Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
First, "Yawn" is not a rebuttal of any of the points I brought up. If you can't refute them, simply say so. It saves everyone time.
Second, chaning your analogy to bears doesn't help. THose little bears are a seperate species from the big bears. The brown bears are a seperate species fromt eh white bears, and both are seperate species from the black bears. So again, now you're not just putting forth the idea of an undetected, breeding population of primates...but of multiple undetected, breeding populations which have maintained their seperation over extended times, all the while staying completely hidden from humanity while living essentially in it's shadow, and with counter-forensic skills that would be the envy of any season-long villian on a TV crime show.
And considering that the variations for bigfeets all seem to be seen in the same areas, that doesn't fly. If you have polar bears wandering around with black bears and sun bears in the same habitats, then you might have a point. But this just goes even further to show that you don't really understand what you're asking us to accept. You aren't approaching it scientifically or logically. You responded to someone else about "It doesn't exist until certain people give you permission to accept it". You're positing it's existence just because some people have told you so. The posters here, myself included, have devled into some of this so-called evidence and research. The asking for a scientific paper is not because we need to be told to accept it, but because scientific papers are written with the details, so a claim can be properly evaluated. They should include all the raw data, experimental techniques, and the reasoning chain for certain interpretations of data (such as the "dermal ridges" you claimed earlier).
I used to have a signature line about science being like car safety testing. The goal if a sicentist isn't to prove his idea true...it's to try and disprove it. Much like vehicle tests aren't desinged to coddle or protect the car, but to hit with everything you can think of and see if and how it breaks. A hypothesis must be submitted to this type of intense scrutiny before anyone should accept it; we don't see that with bigfoot. Physical evidence is generally poorly controlled, with questionable chains of custody and histories for samples. Raw data is rarely given, mostly what's presented is the conclusions rather than the data and reasoning that led to them. To go back to the analogy, the footers are giving us the results of the crash tests, but won't show us the videos or let us do the tests ourselves.
The only person looking for permission to accept the idea are those that buy into the footer myth based on a few stories and the say-so of a few people who make money from them via books and 'foot hunts. ANything stated in the foot community is accepted as truth, with little scrutiny. Those of us trying to look for the reality behind the statements are not waiting for permission to accept it. We're trying to find reasons why it should be accepted. If those reasons are lacking, as is so far the case, then it doesn't fly.
