In the skunk ape/orangutan comparison photo on this site one frond casts a shadow upwards onto the “beard” while only a few inches away, down and to the right, another frond has its shadow beneath it. How did she manage to do that?

When I superimpose one photo on top of the other, using the least cropped versions I can find, I get an almost perfect frame alignment – an unlikely coincidence if the lady was shooting into the dark at something she couldn’t see. It is more consistent with someone using a tripod.

I don’t want to speculate on how the pictures were made but there are so many things inconsistent with the story that I’m sure that no animals were frightened in the making of them.

I would consider hairs of Bigfoot as Scientific evidence.
If order to Prove the Existence of Bigfoot we would need mire Scientific evidence. As in a Body dead or alive.

I believe it is almost Impossible to find a dead animal or animals in Forests. (That’s why we have not found any)

Other Reasons could be they Bury their dead or go off somewhere hard to find and die after a while.

I Believe it is Possible to capture a Bigfoot without harming him or her.
But it would be very hard to.
But it is worth trying.
But Use a Cage or something else that is very strong.

One day I plan on trying to capture a Bigfoot in a unharmful way.
(I will give it multiple tries and it will be attempted in a area that had alot of Bigfoot sightings)

Mostly likely somewhere in Washington or California.

I agree. I also agree that the evidence for the Myakka photos is just like the evidence for “the” sasquatch: it points to authenticity.

As I said in another recent thread: MORE SPECIES DOES NOT MEAN MORE VISIBLE! If every sighting of a North American hairy hominoid is discounted, there could be ten species and it wouldn’t matter. Many “juvenile bigfoot” sightings include no nearby adult. Why couldn’t those be of a second (or more) species? The current ape roster substantiates this: wherever there is one ape, there is another.

I also consider the “Giganto hypothesis” overly simplistic. Most sasquatch sightings I am familiar with don’t sound anything like anything I have seen presumed on the admittedly-scanty Giganto evidence. We are finding new fossils every year. Why can’t it be possible that the fossil progenitor(s) of unconfirmed hairy hominoids hasn’t (haven’t) been found yet? Why can’t it possible that it’s something(s) other than Giganto on the currently accepted fossil primate roster?

As someone who thinks like a scientist, I like to reiterate the following advice:

1. WHEN NO EVIDENCE POINTS TO SOMETHING, IT IS UNWISE TO CLEAVE TO IT AS WHAT ONE MUST THINK, OR AS WHAT IS MOST LIKELY.

2. WHEN THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO SOMETHING, IT IS WISE TO CONSIDER THAT A SIGNIFICANT POSSIBILITY.

No. 1. is precisely the fundamental misstep of bigfoot skeptics: they presume that a comprehensive false positive is supported by evidence, when it is in fact supported by none at all. It is the problem of those bigfooters who seem to think that all the evidence points to one species, when my read shows no reason at all to PRESUME that. It is also the problem with PRESUMING Myakka a fake: my take on the photos is that it was an innocent private individual who saw something odd and took pictures. The story seems to hang together. It’s just like P/G, when you compare them; there’s no reason, i.e., evidence, to PRESUME that this is faked. A scientist’s suppositions, however educated they may be, must be supported by evidence.

I see the mainstream’s fundamental error in this whole thing to be as follows: since there is no proof, there is nothing to do here, no need to follow evidence. We can just put our hands over our eyes and ears and continue presuming the mundane.

A host of errors proceed from that one.