Sweaty, I'd like to apologize for not getting to your post earlier but I've been preoccupied with my trip home to Japan. I have thought about our exchange regarding your question about reliable evidence for Bigfoot without Bigfoot. I answered that there could be no such evidence if Bigfoot did in fact not exist. I think to be accurate we should be saying "yes, but it's extremely unlikely."
For a certainty there are countless examples in the history of scientific inquiry where we have had a body of evidence supporting a particular hypothesis or theory that needed to be revised or discarded because of the discovery of new conflicting evidence. And, to be sure, that is not the type of situation we're discussing here regarding Bigfoot. It's important that we remember we're not going to get into arguing a negative. You should know better than to ask us what evidence we have that Bigfoot doesn't exist.
Let's cover the basics, shall we?
Proof vs Reliable Evidence of Bigfoot
1) Proof -
Proof regarding the existence of Bigfoot should be a no-brainer. What is required is a type specimen or a significant portion of one. In other words we need a body or enough of one that allows us to make a clear determination of what it is.
Why don't we have this? Why don't we have a type specimen for what is alleged to be one of the biggest land mammals in North America that we are told inhabits the four corners of the continent and between? For a creature that acts as brazen as we are often told it does this thing should have been stuffed and mounted many many times over.
2) Reliable Evidence -
Reliable evidence of Bigfoot, I'm sure you'll recall, is that which is very difficult to account for without the animal in fact existing. Let's be clear that very difficult does not mean impossible. Let's review what should constitute reliable evidence.
Let's imagine for a moment a scenario where we actually did in fact have documented examples of alleged Bigfoot tracks that displayed successive matching dermatoglyphics. Well, right off the bat trying to explain them as casting artifacts goes out the window. Now let's say that on top of that more than one person who could be considered an expert on primate dermatoglyphics examined the tracks and the findings of these experts were subjected to peer review, at the end of which we could satisfactorily rule out hoaxing and that the patterns in the tracks are inconsistent with those of humans.
Is that proof of Bigfoot? For some hopeful believers, maybe, but certainly not to those whose opinions matter. Not without a type specimen, as in some Bigfoot feet to look at. And yes, once we have had some Bigfoot feet to look at the spore become absolutely acceptable evidence for the presence of the creature. Not before.
How about some other things that would qualify as reliable evidence for Bigfoot? I know you haven't forgotten that video taken under the right circumstances would be great. A video of a Bigfoot sitting on a deer eating its liver or making poopy from the right people and things are looking up.
And speaking of poop, you as a PGF fan should be able to have some input on this. 'Fingers bend' Patty seems to have a very robust jaw and a pronounced sagittal crest reminiscent of a gorilla(unless you like Medrum's suggestion that it's just her do). Yes, I know, the skeptics call modified gorilla suit and Patty fans say upright ape. Let's spot the Patty fans. But wait... All that chewing equipment like a gorilla should point to a gorilla-like diet full of tough vegetation. You know, the type that you hang around a lot base your movements on its location. Anyway, I guess you'd end up pooping a lot like a gorilla too. Where's the poop, dude?
Or maybe they do eat a significant amount of meat, like salmon and deer an juicy rabbits. They must leave some very unique kills. Those would be great to look at.
And the hair! These shaggy beasts - we're in no shortage of claims of nests and tree breaks and dens. We shouldn't be having this paucity of hair to examine, one would think. I know they don't prove bigfoot exists and even if the DNA does come up as inconclusive some consistency in a sample base would be a great start. I know you wouldn't try a Henner reference, right?
So where does that leave us? Well since we have none of those things or anything else that qualifies as evidence that is very difficult to account for without a species of massive bipedal non-human primate currently existing in North America, it looks very much like Bigfoot can stay on the shelf between the Greys and chupacabra in the social construct/modern myth section of the woo emporium.
The final conclusion IMO is that in the case of proof and reliable evidence it is absolutely reasonable to expect to have both as Joycefoot is described to us. We can also consider the lack thereof to leave us with a claim on par with those regarding extraterrestrial spacecraft visiting Earth and ancient ruins on Mars, which, as most of us are well aware of by now, Sweaty is a believer of.
