The Family Tree - Different Species Of Bigfoot? Or... Maybe Not? (Theory/opinion)

[Incorrigible1]

Welcome, Night Walker. I invite you to harden your forehead to the inevitable brick-wall head-banging you may necessarily encounter here. There are a few posters that claim much, but are unable to provide any. Yet they read reports like the wind!

[Night Walker]

Thanks, Incorrigible1. I don't take things personally and I don't recall DWA telling Gumshoeye that his data or opinion "does not count" because he is not a full-time fully funded researcher...

 

I may be relatively new to posting here but I'm not exactly a noob when it comes to Yowie/Bigfoot. I'm also interested in how and why different people have an interest in the subject so what better place is there to learn?

[Guest DWA]

 

How is "What's going on here?" starting with a conclusion? How does searching alleged Yowie hot-spots day and night qualify as armchair research?

 

It doesn't, if you are doing it.  That doesn't mean it's effective research.  One person alone, part time...shoot, anyone part time...well I'm not staying on tenterhooks for their results.  I'm willing to wait...a long time.  The evidence could not be clearer on this:  as far as the society is concerned, part-timers aren't working.  To say that isn't the problem is firmly contradicted by the evidence.  Oh.  if  "What's going on here?" isn't immediately followed by "I know, even though I've not done any research or thinking!  It's all this," then it's a start.

 

 

From the same place you got that there are "yowie reports from Australia are from thousands of people" - subjective extrapolation.

 

And here's the difference between me and you:  I am not coming to conclusions.  I am asking:  OK.  So what is generating those reports?  And I am not accepting ungrounded assumptions as my answer.  Not when a bunch of iguanas are told by a storm one day to colonize an island 200 miles away.  Couldn't happen with yowie?  Really?  Ask yourself how many opps happened over the course of a couple million years.  And stop engaging that "can't happen" kneejerk, a characteristic of people paying insufficient attention to what does happen.

 

 

Where have I said that reports are "impossible"? I have not. You don't think any Bigfoot claims are made up? Really? Wow...

 

All the made-up claims are over here [points without looking], in that dark corner I never look at.  They are of zero consequence.  They have been firmly moved aside.  Anyone who uses them as an excuse not to take this seriously I immediately know is not doing their homework.  The ones I am talking about are that huge pile that no one can tell me is made up, because they have no evidence of that, and once again!  I don't consign people to the loony bin or the liar bin without the evidence's permission.

 

 

There is plenty of objective evidence (beyond personal anecdotes) of those iguanas existing but non of Yowie/Bigfoot. I'm not at all suggesting people are crazy for claiming to experience Bigfoot - I'm suggesting that people do so because they are human - just like everyone else..

 

...and like most humans they see stuff that's real.  The experience most of us have in our daily lives should be sufficient to tell us that anything with this volume and pattern of evidence can't simply be chalked up to lies and mistakes and impairment and let's all go home now.  And when scientists are vouching for it - and scientists vouch for yeti, yowie and sasquatch - and they are, clearly and demonstrably, the only scientists even barely doing due diligence, not to pay attention is not to apply critical thinking, period.  I for one am getting tired of people telling me "it's not real because I have never seen one," when most of what they accept is not what they know but what they have been told.

 

It's a Catch-22 - can't get full-time funding to search for Bigfoot because you can't find objective evidence & you can't find objective evidence because you are not funded full-time. 

 

And that's clearly why we don't have proof sufficient for the society; and no other "excuse" need be made.  Indeed, it's the "skeptics" who are making 100% of the excuses, and move the goalposts every time they talk.

 

Do you not even bother to go out and search for yourself? That's ok - it's not for everyone.

 

I don't care to.  I don't need to; the evidence - of which I have made the study that few scientists have, and their words make it plain - tells me they are out there and that is sufficient.  I get outside a lot; and the evidence tells me to be on the lookout.   You'd be amazed how well that can substitute for looking.  Most researchers don't know the volume and depth of the evidence, which is why they behave like extreme skeptics about anything in which they are not personally involved, like yowie and yeti, for instance.  (One of Grover Krantz's several missteps - understandable but missteps nonetheless - was not taking yeti seriously.)  I see a lot of internecine warfare in the field.  I prefer to step back and look at the big picture, which says:  there is more than one other species of habitually bipedal primate.  (Never mind that all the known apes spend much more of their time on two legs than anyone not intimately acquainted with them thinks.)

 

Plenty of people do (even if they "don't count") and it is significant that they are claiming to experience Bigfoot much of the time - its just that their own objective evidence doesn't support that conclusion.

 

It's probably sufficient for them, I'd hope.  I never get over what a sore spot it is for so many researchers that there isn't proof yet.  (And by the way:  evolution and black holes aren't any better proven than sasquatch; they're just accepted by more scientists.)  Shoot, you saw one, I want to tell them.  Stop whining.  And all the internecine warfare and me-first in the field I find extremely distasteful.  Shoot, people, work together, I mean, try that.

 

The "evidence" usually resembles what the Finding Bigfoot team (who are fully funded) find. There's something in that but probably not an undiscovered species of man-ape...

 

FB is not research.  It is television.  Three days in a place running around hooting won't find a fox, people.  In fact, decades of trying says:  it drives everything away.  Now NAWAC, they understand this.  That's why they're getting results; and anyone who doesn't think that "every researcher has seen one in the field" is results doesn't understand the word.  The society be hanged; if they don't wanna know, forget 'em.  And if you think they are lying:  no they are not.  I know them personally.  And no they are not.  Now anyone who questions that?  There's someone I question.

 

Edited November 24, 2014 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

I don't recall DWA telling Gumshoeye that his data or opinion "does not count" because he is not a full-time fully funded researcher...

 

And as to this.  Not getting what I am saying here, which is:  just given what the reports tell us, your average researcher will be lucky if he sees what your average person filing a report does.  Which hasn't amounted to proof sufficient for the society, has it.  Given that the average sighting gives pretty much zero time for photo video or gunshot, well, do that math.  In terms of "looking" in the bigfoot skeptic sense, yeah, because every researcher - in fact, every person who looks into the woods from their car - is to the bigfoot skeptic a fully-funded scientist boots on the ground 24/7.  In terms of "reality," not a staple of bigfoot skepticism?

 

Nada.

Edited November 24, 2014 by DWA

[WSA]

Bill Cosby and a Sasquatch walk into a bar...

[Guest DWA]

Bill Cosby and a Sasquatch walk into a bar...

 

^^^^Exactly.  NO ONE BELIEVES HER.  Because she's "not real."  See, people?  This is what we're talking about.

Edited November 24, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

Thanks, Incorrigible1. I don't take things personally and I don't recall DWA telling Gumshoeye that his data or opinion "does not count" because he is not a full-time fully funded researcher...

 

I may be relatively new to posting here but I'm not exactly a noob when it comes to Yowie/Bigfoot. I'm also interested in how and why different people have an interest in the subject so what better place is there to learn?

 

 

You seem willing to talk about anything so long as it fits your version of the storyline. Anyone who has examined this topic thoroughly as some here have done understands, perfectly well, why there is no “official†proof yet.  In a booklet printed and published for a quasi-governmental agency, the Army Corps of Engineers succinctly describes a (figment of somebody’s imagination) Bigfoot – Sasquatch creature being as “agile and strong, but so shy that it leaves minimal evidence of its presence."  Not to be out done by this hoax, as you seem to suggest, seventeen years later, a Washington county introduced and passed an ordinance protecting the same being mentioned above. The real question that should be asked is, if this creature did not exist, why pray tell would someone enact laws prohibiting "something that doesn't exist?†I am confused by this aren’t you?  

 

In 2004, a published release by B.K. Beets proclaims World's Top Experts Conclude Sasquatch Exists, if you want to see one I can't help you, if you want to learn more do your own research but if I may make one suggestion, a good springboard starting point would be a parable of the three wise monkeys. I have no dissonance that is, I don’t fear what I know exists nor do I roil in distress over something may or may not conflict with my beliefs.  You came on here blanketing me with a bone to pick implying people see what they want see as though you see what’s in their heart and know what they seen. If you yourself have not experienced the same, I can understand that too. But please don’t sidestep that with statements like people see what they only want to see because that is revealing in and of itself as a diversion tactic used to change topics. Emotional dissonance is a distress experienced by some who twist and turn painfully over ideas that quite fit in their version of a storyline too.

 

 

 

 

 

[Night Walker]

DWA: The evidence could not be clearer on this:  as far as the society is concerned, part-timers aren't working.  To say that isn't the problem is firmly contradicted by the evidence.  Oh.  if  "What's going on here?" isn't immediately followed by "I know, even though I've not done any research or thinking!  It's all this," then it's a start.

 

I’m not thinking? Come on – be fair. Your logic is unusual to me but I don’t accuse you of not thinking…

 

The part-timer researchers are experiencing Bigfoot quite frequently – even claiming to establish habituation sites. They are always oh-so close. Yet still no objective evidence. They are either encountering a real unidentified species which does not yield tangible evidence or they are not – they just believe (or make-believe) that they are. If they are not really encountering Bigfoot, if all these people can be wrong, mistaken, lead astray by their beliefs, or whatever on multiple occasions then that just might be what Bigfoot really is…

 

DWA: And here's the difference between me and you:  I am not coming to conclusions.  I am asking:  OK.  So what is generating those reports?  And I am not accepting ungrounded assumptions as my answer.  Not when a bunch of iguanas are told by a storm one day to colonize an island 200 miles away.  Couldn't happen with yowie?  Really?  Ask yourself how many opps happened over the course of a couple million years.  And stop engaging that "can't happen" kneejerk, a characteristic of people paying insufficient attention to what does happen.

 

You reach no conclusions other than Bigfoot is real, right? Do possibilities take precedents over probabilities? Where has possibilities taken the search for Bigfoot? Dogmen, Bigfoot in the ‘burbs, psychic Sasquatch, etc – sure, why not? Anything is possible…

 

Iguanas again? I’m not saying that a creature larger than a rat could survive crossing the Wallace line by floating on debris – there is just no evidence that that has happened (and, coincidentally, no evidence of the Yowie either - just claims)...

 

DWA: All the made-up claims are over here [points without looking], in that dark corner I never look at.  They are of zero consequence.  They have been firmly moved aside.  Anyone who uses them as an excuse not to take this seriously I immediately know is not doing their homework.  The ones I am talking about are that huge pile that no one can tell me is made up, because they have no evidence of that, and once again!  I don't consign people to the loony bin or the liar bin without the evidence's permission.

 

If no-one can tell you that any claims from a huge pile of claims without supporting evidence might be made up then so be it. Who is not doing their homework here, then? It is good that you are able to separate some claims without evidence from other claims without evidence to support your opinion. I prefer to examine it all. If proof of a giant man-ape eventuates then we will surely both rejoice…

 

I don’t “consign people to the loony bin or the liar bin without the evidence's permission†either as I have already stated so please stop misrepresenting my position.

 

DWA: ...and like most humans they see stuff that's real.  The experience most of us have in our daily lives should be sufficient to tell us that anything with this volume and pattern of evidence can't simply be chalked up to lies and mistakes and impairment and let's all go home now.  And when scientists are vouching for it - and scientists vouch for yeti, yowie and sasquatch - and they are, clearly and demonstrably, the only scientists even barely doing due diligence, not to pay attention is not to apply critical thinking, period.  I for one am getting tired of people telling me "it's not real because I have never seen one," when most of what they accept is not what they know but what they have been told.

 

Humans also see and experience stuff that is not “realâ€. Imagination is a wonderful thing – one of the joys of being human. Memory, also, does not work like a video recording – it is reconstructive and imaginative.

 

How many Australian scientists have shown an interest in the Yowie? I can think of 6 off the top of my head but only one “vouches†for the Yowie as an undiscovered species. What do you think scientists have to explain? It’s people claiming to see things without any supporting objective evidence…

 

For the record: I have not said that the Yowie is not real because I’ve never seen one. Again, please stop misrepresenting my position…

 

DWA: And that's clearly why we don't have proof sufficient for the society; and no other "excuse" need be made.  Indeed, it's the "skeptics" who are making 100% of the excuses, and move the goalposts every time they talk.

 

What did Tom Slick's fully funded expeditions yield? Shenanigans. The Finding Bigfoot team are fully funded and they are oh-so close to finding Bigfoot every episode. Only a matter of time…

 

DWA: I don't care to.  I don't need to; the evidence - of which I have made the study that few scientists have, and their words make it plain - tells me they are out there and that is sufficient.  I get outside a lot; and the evidence tells me to be on the lookout.   You'd be amazed how well that can substitute for looking.  Most researchers don't know the volume and depth of the evidence, which is why they behave like extreme skeptics about anything in which they are not personally involved, like yowie and yeti, for instance.  (One of Grover Krantz's several missteps - understandable but missteps nonetheless - was not taking yeti seriously.)  I see a lot of internecine warfare in the field.  I prefer to step back and look at the big picture, which says:  there is more than one other species of habitually bipedal primate.  (Never mind that all the known apes spend much more of their time on two legs than anyone not intimately acquainted with them thinks.)

 

Congratulations on solving the Bigfoot mystery to your satisfaction…

 

DWA: It's probably sufficient for them, I'd hope.  I never get over what a sore spot it is for so many researchers that there isn't proof yet. 

 

Is there proof of Bigfoot or is there not? You just said that you have studied the proof (evidence) which, along with the claims, was sufficient to tell you that they exist. It must be frustrating for you that so few are equally impressed. I sympathize with your plight…

 

DWA: FB is not research.  It is television.  Three days in a place running around hooting won't find a fox, people.  In fact, decades of trying says:  it drives everything away.  Now NAWAC, they understand this.  That's why they're getting results; and anyone who doesn't think that "every researcher has seen one in the field" is results doesn't understand the word.  The society be hanged; if they don't wanna know, forget 'em.  And if you think they are lying:  no they are not.  I know them personally.  And no they are not.  Now anyone who questions that?  There's someone I question.

 

I admire your devotion to your friends…

 

DWA: And as to this.  Not getting what I am saying here, which is:  just given what the reports tell us, your average researcher will be lucky if he sees what your average person filing a report does.  Which hasn't amounted to proof sufficient for the society, has it.  Given that the average sighting gives pretty much zero time for photo video or gunshot, well, do that math. 

 

Let’s examine “Residential Incidents Experiences & Encounters†from Michigan. 188 separate incidents of which 70 are sightings (not including 30 which are partial sightings), 9 of these presented an opportunity to take a picture (from a camera or mobile phone) or to shoot:

 

Dark green helicopter with no markings hovers low following Bigfoot from yard into woods

Family sat and watched 9.5 ft. male Bigfoot on their 10 acre property

Heard something looked outside and saw a big hairy animal drinking from the swimming pool

Hears dogs barking sees huge hairy Bigfoot animal walk into a grain shed and grabbed his gun

Homeowner retreats to house when upright Bigfoot animal and it started walking towards him

People watch Bigfoot on road near their house

Sees Bigfoot creature around her property

Students flee indoors when they see Bigfoot in the woods near High School

Three teen girls on their porch watched a Bigfoot creature come out of the woods

 

Between 9% and 12.86% of sightings had an opportunity to secure objective evidence but still nothing? Not even showing up on CCTV in built-up areas…

 

Let's now consider footprints - 70 of the 188 reports mention an unspecified number of footprints (291 footprints minimum) having been found. Where are they documented (measured, photographed, cast)? Were they documented? If so, where? Did anyone other than the claimants see the footprints? Were they footprints? Did those footprints ever even exist?

 

 

You seem willing to talk about anything so long as it fits your version of the storyline.  

 

... and you don't? You're not one of those "Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" types, are you? 

 

Anyone who has examined this topic thoroughly as some here have done understands, perfectly well, why there is no “official†proof yet.  

 

Conspiracy?

 

In a booklet printed and published for a quasi-governmental agency, the Army Corps of Engineers succinctly describes a (figment of somebody’s imagination) Bigfoot – Sasquatch creature being as “agile and strong, but so shy that it leaves minimal evidence of its presence."  Not to be out done by this hoax, as you seem to suggest, seventeen years later, a Washington county introduced and passed an ordinance protecting the same being mentioned above. The real question that should be asked is, if this creature did not exist, why pray tell would someone enact laws prohibiting "something that doesn't exist?†

 

For the same reason that Icelanders rally together to stop a road being built through a fairy habitat and the Danish government is currently funding research into Trolls. Do they really exist? Do the Scandinavians really believe fairies and Trolls are flesh-and-blood creatures or are you missing something simple yet important about the nature of folk-belief? Then there's also that whole tourism niche-market thing - a little mystery goes a long way, you know...

 

In 2004, a published release by B.K. Beets proclaims World's Top Experts Conclude Sasquatch Exists, if you want to see one I can't help you, if you want to learn more do your own research but if I may make one suggestion, a good springboard starting point would be a parable of the three wise monkeys. I have no dissonance that is, I don’t fear what I know exists nor do I roil in distress over something may or may not conflict with my beliefs.  You came on here blanketing me with a bone to pick implying people see what they want see as though you see what’s in their heart and know what they seen. If you yourself have not experienced the same, I can understand that too. But please don’t sidestep that with statements like people see what they only want to see because that is revealing in and of itself as a diversion tactic used to change topics. Emotional dissonance is a distress experienced by some who twist and turn painfully over ideas that quite fit in their version of a storyline too.

 

Who are these "World's Top Experts" who conclude Sasquatch exists? The same old faces touting the same old lines like the Skookum cast... oh dear. But good for you if you believe...

 

I have no bone to pick - just my opinion to share just like you. You seem to forget that you, too, are implying that you know what is in people's hearts when they claim to have seen Bigfoot - ie that what is described is exactly what happened. If that was the case the evidence for Bigfoot should be overwhelming rather than nonexistent...

 

[Guest DWA]

 

I’m not thinking? Come on – be fair. Your logic is unusual to me but I don’t accuse you of not thinking…

 

Just being totally objective.  Bigfoot skepticism says the animal isn't real...and provides no evidence for the conclusion.  What would you call that?

 

The part-timer researchers are experiencing Bigfoot quite frequently – even claiming to establish habituation sites. They are always oh-so close. Yet still no objective evidence. They are either encountering a real unidentified species which does not yield tangible evidence or they are not – they just believe (or make-believe) that they are. If they are not really encountering Bigfoot, if all these people can be wrong, mistaken, lead astray by their beliefs, or whatever on multiple occasions then that just might be what Bigfoot really is…

 

The species is yielding copious tangible forensic evidence.  Did you check with Meldrum or Krantz before making that statement?  The mainstream can review it any time they're ready; they've been asked nice now for decades.

 

You reach no conclusions other than Bigfoot is real, right? Do possibilities take precedents over probabilities? Where has possibilities taken the search for Bigfoot? Dogmen, Bigfoot in the ‘burbs, psychic Sasquatch, etc – sure, why not? Anything is possible…

 

I have reached that conclusion by a careful review of the evidence.  How that's done.  Probabilities always take precedence.  The possibility that any skeptical scenario applies?  Practically zero.  Problem is, no bigfoot skeptic has ever paused to (here's that thinking issue again) consider what the world would have to be like for his proposition to be true.

 

Iguanas again? I’m not saying that a creature larger than a rat could survive crossing the Wallace line by floating on debris – there is just no evidence that that has happened (and, coincidentally, no evidence of the Yowie either - just claims)...

 

No evidence of the iguanas before they did it; scientists were agog...and yet scientists have long concluded that rafting is what had to happen, many more times than once, for what we see on small islands to have happened.  Again, when the evidence says they are there, you don't keep trying to make other evidence (or non-evidence??????????????????????) up that says that evidence can't be right.  Not how science works.

 

 

If no-one can tell you that any claims from a huge pile of claims without supporting evidence might be made up then so be it. Who is not doing their homework here, then? It is good that you are able to separate some claims without evidence from other claims without evidence to support your opinion. I prefer to examine it all. If proof of a giant man-ape eventuates then we will surely both rejoice…

 

You're not getting it...and you aren't examining it all.  There is an enormous pile of evidence (including tangible forensic evidence) no one has explained.   Even though there is what is in actuality a very mundane explanation.  (The skeptical "explanations" are harebrained fantasies for which not a scrap of evidence has ever appeared.)  I have said here, times beyond counting, why the Logic Fairy says you cannot dismiss it with no evidence that allows you to do that.

 

I don’t “consign people to the loony bin or the liar bin without the evidence's permission†either as I have already stated so please stop misrepresenting my position.

 

No.  You just believe it very possible that all that evidence is coming from liars impaired people or "innocently" mistaken people who shouldn't be allowed out of their homes because they think all sorts of other North American animals look like huge bipedal apes.  Let me be blunt.  There are three explanations for practically every report I have read:  **** liar; hospitalizable mental malfunction ...or precisely what the witness says the witness saw, which is bolstered by, wait for it, tangible forensic evidence.

 

Humans also see and experience stuff that is not “realâ€. Imagination is a wonderful thing – one of the joys of being human. Memory, also, does not work like a video recording – it is reconstructive and imaginative.

 

And people should be encased in loony bins for the kind of "imagination" that is yielding bigfoot evidence.  If the simple mundane ape isn't.

 

How many Australian scientists have shown an interest in the Yowie? I can think of 6 off the top of my head but only one “vouches†for the Yowie as an undiscovered species. What do you think scientists have to explain? It’s people claiming to see things without any supporting objective evidence…

 

SIX!?!?!?!  SIX!?!?!?!?!?  IF! IT! WERE! ONE!  I would expect - and it would be science's obligation to oblige me, and scientists say that all the time - those scientists' views to be tested.  They have not been.  SIX!?!?!?!?  is an utter indictment of the steelskulledness of the scientific mainstream, period.

 

For the record: I have not said that the Yowie is not real because I’ve never seen one. Again, please stop misrepresenting my position…

 

If you are saying that they can't be there it doesn't matter why you are saying it.  The evidence screams loudly that you are wrong.

 

DWA: And that's clearly why we don't have proof sufficient for the society; and no other "excuse" need be made.  Indeed, it's the "skeptics" who are making 100% of the excuses, and move the goalposts every time they talk.

 

What did Tom Slick's fully funded expeditions yield? Shenanigans. The Finding Bigfoot team are fully funded and they are oh-so close to finding Bigfoot every episode. Only a matter of time…

 

You clearly haven't read anything about Slick.  Those expeditions were designed to chase every living thing with legs out of the vicinity...and they still got evidence.  That the mainstream did the usual with.

 

 

Congratulations on solving the Bigfoot mystery to your satisfaction…

 

Well, what paying attention will do to you.  I have scientists who have done due diligence on my side.  The skeptics....um, don't.

 

Is there proof of Bigfoot or is there not? You just said that you have studied the proof (evidence) which, along with the claims, was sufficient to tell you that they exist. It must be frustrating for you that so few are equally impressed. I sympathize with your plight…

 

And again with the confusion of proof and evidence.  Proof is what scientists say it is.  Is there proof?  Utterly irrelevant question.  Science doesn't start with proof.  I'm not frustrated at all; it's fun to bash people over the head who aren't paying attention.  I know they're real.  I don't have to do any NightWalking at all, while we are on frustration.  I've been talking about armchairs.  The cool thing about the scientific mind [looks in mirror; one dashing scientific mind you got there, DWA] is that the scientific mind can solve problems from an armchair.  All it takes is paying attention.

 

I admire your devotion to your friends…

 

And back to that thinking issue again.  Gotta know what they're doing and how a scientist would look at it.  I do.

 

 

[all that crap about hey! you need to video a bigfoot so we'll all say you didn't!]

 

OK, so.  They didn't provide a video that we'll all say isn't real...so they didn't see it?  Cool, Holmes.

 

 

Let's now consider footprints - 70 of the 188 reports mention an unspecified number of footprints (291 footprints minimum) having been found. Where are they documented (measured, photographed, cast)? Were they documented? If so, where? Did anyone other than the claimants see the footprints? Were they footprints? Did those footprints ever even exist?

 

You know, "if it isn't documented it didn't happen" has its limits, gang.  I'm not documenting any of the thousands of deer in MD now.  You can go have a look if you want.  This is the great crippler of young 21st-Century minds, this insistence on if-it-isn't-proven-it-didn't-happen...see, the skeptics think everyone who has ever gone for a walk is a scientist!  You are actually expecting Daily Joes to understand preservation and presentation of evidence?  Oh.  OK.

 

 

For the same reason that Icelanders rally together to stop a road being built through a fairy habitat and the Danish government is currently funding research into Trolls. Do they really exist? Do the Scandinavians really believe fairies and Trolls are flesh-and-blood creatures or are you missing something simple yet important about the nature of folk-belief? Then there's also that whole tourism niche-market thing - a little mystery goes a long way, you know...

 

Some of us can see the difference.  Some of us could learn how.

 

 

Who are these "World's Top Experts" who conclude Sasquatch exists? The same old faces touting the same old lines like the Skookum cast... oh dear. But good for you if you believe...

 

Not about belief, but about evidence.  And the old thinking problem again.  Haven't read up on Skookum, have you.  (Hint:  elk don't levitate.)

 

I have no bone to pick - just my opinion to share just like you. You seem to forget that you, too, are implying that you know what is in people's hearts when they claim to have seen Bigfoot - ie that what is described is exactly what happened. If that was the case the evidence for Bigfoot should be overwhelming rather than nonexistent...

 

Wrong.  Overwhelming; as I said, as well proven as evolution is.  Some of us just understand what evidence is, which is something scientists routinely forget.  Except for a few, fortunately.  (Oh, and there's putting all the witnesses in the loony bin - AGAIN - against the firm advice of the evidence.  Can't help that, can you.)

 

[Guest DWA]

Oh, gotta amend here:  You're not getting it...and you aren't examining it all.  There is an enormous pile of evidence (including tangible forensic evidence) no one has explained.   Even though there is what is in actuality a very mundane explanation.  

 

^^^^That the scientific proponents - carefully showing their work - have provided.

 

There. 

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

 

Who are these "World's Top Experts" who conclude Sasquatch exists? The same old faces touting the same old lines like the Skookum cast... oh dear. But good for you if you believe...

 

 

 

 

Dr Jane Goodall is the most notable IMO, but there are others. Chris B.

[Guest DWA]

George Schaller, a pretty prominent name in zoology, considers the evidence compelling.

 

And of course one cannot discount that Meldrum, Bindernagel and Krantz clearly show their work, and their work is straight scientific deduction that needs to be addressed and its flaws, if any, shown. 

 

Science is adamant that this is an obligation, not an option, for the mainstream.  Pretty much all scientists, when they have their scientist hat on, so vouch.

[Drew]

Oh, gotta amend here:  You're not getting it...and you aren't examining it all.  There is an enormous pile of evidence (including tangible forensic evidence) no one has explained.   Even though there is what is in actuality a very mundane explanation.  

 

^^^^That the scientific proponents - carefully showing their work - have provided.

 

There. 

 

Still waiting on that forensic evidence that any scientist has shown to be from Bigfoot...

 

You haven't ever, in 5 years of people asking, provided one report to show this.

[Guest DWA]

I can't help people who don't get it.  There is that problem.

 

This insistence on proof when no one is looking for it is a real sore point with me.  I have explained that sentence so very many times, so very thoroughly, here that I will refrain from doing so yet again.

Edited November 25, 2014 by DWA

[Guest thermalman]

Here's what most people in the world understand, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1789/20140161.full.pdf+html .

Now where's your science based report to refute these findings, or to provide otherwise? Just a simple request DWA.

Edited November 25, 2014 by thermalman