What Evidence Makes You Believe That Bigfoot Exists ?

[Patterson-Gimlin]

You  make a great case and I understand the scientific approach. Now where I disagee is that  Sasquatch has been proven. That is certainly not the case. If it were so there would be no room for debate by   thos of us  who know that mythical beast simply does not exist. If I am proven wrong I would  welcome crow on a platter. Not being catalogued means not proven. Does not mean it does not exist.

No specimen, no fossil record and the abundance of sightings without difinitive proof certainly leands towards fantasy and folklore as being the  real story.

[BobbyO]

there would be no room for debate by   thos of us  who know that mythical beast simply does not exist...

If the iPad allowed me to add emoticons on the forum I'd use at least a dozen right now, all different kinds, I wouldn't discriminate.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

If it were so there would be no room for debate by those of us who know want to believe that mythical beast simply does not exist. 

 

Fixed.

[Terry]

 I was about 40 to 50 feet from my Jeep and while the subject was a distance away

 

So, it may not have been a sasquatch.

 

t.

[roguefooter]

 

All they ever do is belittle, undervalue and dismiss other members.

 

BIG, HUGE, character flaws but you have to get past it and pity them as they are wrong.

 

 

Both sides do exactly the same thing. Comments like "pity them as they are wrong" is belittling, undervaluing, and dismissing just like you're complaining about.

 

Whenever I read threads like this I know it always boils down to the same old thing- 'I don't like opposition so I'm going to come up with some random excuse on why there should be no opponents here.'

[BigTreeWalker]

No specimen, no fossil record and the abundance of sightings without difinitive proof certainly leands towards fantasy and folklore as being the  real story.

Lack of a fossil record as a legitimate excuse needs to be thrown out of the skeptic's argument. There are many modern species that do not show up in the fossil record; some of them are even primates.

[Guest DWA]

It has been estimated that we have evidence for about five percent of the primate species that have existed.  We probably have less than that for the totality of species today, much less all those that have ever been.

 

And there are primates in the NA fossil record.  So, actually, there is a fossil record.  Anyone who understands how this works understands two things:

 

1) what we haven't found is what we haven't found yet; and

2) Anything that could conceivably be in the more or less immediate evolutionary chain of the target species?  Counts.

3) We always go from confirming the current animal to figuring out its links to the past, never in the other direction.

 

OK, three, I lied.

[SWWASAS]

I previously  discovered the fact that there is a North Amercan primate fossil record and was quite frankly surprised.    Unknowingly I had bought into the skeptics uninformed arguments without doing my own research.    There are a lot of strange things in the fossil records.    Camels being in North America is an example. 

[BigTreeWalker]

The interesting thing to me is that camels actually originated here, as did horses. It was the Spanish that brought the horse back.

[Guest DWA]

And keep in mind:  "originated" simply means we haven't found the fossils contradicting that finding yet.  The fossil record will always be incomplete.

 

The presence of prosimians in NA establishes a link that cannot be ignored.  Why are there monkeys in SA; why did a mycologist, this guy:

 

http://sciweb.nybg.org/science2/libr/finding_guide/samuels.asp.html

 

get an almost incontrovertible up-close sighting of a hominoid in SA; and, what really intrigues me, why does Paranthropus stand in some advocates' minds as a plausible line of ancestry?

 

The fundamental issue with the "no fossil record" argument, besides being flat wrong, is that taxonomy is essential to dealing with that question.  Until one has a specimen, one cannot even speak to the fossil issue except to say:  if there are primate fossils here, that is enough to establish the possibility.  Count on it:  if the Paranthropus link is proven out by taxonomy, the fossils from Asia and NA won't be far behind.

Edited May 18, 2015 by DWA