Sweaty, you have made yet another very bad, very flawed, poorly thought argument.There is a basic principle which applies to how much weight an eyewitness testimony carries.
Here is an explanation, from this article...
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/extraproof.html
The weight that a person's eyewitness testimony holds is directly related to how plausible the claim is....before (a priori )the claim is investigated. Or....how plausible, or outrageous the claim is, using simple common knowledge and common sense.
For example....if someone says they saw a T-Rex walking through the woods, then their testimony holds NO weight, because we know, before (a priori) investigating the matter, that that is an impossibility.
If that same person says they saw someone steal a car, their testimony can hold a good deal of weight, because we know...a priori...that claim is a very plausible one.
The tricky thing to figure out....and agree on....is the "a priori plausibility" of claims which are in-between those two extreme examples.
Like, the "a priori plausibility" of "Bigfoot's existence".
Is it really so "outlandish" a thing, to think....before investigating...that such a creature could exist, somewhere on this planet?
It certainly is more outlandish to think that it could live in a suburb of Chicago, than out in the wilderness of the Pacific Northwest.
It's an important part of 'weighing' a person's testimony, because the extent to which it's either plausible, or implausible, is a major determining factor in applying a certain weight to someone's claim to have seen a Bigfoot.
We know that upright-walking primates do exist......and we know that Giganto did exist, and it fits the basic description of Bigfoot, with the possible exception (and the only one, btw.) of the 'upright posture'.
I, personally, don't see any reason why Bigfoot's existence should be considered an "outrageous", or "highly implausible" claim...in certain parts of N. America.
Are tree octopi smarter than the Rock Nest Monster and more importantly, do they taste as good as regular octopus?
What's the matter with you? Didn't you actually read my post? I already explained explicitly what I think is highly improbable. Read that post again. I'm not coddling feeble comprehension.Thanks for your near-worthless (2 cents) opinion, kitty.
What makes it so "highly improbable"....is it that you don't think millions of acres of wilderness are enough for a small population of them to live in?
R-e-a-d t-h-e p-o-s-t, d-u-d-e. I already explained a plausible scenario and named a place for it. Besides, it's pointless to try and imagine a place where bigfoot could live undetected because that's not the phenomenom. We're talking about an 8ft giant bipedal primate being reported all over North America often in human inhabited areas. You're embarrassingly contradicting yourself.
stepped out of it. Now THAT one I believed! 
Evasion noted. Interesting. So you submit what you believe to be strong evidence of bigfoot and you submit what you believe to be strong evidence of UFO's. Many reports draw a connection between both and yet you offer nothing but jokes when asked for your opinion on that claimed connection. Why so flippant? Do you find it to be implausible?I once read a report where a flying saucer landed...and an Alien, a Bigfoot, and Elvis
Here's another of Marx "training" the dogs to hunt Bigfoot for the expedition Green and Dahinden are on. The legs in the background are those of the boss, millionaire Tom Slick.
Many years later after Patterson and DeAtley made so much money on their film tour, Marx was fortunate enough to follow up with the same kind of scheme. Finding tracks of and filming a crippled beast. He did get his film distributed and he and his wife Peggy made a nice bundle I'm sure.
It's a Phil Spector original.
Statement of fact based on...?
This really shouldn't be too difficult. Let's try again.
I'm interested in the 'gone' part of this statement of fact. As in 'once was there'.