Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[Guest]

Yeah, yeah, just like the guys who argue about the details of the engine room layout of the original Enterprise in Star Trek.

Coming from the guy who is building a Bigfoot suit...

Just a little confused Tontar. What personal gratification do you get out of coming on to a forum and disagreeing with everyone who is interested in the subject?

[dmaker]

^^ Sigh. I see this all the time here. Perhaps the site owner should change the name to the WBBFF. We Believe in Bigfoot Forums. Any time a skeptic ( or skofftic, call it whatever you want, no skin off my nose), makes a few good points we get the lashing out with the "Why are you here" question. This happens constantly. However, this is not advertised as a believers only club. Many of you may come here expecting that kind of experience, but it's certainly not a requirement for membership. If you have difficulty tolerating someone who politely and rather intelligently and logically poses counterpoints to you, then maybe stick to threads that don't challenge the evidence or petition the owners to bar non-believers.

As to why would a non-believer spend time here? Most of us, and I am pretty sure Tontar as well based on his comments, came here as a casual believer. Someone who was intrigued by Bigfoot but had never really dug too deeply into the matter. Sort of considered it a possibility based on random theories one hears while watching a documentary or something. So search engines and curiousity will eventually lead one to this site. My experience here and with Footery in general turned me eventually from curious wanderer to ardent skeptic. The more I learned about BF the less possible the creature became. The more exposed I was to the personalities involved with Bigfoot, the more repulsed I felt. There are more con artists, and liars, and fakes, and arm chair experts, and whackadoos involved in Bigfoot than any other thing I have seen. It's one large, absurd carnival. All revolving around a ridiculous notion of an animal that cannot really conceivably exist. The cult of Bigfoot opened my eyes and turned me well away from any possibility of this creature being real. The facts and evidence do not support it, and the people involved ( not all, mostly just the high profile names) are a real turn off to staying engaged and hopeful.

So now, I read these forums. Not really sure why to be honest. Sometimes for a giggle, sometimes to debate with folks like DWA, and sometimes just to procrastinate more serious things that I should be doing. But as long as I stay within the rules, then whether you like my presence here or not, I'm not likely to go anywhere.

Edited April 3, 2013 by dmaker

[norseman]

^^ Sigh. I see this all the time here. Perhaps the site owner should change the name to the WBBFF. We Believe in Bigfoot Forums. Any time a skeptic ( or skofftic, call it whatever you want, no skin off my nose), makes a few good points we get the lashing out with the "Why are you here" question. This happens constantly. However, this is not advertised as a believers only club. Many of you may come here expecting that kind of experience, but it's certainly not a requirement for membership. If you have difficulty tolerating someone who politely and rather intelligently and logically poses counterpoints to you, then maybe stick to threads that don't challenge the evidence or petition the owners to bar non-believers.

As to why would a non-believer spend time here? Most of us, and I am pretty sure Tontar as well based on his comments, came here as a casual believer. Someone who was intrigued by Bigfoot but had never really dug too deeply into the matter. Sort of considered it a possibility based on random theories one hears while watching a documentary or something. So search engines and curiousity will eventually lead one to this site. My experience here and with Footery in general turned me eventually from curious wanderer to ardent skeptic. The more I learned about BF the less possible the creature became. The more exposed I was to the personalities involved with Bigfoot, the more repulsed I felt. There are more con artists, and liars, and fakes, and arm chair experts, and whackadoos involved in Bigfoot than any other thing I have seen. It's one large, absurd carnival. All revolving around a ridiculous notion of an animal that cannot really conceivably exist. The cult of Bigfoot opened my eyes and turned me well away from any possibility of this creature being real. The facts and evidence do not support it, and the people involved ( not all, mostly just the high profile names) are a real turn off to staying engaged and hopeful.

So now, I read these forums. Not really sure why to be honest. Sometimes for a giggle, sometimes to debate with folks like DWA, and sometimes just to procrastinate more serious things that I should be doing. But as long as I stay within the rules, then whether you like my presence here or not, I'm not likely to go anywhere.

im curious about several of your comments,

a) why is it that the personalities within the bigfoot community convinced you that the creature did not exist? what do humans have to do with it? this strikes me as someone relying on being spoon fed info and lost trust with the people holding the spoon. it also sounds abit like sour grapes. i do not rely on biscardi and bobo to spoon feed me anything i instead rely on my own experience, my knowledge of the forest and other lay peoples experiences that i find credible and compelling.

B )it is not inconcievable that a sasquatch exists. the history of the ape family tree is very large and bushy and we are still finding new species to add to it all the time. if squatch was reported to be a two legged bipedal land shark or a three headed hydra then that would be inconcievable from a biology stand point.

Edited April 3, 2013 by norseman

[dmaker]

Hey Norse, I may have jumbled several emotions together there. It's not necessarily the personalities that lead to me seriously question the existence of Bigfoot, per se. It's more the weak evidence put forth by some and then the ooohing and ahhhhing that comes afterwards by folks who ought to be saying, " uhm ..yeah right". The blind devotion to a ridiculous idea can after awhile reveal just how ridiculous that idea is. And that it really only has momentum as an idea because of those people. And then they add the constant layering of abilities to explain why it eludes us. In fact why it now seems to be able to morph its DNA at will. That type of stuff from those types of personalities just reveal the ridiculousness of BF. Not sure if I am articulating this correctly, but it's along those lines.

And I understand what you mean on the other point. We're not talking about a biological chimera or anything. It's a creature that could live and breath within the natural laws of our planet. Barely. I cannot buy into the idea that it has done so here in North America undetected for so long. I don't think people are really considering the burden of existence for such a creature. What does it eat? How does it survive severe, and I mean severe, winters in some reported areas? It cannot eat the same things as moose or deer. Primates do not hibernate, and even if that were not true, we know BF does not because according to reports they are active year round. Where do they go to die? How can they support what must be a large daily caloric requirement? How can they be as smart as people say yet there is no indication that they can even use fire or fashion clothing for protection from the cold. And if you subscribe to the notion that cooking food allows for larger brain development, then how is it possible that they are actually that smart when they don't cook their food, or never have in the past? Why no fossil record? How is it possible we do not find remains? I could go on forever. But the bottom line is there simply is not enough evidence of the kind required to actually record this species. It's been a long time now, and a lot of people are out there all the time looking. Why nothing? Why after so long we have absolutely ZERO physical, uncontested, proven evidence that came from this creature? It doesn't make sense.

Edited April 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Crittergetter]

Here's a single good reason; because there is not one single piece of organic, biological, physical evidence that would suggest that they do in fact exist. I think that's a pretty good reason. Maybe you don't? Maybe you think hooting is plenty of evidence to prove they are real?

You know Tontar, I think we once had a discussion very similar to this. If you need a refresher about the facts at hand:

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7225-the-ketchum-report/page__st__5380#entry591565

In the end, any discussion that goes on here isn't really about the facts of the situation. It seems to be more about removing intellectual dishonesty. This is the discussion, as I see it.

Skeptics maintain that we have no proof. This is true.

Proponents maintain that the evidence suggests that we are missing something, specifically a 7-10 foot tall bipedal ape. This is true.

Skeptics maintain that you can't say that without proof. This is not true. As far as I know there are no restrictions on the hypothesis chosen in the scientific method, except that it must make sense based upon what has been observed. As far as what has been observed, I make a pretty good accounting of that in the link above, and it seems to me that a 7-10 foot tall bipedal ape is an acceptable guess based on that evidence.

If you believe I am incorrect in saying that 'Bigfoot' is an acceptable hypothesis, please tell me why. And no, "There isn't any proof" or a variation thereof is not an acceptable answer, as stated above.

I'm not sure how they convinced themselves that it made sense to say that we cannot attribute evidence to a conclusion before the conclusion has been proven true. Putting the cart before the horse, don't you think? Without assuming a conclusion, we cannot properly make steps towards proving if that conclusion is actually accurate or not.

If one does not want to consider the possibility of that conclusion being true, then one is not being scientific. Which, in the end, is no problem, as long as you are not trying to make other people believe that you are being scientific. Perhaps you'd be interested in maintaining another hypothesis, maybe that all Bigfoot evidence thus far has either been a hoax or misinterpreted.

If you wish to maintain that hypothesis, you have a lot of work ahead of you and I wish you luck in your endeavor.

Whichever hypothesis or conclusion you support, you cannot avoid the truth of the matter. That this entire Bigfoot issue is, as DWA says, unresolved. Statements to the otherwise are a misrepresentation of the issue, whether purposeful or made out of ignorance.

It would be foolish of me to think that people will see the truth of this post and change the direction of the discussion. Instead of going back and forth about the validity of Bigfoot, something which cannot be proven over an internet forum, they might begin to discuss how better we could go about collecting evidence and, eventually, proof. Then, at least, progress might be made to that eventual goal.

If we keep on like this, the Bigfoot issue is still likely to be unresolved another fifty or sixty years from now.

[norseman]

@dmaker

on the first point its simple most people come from a position of belief. they already know it exists therefore any evidence no matter how shoddy is welcomed with open arms because they feel vindicated by it.

it would be cool if people had a more scientific approach to the subject but most dont. so they simply try to explain away lack of evidence with absurd notions. trust me, none are needed, i do not feel like its absurd that a shy nocturnal, rare, ape could still be out in the wilds of n america still undiscovered by science. the odds are low yes, but i do not have to give it shape shifting traits either to make it make sense. alot of wild country out there and its getting wilder as more humans become urban dwellers.

on the second point, no i do not think squatch is human intelligent. but i do think that a north american ape isnt a stretch of fancy. i think our ape like ancestors did just fine outside of africa in long winters and seasonal food sources without hibernation. again its plausible, unproven but plausible.

and again homo florensis was a native boogeyman myth until very recently and then it wasnt.......... little hairy people of the forest did indeed coexist with modern humans.

so again plausibility...... i think we tend to be jaded in our view that north america has given up all of her secrets while a small jungle island somewhere is still mysterious.

i do not subscribe to the notion that squatches are everywhere nor that they hang out in the burbs. to remain elusive as they are they must stay pretty well hidden in our vast forests close to wilderness areas in my opinion

Edited April 3, 2013 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

Here's a single good reason; because there is not one single piece of organic, biological, physical evidence that would suggest that they do in fact exist. I think that's a pretty good reason. Maybe you don't? Maybe you think hooting is plenty of evidence to prove they are real?

You know Tontar, I think we once had a discussion very similar to this. If you need a refresher about the facts at hand:

http://bigfootforums...80#entry591565

In the end, any discussion that goes on here isn't really about the facts of the situation. It seems to be more about removing intellectual dishonesty. This is the discussion, as I see it.

Skeptics maintain that we have no proof. This is true.

Proponents maintain that the evidence suggests that we are missing something, specifically a 7-10 foot tall bipedal ape. This is true.

Skeptics maintain that you can't say that without proof. This is not true. As far as I know there are no restrictions on the hypothesis chosen in the scientific method, except that it must make sense based upon what has been observed. As far as what has been observed, I make a pretty good accounting of that in the link above, and it seems to me that a 7-10 foot tall bipedal ape is an acceptable guess based on that evidence.

If you believe I am incorrect in saying that 'Bigfoot' is an acceptable hypothesis, please tell me why. And no, "There isn't any proof" or a variation thereof is not an acceptable answer, as stated above.

I'm not sure how they convinced themselves that it made sense to say that we cannot attribute evidence to a conclusion before the conclusion has been proven true. Putting the cart before the horse, don't you think? Without assuming a conclusion, we cannot properly make steps towards proving if that conclusion is actually accurate or not.

If one does not want to consider the possibility of that conclusion being true, then one is not being scientific. Which, in the end, is no problem, as long as you are not trying to make other people believe that you are being scientific. Perhaps you'd be interested in maintaining another hypothesis, maybe that all Bigfoot evidence thus far has either been a hoax or misinterpreted.

If you wish to maintain that hypothesis, you have a lot of work ahead of you and I wish you luck in your endeavor.

Whichever hypothesis or conclusion you support, you cannot avoid the truth of the matter. That this entire Bigfoot issue is, as DWA says, unresolved. Statements to the otherwise are a misrepresentation of the issue, whether purposeful or made out of ignorance.

It would be foolish of me to think that people will see the truth of this post and change the direction of the discussion. Instead of going back and forth about the validity of Bigfoot, something which cannot be proven over an internet forum, they might begin to discuss how better we could go about collecting evidence and, eventually, proof. Then, at least, progress might be made to that eventual goal.

If we keep on like this, the Bigfoot issue is still likely to be unresolved another fifty or sixty years from now.

Well one guy sees the truth of this post. Biggest plus I've given on this board.

Bigfoot skeptics do indeed seem not only to put the cart before the horse, but to substitute a grasshopper for the horse, just to make sure the cart won't move. It matters not that the evidence is conclusive. If many report it, and their reports are consistent, the case for concerted scientific drive for proof is de facto made.

This is sasquatch; this is yeti; this is orang pendek. Dragons? Unicorns? Ghosts? UFOs? To use these as parallels speaks to ignorance, pure and simple.

Talking past evidence is talking through your hat. Slam dunk.

[Guest DWA]

It makes less sense to me than anything in my life that has made zero sense that bigfoot skeptics behave the way they do on this issue. I think it may be because many of them were once 'believers' and never realized that this isn't about belief and waiting for proof. It's about evidence, gathering it, and following it. Because that is what science is about.

They could contribute much to this discussion were they to recognize this one, single, incontrovertible FACT:

"Proponents maintain that the evidence suggests that we are missing something, specifically a 7-10 foot tall bipedal ape. This is true."

That is a FACT. One must address it, and prove the proponents wrong.

Or one has no serious standing in this discussion.

[dmaker]

Here's a single good reason; because there is not one single piece of organic, biological, physical evidence that would suggest that they do in fact exist. I think that's a pretty good reason. Maybe you don't? Maybe you think hooting is plenty of evidence to prove they are real?

You know Tontar, I think we once had a discussion very similar to this. If you need a refresher about the facts at hand:

http://bigfootforums...80#entry591565

In the end, any discussion that goes on here isn't really about the facts of the situation. It seems to be more about removing intellectual dishonesty. This is the discussion, as I see it.

Skeptics maintain that we have no proof. This is true.

Proponents maintain that the evidence suggests that we are missing something, specifically a 7-10 foot tall bipedal ape. This is true.

Skeptics maintain that you can't say that without proof. This is not true. As far as I know there are no restrictions on the hypothesis chosen in the scientific method, except that it must make sense based upon what has been observed. As far as what has been observed, I make a pretty good accounting of that in the link above, and it seems to me that a 7-10 foot tall bipedal ape is an acceptable guess based on that evidence.

If you believe I am incorrect in saying that 'Bigfoot' is an acceptable hypothesis, please tell me why. And no, "There isn't any proof" or a variation thereof is not an acceptable answer, as stated above.

I'm not sure how they convinced themselves that it made sense to say that we cannot attribute evidence to a conclusion before the conclusion has been proven true. Putting the cart before the horse, don't you think? Without assuming a conclusion, we cannot properly make steps towards proving if that conclusion is actually accurate or not.

If one does not want to consider the possibility of that conclusion being true, then one is not being scientific. Which, in the end, is no problem, as long as you are not trying to make other people believe that you are being scientific. Perhaps you'd be interested in maintaining another hypothesis, maybe that all Bigfoot evidence thus far has either been a hoax or misinterpreted.

If you wish to maintain that hypothesis, you have a lot of work ahead of you and I wish you luck in your endeavor.

Whichever hypothesis or conclusion you support, you cannot avoid the truth of the matter. That this entire Bigfoot issue is, as DWA says, unresolved. Statements to the otherwise are a misrepresentation of the issue, whether purposeful or made out of ignorance.

It would be foolish of me to think that people will see the truth of this post and change the direction of the discussion. Instead of going back and forth about the validity of Bigfoot, something which cannot be proven over an internet forum, they might begin to discuss how better we could go about collecting evidence and, eventually, proof. Then, at least, progress might be made to that eventual goal.

If we keep on like this, the Bigfoot issue is still likely to be unresolved another fifty or sixty years from now.

Great post. I think I will enjoy talking to you. You say essentially the same thing as DWA but minus the oddly styled rhetoric and sass. My question to you, or opportunity for comment is about the alternate hypothesis. Yes, I do propose that all BF sightings are a result of hoaxes, misidentifications or some sort of sub clinical psychosis occurring with the witness. Now call that pareidolia or sleep hypnosis, or ADHD, call it whatever you want. Yes, I do believe that to be true. However, it seems the burden of proof for this claim is outside the realm of possibility. And this is where I have a problem. I am quite sure that the scientific method does not care if I have a problem with the hypothesis, since it is after all, my hypothesis. But bear with me if you will. How do you formulate a scientific hypothesis out of that theory? How do you go back in time and show someone that they in fact saw a bear? How do you prove that someone suffered an hallucination brought on by sleep deprivation for a sighting that happened 9 years ago? You get my drift I am sure. It's just not possible to debunk every sighting reported. So how does one counter the other perfectly legitimate hypothesis that BF is a real creature? I have no issue with that being a valid hypothesis based on the evidence. I don't think it to be a strong possibility, but for an hypothesis there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, from a point of view of actually being able to prove that hypothesis and in fact repeat it, then I will take that over the competing hypothesis any day. Problem is, no one has actually proven that one yet. My hypothesis cannot be proven, it's an absurd impossibility and a fools errand. So how long needs to go on before one can reasonably say that the hypothesis that the evidence for BF leads to a previously undiscovered 7.5 foot primate is likely not going to pan out? And how do you scientifically deal with the counter theory? How can you possibly prove that the evidence does not lead to a 7.5 foot primate? You can't. So what do you do? Declare a stalemate and just keep waiting for someone to prove the existence of Bigfoot until the end of time?

Sorry for the huge paragraph, this forum is picky on when you can do a return for some reason.

And for the record just because I think the hypothesis that the current evidence will lead to an undiscovered 7.5 foot primate is a valid hypothesis, does not mean that I endorse that hypothesis or the evidence. I find the evidence rather weak, hence why I have the position that I do. I don't personally think that dog poop or carpet hair should be the basis for an hypothesis that there is a large ape running around North America. Add in the eye witness reports and the contested validity of the tracks and you still don't have enough, in my opinion, to support that hypothesis, but hey, it's not my hypothesis. It still, however, remains a valid one. I can't argue with you on that one.

Edited April 3, 2013 by dmaker

[Crittergetter]

It makes less sense to me than anything in my life that has made zero sense that bigfoot skeptics behave the way they do on this issue. I think it may be because many of them were once 'believers' and never realized that this isn't about belief and waiting for proof. It's about evidence, gathering it, and following it. Because that is what science is about.

They could contribute much to this discussion were they to recognize this one, single, incontrovertible FACT:

"Proponents maintain that the evidence suggests that we are missing something, specifically a 7-10 foot tall bipedal ape. This is true."

That is a FACT. One must address it, and prove the proponents wrong.

Or one has no serious standing in this discussion.

I would not say that one must prove the proponents wrong. It isn't a contest, not really. You don't prove the other side wrong, you simply prove your hypothesis right. If you can prove that all Bigfoot evidence thus far has been hoaxed or misinterpreted, then all the power to you. And I really mean that. It isn't some rhetorical challenge. Please do so! The thing I'm really tired of in the Bigfoot world is this consistent arguing with no progress. I just want it found out, one way or the other.

No one is focusing on the progress that needs to be made. That is where we really need to be focusing our attention and effort, not battering each other with argument and argument, getting so wrapped up in it that we're accidentally slipping into logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty without noticing it.

[dmaker]

^^ Well, yeah, but if we did that, what would we fight over?

[Crittergetter]

So how long needs to go on before one can reasonably say that the hypothesis that the evidence for BF leads to a previously undiscovered 7.5 foot primate is likely not going to pan out? And how do you scientifically deal with the counter theory? How can you possibly prove that the evidence does not lead to a 7.5 foot primate? You can't. So what do you do? Declare a stalemate and just keep waiting for someone to prove the existence of Bigfoot until the end of time?

First, I would like to thank you for reading my post and I am happy that you enjoyed it.

Well, I would say that you don't wait for it. You go out there and look. You collect further evidence. You analyze it. You produce findings. I know some of us can't do that, myself included. I'm just an out of work college student still trying to figure out what he wants to do with his life. I don't have the time or money to look for evidence, though I wish I did.

And if you aren't in a position in your life where you can contribute to your hypothesis then you remain not so convinced of your on position that you cannot hear another persons, or consider that you're wrong. As far as not being able to prove your own hypothesis in concerned, you have it right. You declare the situation unresolved until it can be resolved.

But the truth is, if your hypothesis is that all the bigfoot sightings and such are either hoaxes or misinterpretations of data, you can actually contribute to that idea. We have all this evidence. Some think that it has been falsified or is mistaken, and some think that it legitimately points towards this idea of a Bigfoot.

But what both sides agree on is that we have the evidence. Something is making it, and if we pursue that something and it is proven to not be Bigfoot, then I think it would be time to put away the Bigfoot hypothesis. I do not believe that hoaxing and miss-identification is enough to account for the amount of evidence we have. You're idea about a sub-clinical psychosis is an interesting one, and could account for the portion of evidence I see as being inexplicable. I think that skeptics and proponents ought to be united in the desire to reveal what that something is, though. As long as intellectual and scientific honesty is maintained throughout such an effort then the Bigfoot world would greatly benefit from it, even if it is only to bring about a greater sense of unity.

The lines should not be so deeply drawn that we cannot come together in pursuit of the truth, whether that truth is that its all been faked over the years or that there really is a 7-10 foot tall bipedal primate running unnoticed in the wilderness of North America.

^^ Well, yeah, but if we did that, what would we fight over?

Hopefully the better ways of collecting evidence, and positions on various expeditions seeking to resolve this mystery of mysteries. I think that would be a much better way to spend our time, lol.

Edited April 3, 2013 by Crittergetter

[Guest DWA]

Well, that's the problem. Bigfoot skeptics don't even seem to want the scientific mainstream to look. It seems weird as heck that they don't. Were I them, my position would be: let the mainstream step in, and tell us what is producing all this evidence.

[Guest DWA]

Great post. I think I will enjoy talking to you. You say essentially the same thing as DWA but minus the oddly styled rhetoric and sass. My question to you, or opportunity for comment is about the alternate hypothesis. Yes, I do propose that all BF sightings are a result of hoaxes, misidentifications or some sort of sub clinical psychosis occurring with the witness. Now call that pareidolia or sleep hypnosis, or ADHD, call it whatever you want. Yes, I do believe that to be true. However, it seems the burden of proof for this claim is outside the realm of possibility. And this is where I have a problem. I am quite sure that the scientific method does not care if I have a problem with the hypothesis, since it is after all, my hypothesis. But bear with me if you will. How do you formulate a scientific hypothesis out of that theory? How do you go back in time and show someone that they in fact saw a bear? How do you prove that someone suffered an hallucination brought on by sleep deprivation for a sighting that happened 9 years ago? You get my drift I am sure. It's just not possible to debunk every sighting reported. So how does one counter the other perfectly legitimate hypothesis that BF is a real creature? I have no issue with that being a valid hypothesis based on the evidence. I don't think it to be a strong possibility, but for an hypothesis there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, from a point of view of actually being able to prove that hypothesis and in fact repeat it, then I will take that over the competing hypothesis any day. Problem is, no one has actually proven that one yet. My hypothesis cannot be proven, it's an absurd impossibility and a fools errand. So how long needs to go on before one can reasonably say that the hypothesis that the evidence for BF leads to a previously undiscovered 7.5 foot primate is likely not going to pan out? And how do you scientifically deal with the counter theory? How can you possibly prove that the evidence does not lead to a 7.5 foot primate? You can't. So what do you do? Declare a stalemate and just keep waiting for someone to prove the existence of Bigfoot until the end of time?

At least you see he's saying the same thing I am. Progress.

What do I say if I'm the one thinking all the evidence is something other than sasquatch?

Well, If I'm begging off testing every single sighting, which yes I must do to have intellectual standing with the stance that it's all false positives, then I only have one alternative:

Push for mainstream involvement.

Anyone who knows much about field biology knows that this field is not getting the level of professional attention needed to furnish the proof. (Three months of serious field time - that would be P/G and NAWAC's Operations Persistence and Endurance - in a half-century ain't cuttin' it.) Way back during the Jurassic Period of this thread, folks were saying that the extreme professionalism of the amateurs should have been way more than enough by now, and how dare anyone impugn the extreme professionalism of the amateurs!

These are the same people who laugh at the amateurs. And look where we are, waiting for them.

Jeff Meldrum - as one capable skeptical review points out - has a full academic workload outside of sasquatch. He has provided the field its chief impetus, and he's barely part time. He is likely doing more than any other scientific proponent. Field time is the serious delimiter for all of them, and it says: we aren't getting proof the current way the railroad's being run.

Which is why I always answer this question

When can we say enough already?

with this answer:

Let me know when the search has begun.

Then we'll talk.

BTW: not bad for an out-of-work college student.

[Cotter]

dmaker - question - what alleged evidence have you evaluated?

What was the outcome?

Secondly, I agree that you can't go back in time and prove that someone hallucinated, or saw a bear, or whatever, but why is your default conclusion 'that's what it must be'.

We have primate fossils found in NA dating back millions of years....we currently have transplanted (escaped/released) primates living just fine in the wild, so the habitat of NA would suggest it could support them....yet most folks view a primate living, undiscovered, is impossible....why?

Additionally, I see a lot of skeptics rolling out the most outrageous claims that some folks make regarding the abilities/behaviors of bigfoot. Why is it that they bring up the outliers and not focus on the common denominators?

Everyone should know at this point that between the skeptic argument, and the proponent argument, lays the truth. BF can be real and NOT have glowing eyes, it can be real and NOT speak english, it can be real and NOT use fire.......it doesn't need to meet every single outlandish claim to be real.

Personally, I find the chances that humans are NOT sharing the earth with another bipedal primate nearly impossible. Species find niches man.....species find niches....