What's The Deal With Skeptics?

[dmaker]

I've provided plenty of things a serious person can take seriously if they choose. The absence of proof alone after this much time is serious reason for pause. Even some of the more famous bigfoot sympathizers such Goodall have commented on the lack of proof as concerning.  The rampant hoaxing in the field is serious reason for pause. The utter failure of the testable evidence is serious reason for pause. The lack of a fossil record is serious reason for pause for some. The scientific fact that human memory is extremely flawed and unreliable is a serious reason for pause when evaluating the anecdotal evidence. The history of hoaxed tracks fooling some of the top "experts" in the field is a serious reason for pause when considering tracks as evidence.  Shall I go on?

 

There are serious reasons indeed for someone to conclude that bigfoot is most likely a myth. That you do not consider these serious reasons ( whether or not you agree with the conclusion) says a ton about how you approach this topic.  

Edited October 8, 2014 by dmaker

[kitakaze]

Look, part of me is skeptical about the big guy. I have to be for the sake of my sanity, not having seen the creature myself. Call me a Doubting Thomas. However, the greater part of me believes that something is out there, after considering the evidence that exists. While there is no smoking gun, there is a lot of evidence that points to the fact that this creature may exist. Again, forgive me, for unlike some on this forum, and most everyone else in the world, I have not myself seen this thing. At least, I am open to the possibility of BF and willing to consider any and all information that would convince the skeptical side of me once and for all.

Here's what is so maddening. Why are most other skeptics, doubters, and non-believers so closed off to the possibility that BF may exist? What drives them to dismiss ALL evidence, however thought provoking or compelling, without so much as a shred of objective consideration? They don't give the possibility of BF existence or any of the evidence a second of their time. Their energy is invariably spent denying, diverting, and diminishing any notion of the big guy. What are they protecting so strongly? Why can they not open their minds to the evidence? There is some strong psychological defenses going on in most people that I find very fascinating...and even more frustrating.

So, what's the deal with skeptics? Why the extreme close-mindedness?

MNSkeptic

 

I can only speak for myself. I grew up loving horror movies, specifically monster movies. My favourite creatures were always the beast men. Werewolf movies were at the top of my list. I discovered Bigfoot at 8 years of age in the third grade in my elementary school's library with the books of John Green,  specifically these here...

 

 

 

These books started my lifelong passion for Bigfoot. From the age of 8 until my late 20's I was an ardent believer of Bigfoot. I researched every bit of evidence put forward, ready every book I could get my hands on, and would passionately argue for the existence of Bigfoot. It was by so deeply pursuing all claims of evidence that I eventually found that each thread pulled on comes to nothing. It was about 8 years ago that I went from believer to fence-sitter and finally to being fully a skeptic. That did not diminish my love of the subject and passion for researching it. I still love Bigfoot movies, books, and other material, but I enjoy Bigfoot as a myth. What interests me now are reliable claims of evidence. The reason this interests me is because I do not think it is impossible for Bigfoot to exist. I have argued against those who have said that it is not possible for Bigfoot to exist. When asked I usually state that I put the possibility of Bigfoot existing to be somewhere between 0.01 - 1%. That may seem next to zero, but that extremely small margin is what keeps me interested.

 

Recently there was a claim of a non-human primate arm found in Florida. This is precisely what interests me. It's not an anecdote, it's not a piece of blurry footage, it's not tale told round the campfire. It's flesh and bone and something that can be examined objectively and definitively. I went in with the same skepticism I have always had, but no less interest. After researching all the photos of the bones available to me, I concluded this was not a non-human primate arm. It was no primate, not mammal, not even an arm. It was the hind limb of an alligator. My conclusion was later confirmed by the scientists and professionals who examined the bones. I was not in any way disappointed by the conclusion, nor was I relieved, I was simply satisfied to have a definitive answer about that particular claim of reliable evidence. There's no emotional involvement in whether Bigfoot exists or not. The only thing I can say is that it would be incredibly awesome if Bigfoot did exist, but I have never seen any evidence that would persuade me to make that conclusion.

 

There is evidence. There is a lot of evidence. The problem is that none of it is reliable. Another person can conclude differently and they are more than welcome to. Many of the friends and colleagues I have become acquainted with in the Bigfoot community over the years are of the opposite position as me, that Bigfoot does exist or most likely does. This is not a position I begrudge them nor do I try and convince them otherwise. If they've seen the same evidence, examined the same claims, and if they find it persuasive, I can only hope it motivates them to find better evidence of the same kind of quality we have for every other mammal species in North America. There is nothing wrong with believing, particularly when you haven't been able to see all the facts or have been influenced by believers who don't know or tell the whole story. I know what this is like precisely because I was a believer for so long.

 

What is not cool, what I object to, is when that belief becomes like a cult behaviour. When people start playing Woods & Wildmen, doing an adult roleplaying game and they ostracize and seek to belittle and dismiss those who do not share there beliefs. This is precisely the same thing many believers have an issue with when dealing with people who think Bigfoot is nonsense. I have no problem with a believer asking me why I'm here. It's a valid question. What I have a problem with is being told I shouldn't be here because I don't think or believe the things everyone else does. Many Bigfoot believers like to fancy themselves as being maverick thinkers, open-minded champions of The Truth that the rest of us are sheeple and blind to see. The irony is that many of these people are the most close-minded and cultish, dogmatic I have ever encountered. I love the Scott Herriott's, the Henry May's, and the Steven Streufert's of Bigfootery because they are great people, their enthusiasm is awesome, and they don't get mired in the cult behaviour. These are people that I thoroughly enjoy discussing and debating the evidence with and also sharing our love for various Bigfoot culture things, movies, old documentaries, etc. For every ten allcaps pounding howlers, there is at least one person one person like that who makes it a pleasure to share the enthusiasm with, if not the belief. Henry May thinks he's seen Bigfoot twice, Scott Herriott once, Steven never. I have no interest in trying to take away there belief and they have no interest in trying to make me believe. 

 

So what's the deal with skeptics?

 

If they're like me, they love Bigfoot as a subject, they're open to the evidence, they haven't been convinced by it thus far, but are always open to the possibility. We're as much a part of the community as those who believe. 

[SWWASAS]

According to Dmaker "no conclusive, objective evidence exists".      Evidence does not need to be conclusive to be evidence.   Evidence can run the spectrum from being barely considered evidence (antidotal is in this category) to undeniable proof of existence.     It is all evidence and needs to be examined on it's own merit.   Dmaker and his skeptic ilk seems to think that if it is not undeniable proof of existence it is not evidence.   That is not how science works. 

 

There is a corollary in astronomy.    When Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity and addressed gravitation,  his peers at first rejected everything.     How dare he say Newton was wrong.    Then they started throwing things back at Einstein to show he must be wrong,   because if his theory was correct, then something could become massive enough with sufficient gravity to prevent anything, including light from escaping.   That object was labeled a black hole and "no evidence" of that had been observed in nature.  There should be a lot of them.      Even Einstein did not believe that possible.   Then in the efforts to prove his theory wrong, they began experiments and started doing astronomical observations to prove him wrong.     If he is right, light, should bend around a massive object such as our own sun.    It took almost 10 years but astronomers finally detected the bending of star light around our sun during solar eclipses.    The search was on for the fabled black hole.     There was no direct evidence of something like that in existence.    Astronomers had never seen one or photographed one.   (Sound familiar?)    If they are there, we should be able to photograph them.     At first there seemed to be no evidence of anything like that.    Then one astronomer, observed that stars in Andromeda galaxy, near the center,  were moving at an incredible rate.   Something massive but unseen was there.    That is interesting but not proof of existence of black holes.     They began to look at other nearby galaxies and it seemed that most spiral galaxies like our own seemed to have something massive but unseen in their centers.    Again this does not prove that black holes exist, but is evidence that they do.    Outside of galaxies, stars were observed to be moving around unseen companions at incredible rates.   Then with xray observations able to penetrate the dust and luminous gases,  it seems that our own galaxy has a massive but unseen object in its center.      So there is a lot of evidence, none conclusive, and no picture of a black hole exists.    (Sound familiar?)   But it is pretty well accepted in spite of the lack of "conclusive evidence" and direct observation that not only black holes exist but they are fairly common.     Evidence does not have to be "conclusive" to be of use to science and support existence.    

[WSA]

Very nice post Kit.

[kitakaze]

I don't think comparing singularities in deep space to a species of massive mammal walking around, feeding, breeding, defecating, dying all over North America is accurate. Imagine these dots represent black holes instead of Bigfoot sightings...

 

By it's very nature, a black hole is not something we can directly photograph or interact with. You have to observe and document the effects of the black hole on the objects around it. A galaxy suddenly gets brighter when a super massive black hole shreds a star at its center is an example of how we detect the presence of black holes...

 

 

Black holes are out in space, in the centers of galaxies and other places eating up all the matter and energy around them. What black holes are not doing is walking around North America chucking pine cones at people, banging on trees, screaming in the night, poking around dumpsters, etc. 

 

We have the technology and systems in place that we can detect, document and obtain genetic material from a single wolverine living in Washington State. This is not a joke, through conservation efforts for real animals, the best Bigfoot hot spots have been extensively covered with game cams. You name the real extant mid to large sized mammal species in the PNW and we have recorded it on game cam...

 

 

You have dogs specially trained to find poop from omnivores, carnivores and herbivores. We find it, we document it, GPS here, DNA sampling here, yes, this one was eating such and such berries...

 

 

All we have when we try and bring Bigfoot into the picture and out of being a social construct is excuses for why they don't do the normal things that all other animals, humans included, do. Excuses for not showing up on these cameras, excuses for not leaving remains, scat, hair, etc and when they do, it's conspiracy time and blame it on The Man for keeping the great Bigfoot truth down, because we're all supposed to be afraid of the soaring reality and do you remember the spotted owl. It's like the whole thing is an indoctrination into excuses. I know all of these excuses because I used to have them memorized and rehearsed for when I would give people speeches about how Bigfoot is really, really real. There is a time when those excuses run out.

 

Part of the Bigfoot indoctrination is relying on fallacies that we can pass around to each other as assurances. We will talk about the sheer size of wilderness areas and the vastness of the PNW and planes lost never to be found. Then we have to try our best to ignore the elephant in the room, that elephant being those many other of us believers in this place over here that are taking our remoteness talking point and punting it out the window talking about Bigfoot is coming into their neighbourhood, digging in their dumpster, climbing in the back of their truck while they nap, stealing their Ho Hos, etc. No, really, how do you as a believer try and hold on to this remoteness argument and will somebody please tell these forum member witnesses that they are not supposed to be seeing Bigfoot in suburban neighbourhoods?

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/41572-urban-bigfoot-seriously/

 

It does not work that way. Real animals do not live across North America and come into our neighbourhoods and yet defy being a classified species. That's when you have a good chunk of believers who are not ready to stop believing and then say screw it, Bigfoot's not a normal animal and that's why we can't identify it like other real species. Or they become Bigfoot skeptics similar to me. Bigfoot skeptics are every bit as weird as the weirdest Bigfoot believer. It takes a special kind of something to post over 10,000 times about something you do not believe in. 

 

So what's the deal with skeptics?

 

We're weird too.

[dmaker]

^^ LOL, can't argue with that.  

[Guest]

Look, part of me is skeptical about the big guy. I have to be for the sake of my sanity, not having seen the creature myself. Call me a Doubting Thomas. However, the greater part of me believes that something is out there, after considering the evidence that exists. While there is no smoking gun, there is a lot of evidence that points to the fact that this creature may exist. Again, forgive me, for unlike some on this forum, and most everyone else in the world, I have not myself seen this thing. At least, I am open to the possibility of BF and willing to consider any and all information that would convince the skeptical side of me once and for all.

Here's what is so maddening. Why are most other skeptics, doubters, and non-believers so closed off to the possibility that BF may exist? What drives them to dismiss ALL evidence, however thought provoking or compelling, without so much as a shred of objective consideration? They don't give the possibility of BF existence or any of the evidence a second of their time. Their energy is invariably spent denying, diverting, and diminishing any notion of the big guy. What are they protecting so strongly? Why can they not open their minds to the evidence? There is some strong psychological defenses going on in most people that I find very fascinating...and even more frustrating.

So, what's the deal with skeptics? Why the extreme close-mindedness?

MNSkeptic

Plus 1 to you from me.

As a believer plus a witness I cannot understand why skeptics hang out on a Bigfoot forum FGS!

 

If I did not believe, I would absolutely find something else to do besides being sarcastic on a forum dedicated to the Bigfoot phenom!

 

****Skeptics: Please find something better to do than harass believers.****

 

I guess that we believers need to harass  the skeptics the same way they harass the witnesses and believers. I had never thought about doing that until now. Evil smile, smirk, I am not sure that I can do that, but I'm willing to try:)

[Guest]

I've provided plenty of things a serious person can take seriously if they choose. The absence of proof alone after this much time is serious reason for pause. Even some of the more famous bigfoot sympathizers such Goodall have commented on the lack of proof as concerning.  The rampant hoaxing in the field is serious reason for pause. The utter failure of the testable evidence is serious reason for pause. The lack of a fossil record is serious reason for pause for some. The scientific fact that human memory is extremely flawed and unreliable is a serious reason for pause when evaluating the anecdotal evidence. The history of hoaxed tracks fooling some of the top "experts" in the field is a serious reason for pause when considering tracks as evidence.  Shall I go on?

 

There are serious reasons indeed for someone to conclude that bigfoot is most likely a myth. That you do not consider these serious reasons ( whether or not you agree with the conclusion) says a ton about how you approach this topic.  

dmaker, What about those of us who believe, and actually had a sighting of something that should not even exist? I can't explain it, all I can do is swear on a Bible that I truly saw a monster that SHOULD not exist. What then? What should I do? I know what I saw, and the fear and fright I feel is horrible. I sincerely wish that I felt the way you do without the horrible knowledge of truth of existence that I live with daily.

[hiflier]

Hello kitakaze,

 

I cannot adequately thank you enough for your two posts. In them you have described my own mind set far more eloquently than I could have ever done. Together they are one of the finest dissertations on what I consider is a truly mature skeptic's position. A nice portrait of what it means to be objective. Both hard-line ends of the spectrum should be sitting up to take notice.     

Edited October 9, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest]

Well, this thread traveled down a very well beaten and predictable path....

 

 

Kitakaze..  great post above, which i gave out a rare (for me) +1 on.....

 

 

My participation here has dwindled quite a bit over the last year or so, especially after having to make the difficult decision to leave forum staff, and concentrate on my job, and other areas of my life that needed tending.

 

For the record, I consider myself a believer, and claim an encounter of my own as a young man.  There are some here who are aware of that, and lot's of new members who may not know.   (My long winded account is buried somewhere in the premium members section).

 

That being said, I can easily see why those who are more skeptically inclined could find things posted on these forums, that would cause them to be pulling out head hair by the handful.

I know because I'm a believer, and IVE been put in that position far too many times.  Many more times than I believed could be possible in fact. 

 

The seeming paradox between the reclusive lonely creature who inhabits only the densest, darkest, and most remote of places, versus the tales I've read over the years of frequent suburban backyard visitors, even of sasquatch's who take cigarettes left out for them, is one of the most frustrating things I've experienced on these forums.

 

There are those who seem to love talking about these experiences, and also love the attention that it garners them.  No names need be mentioned, I think those of us who've been around these forums long enough know the type I'm speaking of.

 

But there are also many people out there like myself, who are more cautious, quiet, and aren't seeking anyone's approval, nor the attention that often accompanies sharing their experiences.

For me it took quite a bit of encouragement, and even some arm twisting, most of which was done via private messages, before I was ready to even think about putting my experiences on a forum like this.  I chose to do it the premium members area, because I knew it would limit exposure to fewer members, and also would not be accessible to non forum members. 

 

The reality for me, is that I saw something that I cannot explain.  Do I know for a fact that it was a Sasquatch?  Heck no I don't.  But I also know that I've spent my entire life, from childhood to my current age of 42 years, being in some pretty remote places, and have experienced at one time or another just about every known critter that inhabits the woods, fields, and mountains of the region I live in.

What I saw all those years ago, was not any of them.  No concocted story, no delusions, no mis-identification of a common known animal, just a scared teenaged kid, who saw some thing he had no idea about.  A young man who hadn't ever seen the PGF footage, or read any scary books about Bigfoot before seeing what he saw.  No one planted the idea in my head, and I'm as sure about my memories of that day, as I am of other memories of significant events of my teenage years.

That is a difficult situation to come to grips with, and it's something that's been a part of me ever since.

 

So there's room for frustration on both sides here.  When you're as serious of a person as I am, and not prone to making up stories to be part of the club, or to get attention from others- yea it's pretty frustrating to have someone, anyone, dismiss your experiences and tell you that you're just mistaken, or didn't see what you did.   But for me that part of it isn't important.  I'm not here to convince anyone, and I realize the folly in doing so with what is little more than just another anecdotal accounting of something some of you believe is impossible.

 

I've pulled the bits and pieces of the things I experienced all those years ago, this way, and that way through my mind, and tried to consider every and all possibilities that would give me the result I truly wanted...  that there was a rational and logical explanation for the things I saw.

 

Just consider the tracks we found that Winter by themselves, and leave out the later things that happened the following summer.

Yes, my brother and I were just kids... he 14 going on 15, and me 12 going on 13.   On a cold Winter morning, after a storm in the night dropped several inches of fresh powdery snow, we found a trackway of what at the time I would have told you were large bare human footprints.  My uncle who was visiting that weekend, was a deputy in the county sheriff's department, an adult, and the three of us followed the tracks for close to a mile- until they veered off into a dark pine forest, into which none of the three of us wanted to go into.  So if we were hoaxed- it means that on a 135 acre piece of private property, someone in the middle of a freezing cold Winter night walked in their bare feet, or wore stompers, and froze their ass off to create tracks down a path, across fields, over stone walls, and continued into a pine forest on state land- just on the slim chance that we might walk up there that morning and find them ? 

 

We're not talking the local town park, or any piece of land frequented by anyone else aside from the five of us who lived there.

It's the last place someone would go to prank, or hoax something like this.  It was by chance that the two of us even walked up there that morning, and the odds favor that we might never have even seen the tracks.

 

My uncle, a guy who LIVED to hunt...  deer, bear, upland game birds, turkey, you name it, he hunted it.  He looked these tracks over, and was perplexed... said for years that they were not bear tracks, and regardless of the fact that his carry piece of choice was a .45 acp 1911, it was his decision that morning not to follow the tracks deeper into the woods. He was scared...  and I admit that I was too, and had no desire to follow whatever had made those tracks any further.

 

So you wanna talk evidence, but it's not always just so easy to dismiss it as something silly, or ridiculous, because sometimes you just find things that defy simple explanation.

 

What my brother and I experienced the following summer ?  You don't think I've tried to explain it to myself six ways to Sunday, in the hopes that I could come up with an explanation that made sense to me ? That didnt leave me with an explanation that seems to defy everything we know ?

 

I'd love to believe I saw a bear that day... seen plenty of them since, nope was not a bear.  I'd love to believe that some local prankster was just sitting in the woods, in a gorilla suit/sasquatch costume- in the middle of nowhere... just hoping two teenage boys would come along so he could give them a good scare.. but that just doesn't make any sense.   Again, 15 miles from the nearest town, and a piece of property surrounded by nothing but more woods and mountains....just makes zero sense for someone to be out there in a costume.  So what did I see that day ?  I may never know.

 

So for those of you who find it impossible to believe?  I'd love to join you, but I can't undo what happened, and I can't unsee what I've seen.  For nearly thirty years now, it would have given me great satisfaction to do so... but that's not how the mind works.

 

It's late, and that's all I've got for now.

 

 

-A-

Edited October 9, 2014 by Art1972

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

" Instead of openly considering evidence for discussion, they'll tend to insult, belittle, dismiss and generally exhibit disgusting behavior to seek out a response from you. Pushing your buttons is what turns them on."

 

When you went to JREF with your pine bark eating bigfoot claims, what evidence did you bring?

 

That's interesting. I wasn't aware that I had tried to influence anyone at the JREF as to the diet of a Bigfoot? I also wasn't aware that I'm on anyone's payroll and required to produce evidence of Bigfoot? I do seem to remember that many posters there don't know the difference between a photo of a Chimpanzee and a photo of a Gorilla though. Chris B. 

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Couldn't disagree more.  Ben Radford is an arch-denialist.  And pretty blatantly uninformed.

 

No, he doesn't say, in so many words, that Bigfoot will never be found, etc.  Radford is like one of those pictures that is made up of thousands and thousands of smaller pictures.  The teenytiny pictures say, I'm not saying that bigfoot will never be found etc.  But you back up, and look at the big picture composed of all those teenytiny pictures, and it says:  No way; when was your last mental health checkup; and this is like mermaids and fairies.

 

Don't know how many arguments you have had with him.  I have had plenty.  There's no one here - and this is saying something - worse than Radford.

 

I don't know DWA, he seems like a nice enough guy when on the subject of Bigfoot. It's understandable that he'll only consider hard evidence but he doesn't accuse folks of being nuts for simply trying to find evidence of Bigfoot. I like him. I don't know the subject of your disagreements with Ben but if it was based on evidence I can save you the trouble, because it will take a type specimen on file to convince him they're out there. Chris B.

[dmaker]

Plus 1 to you from me.

As a believer plus a witness I cannot understand why skeptics hang out on a Bigfoot forum FGS!

 

If I did not believe, I would absolutely find something else to do besides being sarcastic on a forum dedicated to the Bigfoot phenom!

 

****Skeptics: Please find something better to do than harass believers.****

 

I guess that we believers need to harass  the skeptics the same way they harass the witnesses and believers. I had never thought about doing that until now. Evil smile, smirk, I am not sure that I can do that, but I'm willing to try:)

Who is harassing anyone? In my post that you quoted, I simply laid out a brief few reasons that I think should be considered serious reasons for being skeptical of the bigfoot claim. If you consider that to be harassment then I would suggest that perhaps you try to grow a thicker skin. Challenging a claim, especially one with no supporting physical evidence ( something we see constantly here in this forum), is definitely NOT harassment. 

 

In fact, the only harassment I see around here is from certain posters who belittle anyone who does not agree with their position on bigfoot. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I do expect an environment where I can express my doubts and challenge claims without belittlement or being accused of harassment. 

That's interesting. I wasn't aware that I had tried to influence anyone at the JREF as to the diet of a Bigfoot? I also wasn't aware that I'm on anyone's payroll and required to produce evidence of Bigfoot? I do seem to remember that many posters there don't know the difference between a photo of a Chimpanzee and a photo of a Gorilla though. Chris B. 

Chris, the reason I mentioned your foray into the JREF recently was because you said in your post about discussing and evaluating evidence at JREF. Yet you came there with a pretty wild claim and offered no supporting evidence. That may go over quite well here with some people, but at a place like JREF ( well, now the International Skeptics Forum) that is just not going to fly unchallenged. 

 

The agitation shown by some by simply having their unsupported claims challenged tells me a lot about their confidence in their claim.  Just my opinion, of course.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Dmaker, your reason for skepticism is well founded, although I entertained the notion I would have never been on this side of the

fence without something pushing me over.  My belief system pretty much precluded such a creature, and still I have my doubts as

to what it is I have come to "believe" (because I have not seen it first hand) exists.  With that being said what had me questioning

my belief system was some of the tracks that were found where hoaxing simply would not account for them, far reaching wilderness

areas along creek beds, and the freshly fallen snow.  Some trackways are simply found in places no person is meant to discover,

meaning intentional effort is being made by whatever is making the tracks to conceal them, that is certainly not the work of a hoaxer.

When I here someone say they have seen bigfoot 3 times my red flags go up and I start questioning the individual.  This is an extremely

rare creature whose cunning to remain undetected is unmatched, and it will certainly remain so till adequate effort and resources are

available to make it not so, which is really not in the best interest of a huge portion of the economy with a lot of pull.  It is hardly rational

to believe in bigfoot without a critical examination of the evidence, and even then it still is a difficult conclusion, unless of course you

have had a close daylight encounter.  It is a mistake by this community to try and remove skeptics from the discussion, honest and

thoughtful debate is essential to critical thinking, and that is what is lacking for the most part in the "Bigfoot" world, but also what I

appreciate about some of the skeptics around here.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Perhaps the only reason Sasquatch are ever sighted at all is the necessity for such a creature to cover territory in search

of resources.  Most stories reflect that agenda, while a few seem to suggest them hunkering down in a remote territory and

protecting an area.  The key to discovering the reality of this creature is to unlock the patterns of travel and to pinpoint areas

they will be using at certain times, those who have dillegently done so consistently obtain evidence that they are present, although even

in such cases sightings are still rare.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot