I don’t change anything in my comment above. Both statements take a very arguable premise – there is much in the hairy hominoid discussion I would not call myth or folklore – and jump to calling it proof. My tiger example shows what a bad idea that is (and yes, if the sasquatch, yeti et al are real, they’re as real as the tiger or you or me).

But at least they do say about one book they review: “Robert W Morgan’s Bigfoot Observer’s Field Manual does just what the subtitle says, and should be of interest to cryptozoologists in or planning expeditions in North America.”

I took the myth/folklore comment as a blanket dismissal of hairy hominoids. Which does say something about reading before you post, yes. But also says something about thinking before you write. Particularly if one’s comment might discourage someone else from reading everything one wrote.

Total logical equivalent statement: “Everyone knows about tigers, which pretty much proves they aren’t real.” In fact that is almost the exact same sentence, in logical terms. (And thought devoted. Took me a second or two.)

“Folklore and mythology of giants is indeed global, which pretty much proves it does not represent any real animal.”

Does that sentence make any sense to anyone else? Because it sure as shite doesn’t to me.