I am so disappointed. I was leaning toward believing Todd Standing was on the up and up until this.

It’s the ol’ “Patty has a zipper” thing. It’s been completely discredited, but you keep hearing it.

This is nothing in terms of getting to proof, since no one can say, based on this photo alone, what this is.

Unless someone comes in with evidence that intrigues the scientific mainstream enough that the resources are devoted to field research yielding proof…forget it. That’s how science works.

1. Almost no backstory, of any kind whatsoever.
2. That’s the *only* picture? Doesn’t seem too likely; where are the others? Oh yeah. The video. Been here before.
3. The whole “there’s more” tease. Scientists wait until the proof is in, then show you it all.
4. Throwing in Something Else Incredible (griz encounter) as if it’s some sort of excuse.
5. The whole Bigfoot-consortium thing. “Sylvanic.” [teeth grind; fingernails-on-blackboard]

And shoot, lemme just say this. That could be a sasquatch. I’ve never seen one; have you? It’s just that there isn’t a thing associated with that photo that would lead me to believe that. (Three words: use lip balm.)

The whole approach is so freakin’ joke-standard that it’s just…oh, let me go on with my life.

But. One more thing I need to say.

I see a strain of thinking on this site that goes: let’s just cynically shoot down everything short of proof. That’s what happened to Patty; it’s what has happened, in fact, to just about every piece of cryptid evidence: it hits The Wall of Cynical Disbelief, and sinks without trace. Hey people. THIS IS JUST ABOUT THE MOST EXTREMELY NON-SCIENTIFIC SLANT OF MIND CONCEIVABLE. It’s how idiots roasted Galileo.

I am interested – ONLY interested – in a scientific approach to this question. There is not a single “debunk” comment up there that holds scientific water. (No. Stop. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT “FAKE” LOOKS LIKE.) This isn’t a blobsquatch; but unless you have seen a number of sasquatch, you cannot tell me what that is, or isn’t. It’s the approach to it that I say stinks of don’t-bother. I can’t say thing one about that photo. And neither can you. The that-is-totally-fake-because slant is simply the flip side of the I-believe end of the spectrum. Neither sheds any light whatsoever. I’d be willing to bet money that ain’t a real sasquatch for one reason: I have seen this approach to “evidence” like this times beyond counting. Not one has shed light yet. I’m waiting for light, not another damn photo complete with song and dance.

I sense that many people here have had their hearts broken too many times, and like any repeatedly-jilted lover, have started going cynical. Or were just total cynics in the first place (what are you doing here? Feeling superior or something? Um, you’re not, and it’s showing. OK?) See, I’m immune to all that crap, and if you are really interested you should be too. After all, so is anyone who looks at this scientifically. BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ABOUT TRUST, OR BELIEF. IT IS ABOUT EVIDENCE.

Here’s what I say to Todd: if that’s all your evidence it’s not enough. There’s at the least reasonable doubt here. I’m betting based on past experience – among other things, with you – that you have nothing else that passes muster. If you can prove me wrong, do.

Jason P: Craig puts things like this up here to allow Cryptomundo readers to exercise their analysis muscles. (And for folks who do that regularly to offer occasional pointers.) It’s totally counter to his purpose to say here’s another-idiot.

Because he knows what happened to Galileo. And to Patterson.

I have found that the facts will speak for themselves when put forward for all to see.