Bin Laden, Shoot on site with a 50 cal.
BigFoot, Shoot on site with a super telephoto lenz, Or hi def video… Should be no debate…

But one never hears the reason from them, and that’s because it is in fact damning to the skeptical position.

There’s only one reason eyewitness testimony is unreliable: PEOPLE SEE WHAT THEY ARE PREPARED TO SEE. (And, sure, testify to what they saw as they see fit.)

The problem with the skeptical take on eyewitnesses to the sasquatch is that the people that report sightings are seeing something they were totally unprepared to see. There is no reason a rational person would report a bigfoot encounter except one: they saw something they were totally unprepared for, they kept looking, hoping against hope that their eyes were deceiving them, and it never resolved itself into something they would have been prepared to see. It was what it was. Read sighting reports (RSR! I haven’t said that in too long), and you’ll see it, over and over again. I can’t believe I’m typing this. But I know what I saw. And they go on to show you how good a look they got at what they saw. (Skeptics don’t RSR! and you can tell this by what they say about sighting reports. They are no more vague than sighting reports of known critters, by and large. Eyewitnesses have descriptions that read like the same species, with expected individual variations, over and over and over.)

And no, I’m not sure any of the other “rational” reasons for reporting a sas sighting (They’ll believe me, and I’ll be RICH!) are rational at all, given how eyewitness accounts are treated.
OK, there might be one. You want to pull a prank. Those are incredibly easy to spot, whether the fake is video, written or spoken. I used to think not. But I’ve seen too many to deny it now. People who have seen something this unfamiliar simply don’t behave, or sound, or write like pranksters.

And as to size.

I think there can be quite a bit of variability in the size of adult sasquatch, just as in humans. That said, it’s astonishing how many reports (RSR!) use the same yardstick of: around seven feet. Some run to eight; some to nine or ten. That’s actually not unreasonable; when you see something you are totally unfamiliar with, a foot or so off isn’t far off at all. And THAT said, a number of nine-to-ten-foot accounts refer to physical objects in the vicinity of the animal that allowed pretty close measurement.

I’d say seven feet is around average – but just as in humans, there are some really big ones.

I suppose matted hair atop the head and overall hairiness would contribute to Bigfoot looking taller than he/she actually is. How many reported juveniles have been spotted?