Many people encounter sasquatch in their driveways; in their backyards; at their front or back doors; etc.

Now in virtually every such case, thousands of acres of what looks like it could make excellent habitat is right next to those houses. Not sure if that’s the case here. That there’s a house right there doesn’t say anything, one way or another, until we know what kind of habitat surrounds, or is next to, that house.

(“…along a dirt road off White Oak Road in state game lands in Jackson Twp.” Hmmmm.)

Now, in terms of your potential alternative explanation: No way I’d discount it right off the bat, for sure. When the local kids hear about a Bigfoot hunter, well, gee, what might happen next?

(I’d engage the local truant officer, but I’m just such a killjoy that way.)

And like the man said, I definitely find that getting engaged with the evidence is high-grade fun. Bring something to the party, I say. A real shame if you have that capability but decline to make the effort.

Both DWA and I have made a point of soliciting thoughtful conversation on this subject from those who would disagree. If you’ve got some explanation that hasn’t been considered on review by others of the evidence, and have a scientific framework to hang that on, bring it. So far? White noise is all I hear.

And really, I’m not being disingenuous at all. I really would like to hear something that explains what is going on that makes sense. But, I believe you’ve got to first engage with the fact that the oral eyewitness reports are coming into the BF websites at a rate of sometimes one per day, and they are excruciatingly detailed and consistent. If you have any experience in the ways people tend to fabricate evidence, you’ll appreciate that these are not of that type.

So, somebody, anybody, offer me an alternative explanation that hunts. Failing that, I’m whipping out Occam’s razor and stropping it up.

“The problem with all the armchair scientist circle jerking that goes on on this forum is that you guys actually think you are doing something. Regurgitating what scientists that agree with you say doesn’t accomplish anything, you aren’t furthering the “field” by coming on here and having delusions of grandeur about “knowing the facts” and being superior to other people on this forum.”

OK, young cryptos.

Have you ever heard anyone like this cite anything worth listening to from any scientist who agrees with him?

That’s called “prosecution rests” in jurospeak.

Hard not to feel superior when the knowledge is on your side, WIC. Bring a scientist who agrees with you on here. Shoot, bring him to me in person. Go ‘head.

Come on with namecalling and ad hominem instead of thought, I’m just gonna kick you around a little. Can’t apologize. Not saying you personally, lonzo (although “The Bigfoot community is the most naive bunch I have come across” isn’t to the best of my knowledge tailored to attract friendly responses).

I don’t “believe” anything, without evidence.

There’s a lot of evidence for the sasquatch, much of it “tangible.” What it hasn’t amounted to yet is proof sufficient for mainstream science – which has largely not addressed it.

Staying abreast of this is a whole lot more fun that “believing” and getting disappointed by every thing that comes along that isn’t proof.

If more folks got that they’d enjoy being here more. Just sayin’. If folks don’t like being told what the deal is, or being told that just because you think it doesn’t make it true, not sure what to say about that.

But come here to sneer, like some do, and some of us here just enjoy laughing and starting in on you. If you can’t hear the laughter in it, oh well.

Yo dude! Nobody having more fun here than me.

I actually feel sorry for people who don’t understand that

1. One report could be anything…except proof;
2. Addressing the evidence is not only the intelligent way to do this, it’s the fun way;
3. People that don’t think before they post make themselves fun targets!

Anybody that worries about that needs to enjoy this site more. Chill? All the time. Just that when people aren’t paying attention I poke them, that’s all.

It doesn’t take much to fire you up, just a difference of opinion sends you over the edge. Chill out its just Bigfoot. To this day there hasn’t been any definitive evidence of anything. This is not to say “he” isn’t real, just that “he” hasn’t given us any tangible evidence of his existence. I, like you, believe. Maybe someday it will happen, but not one good shred of evidence has come to light yet. I hope it someday it will.

When somebody puts up something like this

“You see, other people have read the reports and the papers and all the other evidence….Not just you. And just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they don’t understand something you do…it just means the “evidence” didn’t convince them…”

…they better back it up. (Remember Rule One of Scientific Debate: Every position must have an argument, backed by evidence.)

Anyone who has done this and come up with ….well, what WIC has come up with, is ….

1. Lying;
2. Lacking in the reading comprehension departimento; or
3. Just about to give us – finally, and we have seen not Bit of Evidence One of this yet – the reason for what they (allegedly) think.

(And it better be a whole lot more than “it’s not proof,” at which you can just laugh and go look for someone serious. “The evidence is inconclusive” is Geek for “I’m going to shut up now, and let the big dogs hunt.”)

It’s best to just not believe that part in quotes, unless they can show you. WIC hasn’t read it, or hasn’t thought about it, one or both. Wanna bet?

“Second…I’m not repeating what skeptics are telling me, I’m giving my own point of view. See some people have those and they don’t just keep giving out info other people have come up with and call it research. DWA if all you have done is read other peoples research…that doesn’t count for anything unless you are planning on writing a book report.”

This basically says: if I personally didn’t do the research, it’s crap. I don’t know who did the research, I have no idea who they are, but that doesn’t matter. I didn’t do it, so it’s crap. My opinions are sacred, even if they are based on, well, nothing, including analytical thinking.

When you read something alleged to be research, you check it out against what you know. You compare the credentials of the researchers with what they are asserting, and determine whether they are to the best of your knowledge using their science to come to their conclusions.

And for pete’s sake, when people post paragraphs like that one in quotes, and don’t say a single thing opposing serious scientists who to all appearances are using their science to advance the cause of knowledge, don’t give them the time of day.

Call them trolls and move on.