Give us your best shot?..................You start up a conversation with a couple about Bigfoot...and they ask, how could such a huge animal go undetected for so long. No evidence at all....
What have you got beyond generalisations....What practical explanation can you offer this couple that will sound realistic.......

It hasn't gone "undetected".

Numerous eye-witness accounts.

Numerous instances of track evidence.

Maybe undiscovered, but I would agree detection may have occurred.

Nah, slabdog....not good enough mate, for Mr&Mrs Joe Average....why no physical evidence at all.....ZIP...ZILCH...NUMERO UNO.....something so big........you gotta give them more than that?

You to bipedalist.....explain how to this couple.....win them with your explanation....your losing me and I believe in the bugger!!!!

Tell 'em that until someone puts up enough serious money and effort to solve it...it will probably not be officially"detected".

In the meantime, show them some of the more convincing track evidence...such as...



or...





just don't show them..



or...

and for heavens sake...please don't show them...



or..



but you might show them...



not so much the one on the left...or the one one the right...but rather the one in the middle

Hi

Ok i felt like writing a little, This is not all i think about BF but some of the reasons i think he could make it ,



Knock Knock !! Hello, Hi Mrs: Ryan it is Tim i am here to look at the John Deere gator, "O " Hi Tim i'll be right out the gator is behind the barn you can't miss it, Wow ! Mrs.. Ryan how did that tree get stuck into the hood like that, We don't know and just can't figure it out do you have any ideas,

Hum i sure do Mrs. Ryan, It looks like a Bigfoot or Sasquatch has visited your home recently, Tim ! you have to be kidding there are no Bigfoot and certainly not in our area, How would one get here and not be seen,

Well : Please let me try to explain a little, BF is a very large animal but with some special skills that seem to be highly specialized, He has the ability to go undetected using stealth and a nocturnal life style in many cases, He has a wide and varied diet with that consists of many types of plants and animals, He requires only the basics to survive and can use both water and high terrain to migrate around and stay relatively undetected,

Bigfoot is a most unusual animal in many ways, He seems to have the ability to detect human presents and react in such a way as to remain somewhat undetected but cause enough confusion for an easy escape if necessary,

There are not many Bigfoot and there range is very large, Finding one is very difficult but has been done and continues to happen often, Bigfoot has the perfect disguise, He looks similar to a bear or Elk and at times a human, His uncanny human like appearance has most likely kept him from being shot or hunted for the most part, He is the animal of the forest with an arsenal of sounds, stealth, speed, diversity and logic

Peace
Tim

Is this summary of the BF and his 'skills' from personal observation? If not how would you react to Mrs Ryan's obvious next question...."Well how do you know all this young man?" or not being negative here but what if she said "Huh, I would have thought it blowed out of that tree there with the broken top during that storm last night, now get out of my yard before I spray you with pepper spray!". This example although just an imaginative scenario to answer the question in the thread, is a common theme on this and other BF related threads. Rather than using collaborating evidence ( if it is available) and evaluating the 'BF proof' some BF hunters offer as legitimate research, pictures of rock piles, various configurations of dead sticks, and wind blown forest litter as genuine indicators that a BF type animal is responsible. When another more plausible answer is suggested or some supporting evidence is asked for, the BF blinders come out and you're either ignored or attacked as a skeptic.

If you are a BF believer and hang out with other BF pals, this sort of 'evidence ' might be enough. But the general public and modern science is going to roll their eyes and give a wide berth. That looks like one of the biggest problems with this whole BF thing, there is more than likely some more credible BF evidence floating around out here, but it is deeply buried within these type of websites, overwhelmed by the thousands of posts of BF enthusiasts walking around taking stick formation pictures in their backyard and snapping photos out of their car windows and spending hours staring at them trying to find a BF peeking out of the shadows. To my knowledge, these sort of non-proffesional research methods and the enthusiasm over some of the indistinct reports generated is unprecedented in any of the other investigation groups involved in the fringe subjects such as ghosts, ufos, mothman, etc. It is bizzare to me when so many are willing to accept this as legitimate within the ranks of BFdom.

So? Who gives a rip if Mr. & Mrs. Joe Average is satisfied or not?:

Hunster....the problem you have is what you are describing was over 100years ago when many areas on the planet were undiscovered....nowadays its a harder speel to sell...its 2008...its the USA....its the 300million people who share the continent......you cannot keep regurgitating the same OLD examples.......it just does not cut-it anymore and its just highlights how desperate we are getting in trying to explain why no evidence of such a giant.........Small numbers, yes, but small numbers being probably 2000 minimum to sustain a population without inbreeding...thats alot of Bigfoot wandering round undetected, leaving no trace except footprints that (slabdog) all vary in shape and size, far more than human footprints do....suggesting maybe they are all FAKE or at least a good number of them are....

Redratsnake...my point of this topic is trying to explain it to the Average Joe....boogerbottom is correct, what we/you are saying is pure guesswork...none of us know its habits.....and this is the guts of what I am asking....What do we know about Bigfoot....not conjecture or imaginative theories........and is what we know of Bigfoot any more than ghosts, mothman, goblins and UFOs etc....

Hi

You ask more than i can detail, I have never seen or encountered any type of BF activity, My story was taken from real experiences with a person i know and have talked to about many subjects over the yrs ( never BF ) Thats the way i would explain it if i needed too, Thats what the thread asked, I threw out a few possibles that i believe are necessary to survive, I am pretty sure there is something out there and it's good enough for me,


Peace
Tim

So uhh... Rod buddy.

My answer still not good enough for ya or was that your point all along.... that no answer is yet good enough?



I think things might be a little easier to help explain and visualize to Mr and Mrs. Joe Average when Dr. Meldrum gets his track cast data base up and running....I hope.

Interesting question Rod, but rather difficult to answer without some parameters. There is a broad spectrum of Mr. and Mrs. Joe Averages out there. I know that when I talk to people, regardless of the subject, I feel them out a little bit just to get an idea of their perspectives on similar subjects. If the opportunity arises for me to share my thoughts, I will, but I usually won't jump in with both feet.

My next door neighbors, who are really good friends, know that I'm into BF. The husband is totally closed to the subject so I just don't bring it up. His wife on the other hand is open to the idea so I'll throw out little tid-bits. Not too much but just enough to keep her from thinking I'm crazy.

You have to choose your battles. Some folks want life to fit into nice neat little "boxes" that they feel they can understand while others realize that some things in life just don't fit into those boxes. I like Dr. Meldrums take that there is enough evidence to warrant further investigation- doesn't fit into any known box but is worthy of perhaps making a new box.

I also like to use analogies. 10 or 15 years ago the local big timber company came under a lot of scrutiny in the press around here for their practice of clearcutting. Emotions ran high in the community. When I came across someone who was particularly impassioned I would ask them where the nearest clearcut to town was. They usually couldn't answer that. I'd then ask them if they'd ever even seen a clearcut. They usually answered "no". At this point they'd answered themselves into a corner and now I had a chance to provide information rather than just feelings. How big of a problem can something be if you know nothing about the problem?

Same thing goes with BF. With the right forethought, you can usually get open minded people to come to the same conclusion that Meldrum did. And after all, that's all we've got.

Have fun, Norcal

What slabdog said.

Some Mr and Mrs will NEVER open their minds to this topic. Never. Some are just to close minded, ignorant, or whatever. Show them a great cast. Fake. That can be faked, they will say. It is an arrogant stance, but there are arrogant people out there.

Have Bigfoot hold hostage a town or kidnap contemporay kids or kill a human or even be deemed human and a lot more effort would come about.

And don't forget some people are just here to push other peoples buttons because they feel their opinions are above everyone else's.

Tim, you just made me realize something, and I hope I haven't sounded critical or harsh when we have responded to each others postings over the last few weeks. I probably have and I am sorry, as you just opened my eyes up. For some reason, I assumed that this entire forum was dedicated to proving to the world that the BF does indeed exists. Perhaps some may have this in mind to some degree or another, even myself a skeptic, would certainly be overjoyed to accidentally stumble across a recently deceased BF. Not only would I be reconized the world over and probably be bff with folks like Dr Meldrum and Bill Green, but I wouldn't have any qualms about accepting the monetary benefit that would surely follow such a discovery. Dang, I'd probably charge $5 just for somebody to call me on the phone and listen to "the man that discovered sasquatch" breath over the line for a few minutes. Talking about it would be a lot more, like phone sex prices or something!

But as I said, and as you posted, this isn't all about showing the world the truth. It's more about sharing with fellow BF enthusiasts your own thoughts and feelings about the BF. I am not sorry when I ask a hard question or pick apart a post of someone publically offering up a piece of evidence or a conjecture as proof positive for BF and expecting everyone to take it to the bank. And these types of BFers are easy to spot and quite adamant about their claims. On the other hand you are "pretty sure" that BF is real (based on all the evidence over the years?) and your posting that "it's good enough for me" is enlightening to the fact that the BFF isn't just a place to come and argue does he or doesn't.

Well Tim, I hate to admit it we are probably more alike in our thinking than either of us thought, as I too am pretty sure that something is going on out there (just to many reports by legitimate people and the PGF film, still a classic) and although it is not quite "good enough" for me to go ahead and concede that a BF running around out there somewhere, it was enough to get me involved in this forum and maniacally hurring home from dr's appts and rehab to check the latest postings.

I really need to mellow out, really! As of yesterday I am now on daily blood pressure medicine and the only thing I have done the last 30 days since my surgery is lay around the house and watch Judge Judy and read this forum. I may have to give up the judge cause she gets me pretty tore up sometimes (I like her style and sassiness) and see if my BP will go back down?

A big problem now days is that so many people just have no clue at all what can and can not be real as far as out in the woods. 99% of Americans I would say have never been out in the woods the real woods I mean not some park. And even the ones that do chances are they never stray far from a trail at all.
I have a friend that is a back packer and has went on some long trips back packing. He even done a lot of the Appalachian Trail yet he never goes off the trails he is hiking. He has never seen a bear or large cat (Bob cat or panther) And has only seen a very few deer in his hiking.

The people I am talking about for the most part just can not understand how any animal no matter how big it is could still be listed as a unknown animal in the US. They think every place in the US is visited by humans all the time and no more real wilds are left. They can look at things like Google earth and other things and say see them woods are not all that big. They are the same people that search and rescue have to look for if they step 2 steps off a trail.

Bigfoot has not remained undetected at all from humans. People have sightings just about every day. Now undetected and having proof they are real is way different things. This can easily go into a different subject such as kill or no kill as a Body is the only thing that will give 100% proof. Pictures, Video even DNA will never do that only a body will. You could take a picture of someone videoing someone taking a DNA sample and people will still say it is faked. DNA of a unknown animal is just that a unknown AKA contaminated sample most times the results will say. If it is any where close to human DNA they will say a human contaminated it. If it is any way related to anything else again it will be contaminated or someone trying to fake something. The only way to prove Bigfoot is real is to have a body so they can take DNA right there and have a body to compare it to.

That argument is fatally flawed and so it isn't one I would engage in. They haven't gone undetected. They haven't even gone undocumented (by laymen). The disconnect is between the knowledge of the local populace or individuals and the scientific world. It is the disconnect that has to be remedied.

This is a part of the BF thing I can't grasp. All this proposed evidence and so many legitimate sightings? All the thousands of people on the www, just like this forum claiming to have had the BF experience to one degree or another, a few even "co-habitating" with the BF? You don't have to hike ten miles deep into the wilderness to spot a BF anymore, if you believe your fellow BF enthusiasts and most recent reports, BF has moved alot closer to town these days.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this whole thing and I haven't a clue. If even a small percentage of the BF information currently circulating on the www has just a bit of truth to it, then how can this not warrant some further, serious and more proffesional research. I have seen that there are some less than truthful and/or very imaginative people involved in this pursuit. And the admins, mods and long time members of this forum and some others are willing go out of their way to make a newcomer most unwelcome or outright ban one if he in some way or another is suspected of not toeing the line and accepting their particular line of thinking and refraining from posting anything that might seriously upset their clique or one of the regular posters, regardless of the validity of the post. Is some outlandish claims, a few outright hoaxes and the closemindedness of the long term BFers, enough to now supress any further meaningful research at all as to the possibility of BF's existence all together?

I hate to say it and don't mind the heat, but I guarantee you that if the BF really exists and is one day, by whatever means, proved publically to exist, it will not be by one the so-called BF researchers who populate these www sites. It is going to take some fresh ideas and innovative thinking (a couple of things that get shot down real quick around this forum and others) along with some common sense to wade through all crap that is currently accepted as fact just because it is supported or theorized by one of the longtime forum BFers or veterans of the study of BF.

Let's see now how long have the good ol' boys of BF been debating that PGF clip? How about the track casts, anything setting the world on fire along those lines? The body imprint sure died out and was a stretch to begin with. The search for BF, even with so many thousands interested and involved, more than ever at any time, some utilising the latest in high tech equipment, and the BF is deader than the day before Patterson saddled his horse for a ride thru that creek bed in California. This is not my speculation, it is fact. When was the last time any meaningful evidence or a legitimate, undisputable, sighting was made that at least most of the BFers would agree on?

Maybe it is time to rethink the entire process and get back to really finding bf rather than wasting hours on end arguing over whether or not there is baby BFs in the shadows of some blurry photograph or whether or not BF are throwing lizards sown some lady's chimney in NC. I would go back to square one and start in the PNW and pack a couple of weeks worth of supplies myself for that is where the last shred of credible evidence I have seen, was last spotted, if I firmly believed in my heart that the BF existed I would borrow the money if I had to and leave tomorrow. If I actually saw one, I'll be damned if I would spend the rest of my life confined to internet chat rooms and forums lorded over by fellow BF believers protecting me from public ridicule. I would be obsessed with proving that I am not crazy or a liar. How do the one's making such claims sit on their butts and spend hours arguing about their encounter on this forum rather than tear the woods apart looking for some clue a creature of that size would be sure to leave behind? Perhaps the hunt for BF is dead and this is his memorial with one big long eulogy of post after post?

Boy howdy! I live in a relatively small town that butts up to Tahoe National Forest and I know lifetime residents here that don't know where anything is unless they can see it from their car window. There's a whole lot of nuthin' out west here and there are people living in some of these backwood places that go nearly undetected. I find it completely plausable that there is a big upright primate wandering around relatively undetected.

Have fun, Norcal

That to me Norcal and Micahn is one of the reasons I am almost convinced that Bigfoot exists.....the fact that people do not venture out into the bush...who is in there to see them!!!...the same goes for the Hairy Man here in Oz...

Boogerbottom, when I feel like that I just go to the members lounge, slide up to "beer of the week", pop a long tall cold one, relax a little and focus on the fact that these are just words on a screen. They don't really mean jack. It's just for fun.

Have fun, Norcal

micahn, I've made pretty much that same statement a number of times, and believe it. Whether BF exists or not, I guess I don't really know, but I do know that 99% of the people out there don't put in enough if any real time where they'd find evidence.

This forum is specialized and therefore the percentage of people involved, interested, in the field is huge compared to the rest of "society". I talk to people that have hunted all their life and they still don't see anything outside of what they see from the roadway, or as Norcal said, from their window. They get a few hundred feet from the nearest road or trail a few times a year and consider themselves "woodsmen". Bah. If the "native people" of this country have a legend or story about BF it's because they were connected to the land. It hasn't been that way for a long time for most people and if those people aren't willing to get back to that, the chances of finding "evidence" is close to nil. Let's all hope a log truck smacks one of these suckers in the early morning or we're likely going to be reading the same posts for another hundred years.

I'd say I put in hundreds of hours a year (for the last 5 - 10 years) doing actual looking for evidence (by the way, this does not mean I'm a believer and not a skeptic). I've found a few things that are circumstantial I guess you'd say. They are oddities, but they aren't a body, so I'll put in another hundred(s) of hours next year and hope I get more evidence. It's up to us (the people interested in the subject) to bring it to others, or keep praying for that log truck to smack one

..Nice post Ace, and good luck in the search..

I agree 100% Bitter Monk, If there were greater interest in the "evidence" , from the "Scientific Community", I think there would be more evidence brought forward. All that matters is the Facts, the Evidence and how much Science that is applied to it.

So, all you evidence holders and all you scientists need to get together, to make this disconnect go away.

I propose that someone start a list of labs that would agree to analyse biological samples, screen hair samples, analyse photo's videos etc, because there are a number of researchers having to guess who to send their evidence to. Perhaps that list could be pinned here somewhere for reference?

SY.

I would start by pointing out that only 6% of the US landmass has been developed. Most people don't realize this, they think that most of the country has been turned into a parking lot.

Then point out that Canada and Alaska are even less developed, basically, pristine wilderness. There are probably places in Canada where no man has set foot in... and go from there.

They haven't gone undetected and I as well as a bunch of other people will be able to someday prove that they exist, the problem is that we don't have the technology yet. Once the technology to surgically implant a USB port into my head to download images/movies is developed we'll be golden!! Although, they'll probably have to write some software to differentiate between "real" images and "dream" images I suppose as there's probably a whole bunch of freaky stuff in there, LOL!

They live in the woods ...we don't! They live with nature...we don't. etc etc etc

What arrogant animals we humans can be!

Only the most arrogant among us can believe that everything of scientific significance has been discovered. Ignore, they will, countless thousands of eye witness accounts of these beasts across the country and the globe. Many of these accounts made by persons with absolutely nothing to gain and many times, a lot to lose. Including professional credibility. Of course, many of those that do not believe are the same folks that will scream bloody hell if one is eventually killed and proven to exist. They get to have the moral and intellectual high ground no matter what happens. Ignore, they will, hundreds of years of Native American folklore of these beasts. I guess they can write that off to pure fantasy and story telling, thus making it non-credible. Of course, many of these same people are highly supportive of Native American rights.... they just don't believe their quote "phony, made up folklore". I find it highly insulting to simply dismiss their folklore as mere fairy tales.

What do I believe? I believe they exist in ever dwindling numbers, The very species they try desperately to avoid (humans) are expanding more and more into previously uninhabited areas. It only makes sense that their numbers many be dwindling, in my humble opinion. After all, with human expansion coupled with our ever increasing technology, sightings are decreasing from their high 30+ years ago.

I have not had a sighting yet. That's okay, I'm not from the "Show me" State. It doesn't take irrefutable evidence to convince me, just countless circumstantial evidence. That's enough for me.

Regards,
Mojo....

This devils advocate stuff is hard bloody work I tellya.......Mojo, you mention folklore and fairy tales......you mean like mermaids, and the world is flat.......or do you want to hand pick the ones that are folklore and those that are real......by in large, Mr&Mrs Joe Average see bigfoot as folklore and fairytales.....

Mermaids is a fair comparision. Of course, sailors were known to hit the rum bottle on occasion. As far as I know, nobody ever witnessed a flat earth. That was simply speculated.

I was a sailor in the U.S. Navy for 20 years. This reminds me of something funny...

Q: What's the difference between a fairy tale and a sea story?

A: A fairy tale starts out with... "Once upon a time"...... A story starts out with.... "This is no s&^t"....



Regards,
Mojo....

Or, a story starts out something like, "my brother had a roommate, and his roommate's uncle once saw a ...", or, "my uncle told me once about this neighbor he had that had a baby with a squatch and it had one eye and a..."

Yes, I can, because:

1) They regurgitate the same OLD, lame reasons why sasquatches cannot be,

2) and especially since "Mr. & Mrs. Joe Average" (two of the 300 million you lovingly describe) think a sasquatch is something that will eventually be delivered alive to Seattle on the top of a station wagon.

100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago. Some things never change, and among them is human ignorance and pride.



They aren't undetected. They're "undiscovered".

Hunster Quote:They aren't undetected. They're "undiscovered". ...........

Hunster, you hit the nail on the head mate.....to you and almost me..they are simply undiscovered.......to the punters, they are undetected and unimpressed....and we can't offer them anything solid to convince them otherwise....

quote; They regurgitate the same OLD, lame reasons why sasquatches cannot be......I can hear the skeptics now yelling "well show me the money"..."show me a bloody Bigfoot and I'll shut the hell up".....................and that is a fair enough response, for it is we who are making all the claims without offering any proof.

Rod,

I think part of the problem is the general public thinks we as a society (especially in the United States) have found everything there is to be found. If we cannot see it in a zoo, or dead on the side of the road then it does not exist.

These creatures, if they exist (I haven't seen one for myself so I cannot say they do) go to great lengths to avoid people. If you're in an open clearing and see a deer, the deer will ignore you until it thinks you're close enough to pose a threat.

From what I've read these creatures at the first sign of being seen, turn and leave the area. That's just when they are caught off guard... how many times do they hide in the forest to allow people to pass (who do not even know they are there)?

My thoughts are they are masters of camoflauge and hiding. Imagine being a BF for a moment. You can hear, see and smell way beyond a human's senses including Navy Seals, Rangers etc. You know when humans are near long before they arrive so you either sneak out of the area or hide just to see them. Your fur muffles scratchy branches, fits skin tight, and bare feet allow you to avoid snapping branches. When people come by, you are on your belly, in dense brush, behind a tree, etc and had plenty of time to use the forest as your shield. They pass and you get a good look. Some BFs end it there, others get nervous and let off a terrible smell, and the risk takers follow along. The risk takers warn others with wood knocks, whistles, and rock clacking. If the humans are going right for a well built nest, then screaming, growling, rock throwing, and charges will divert their course and cause them to retreat.

BFs in this case are detected, but are not seen, and not even close to being captured. So as Hunster said, they go undiscovered.

Shef and george...2 good posts.....and to a large degree I agree.....but, they are not some superbigfoot animal....and I wrestle with, like many of us do...why no evidence for such a big animal...I can understand it, if it were 8inches tall, but 8feet tall........name one large sized land animal that has only recently been discovered in a developed country.....I can't think of any.

what type of evidence are you talking about exactly?

Hey Shef...something that we call all agree on...I suppose something physical....not depended on interpreatations, personal theories or maybe's....cheers

Rod: Let's say that while you are in the bush with a rifle, a large hairy primate charged you to a point you had to shoot to protect yourself. Your bullet took off an entire finger, and the animal left. You retrieve the finger, and had DNA and hair analyses done at a forensic lab. The lab report came back basically affirming that the samples were very similar to those of a human, but did not match that of any known primate. Would, or could, you come to the forum stating you had physical evidence from a Bigfoot or a Yowie? And why?

Always enjoy the sxxx you stir up mate. LOL

If you blew off a finger, you would have a body part, not just some blood/skin sample.

Macaco mate, I would say yep, I got physical evidence of the Yowie....but...that would not be enough for everyone else, which is fair enough...so...unless scientists can nail it down to that of a Yowie, I'd get stressed, go bald, hit the piss and become a absolute nut.

I don't need to provide proof. I don't give a rip whether or not they accept it.




And that body part is very similar to those of a human, but did not match that of any known primate.

You've got squat. More unknown.

Face it: you've got to bring the denialists the whole enchilada, or they won't accept it.

Your right Hunster, for skeptics to believe we need the whole enchilada.....and thats fair enough.....seeing is believing for most people....just noticed your number of posts mate..you been round here a long time...what keeps you here? cheers rod

You guys are making me hungry. I could really go for a whole plate of sasquatch enchiladas right now! Wouldn't convince me of course, but it'd be a good start !

Rod, I don't mean to insult you, but the skeptic argument is not worth pursuing. Most skeptics don't hold the academic standing and self education on BF as those who have provided evidence such as Krantz, Chilcut, Meldrum and others. If a skeptic has read leading BF books and hundreds of reports then specific types of evidence can be argued............but argue with Meldrum who has a PHD in anatomy and foot print evidence. If a skeptic has read books such as the Locals, by Tom Powell, or Sasquatch, by Jeff Meldrum and a host of other books then there is a basis for agruments about evidence. Read some of these books and see some first class arguments for valid BF evidence. Oh, I know this statement will be shrugged off with some lame argument, but this is how I see the situation.

Is our topic about evidence or reasons why BF has not been captured?

Neither have MOST people in general George. Most people arguing the "evidence" haven't seen any evidence and are arguing based on a few "scientists" explanations, that can certainly be argued against. I think you're painting with too broad a brush, or I'm reading too much into your post. I am a skeptic, always have been. I really want there to be a BF. I spend hundred(s) of hours a year doing my own field research, as closely adhering to any scientific method as I can. I think there are others who are the same way. I think it's better to come to this topic skeptical and be "turned" into a believer than the other way around. I would certainly trust a person's argument more so if they came to the subject skeptical and after doing their own research, or reviewing the research of others became believers because honestly it's just too easy to want to believe and then accept the research of others; and this is especially true of those that don't understand the research of others but believe it because it fits what they want to hear and there are initials (PhD) behind someone's name.

Are there people with more information on the subject than me, certainly. Is some of that information accurate and compelling, probably. Does it mean it should be accepted without question, I say no. Should people be skeptical of the information presented, until there is reason to accept it. I think so.

By the way, this is coming from someone that has found physical evidence, footprints that cannot otherwise be explained, twist offs in areas where there shouldn't be another animal explanation, sounds and noises in the woods I can't associate with another animal; however, none of this "first-hand" evidence is proof of an unknown primate living in *my* woods. It's only a reason to keep looking, and a reason to put on my skepticals before reading too much into the evidence.

Ace, I respect your opinion. Let's stay friends.

Here is a good book called the Locals that was writted by a fellow who did his own research much like you have.
Wow, there are lots of other books I haven't seen!

Takes the jackpot!

Good to see you still putting 'em away on the long night/s.

Just a thought for you, because I do agree that your example of de Chaillu is a bit old nowadays.

I dunno whether this is a bad example but titi monkeys seem to me to be a prime case of discovery of new species, since they're looking for primates and the last one discovered was only in 2002. I imagine National geographic is acceptable evidence?

This might be a good one for my North Q mate in the OP as well:

Titi [gotta love the name] monkeys have been the subject of scientific study since 1963, according again to Nat Geo. Well, I don't know how many state- or university-funded studies and scientists have been involved in the hunt, but I'd lay good odds there have been plenty. In the meantime, how many publicly-funded bigfoot searches have there been?

How about that one?