Western science only recently "discovered" an entirely new population of 60,000+ lowland gorilla in the Congo that hid from the Lab Coat Boys quite successfully in an area a tiny fraction the size of N America.

[Guest njjohn]

I agree Mulder. Things avoid detection for long periods a lot. Panda took 50 years to find. Even if the Bison went missing for 50 years, it went missing.

[Guest]

Sorry you can't compare bigfoot to any species discovery. What animals do you know of that have eluded scientifc confirmation for over 100 years dispute being sighted by thousands near human-dominated areas across an entire continent?

Forget the panda or okapi. Sasquatch should have been collected around the same time as the black bear or bighorn sheep.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

Sorry you can't compare bigfoot to any species discovery.

We most certainly can, because it's the same thing.

What animals do you know of that have eluded scientifc confirmation for over 100 years dispute being sighted by thousands near human-dominated areas across an entire continent?

I know of 60,000+ gorillas that managed just that...not known to Western Science but well known to the locals. For that matter, the gorilla itself eluded confirmation for almost 2 thousand years, first being written about by Hano the navigator, but only being "confirmed" in the late 1800s.

Forget the panda or okapi. Sasquatch should have been collected around the same time as the black bear or bighorn sheep.

In your opinion, which, along with $5 will maybe buy you a decent Starbuck's coffee (until the big price increase hits).

*image removed per board rules*

Yes, Skeptics are very good at grasping at straws...

The simple, undeniable fact is that while we do not (yet) have a type specimen, there is abundant and substantial evidence to support the existence of BF. That fact will not be overturned by all the theorizing, goal-post moving, and general dismissal-ism the Skeptics care to participate in.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Mulder

[Guest]

I know of 60,000+ gorillas that managed just that...not known to Western Science but well known to the locals.

Sorry that doesn't fit the criteria. Read again. Sighted thousands near human-dominated areas across an entire continent.

For that matter, the gorilla itself eluded confirmation for almost 2 thousand years, first being written about by Hano the navigator, but only being "confirmed" in the late 1800s.

Read here: http://arts.anu.edu....lla Biology.pdf. The animals that may have been by Hano may or may not have been actual gorilla and given that Europeans have never fully explored Africa until the 19th century its not surprising that they weren't known.

Again grasping at straws.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Drew]

Well larger are rare, I think the latest was 1957. The wood bison was discovered in Alberta Canada after thought to be extinct since the ice age. I know this doesn't prove anything other than a large species that isn't known for it's ability to avoid detection, avoided detection for along time.

The wood bison was discovered in 1897.

They found a herd of, the subspecies, 1957 in Alberta. What makes you think they avoided detection? They look awfully alot like a Plains bison. Would a person driving down the road, think to themselves "Hmmm that looks like a Woods Bison." ? No. They would simply think it was a bison. Most laymen are not familiar with subspecies designations.

[WSA]

Quiet in here today. DWA and WSA take a day off?

Nah, just trying to catch up on the information being linked here. Lots of good things to read and digest. Too, when you don't have anything new to say, it pays to sit on your hands and just follow what others are saying.