Some of you should really work on the manners. I'm sure you've gone over this before, but it doesn't mean you should behave poorly. Patience is a virtue. This thread alone is 147 pages long at the moment, that takes time.
Never mind the 147 pages of failure to support the claim here, consider that the Bigfoot hunting game has taken forever so far, and not a single piece of objective evidence has ever been presented. Forever is a pretty long time. Patience is not only a virtue, it's an absolute requirement when the thing you want to prove will take that long.
Of the folks in "Hollywood FX", please name three that have said it is definitively a suit and that it could have been done in 1967. And I'm not talking about that costume shop guy that can't even make a decent looking gorilla suit. I'm not saying the PGF is real, by the way. I honestly don't know. As for the gait, a compliant gait is not uncommon in heavy people. That isn't enough to say anything. The keys would have to come from anatomy, not just the walk.
No. The keys would come from demonstrating that the alleged creature is a real live actual biological non-human entity. And it's not going to come from watching a film again... and again... and again. The Bigfoot hobbyists have been playing that suit/not-a-suit game for decades now. It's just a way for them to continue to indulge their fantasy.
You are correct in that hair morphology isn't an exact science. That's why I stated that it can normally get you the genus, if not the species. By using that, it can eliminate a lot of the BS and narrow things down to better possibilities. Once that is done, DNA testing can begin for final identification. There aren't that many hair samples out there that can even stand up to the hair morphology test for a primate. If they do, wouldn't it be prudent to look at them? That's really all I'm saying.
So look at them already. Nothing's stopping you. It looks like what you're suggesting here is that Bigfoot "researchers" are a bunch of incompetent bumbling scientist-wannabe's. Tell
them how to prove their fantasy is real. You don't have to tell the critical thinkers.
Saying that scientists don't use anecdotal evidence is an absolute falsehood. I've worked with field biologists on many occasions. The use of anecdotal evidence and working with the public is extremely common in wildlife science and many other branches.
And never once have any tales of the alleged Bigfoot resulted in the discovery of an actual living breathing creature. Or bones. Or scat. Or objectively real tracks. Or a clear trail-cam photo or video. When it comes to demonstrating the existence of Bigfoot, all that anecdotal "evidence" has resulted in, well, failure. Doesn't that tell you anything?
Saying that there are no tracks with dermal ridges not shown to be casting artifacts is also incorrect. There aren't many, but there are several documented cases of this, which were verified by fingerprint experts. One of which, I believe, is even purported to have documented sweat glands. You've obviously not studied any kind of tracks, or you would know that they aren't useless by any stretch of the imagination. Its called ichnology. I've spent a lot of time casting and studying tracks of the animals I trapped over the years. There is a lot to learn by looking at casts.
And what have we learned by looking at alleged Bigfoot paw prints? We have learned that humans very often make fake footprint casts. But as far as wildlife research, apparently we've learned nothing, since none of those casts objectively demonstrate that Bigfoot exists.
Eye witness accounts are definitely notoriously inaccurate. That's why I stated that 90-95% of them have to be completely disregarded. That doesn't explain why people that are trained observers and very familiar with local wildlife report seeing an animal fitting that description. Once again, you're dismissing everything based on partial assessment.
That's the same nonsense the "UFO = alien craft" use to bolster their belief. How do you objectively disregard 90% to 95% of eyewitness accounts? Here's how. You do it the same way the alien believers do. You accept the exciting ones, the ones that aren't immediately determined to be obvious mistakes and lies. You shift the burden of proof and accept the ones that smarter, more critically thinking people can't prove are wrong.
And "trained observers"? Really? That's so stale it's got mold growing on it. It's special pleading. Put it away.
The fact stands that "scientists" dismiss any possible evidence without even reviewing it. So, you can't say that scientists have tested the evidence and deemed it fake. That's simply not true in the vast majority of cases. It doesn't seem like there is as much interest in reviewing evidence, be it good or bad, as there is in saying it is useless. That's not skepticism. I get the whole "turd in the punch bowl" concept. That is fine in public arenas, but is not acceptable by scientific standards. It just seems that standards should not be allowed to slip on either side of the discussion.
Do not blame the scientists for your own failure to properly research the matter and to properly assemble and present the alleged evidence. The standards of objective science exist for a reason. On the skeptical side of the discussion those standards are being adhered to pretty rigorously. That's why we can say with confidence that no objective evidence has ever been presented to support the claim that Bigfoot exists. It's on the believers' side of the discussion that all the slipping is occurring.
