Neither is Dr. John Bindernagel, who considers the sasquatch essentially a discovery that hasn’t gotten full vetting yet.

Cheers.

I’m not a scientist nor a qualified academic. I’m just a layman with a passion!

And I make no bones about it; I’m on an extremely interesting learning curve.

I chose my posting name because I thought it was a novel idea to ‘proclaim from the rooftops’ as it were an aspect of bigfoot evidence that is most compelling; dermal ridges as unique in form as a fingerprint! Can anyone seriously explain them away or debunk?

I’ve just learnt that Matt Crowley’s past attempts at debunking dermal ridges by explaining them away as ‘desiccation ridges’ falls short. In a ‘nut shell’ I would say that desiccation ridges are identifiable and proven, and dermal ridges are also identifiable and proven. And when the two meet occasionally on the same plaster cast they are easily differentiated by the trained eye.

Again, sorry to disappoint you if my answer doesn’t quite meet with you expectations

Although we have ‘no body’ I feel that Dr Jeff Meldrums culmative works, that build upon the works of other primatologists, are so compelling that I’m surprised more sceptical scientists (potential facilitators of the ‘good news’ to the wider public) haven’t been swayed or won over to the possibility of bigfoots existence

If more numbers were won over, can you imagine what the collective message from an extended roll call of key scientists might be? Even if pronouncements concerned solely the ‘likelihood’ of existence rather than a declaration of absolute proof? Consequently I feel their would be a large shift in public perception of the bigfoot phenomenon towards belief. The process of gradual transformation of the wider publics ’belief’ would be well under way, at the moment I feel it’s ‘lagging’ in relation to the compelling evidence already in the public domain.

Here’s “proof,” in the only sense that the word means a thing to the crowd at Cryptomundo, or in the world at large for that matter:

It’s real; everyone knows it; and any lunkheads still in doubt will just be told to look it up, and rejoin the conversation when they are informed. Like robins; pigs; the sun and the moon. Denying them makes you look hospitalizable. That’s proof.

Period.

If someone has seen a sasquatch, it is proven, to THAT person, and to that person only. (Only, now, if that person trusts the evidence of their own eyes. Many do not.) Not to me; not to you; not to Loren; not to anyone else here or in the world beyond crypto. But that person’s sighting is EVIDENCE, that can be compiled along with other reports to build a case to the larger society that maybe, just maybe, this thing is real.

Proof can be relative. Above is one example. Another is when someone you truly trust tells you he’s seen one. If that utterly convinces you, you (and you only, unless others agree with you) have “proof.” I don’t. Nor does anyone other than the ones who totally trust that person.

For the larger society, the sciences are the arbiter of proof. If they don’t think it’s proven, then to most of us, it isn’t.

The larger society treats sasquatch sightings as mistakes, hoaxes and hallucinations precisely because, to the society at large, and to science as arbiter of what we as a SOCIETY consider reality, Bigfoot isn’t real. That is, no proof that means anything to the zeitgeist.

There is a lot of evidence. (The P/G film is, to me, a significant piece).

But to most of us, it simply doesn’t add up to proof. It does add up to “reason to look.”

I think you misunderstand. Let me clarify. One example to illustrate: Dr Jeff Meldrums, 2007 culminating scientific paper ICHNOTAXONOMY OF GIANT HOMINID TRACKS IN NORTH AMERICA. This is a casebook of evidence which I think provides proof (to me and many others!) that an uncatalogued species of bipedal ape is living in the American N.W.

You don’t have to agree with me, but to me this is a case proven; AS FAR AS IT GOES. Much more bona fide evidence giving further proof as to the ‘specifics’ of species type, behaviour etc are obviously required, so that all the many aspects or facets are covered. (easier said than done, I know)

But you see I’m making the distinction between strong, bona fide SCIENTIFIC evidence that provides proof of certain aspects of the bigfoot mystery up to a point; which then makes prior supposition redundant. …And submissions of weak, suspect or bogus evidence that count for nothing or very little, and doesn’t provide any proof positive.

I’d like to ask you what you think of the P.G. footage? Does it mean anything to you? What does it tell you personally?

Regarding the original theme of this thread (the face print):

I don’t know how you can enter into this initial stage of debate concerning (so far) a couple of leaked photos, and bring into it such ‘heavy duty’ bias, prejudice, and even a ‘hoax’ conclusion from the comfort of your armchair! Very scientific! If interested academics are following this one as it unfolds, they may harbour private doubts but (unlike you) would refrain from giving any kind of conclusion until all the evidence was on the table for assessment and analysis.

In the ‘final analysis’ the evidence will speak for itself and will stand the test of time or not!

“You are so wrong DWA. Evidence always offers proof of ’something’ otherwise it would not be called evidence!”

Is that a joke?

Hint: different words.

(Please God, don’t make me give more clues. Wha…????? OK…..[sigh])

Dude! Dictionary!

I don’t have any proof, nor does anyone. Or we wouldn’t be talking about this.

What I have is tons of evidence, which any scientist will tell you counts when you’re trying to find out what something is. First, animals don’t leave casual prints that duplicate their faces all over stuff, and when you press your face against a glass, a good recreation of your face structure is just not likely to result. Second (and this is what I think you are referring to), I’ve read hundreds of eyewitness sasquatch reports. They are not proof. They are evidence. And they are consistent on one thing: the sucker just did not look human. So, if a sasvid looks like a human wearing a suit, I’m not going to get all excited about it, and neither is Jeff Meldrum.

I’m betting Jeff isn’t getting out of his chair over this either.

Just speculation here, in accordance with what he said on his radio broadcast.