I am to the point of throwing it ALL out & starting over....
Tracks... Film... Reports...
EVERYTHING !!! :icon_bang:

... Wipe the slate clean & let's start over with a FRESH, more CRITICAL , non-romantic, approach to any & all suspected NEW BF 'evidence'...
cuz, as far as I'm concerned, we don't have squat anyway.
Just AMBIGUITY , MIS-IDENTIFICATIONS & OUT-RIGHT LIES !!! :icon_bang:


I'm just sayin'.....

I'll be the first to admit that there's a lot of bull out there...... but I believe you'll have a problem convincing everyone that your way is THE way.. hehe. just saying

NO.......NO. Do not throw all the evidence away. Throw away the fakes and false reports. Those can be disposed of ............. but not the real stuff.

Gotta sort them out first then select the real stuff and keep the real stuff. That is evidence.

Now, who can tell you which is the real stuff????????????????? :new_whistle:

This is something that Saskwatcherand I agree on, and something I posted recently about on the AIBR forum.

We have no real evidence - nothing that would stand up in court - not one single sworn statement from an eye witness except Albert Ostman!!!

We must start again - build a book of evidence, verify facts, get written signed reports from the likes of Chilcutt, otherwise we will never, ever move this forward and into the universities.

What have we got to lose ?

IMO... ALL supposed BF evidence collected to date, is a 'house-of-cards'........
there are no 'pillars' of evidence.

We still talk of 'evidence' gathered by Freeman, Wallace, Crook, etc... as if there could be any validity
to anything that they had a hand in !

:icon_bang:

BAH !!! :new_thumbsdownsmileyanim:

I am in total agreement here.

This is indeed a historic day for sasquatch research. The boogyman of old has finally came under the intense scrutiny of a modern eye, and is now running out of places to hide in people's imagination on a scale never before seen. With the dawning of a new era which involves the full-scale availability of modern technology, most importantly the internet which allows for the ability to disseminate information on a grand scale in the blink of an eye, it seems as though we have finally reached enlightenment when it comes to almost everything that has been gained before us and called 'sasquatch evidence'. We should allow this new era a chance to take hold whenever possible; let's start by getting past all of the old myths and unsubstantiated campfire tales, moving foreward with a clean slate and a brightly-lit, modern outlook toward this dark old mystery.

Guys, yes i agree, but it's all talk no trouser! I'd love to collect evidence but unfortunately my geography dictates... there ain't no bigfoot round here!

So it's up to you guys, it's a big forum, to go out and collect said 'conclusive proof'. I can't wait for the day, for that definitive picture of Quatchy to appear right here

So...

Less talkin', more squatchin'!!

I am in complete and total agreement. This has been my stance for a while, but I had been labeled as being too skeptical and critical because of it. Welcome to the Dark Side.

This is certainly a worthy, and very timely, topic. Just prior to reading this thread, I wandered onto this 'essay' by Henry Franzoni (worth a read regardless of your opinion of him and/or the basis of the website) where he describes his present day (I assume) point-of-view on it all and how, basically, he 'lost his Bigfoot religion'. Yeah yeah I know he also has some 'other ideas' about the mystery too, but for the sake of this argument, his core reason and reasoning is about the same as that for this thread. Stated simply that 'there sure seems to be something out there, but alas, there's not'. At least not yet.

I'm down with it. Let's throw it all out. Start fresh! Nothing before March 6, 2006 counts anymore. The PGF? Bunk. Skookum cast? Bunk. Track casts? Bunk. Stories? Bunk. Pictures? Bunk. Films/videos? Bunk. Why not? Although I've never bought into the 'Bigfoot sounds' thing, GC's group's recent revelation of the 'Chehalis sounds' adds to the movement perfectly. In fact, maybe that incident should be the starting point. And on a negative note to boot. Anything and everything considered 'evidence' before is now assumed to be...ummm...unreliable? I can do it. Where do I sign up? Wait, I think I just did. :wink:

"Harry"

Viva la Revolution!

This is exciting! And very much needed, IMO.

Novel kinds of evidence may require novel kinds of analysis. You can't put a footprint track or a sound file into a gas chromatograph and get an unambiguous answer. You may have to actually create new methods of analysis.

Excellent post Volsquatch.

.....And William Roe.



I think that throwing out the PG film and the myriad of footprint casts simply because the "doubt squad" have nitpicked them nearly to death via Patterson's, Gimlin's, and Wallace's honor is a premature and unwise surrender.

Further, there are a number of sightings (complete with footprints) that also shouldn't be thrown out with the water muddied by naysayers, even if they aren't sworn.



What, do you think the "doubt squad" won't be encouraged by their successes in getting folks to disregard former evidence and allow you to take another 50 years to build another without their BS?

Do you think "the universities" are salvation, or that they will even bother with this issue before proof is provided?

Sorry. Naysayers don't discourage me. I give evidence it's due (positive or negative) unless and until new information becomes available which reverses or bolsters it.

To me, this is what bigfoot evidence has been like so far:

"This is a bigfoot sighting report/cast/sound recording/picture/film. How do I know it is real? So-and-so said so, " or "Because I saw it/heard it/smelled it."

That isn't good enough for me in most cases of my everyday life, why should it be with BF research? I need a little more documentation than just the word of Joe Schmoe.

With something as nebulous as evidence for Sasquatch, you either take things at face value or you aggressively investigate alternative hypotheses.

If you simply take things at face value, sometimes years later a resolution will come along and you think, gosh, I guess we should have done a better job of investigating that in the first place, eh?

I'd have to disagree. Throwing it all out would be just as over dramatic as accepting it all as real. Testing the past evidence allows those who are researching to be able to identify hoaxes in the future. Let's say some new evidence comes out, it seems to be real, and something really good comes out again, and that is revealed by careful studying to be fake, are you going to start all over again after that? We're building knowledge here, if you throw it all away you are throwing away what you have learned.

I'm very interesed in the Skookum cast when I read that Swindler studied it and identified primate dermals from a heel imprint on it. Last I looked I couldn't get his book on primate gross anatomy for less than $600 if I remember correctly, seems to be out of print now. That means something to me, and though I haven't been able to see the Skookum cast myself I'd love to, and if it was thrown away it'd be a shame.

And you never know when something that is undervalued could have a lot of value.

The Skookum cast is a good example of not taking something at face value and investigating alternative hypotheses. I've seen the work Owen Caddy and Rick Noll have done to analyze whether or not an elk could have made the impression. This is also an example of how novel techniques of analysis may have to be used to analyze novel evidence.

Personally, I find the Skookum cast probably the most compelling piece of physical evidence for the existence of Sasquatch.

Personally,
I do not believe in throwing things out, until they are proven to be false.
But having said that!
This is an age of change!
And in this age a much higher level of discernment has to be adopted.

Vocalizations, for example, have to be treated as just that! Vocalizations! For some one to claim that they are sasquatch vocalizations then they better have more then just their word.
The Sierra sounds comes readily to mind! Am I saying that the gents 'hocking' these CD's are liars? No! Just that they have far from proving their claims. And even if they are liars, it matters to me ..not a jot. I have never had faith in vocalizations, and I never will...unless I can see the creature making the sound it is just noise!

nests
prints
let alone habitat....!!!

Do not take anyone's word for these, if you are to have an opinion..then make an educated one..not one built of hearsay.
I know that this forum is 80% hearsay...but your understanding of what goes on here need not be.

A tougher stance will not come about in the so called Sasquatch Community..nor on Bigfootforums.com..but in each individual's mind.

It is already happening with the two new societies (for that is how I see them..) who are trying to raise the bar.
For those of you who wonder why the bar has to be raised..it is simple.....the position at which you last saw it, is not getting the job done! Just more..he says...she says...and their myriad supporters!

If you want to make a change then take it upon yourselves to be a bit tougher in the future about what you might have credence in. Make sure that there is more proof of a position then just the fact that someone expounds it!

Don't be quick to...believe, in anything! You are doing yourself no justice attacking this phenomena from that direction.
If it is real..the day will come when it is proven.
If it is not..then the same will happen.
Your wishing will not make it so...
You have to be just as excited to find proof to debunk something...as you do to make a claim that something is true. That is living and taking part in a phenomena!

But I am realistic enough to not expect great changes in thinking and approach.
I only expect it of myself
I wouldn't keep everything ; for the same reason that I do not embrace everything!
Because I think....they are immaterial to the mystery.
But I would try to be careful about what is thrown out. Never know where you are going to find a nugget.
In the meanwhile...do not take things so seriously that you get ulcers.
After all...the phenomen will carry on..whether you are dead or alive!;)

....well said GC. At least with forums such as this one, the level of knowledge is being raised far higher than it ever has been in the past.

With so many researchers out there now (even the armchair ones) we can expect, or at least hope, that the evidence collected will be of higher quality.

I see no need in throwing out anything. The Chehalis sounds were simply an ongoing investigation into what was thought to be ongoing sasquatch activity, in an area with a rich history of reports. None of my file reports over the last 27 years do I consider closed. When evidence is found in a certain case, a UPDATE is added to the file. Coyotes may have been responsible for what came to be known as the 'Chehalis Sounds', but they certainly are not the explanation for the many sighting reports and footprints findings in this area over the last 50 or so years. A certian type of recorded sound has been explained, but there are others which we still have no explanation, which may indeed have come from a sasquatch. The Kenny Cooper recordings from the Lummi reserve back in 1977 come to mind here. It's also the closest example of a recorded sound conected with a sighting of the creature it's self. Good research requries following up on findings which disprove involvment of the sasquatch as well as cases where the creature probably was involved. When cases in the past are found to be mistakes or hoaxes don't be discouraged. Learn from it and carry on with the quest.

Thomas Steenburg

I agree with Thomas 100%. I don't think it's necessary to discard anything, I just think more people need to look at evidence with a critical eye.

What would happen if we did "start from scratch"? Say that Mr. Joe Smith swears that he saw a sasquatch in the woods behind his house. He's heard the thing scream a time or two, and even has it recorded. We jump at the chance to get this thing on film or at least find it's tracks, but after getting to the property, we find nothing. Do we now label Mr. Smith a hoaxer and a liar because we didn't hear or see what he says he did, or do we take his statement and his recording and file them as evidence to possibly return to at a later time?

All I'm saying is, if we go so far as to wipe the slate clean of all reports, investigations, and evidence that's been gathered so far, and set too high of a standard for future evidence, we run the risk of having nothing to work with. And, I'm not saying that having bogus evidence is better than no evidence at all. I honestly think that looking at information with a critical eye, can be and should be done on all gathered evidence. I also believe that we have to allow room for the 'new'. None of us know with 100% certainty what this animal is all about, and I for one don't want to miss something important because I'm too busy thinking up reasons why something 'can't be'.

But, I also believe that most people who post here have the good sense to look at some of the crap that's brought here and yell :bsflag: . In my mind, there's a great big difference in say...reading a report and looking at it critically, and looking at a picture of a stump that's claimed to be a bf. We ALL need to learn to tell the difference and stick to our opinions.

Just my .0250.

Okay maybe I missed the point. But I still agree, let's throw ALL of it out. Skookum cast INCLUDED, compelling as it may be. I even included my own 'Holy Grail' in the PGF and it's certainly no less compelling than the Skookum cast.

I think I already knew, and can already tell from the responses that the notion of throwing it ALL out will never make sense to a respectable percentage of people. I understand that. I just took it as an all or nothing proposition. I'm positive this 'question' (thread) will evolve into a "what should be saved and what shouldn't" discussion. But really, why not just divorce it all and start fresh? None of it alone is all that worthy when all is said and done (of course the accumulated 'body of evidence' has some merit but even then it still hasn't proven but very little). And who really knows what direction it could go and what information could be gleaned if we actually did start fresh. What real world disadvantage would we really have considering not very much has been proven in the last 40 years of this hunt. I would not propose that we feign ignorance, just that we go seek with a clean slate. As the original thread question alludes, and it's been argued before many times, whatever it is we're doing, it's not working. I have to agree.

Again, IMHO. :wink:

"Harry"

I know that my opinion is not what it used to be around here but I have to agree with Thomas and Jay and others who have spoken before them.
While I carry a mostly skeptical attitude about most evidence I can not discard it all. To throw all of it out woud be as bad as accepting it all.
We are like elementary students in an art class...this is a mosaic, so to speak, that has many elements, some elements are better than others and some are crap. I would like to think that we are all looking to make a clearer picture no matter what the end result is. Some see it one way, others see it another, but one thing is true...there are only two end solutions, either sasquatch exists or it doesn't.
I have my opinion and it is mostly biased not by the bulk of reports, although I have no way of discarding them all, but by the sightings of people I think I truly trust, one of those is by a person who posted not too long before I did here, and by some track evidence that I find hard to explain just because of thier geographic location and circumstances surrounding thier discovery.
That being said I do agree that probably most of the "evidence" needs to be thrown out or at the very least reevaluated.

I've not seen the Skookum cast in person, nor was I present when tests were conducted to confirm or deny whether an elk may have been responsible for the impressions found that day. I am left with further questions that you may be able to answer:

- How specifically did they rule out elk?

More importantly,
- Was this fruit/mud hole experiment replicated with similar success?



What do you find most compelling about it? I'm still not convinced squatch is responsible, and need further evidence to convince me.

RayG

I am having like major deja'vu here. Sounds like the world echoeing "oh that bigfoot stuff was all proven to be false" after Ray Wallace's "confession", and again after some guy confessed he was in a gorilla suit for the PG film. Because something that had prevoiusly been attributed to an unknown animal is now probably a KNOWN animal making a sound that most were unfamiliar with doesnt mean that ALL sounds yet unidentified are from known animals.

Anyway, I would like to hear the reaction of folks who have seen a sas up close and personal. I want to know how one of them would feel about pitching all the evidence thus far and starting over.

Hi all. Newbie here. I am wondering if you have existing, written processes for evaluating evidence, ie a process for sightings, a different process for vocalizations, one for physical evidence, etc. Also, do you have members assigned to the different processes? Just curious how you process the info. Dave

I would think that "starting over" is a bit extreme. There is plenty of intriguing, compelling stuff that ought not be rejected wholesale. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But, hopefully, the Chehalis revelation, along with the work of tube and others, will cause some to reconsider what they have previously taken at face value. That is where this discussion is most valuable, I think.

Speaking of which, Albert Ostman was a deeply disturbed man.



Says you. :wink:

OKBFFan

I've seen Sas on two occasions in daylight, once from about 70 feet, and prior to that from about 250 yards through a 9X rifle scope.

There's no way I can pitch the evidence collected so far. I need it to try and understand just what it was I observed. If you compare this to a crime scene, you collect everything inside the crime scene tape. That does not mean that it is all usefull, or that it all is even applicable to the case. But ALL the evidence is collected and preserved for evaluation. Some things that seem important today may be found to be useless later on, but on the otherhand, there may be something that seems trivial now, but fits neatly into the puzzle as we draw near the solution of this puzzle.



On the other hand, if you compare this quest to a SODUKO or SUDOKU puzzle, often I have found it best to "RESET" the puzzle and start from scratch.

So I can understand and accept some peoples desire to start with a clean slate. To each his own, and best of luck to them.

MstrOCraft

Just bear with me.

Is the point of gathering "bigfoot evidence" a.) to increase one's chance of knowing where to find one; or b.) to make the phenomenon more credible in the eyes of the Scientific Establishment?

or...

c) to impress chicks?

Tom,

Refresh my memory. Is he the Indian policeman who had the mike in his car and got some sounds that way? I heard them on an old old documentary (20 plus years ago).

I had to drag out an old VHS tape to confirm this, but yep, Lyndon, that's the guy.

If everyone should all start again from scratch, then should they begin with just one area (PNW and Canada) and forget about bothering with anywhere else in North America until GOOD evidence presents itself???

Just checking to see how far this should be taken. :laugh:




Cheers man. I well remember the sounds. They did sound weird....and as I recal I think they were heard back at the police station or whatnot. Something like that anyway.

This is the key to it, and what I have been talking about for some time.

I'm not talking about disregarding everything, but lets start with a fresh piece of paper, and re-evaluate *everything* - scientifically and methodically.

Every piece of video/film - high quality original tapes must be examined in future - if the original tape is not available, then it must be discounted.

Every photo must be examined - if a new, digital photo is taken, then it must be submitted in it's original form on the media card - not a processed version, and submitted in the first instance to a forensics lab. The forensic examiner, must then produce a signed report.

Every plaster cast - where was it found, who by, when etc. Dermal ridges? they must be examined properly by other latent fingerprint experts - those experts MUST produce signed and sworn reports on their finding.

Every sound recording - re-evaluation by real, independent experts in wildlife sounds

Every sighting report of worth - is the witness prepared to sign a sworn statement of fact? If not, then throw it out - it is worthless.

Every hair sample - examined by experts in hair - I know two - one in Denmark, one in Australia - both of which have been used to send suspected orang-pendek hair to, and have identified them as a rare breed of cat. Surely this has to be better than comparing pictures of hair to a BFRO CD?



This is how you build evidence - real evidence - you stick your neck out and swear to tell the truth on the bible, koran, whatever - if people aren't prepared to, then they should be discounted.

But I am not talking about disregarding all old evidence - I'm talking about re-evaluating it like a cold case file - start from scratch - if it makes the grade, it goes in the book of evidence - if it doesn't, it gets the label of 'unused material'


It is that simple.

Yes, YES!! :appl:

OKBFFan wrote:

Me too.
Not only is there evidence of Bigfoot's existance (and plenty of it)...but for those who have seen one, there is PROOF.

I don't understand the concept of "throwing out the evidence" anyway. What are we supposed to do...stop watching the PG film, MD video, LMS, stop reading reported sightings...stop THINKING??????
I like watching and analyzing videos that have a chance of being legit.
The whole point of this board is for people around the country to discuss :argue: the evidence intelligently, to try to determine the probability of Bigfoot's existance.

Throw out the Skookum Cast? It's circa 300 lbs. Would the garbage men pick it up?

Seriously, much of the evidence is very good, even if somewhat old. Science will be convinced by a body and I'll bet some sceptics won't even accept that. They'd claim it's genetically engineered or an anomaly.

To those who have really looked into it, there's no question of their existance. It's a matter of "Where do we go from here?"

This, and similar boards, serve a social function by getting like-minded people in touch with each other. They're a chance for people to correct some of the media's skewed reporting. The debates are good mental exercise.

If we throw out all the evidence what would we talk about? Sports? Recipes?

LAL, we are not talking about 'throwing out the evbidence' - read my posts on the subject - I'm talking about a methodical, scientific and painstaking re-evaluation of all the so-called evidence - the PGF, witness reports, plaster casts, photos -everything. We keep in what passes the tests (which haven't been established yet of course), and disgard the rest.

Why have thousands of sighting reports, if only a dozen will sign sworn statements and undergo independent polygraph tests? I'd rather have those dozen reports that will than a thousand that don't.


I am beginning to realise that there are two types of people - those who understand the benefit of re-evaluating evidence and presenting it correctly, and those who think that has already been done because they understand it.

This is by no means meant as a political statement, and it not to be taken any further than this, but by comparison, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who believe the US government deliberately destroyed the WTC have done a far, far better job of presenting their evidence, than we have, and they still can't get anyone to take them seriously.


Anyone who thinks we have done enough to convince science, the media or the general population that there is are creatures in the North American forests known as Sasquatch is deluding themselves.

Well I don't think that but I do feel that there is a substantial number amongst the general public, the media and even science that accepts the 'possibilty' of sasquatch existing, based on all the evidence that has been gathered these past 50 years. That's got to count for something. Very few people that I know flat out REFUSE to accept the idea of bigfoot.

Yes - it's like having one person on a jury who thinks you are innocent when the Judge has said he will accept a majority verdict - you're still going to hang!



Blackdog once wrote "If we want to be taken seriously we have to police ourselves or 'they' will do it for us." - I'd like to re-word that and say that if we don't police our evidence, no-one else will do it for us.

:yeahthat:

Much of the old evidence has been subjected to much scrutiny. The original PGF was examined and found not to have been tampered with. There are reports (somewhere) of hair not being matched to any known mammal or identified as "unknown primate."

I would like to see a section on BFF on these reports; some can be found online, most can't. (Then I could e-mail them to a sceptical friend instead of saying, "Well, Roger Knights says.............")

Reports written by who? Verified by who?





Done!

Find those reports, and we will include them in the 'Book of Evidence' section under 'Independent Research & Data Analysis', provided they meet the required criteria.

I will start a topic there to dicuss criteria for inclusion in the BOE.

Agreed, and at the risk of sounding a bit over the top, this may well be the cause of some past disagreements. I will be the first to admit there is a lot of BS out there (Current bulletmaker espisode is ample proof of that, and there doesnt seem to be any shortage of blobsquatches either), but to just throw out everything is just too over the top. Go back through it, and categorize it as questionable or obvious bullpuckey, fine. But starting over is the same logic to me as pointlessly being a fan of macintosh despite the fact they rewrote their old OS from scratch and then switch hardware platforms. The relevance of the analogy is that they are all gangbusters for whats happening while ignoring the fact that they have essentially admitted defeat in terms of their original ideals.

Theres plenty of BS and many of us have already throw it out mentally, but despite the age of the Patterson film for example, I am still to this day not remotely convinced it\'s a fake. It simply hasn\'t been proven to be. The obvious challenge is to look forward and get something as compelling NOW without abandoning the entire cause. If you throw out everything to date, then you might just as well declare it doesnt exist and go home.

just my two cents.




No offense friend, but I completely disagree with you. Throwing it all out defeats the purpose. I thinking this line of discussion is healthy debate, and peer review of EVERYTHING is a good thing, but to chuck it defetas the purpose of trying at all.




BD, your opinion is as good as anyone else\'s around here and honestly that was a fine analogy, this coming from a former art major.

Is no-one listening? There is a big difference between 'throwing it all out', and 're-evaluating everything'

I described treating everything as a cold case file - take every single piece of evidence, and start again - unless there is already solid, reliable examination from reliable experts, everything should be re-examined, and then re-evaluated.

Some will say we are doing just fine as we are - there is no need to re-evaluate - they will talk about the PGF, and the Skookum Cast - well my friends, people have been working on proving this case to the skeptical public for more than fifty years without success - do you think we are really doing that well?

Go and ask your work colleagues, people down your street "Do you bleive Bigfoot really exists?" What response do you think you might get?

One in twenty? One in ten? if we are lucky, one in five?

Did you know, that in a poll taken a few years ago one in eight Americans believed that they had been abducted by aliens.

One in eight!!!


That is what we have to compete with my friends

Still think we are doing okay with what we have got so far?


I might sound like I'm turning into one of the so-called meanieheads here, and if I am, then so be it, but I spend every moment of my working life dealing with real evidence, in real civil and criminal cases - very little of what I have seen in the world of bigfoot would be believed by a jury in the way that it is presented. In fact, it wouldn't even get as far as a court room it is presented so poorly.

Show a judge an 'expert' report on latent fingerprints, and he will want it verified.

Have we actually seen a report from Jimmy Chilcut? I haven't - all I have is hearsay and verbal testimoney from him. I want to see his contemporaneous notes, his reports, his signature, and nothing less.






(Sorry Jimmy if you are reading this - you were the best example I could think of - please email a copy of your report to paul@bigfootforums.com if you have prepared one.)

in other words... keep the good fake reports?

Very good points by all!
And I must say I can see change happening. Slowly, but steadily...even in the few years that I have been on this forum, or even involved in Squatchdom.
People are asking themselves tough questions..and the questions are getting tougher each year.
Stricter levels of acceptance is something which many people are already adopting in their research.
All negativity stems from frustration at no results.
I feel it is going to happen when it happens..either sasquatch will be proven, or disproven. Maybe not on our preferred timetable..but it will happen.
For those of you who have seen one..or think they have seen one...go in peace!
Those of you who have not....maybe you were not meant to know all things about this earth.
Don't take it personally.
..they will still be talking Squatch long after we are no longer here.

But a higher level of integrity in your dealings on this subject will show that you have taken yourself and your interest seriously. And that you think it is a worthwhile pursuit.. Running a tighter ship will probably be good for your soul..whatever conclusions you draw from your research.

Squatch has been around many years..( in spite of us..) a massive amount of time and energy has been spent by many people trying to disprove him..to no avail!
So should proving him be any less arduous?

Keep what you think might be evidence..but as you shuffle through your bag of evidence ask yourself why you think that each item might be important. You can't hit the reset button on all of the accumulated knowledge of sasquatch for the past 200 years....!
But you sure can hit the reset button on your own beliefs and standards of evidence....any time you feel like it...and as often as you want. I have!
After all...it is your game! :wink:

No, we most definitely should not just chuck away what we have, in the first place it would be a waste of all those years collecting the data, Secondly it's useful as a sort of control for all the new evidence that will come forward.

Look at it this way, would you throw out any casts taken in the Bluff Creek area in the late 60's? No, because you know a possible hoaxer was in the area at the time so those casts can be compared to others to see whether they are fake or not.

The new thread idea for a "book of evidence" was a great idea Paul.

All three reasons. Ranked (IMO):

1) "to make the phenomenon more credible in the eyes of the Scientific Establishment" (so that they will help accomplish goal #2)

2) "to increase one's chance of knowing where to find one" (so that we can finally study them and learn)

3) "to impress chicks" (and everybody else, so that everybody can participate in the learning to be done after goal #2 is accomplished)



There's the word I'm looking for: "Disregard"

We can't "throw evidence out". Misidentifications, blobs, hoaxes, and outright lies have been placed into the public record along with the valid encounters. That's just the way it is. I'd love to "erase" the garbage, or even have the authority to "gather the wheat into the barn and burn the chaff", but I can only do that in my own mind.

But I can "regard" the evidence as I please.

Within the "sasquatch community" there is a healthy number of sub-groups (AIBR, SRI, WCS, TBRC, etc.) who have various affiliations, investigatory standards, evidence standards, etc. They (and the individuals that make them up) evaluate evidence and engage in activities as they please.

In other words, evidence is already evaluated and activities are undertaken in a number of different ways.

I evaluate evidence in my own way just for me. I like to read about the opinions of others (like here on this forum) so I can gather different outlooks on evidence, but I try not to allow the naysayers, the romantics, or the hoaxers to lead me through the phenomenon.

Thanks for actually responding.

But do you think that goal #1 is even possible, no matter HOW good the supposed evidence might be? I'm still under the impression that the only evidence that Science would consider good enough is a corpse. And, if and when that's produced, all of this will be a moot point, anyway.

You'd have to convince Congress to make BF hoaxing a Federal offense first (punishable with an extended stay at Club Fed) or we'll be right back where we are in no time at all. Seriously, whether we start over or not, I'm all for lobbying for the anti-hoaxing law... Yes, I think I'll start a petition. Wonder how many signatures I'll need to get...?