Don't you see Nuggin? There is a pattern here already.
Anytime anything is looked at at all closely it turns out to be purple smoke. You've not yet given any evidence at all! You've just heard about this or that but have nothing with any substance.
There reason for not accepting BigFoot is the pattern. When something with some substance is examined more closely the possiblity is strengthened. When something without substance is examined each case fades into fuzz or solid refutation.
You seem to agree the we don't have any reliable (or even very clear) photographic evidence.
We know that individuals keep mistaking what they are seeing. You seem to think the more that happens there more likely there is something behind it. The reverse is true: it only shows that individuals will see 'things' and get it wrong. The more they do the more you should expect this is what is happening with a new case.
Folk tales are a hint to look. They are not in themselves evidence for a darn thing.
Pulling the "look what was found in..." is the same as the "they laughed at so-and-so line". Yea, yea, but most of the time when they laugh they were correct too. This only says it is not impossible it doesn't say anything about it's degree of truth. If it was clearly impossible it would be ruled out so we don't need to know, more than we do, that it is possible.
What we need is some substantial reason for thinking it is so. You haven't shown us a scrap of it yet. Just rumours of this or that.
ABE
Are these people unable to distinguish between a bipedal primate and a bison?
Yes! They are (unable that is (abe) ). In the case of the article that nator linked to:
quote:
...he and other locals heard a large, mysterious animal in the brush. ...
Note: They
heard a something.
Edited by NosyNed, : a bit more
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.
Edited by NosyNed, : clarify