OK, I am far from an expert here but if there is one thing I have learned from all the reading of actual researchers like Loren, Adam Davies and others and also listening to the arguments of obvious skeptics like yourself, it is that many skeptics are “willfully blind” in that they refuse to see the “evidence”, ie. thousands of eyewitness reports and encounters going back hundreds of years across many continents, by people from all walks of life with nothing to gain from their stories, physical evidence in the form of footprints, hair and scat samples, all of which point to there being “something” out there. What is that something? I cannot say, but neither can you state objectively there is nothing to it. Not if you are open minded enough to consider the “evidence”. I do not claim the existence of Bigfoot, I only claim that something real is behind the phenomena that goes beyond hoax or mistaken identity and I look to serious researchers and the scientific method for the answers. I hope you come on the journey with us as I think that skeptics and scofftics may have the most to gain from getting the answers.

“. Standards of “proof” increased after the Piltdown affair, we are told. ”

We are told?

Do you deny this is the case?

Loren also write:

“Perhaps if the detective work done on the 100 year old hoax solves some of the enigmas of this hoax, Science can move on from the post-traumatic distrust that appears to have resulted from that 100 year old event”

It isn’t any distrust that has held back Bigfoot from being recognized by science. It is the abject lack of evidence that has reduced the topic to the level of buffoonish entertainment.

Best,

Let’s face it…Dawson’s fame (as a fraud and a huckster) is here.