Show Your Best Evidence If You Please.

[BigTreeWalker]

It wavers little from the supposition that the bones have been manipulated by an unknown hominid.  I would like it to include examples of other predictor marks on similar bones as well as examples of bone stacking done in the wild by other animals or if that does not exist in nature.  The paper never wanders far from the original premise.  Major omission is not including photo of the crushed Elk skull.  The cast print referred to as hominid is too nondescript  to call a print  as such.  Very likely there are naturalists that could furnish examples of bones that known animals have acted upon with like results.  But it's a good read well done and a breath of fresh air away from gifting piles, stick structures knocks and tree breaks.

Thanks for the review Crow. I am glad you found it refreshing. We did do our do diligence on the elimination of known predators. The references we used are included. We are waiting on some reviews from other scientists in the field.

The OP asked for the best evidence. Here's the best that I have. And it's verifiable.

You would have to do this when I was on vacation. I finally got caught up on my reading.

[BigTreeWalker]

Crow - have you checked out the new bones thread?

I'll share the link. 

 

Backdooring it here, cool idea.

 

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=25BBCABF2DE517FF!108&ithint=file%2cpdf&app=WordPdf&wdo=2&authkey=!AOLzbmAVbvcVkIM

Thanks Cotter for posting the link. I was incommunicado for a couple weeks.

[Guest DWA]

Hey you guys.  Cut that out!  There's big words and science in there.  Bigfoot skeptics will make up too many jokes in reply.  Which is, of course, how the scientific approach flies with bigfoot skeptics.

 

Edited June 30, 2015 by DWA
Edit Objectionable text

[southernyahoo]

  Do any or all of the sightings ever result in a repeatable or predictable result?  

 

Yes.

[Guest DWA]

Correct.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

If a predictable or repeatable result means failure every time and no monkey ever....

 

Then... Correct.

[Guest SoFla]

This is great, and I agree with ThinkerThunker; The Real deal

[southernyahoo]

Areas with sightings have provided sightings for researchers who go there. The researchers have found tracks, hair , tree manipulation and have collected a unique collection of vocalizations that do point to a hominin living in the wild. Clear photo's and verified non-human ape biological samples are most elusive.

 

These things repeat without question, but isn't surprising to me since the other evidence hints at it's humanity and intelligence linked to stealth and tactical behavior.

[Guest DWA]

Not only this, but every sighting report yields to a decently careful read five to ten guidebook-consistent markers...most that are known to be standard-issue primate characteristics only to specialists in the field.

 

Repeatable.  Big time.  Anyone who does not understand this does not understand how science works.

 

Repeatable.

 

Big time.

Edited July 8, 2015 by DWA

[Guest SoFla]

I looked at the evidence for nearly 5 decades. 

so in the 5 decades that you have been looking at evidence there is not a shred of it that convinces you that they are real Crow?

[Guest DWA]

He didn't look at anything worth looking at for five decades.  And he still isn't.  He keeps talking about Today's Latest Ha-Ha Special like it's The Heart Of The Evidence.

 

He went from believing to unbelieving.  Because the universe wasn't on his personal schedule.  That's all you need to know.

[Guest DWA]

And while we are on "repeatable," look what science is finding out about that:

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off

 

Bigfoot sighting reports are much more repeatable than a lot of classic science!

[Guest DWA]

"Jennions, similarly, argues that the decline effect is largely a product of publication bias, or the tendency of scientists and scientific journals to prefer positive data over null results, which is what happens when no effect is found."

 

Yep.  That ol' repeatable science, based on the total infallibility of...um...the PEOPLE doing science.

 

Whoops.

[Guest DWA]

And while we're on science and evidence, a good read - and some thought - here show that a lot of what we accept from scientists and all of what we hear from bigfoot skeptics really *is* noise.  Read at own risk.

 

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/

Edited July 9, 2015 by DWA

[Guest]

Not only this, but every sighting report yields to a decently careful read five to ten guidebook-consistent markers...most that are known to be standard-issue primate characteristics only to specialists in the field.

 

Repeatable.  Big time.  Anyone who does not understand this does not understand how science works.

 

Repeatable.

 

Big time.

It seems you are basing your belief in Bigfoot on consistencies within Bigfoot stories.

Covered in hair....check

Big feet...........check

Tall...............check

Smelly. ...........check

Cone shaped head...check, must be true.

Is that how your science is done?

I don't think you understand that the reports are going to have similarities because of the internet and television. Therefore there is no key to finding real reports. Everyone who is interested in Bigfoot knows the makings of a good encounter story. You are not privileged to bigfoot details that nobody else is.