First of all, science has already proven that the hominoid does exist. You probably haven’t checked it out that well. Let me guide you to the sources of some of the best scientists connected and you can check it out.

But first, I have spent a lot of my time in the forests of BC and Alberta and have only found tracks of a cougar. Does that mean it does not exist. It must! I saw the tracks myself. However, I the 35+ years of deep bush experience, I have never seen a live one. I know a lot of people in the same position and they have never seen one either, yet we know they exist.

How about the real evidence that is known to be scientifically proven true.

A) Patterson film – it has never been proven to be a fake and ALL knowledgeable scientists who have studied in depth say it is NOT a man in a suit. Those that have tried to debunk it, turn out to not have any knowledge in biometrics, anthropology, or any other field, and I can assure you, have NEVER studied the film at all, except for a quick glance, but then again, they had already made up their minds before seeing the film anyways.

B) Footprint cast evidence – Not sure how the faker got to a location I was at! Unless he came in by silent helicopter in the dark on a rainy night, where there was no chance of he/she knowing where I was at 5000 feet on a switchback logging road in the middle of nowhere, well then I given them credit! The problem with that theory, is they had no where to land!

Let’s get real, Jeff Meldrum is just one of a few scientists with the qualifications to make a statement that the footprints cannot be faked and are in fact real, which, relating to my experience are real. Just like the cougar was when I spotted it.

C) Hair samples = although few and far between, hair has been analyzed that has proven not to come from any “known” species of animal in North America. Has been proven to be apelike in nature but could not be matched against any known species of ape known to man! Notice I mentioned HAIR not FUR!

D) Eye Witness evidence – Is it possible for thousands of reported sightings by people from all walks of life to be hallucinating? Science will tell you…. NO.

The conclusion!

In essence, science has already proven the existence of sasquatch without a body. The best educated in the theory have said all along that the evidence proves it… but yes, it would be nice to have a specimen, but then again, it sure would be nice to have a specimen of a cougar that died in the woods as well, and no one can one of those either… yet we know they exist in the wild!

Remember, there are new species of plants, animals, and insects found every day.

By the way, I have photo’s of very fresh bigfoot tracks not 10 feet from fresh cougar tracks from last summer, and no one was with in 30 miles of my location… This obviously leads me or anyone else to believe that if one animal I have never seen in the wild left tracks, and another animal left tracks not 10 feet away, then they both exist!

Cheers… But let’s not beat this one to death. We could better use our energy on freeing the hundreds of obviously innocent people put in prison based on eye witness testimony and no forensic/scientific evidence that the jailed person ever committed a crime! And there are many!

It’s the same paradigmatic phenomenon as our US and Canadian friends are talking about here. I couldn’t have seen it because it doesn’t exist. If it did exist people would see it.

Interestingly I never saw a fox in ten years in Norfolk, despite keeping chickens in my garden. What I did see was loads of people hunting them in fields around my house in order to destroy the vast numbers of them that I could not see.

Please remember that people don’t have to prove a thing doesn’t exist. That’s a common fallacy that I’ve railed against before. If there is an apparent phenomenon that is outside of the bounds of known science, (such as an ape or hominid living undetected in the Pacific Northwest) then it requires strong evidence, very strong evidence, to prove it is real. The prevailing scientific model does NOT have to prove that it doesn’t exist. And anyway I’d assume by now you’d have heard the axiom that you can’t prove a negative.

Furthermore, science is not the same as a court of law. Witness testimony carries weight in a court of law for obvious reasons. In science, however, it’s the most worthless kind of evidence there is. Not because it IS intrinsically worthless, but because science cannot make assumptions about a person’s ability to observe, their propensity to lie, etc. The courts have the threat of perjury to hold over an eyewitness; science has no such leverage. For this and other reasons, it may be perfectly true that a witness could be someone you want to believe and feel you should believe…. but from a scientific standpoint you have no choice but to discount his or her unsupported story entirely—because whereas the law can make fair assumptions, science cannot.

As for any videotape being “proven”, I can only assume you’re talking about the Patterson film—which has never been “proven” to be anything one way or another. It too is valueless from a scientific point of view because it could have been faked. No one has ever “proven” it wasn’t. And no—no one has to “prove” that it WAS faked… see above, it doesn’t work that way.

Footprints are largely discountable for the same reason, though each one should be taken as a separate case and properly examined for authenticity. Hair samples and scat—yes… but so far as I know, nothing of this type so far found has been authoritatively established as definitely having come from an unknown animal—so far the evidence is inconclusive and the best that can be said is “maybe.”

Science isn’t decided by jury or by majority vote. It has rules it has to play by. We may not like them, but they are the best guarantee we have for getting at the truth–which is what science is all about.

If the courts were to rely on the testimony in a murder case of just one witness who said he saw the person do it, and the outcome of the supposed murderer is life in prison or maybe death (and this has happened on occasion in the past!), then the sasquatch exists. How can we ignore hundreds if not thousands of eye witnesses, the footprint evidence, scientifically proven video that cannot be refuted by anyone with bipedal motorization expertise (I smell forensics here!) and hair samples that are known NOT to belong to any North American animal… etc.? (need I say more?) I think if you placed this evidence in front of a jury, then the choice is obvious, The jury says… YES, Sasquatch EXISTS….

Then again…. There isn’t a skeptic alive that can prove it doesn’t exist. And they have no evidence…. Yada yada yada…

And once again we see the garden-party “arguments against,” so obviously displaying utter tabula-rasa brainvoid on almost every relevant topic as to become tiresome. At least I’m not upset about it.

I keep saying it: if you don’t read sighting reports, lots of them, you’re uneducated on the sasquatch. And I say this to skeptics scofftics and proponents alike.

Showme: there are cats and bears and deer in the tropics and the temperate zones and the arctic. (Birds reptiles and amphibians too, but I’ll leave it.) The sas, if it exists, is simply a temperate-adapted ape.

Bigfoot has no interest factor to me except as an animal, a critter. I think it’s way more than interesting enough, just as that. (If you don’t know why, read sighting reports, lots of them, and tell me what you think those people are seeing.) If you have a rooting interest, good for you. Just show me evidence. (Of which there’s much, if no proof yet.)