Proponents just need to keep their shirts on. Frustration can cause them to overreach, a deadly sin in the hard sciences. Likewise, skeptics, to keep that good name, must ask themselves just how much evidence they have for those confident pronouncements they make.

Here’s to light in dark corners.

I really liked your view on evidence versus proof, by the way. Such a simple and one would think obvious distinction, but one which can be forgotten in cryptozoology sometimes. I am aware of those distinctions of course, but you really reaffirmed it for me and made me think about that. Anyway, evidence for time traveling Bigfoot is non existent. Unless they are going back and getting rid of it. Hmmmm. I respect Altman and others like him for being able to look at where the evidence might lead without fear of ridicule. A very important component to studying new avenues of thinking and historically shown time and time again.

Time-traveling invisible sasquatch could be thinking the words I’m typing, with me only their instrument. Unless science can prove that, however, I ain’t buying it. We haven’t come up with a better way - a way nearly as good - to show ourselves the universe than through the lens of science. Which is why I’m keeping my chips on that number.

An open mind is needed. But the brains must stay in there, and if speculation doesn’t travel along the general trails science has heretofore blazed, the appearance can tend to be that, well, I just tend to be uncomfortable following trails marked by leaking gray matter.

We have different favorite colors, I bet. SO THERE!

I’d have to say that I am quite a far way from taking a time traveling Bigfoot seriously, though. It’s be interesting to see what evidence that hypothesis is based on other than wild speculation. I find it interesting and a little amusing how sometimes people will expound on how mysterious the universe is and how we don’t about it, and yet then proceed to explain it (sometimes in great detail) often with completely unsubstantiated claims. As if their explanation holds more weight than the scientists who say “Umm, well, nothing really points to that.” Not to say it is impossible, but there is a way to try and understand the natural world, and that is called science which is driven by evidence. This is why I got into science to begin with, because I wanted to understand how the world works. Evidence for sasquatch- decent. Evidence for time traveling sasquatch- none that I know of.

Now if only more people in a position to do so would actually at least consider the evidence that is there for sasquatch, we might get places. We might not, but at least we would be trying to answer questions about the world we live in based on real possibilities. Not holding my breath on the time travel just yet, though, sorry to say.

Many thanks again to all.

Eric Altman

How the heck, indeed, do we presume to know what the laws of nature are?