Though I want this to be scientific in nature, coffee house is probably a better place for this thread.
I'm a Bigfoot fan. I admit that up front. I believe there is a large bipedal primate living in (among other places) the American NW.
With evidence from sightings to oral traditions to footprint casts to hair samples - there's a strong indication that something is out there.
I just watched a "documentary" on Discovery which talked about "both sides" of the issue and found the arguments being posed by the skeptics to be seriously lacking.
Here's some examples:
- Bigfoot couldn't survive the winters in the Pac NW because there isn't enough food out there to sustain the needs of a big brained primate.
- Bigfoot could not be noturnal because it would need to be able to see colors in order distinguish it's food (apparently only plants) from other plants
- If Bigfoot is an ape there should be "ape nests" like those created by gorillas
And on and on...
Most of the arguments were good arguments for why there are not gorillas in the Pacific NW, but that's not really a valid way to disprove a different species.
Other arguments were great for proving why no member of the primate family could survive in the Pac NW, which, if you told this to the Native Americans of the area, I would expect a lot of head scratching.
Is there anyone here at EVC who is particularly ANTI-Bigfoot who'll try to raise at least a better line of reasoning for why this thing can't exist.
I know - I'm basically asking you to prove a negative - this isn't meant to be a "Debate" as much as a discussion about why some evidence is acceptable and other evidence isn't, or why some reasoning simply doesn't apply.