Bigfoot Best Evidence

[Sakari]

22 hours ago, Guyver said:

I already knew there was nothing there.....but to be sure I did check the satelite images.  There's nothing there.  I mean, sure....there are people who live up there...like Orleans actually has a school, a post office, an RV park and a forest service office, but that's about it.  In between the sparsely populated human "places" - there are hundreds and thousands of square miles of pure wilderness environment.  And yes, there's no question in my mind that a person could get lost there.  I'm guessing you don't actually spend much time in the wilderness.  People can get lost on roads, in their own cars.....and die.  Happens lots of times, I read read about two which happened near Gold Beach Oregon.  People who hike can easily become lost or injured and exposed in places like that.  

LOL...First, I did not say there is nothing there. I said the opposite. Lot's of logging all around it, past and present. Pipelines and electrical also. People have to maintain those, and install them. ( they are on a map )

20 years at least avid Bow Hunter. More than that hiking, while tracking deer and Elk. Probably 40 years of bird hunting. Oh, and an avid fisherman. Nah, I don't did not spend much time in the wilderness.

You read about two in Gold Beach Oregon. I lived in Langlois, Oregon, on 38 acres. Been in the Rogue River Wilderness area many times. Hell, I lived in " Bigfoot Capital of the World"..

Believe me, I know what I am talking about.

For someone to get lost there, they would have to be incredibly ignorant. Those two people were city dwellers, and as I said, never been out of their suburb much. Counting on cell phones to run their lives.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Sakari

[Gaden]

20 hours ago, Guyver said:

It wasn't until the 1850's that any evidence of the giant squid appeared.  It wasn't until five years ago that film of the animal in the wild was obtained, but the stories of the creature went back thousands of years, even Aristotle and Pliny had written about this creature.  

...

 Exactly what is the point of this post? What you are saying, essentially, is that although it lives in an environment almost inaccessible to humans, evidence was found for the existence of the giant squid over 160 years ago and that there now exists film of the animal, even though, again it lives in an environment quite a bit harder to access than any where else on earth. And yet a creature that supposedly lives in an environment easily accessible as well as fairly often accessed has produced no incontrovertible evidence , and no film of a quality which leaves no question.

[Guyver]

15 hours ago, Sakari said:

LOL...First, I did not say there is nothing there. I said the opposite. Lot's of logging all around it, past and present. Pipelines and electrical also. People have to maintain those, and install them. ( they are on a map )

20 years at least avid Bow Hunter. More than that hiking, while tracking deer and Elk. Probably 40 years of bird hunting. Oh, and an avid fisherman. Nah, I don't did not spend much time in the wilderness.

You read about two in Gold Beach Oregon. I lived in Langlois, Oregon, on 38 acres. Been in the Rogue River Wilderness area many times. Hell, I lived in " Bigfoot Capital of the World"..

Believe me, I know what I am talking about.

So, like me; you're an outdoorsman.  Then I hope you'll understand my perspective.  Nature is very different from "civilization."  I don't consider logging roads and powerlines to represent civilization to the extent that the flora and fauna is severely impacted.  It is true that men have been logging in these areas for a long time, in many places, they're on third generation sections.  This is a positive thing as I see it because trees grow back.  And in the Pacific Northwest they grow back nicely, and pretty rapidly.

But, considering the wildlife in these areas that are logged.....guys come in with trucks.  As a hunter and fisherman, I know you know how sound travels out in the woods.  I'm sure you've experienced hearing a truck or jeep coming in for miles before it ever reached your vicinity.  You may have been annoyed by the sound for ten or fifteen minutes before you ever even saw the vehicle come close.  Well, the animals are even better at this than we are.....and when people come in, they move out....generally undetected.  And where do they go?  They move to an area where the people are not, and in cases like this it could simply be an acre away.  

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, Gaden said:

 Exactly what is the point of this post? What you are saying, essentially, is that although it lives in an environment almost inaccessible to humans, evidence was found for the existence of the giant squid over 160 years ago and that there now exists film of the animal, even though, again it lives in an environment quite a bit harder to access than any where else on earth. And yet a creature that supposedly lives in an environment easily accessible as well as fairly often accessed has produced no incontrovertible evidence , and no film of a quality which leaves no question.

IDK.....I guess I don't understand why people ask what the point of a post is.  Is it really that unclear?  Here's the point.  Animals exist that we don't know about.  

[Merc14]

20 minutes ago, Guyver said:

So, like me; you're an outdoorsman.  Then I hope you'll understand my perspective.  Nature is very different from "civilization."  I don't consider logging roads and powerlines to represent civilization to the extent that the flora and fauna is severely impacted.  It is true that men have been logging in these areas for a long time, in many places, they're on third generation sections.  This is a positive thing as I see it because trees grow back.  And in the Pacific Northwest they grow back nicely, and pretty rapidly.

But, considering the wildlife in these areas that are logged.....guys come in with trucks.  As a hunter and fisherman, I know you know how sound travels out in the woods.  I'm sure you've experienced hearing a truck or jeep coming in for miles before it ever reached your vicinity.  You may have been annoyed by the sound for ten or fifteen minutes before you ever even saw the vehicle come close.  Well, the animals are even better at this than we are.....and when people come in, they move out....generally undetected.  And where do they go?  They move to an area where the people are not, and in cases like this it could simply be an acre away.  

Yet we keep seeing the creatures all over the place, don't we?   If not, then what are people reporting?  

19 minutes ago, Guyver said:

IDK.....I guess I don't understand why people ask what the point of a post is.  Is it really that unclear?  Here's the point.  Animals exist that we don't know about.  

If we don't know anything about Bigfoot then what are all those books and websites talking about?    Seems to be a LOT of info and sightings and supposed images of a beast that is so elusive, a beast even more elusive than the giant squid which lives in the dark depths of the world's oceans.  Or maybe those site and books are something else entirely.  

[Gaden]

22 minutes ago, Guyver said:

IDK.....I guess I don't understand why people ask what the point of a post is.  Is it really that unclear?  Here's the point.  Animals exist that we don't know about.  

 Which is another meaningless post, as the only creatures that are being discovered these days on terra firma are insects, amphibians and reptiles, all bird sized or smaller animals, nothing on the order of what people would have me believe is over 7 feet tall and weighing several hundred pounds. Your example was from 160 years ago and lives in the ocean, not a place easily explored by man, so your point is invalid. 

[Guyver]

Lol.  This is just getting funny now.  You people with your meaningless post nonsense.  Whatever.  You just replied to a meaningless post.....so, doesn't that make your post less than meaningless?

Shibby shibby gurga-doo.  There's a meaningless phrase for you.  I hope that helps.  

 

[Timothy]

4 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Lol.  This is just getting funny now.  You people with your meaningless post nonsense.  Whatever.  You just replied to a meaningless post.....so, doesn't that make your post less than meaningless?

Shibby shibby gurga-doo.  There's a meaningless phrase for you.  I hope that helps.  

 

None of your arguments for the existence of Bigfoot have been valid thus far.

That’s all you need to understand.

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, Timonthy said:

None of your arguments for the existence of Bigfoot have been valid thus far.

That’s all you need to understand.

That's an interesting post.  It's interesting not only because you have only offered your opinion, with no reasons provided for why you hold the opinion, but because none of the other posters in the thread have bothered to call it a meaningless point.  In case you haven't noticed, that's what some people around here do.  If they don't like your opinion, they make a claim that you've provided a meaningless post.  So, they think opinions are meaningless.

Yet, they didn't call your post meaningless - which is an indication that they actually don't find opinions meaningless.....they just find opinions meaningless if they disagree with them.  The irony there should be apparent.  In any event, I haven't made any arguments that BF exists....so in that sense the post is meaningless.

I've been arguing that the creature may exist.  I wonder if you and others are able to comprehend this distinction?

[Guyver]

If I had actually observed the creature in the wild, I'd simply state that you're all mistaken and haven't a clue what you're talking about. 

[Gaden]

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

Lol.  This is just getting funny now.  You people with your meaningless post nonsense.  Whatever.  You just replied to a meaningless post.....so, doesn't that make your post less than meaningless?

Shibby shibby gurga-doo.  There's a meaningless phrase for you.  I hope that helps.  

 

 Actually, I knew beforehand that my points would be lost on you. People like you (and there have been many, many, many before you) simply don't get it. You can't manufacture evidence, which is what you are doing when you point out that new creatures are discovered all the time. You used an example too old and in an environment too inaccessible to be relevant. Just because someone discovered a new species of frog in the Amazon doesn't make bigfoot any more possible.  Here is something else you can try to wrap your brain around; of all the creature on earth, rare and common, incontrovertible evidence exists. We have found their bones, we have found their existence in the fossil record, and we have clear, crisp photographs of them. Bigfoot? Nothing, zero, zilch, nada. The only thing you can point to is anecdotal, footprints, which the majority are admitted hoaxes (by the hoaxers themselves) and blurry pics that usually could be interpreted to be just about anything.

[Timothy]

16 minutes ago, Guyver said:

That's an interesting post.  It's interesting not only because you have only offered your opinion, with no reasons provided for why you hold the opinion, but because none of the other posters in the thread have bothered to call it a meaningless point.  In case you haven't noticed, that's what some people around here do.  If they don't like your opinion, they make a claim that you've provided a meaningless post.  So, they think opinions are meaningless.

Yet, they didn't call your post meaningless - which is an indication that they actually don't find opinions meaningless.....they just find opinions meaningless if they disagree with them.  The irony there should be apparent.  In any event, I haven't made any arguments that BF exists....so in that sense the post is meaningless.

I've been arguing that the creature may exist.  I wonder if you and others are able to comprehend this distinction?

Others have already offered opinion which echo my views of your posts. I can offer replies to your posts if you like (probably after work).

I don’t think that your posts are meaningless in that they give insight to how you’re reaching your conclusions. 

Bottom line; I don’t think Bigfoot exists in any capacity as I don’t believe that any of the evidence ever presented has shown any evidence of its existence. None of the audio/visual, none of the supposed physical evidence or the DNA, many of the arguments for its existence don’t make a lot of sense etc.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Timonthy
Typo.

[doctor wu]

I'm not posting this here as 'bigfoot evidence' ,even though some would call it that,...I just find the stories very interesting.

http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/finding-bigfoot/lists/10-bigfoot-sightings-last-5-years/

 

For you fans of the org and show...

http://www.bfro.net/

Edited October 17, 2017 by doctor wu
clarity

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, Timonthy said:

Others have already offered opinion which echo my views of your posts. I can offer replies to your posts if you like (probably after work).

I don’t think that your posts are meaningless in that they give insight to how you’re reaching your conclusions. 

That's better.  Now we're getting somewhere.  The only problem is that you've misstated my position.  I haven't arrived at any conclusions - you apparently have. 

Quote

Bottom line; I don’t think Bigfoot exists in any capacity as I don’t believe that any of the evidence ever presented has shown any evidence of its existence. None of the audio/visual, none of the supposed physical evidence or the DNA, many of the arguments for its existence don’t make a lot of sense etc.

So, having examined the evidence for yourself, you have decided that it is unconvincing, and there is insufficient evidence to prove the creature exists.  Ironically, we share similar opinions in this sense.  I actually agree with you.  There is insufficient evidence to prove the creature exists.  But that is the nature of unknown things. 

So, where you and I differ, is that I am of the opinion, based on facts, logic and reasoning, that the absence of sufficient evidence to prove a thing, is not proof that a thing does not exist.  This is what I have been attempting to explain all along here.  In other words, sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the animal does not exist at this time, but that does not mean that will not exist at some point in the future.  Since it is entirely possible that sufficient proof could be provided tomorrow, or some time in the future that would change your opinion on the matter; logic dictates that the question remain open.  

PS.  Here's my question to you now, and to anyone else who shares your opinion that sasquatch doesn't exist and it's all made up hype.  And assuming that no sasquatch body has been found that would end the debate......imagine a scenario that placed you in a wilderness area, and you had a sudden glimpse of this creature, even if only fleeting and for a few seconds or more.  Would you then abandon what your eyes had seen, sticking with the decisions you have already made.....or would you believe your own eyes and experience considering that sufficient proof to convince you?

In other words, having seen a sasquatch in the wild, would you believe your own eyes, or think you were seeing things?  

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, Guyver said:

So, where you and I differ, is that I am of the opinion, based on facts, logic and reasoning, that the absence of sufficient evidence to prove a thing, is not proof that a thing does not exist.

[Myles]

13 minutes ago, Guyver said:

That's better.  Now we're getting somewhere.  The only problem is that you've misstated my position.  I haven't arrived at any conclusions - you apparently have. 

So, having examined the evidence for yourself, you have decided that it is unconvincing, and there is insufficient evidence to prove the creature exists.  Ironically, we share similar opinions in this sense.  I actually agree with you.  There is insufficient evidence to prove the creature exists.  But that is the nature of unknown things. 

So, where you and I differ, is that I am of the opinion, based on facts, logic and reasoning, that the absence of sufficient evidence to prove a thing, is not proof that a thing does not exist.  This is what I have been attempting to explain all along here.  In other words, sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the animal does not exist at this time, but that does not mean that will not exist at some point in the future.  Since it is entirely possible that sufficient proof could be provided tomorrow, or some time in the future that would change your opinion on the matter; logic dictates that the question remain open.  

PS.  Here's my question to you now, and to anyone else who shares your opinion that sasquatch doesn't exist and it's all made up hype.  And assuming that no sasquatch body has been found that would end the debate......imagine a scenario that placed you in a wilderness area, and you had a sudden glimpse of this creature, even if only fleeting and for a few seconds or more.  Would you then abandon what your eyes had seen, sticking with the decisions you have already made.....or would you believe your own eyes and experience considering that sufficient proof to convince you?

In other words, having seen a sasquatch in the wild, would you believe your own eyes, or think you were seeing things?  

The answer would be the with leprechauns too, right?

[Guyver]

24 minutes ago, Myles said:

The answer would be the with leprechauns too, right?

Leprechans hold the answer to the sasquatch mystery?

[Merc14]

By your logic, everything that I can dream up is possible,  I can't rule anything out, ever, because evidence could show up tomorrow, no matter how improbable my fantasy is.  Is that truly how you make your way through life?   Is that rational in your opinion?

Quote

PS.  Here's my question to you now, and to anyone else who shares your opinion that sasquatch doesn't exist and it's all made up hype.  And assuming that no sasquatch body has been found that would end the debate......imagine a scenario that placed you in a wilderness area, and you had a sudden glimpse of this creature, even if only fleeting and for a few seconds or more.  Would you then abandon what your eyes had seen, sticking with the decisions you have already made.....or would you believe your own eyes and experience considering that sufficient proof to convince you?

In other words, having seen a sasquatch in the wild, would you believe your own eyes, or think you were seeing things?  

I would look for a rational explanation of what I think I saw.

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

Leprechans hold the answer to the sasquatch mystery?

Wow, you really didn't understand the analogy?   By your standards Leprechauns are just as plausible as Bigfoot or unicorns as new evidence may show up tomorrow and I am betting there have been more sightings of leprechauns than Bigfoot.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Merc14

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

By your logic, everything that I can dream up is possible,  I can't rule anything out, ever, because evidence could show up tomorrow, no matter how improbable my fantasy is.  Is that truly how you make your way through life?   Is that rational in your opinion?

Wow, you really didn't understand the analogy?   By your standards Leprechauns are just as plausible as Bigfoot or unicorns as new evidence may show up tomorrow and I am betting there have been more sightings of leprechauns than Bigfoot.

Wow.  I mean, that's just....well....uh....wow.  OK.  Nevermind then.  At first I thought you were joking here, but I guess you're serious.   Not much else to discuss then.  

[ChrLzs]

5 hours ago, Guyver said:

PS.  Here's my question to you now, and to anyone else who shares your opinion that sasquatch doesn't exist and it's all made up hype.  And assuming that no sasquatch body has been found that would end the debate...

Yes, what dashed bad luck that is.  But that's ok, who needs evidence when you have a cultural phenomena and money's to be made!

Quote

...imagine a scenario that placed you in a wilderness area, and you had a sudden glimpse of this creature, even if only fleeting and for a few seconds or more.  Would you then abandon what your eyes had seen, sticking with the decisions you have already made.....or would you believe your own eyes and experience considering that sufficient proof to convince you?

In other words, having seen a sasquatch in the wild, would you believe your own eyes, or think you were seeing things?  

As I have related in detail elsewhere here, I'm surprised that I'm rather alone in having experienced intensely real hallucinations from nothing other than exhaustion...  And even more surprised that people trust their senses and even old memories as if they were real and perfectly accurate...  They are NOT.

So, yes, I'd think I was misidentifying/misremembering/or perhaps hallucinating.  But it's a moot point - I haven't seen one.  Or a Yowie (yes, we have the same mythical cultural icon here - who woulda thort a very big scary/hairy humanoid would be a common cultural invention?)

Quite apart from those who troll and those who make money from the Bigfoot phenomena, people do make mistakes, exaggerate, change their memories (unconsciously).  Do you guys seriously not have an old grandparent whose stories about the war/whatever just get better and better with each re-telling?  Do you honestly believe all of your own stories down to the last detail?  You've never been told by a close relative/friend that you are misremembering something?  And what's the harm in embellishing, or even making the whole thing up?  It's just what we do as a species...

Anecdotes don't magically change into data/evidence.  Especially when it is something like Bigfoot, alienz, ghostz..  It's a cultural phenomena, and some of us would like to apply a bit of methodology, rather than gullibility. 

 

BTW, Guyver, that (content-less) post you just made is a bit of a giveaway - you'd rather not actually answer any of the points being made and just feign incredulity...

Edited October 18, 2017 by ChrLzs

[doctor wu]

I thought this was an interesting short piece about the Native American beliefs.

http://www.bfro.net/legends/

"The existence of Bigfoot is taken for granted throughout Native North America, and so are his powerful psychic abilities. I can't count the number of times that I have heard elder Indian people say that Bigfoot knows when humans are searching for him and that he chooses when and to whom to make an appearance, and that his psychic powers account for his ability to elude the white man's efforts to capture him or hunt him down. In Indian culture, the entire natural world -- the animals, the plants, the rivers, the stars -- is seen as a family. And Bigfoot is seen as one of our close relatives, the "great elder brothers."

 

Btw....I'm just curious how many of the 'skeptics', if any....who think Bigfoot does not exist, happen to believe in 'God'... ?

 

[Guyver]

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

BTW, Guyver, that (content-less) post you just made is a bit of a giveaway - you'd rather not actually answer any of the points being made and just feign incredulity...

ChrLzs, I'm not feigning incredulity......I'm actually incredulous.  And frankly, there's no reason to attempt to have a reasonable discussion with people who are unreasonable.  It is unreasonable to think that something not proven scientifically is the same thing as being non-existent or impossible.  It's unreasonable to equate the sasquatch phenomenon with leprechauns as imaginary beings don't leave footprints deeper than those of black bears and as deep as grizzly bears.

Leprechans aren't viewed by field and game biologists, backpackers, hikers, hunters, fishermen, forest service rangers, highway patrol men, sherrifs deputies, bush pilots, fishing boat captains, and a host of other credible witnesses.  They aren't captured on dash cam video's.  And though I have been exhausted, dehydrated, mildly hypothermic, and drunk, I've never hallucinated.  So, if i actually viewed the animal for myself, I would find it strange, and I would question my observation....but if I had a clear view of it, I would trust my observation in spite of all the people like those around here who would call me a liar for having reported it.  

[Dejarma]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

ChrLzs, I'm not feigning incredulity......I'm actually incredulous.  And frankly, there's no reason to attempt to have a reasonable discussion with people who are unreasonable.  It is unreasonable to think that something not proven scientifically is the same thing as being non-existent or impossible.  It's unreasonable to equate the sasquatch phenomenon with leprechauns as imaginary beings don't leave footprints deeper than those of black bears and as deep as grizzly bears.

Leprechans aren't viewed by field and game biologists, backpackers, hikers, hunters, fishermen, forest service rangers, highway patrol men, sherrifs deputies, bush pilots, fishing boat captains, and a host of other credible witnesses.  They aren't captured on dash cam video's.  And though I have been exhausted, dehydrated, mildly hypothermic, and drunk, I've never hallucinated.  So, if i actually viewed the animal for myself, I would find it strange, and I would question my observation....but if I had a clear view of it, I would trust my observation in spite of all the people like those around here who would call me a liar for having reported it.  

ok so bigfoot does exist, it's real= now what?

[Myles]

16 hours ago, Guyver said:

So, where you and I differ, is that I am of the opinion, based on facts, logic and reasoning, that the absence of sufficient evidence to prove a thing, is not proof that a thing does not exist.  This is what I have been attempting to explain all along here.  In other words, sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the animal does not exist at this time, but that does not mean that will not exist at some point in the future.  Since it is entirely possible that sufficient proof could be provided tomorrow, or some time in the future that would change your opinion on the matter; logic dictates that the question remain open.  

PS.  Here's my question to you now, and to anyone else who shares your opinion that sasquatch doesn't exist and it's all made up hype.  And assuming that no sasquatch body has been found that would end the debate......imagine a scenario that placed you in a wilderness area, and you had a sudden glimpse of this creature, even if only fleeting and for a few seconds or more.  Would you then abandon what your eyes had seen, sticking with the decisions you have already made.....or would you believe your own eyes and experience considering that sufficient proof to convince you?

 

To explain my leprechaun comment, which could have come across a little cross.

No bigfoot bodies, no leprechaun bodies.   No bigfoot DNA, no leprechaun DNA.   No credible evidence for either.

No, glimpsing a bigfoot would not be sufficient proof because many hoaxes are known.  Proof of hoaxes, no proof of bigfoot.    I would probably lean towards what has been proven to exist.   Hoaxes.  

I would however, go to where I seen it and look for evidence.   A large hairy creature would leave evidence in the path it travels.    Bristles would certainly have hairs on them.   I would then have DNA evidence of the creature.   Odd how no one does that.  

 

[Gaden]

16 hours ago, Guyver said:

That's better.  Now we're getting somewhere.  The only problem is that you've misstated my position.  I haven't arrived at any conclusions - you apparently have. 

So, having examined the evidence for yourself, you have decided that it is unconvincing, and there is insufficient evidence to prove the creature exists.  Ironically, we share similar opinions in this sense.  I actually agree with you.  There is insufficient evidence to prove the creature exists.  But that is the nature of unknown things. 

So, where you and I differ, is that I am of the opinion, based on facts, logic and reasoning, that the absence of sufficient evidence to prove a thing, is not proof that a thing does not exist.  This is what I have been attempting to explain all along here.  In other words, sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the animal does not exist at this time, but that does not mean that will not exist at some point in the future.  Since it is entirely possible that sufficient proof could be provided tomorrow, or some time in the future that would change your opinion on the matter; logic dictates that the question remain open.  

PS.  Here's my question to you now, and to anyone else who shares your opinion that sasquatch doesn't exist and it's all made up hype.  And assuming that no sasquatch body has been found that would end the debate......imagine a scenario that placed you in a wilderness area, and you had a sudden glimpse of this creature, even if only fleeting and for a few seconds or more.  Would you then abandon what your eyes had seen, sticking with the decisions you have already made.....or would you believe your own eyes and experience considering that sufficient proof to convince you?

In other words, having seen a sasquatch in the wild, would you believe your own eyes, or think you were seeing things?  

  The argument that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is a very empty argument, isn't it? If you are in a room that is painted white with plenty of illumination and you see nothing in the room, is that not evidence that there is nothing else in the room? In purely technical terms you can not prove a negative, I will admit. But...

  Since about 1790 the NW of what is now the U.S. has been explored by hunters and trappers. For about 40 years, these 'mountain men' visited every part of that country for the express purpose of killing things and sell the pelts to make money. These men all worked for one of several fur companies, which is to say that there were a great many trappers involved. So much so that every stream was exploited for the pelts of beaver until fashions in Europe changed and they were no longer needed. The beaver was trapped almost to extinction there were so many men. I say all of this just to make the point that there were a lot of freakin' men out there, covering a lot of territory. If a 7 foot tall ape-like creature existed, one of those men would have shot one and brought the body, head, or pelt back to try and sell it. If a sustained population of giant apes existed in the American N. W., these men would have known about it and it would now be common knowledge, not a mystery.

 If you tell someone not to think of a purple cow, what happens? That's all they can think of, it's one of the peculiarities of the human mind. Like wise, if you tell someone a story of something in the woods and in this case a large, hairy ape, for a lot of people, from then on, every fleeting glimpse, every noise is reported as a large, hairy ape. It's the same with ufos, mothman, or any other mysterious legend. Add to this the large number of hoaxers who will relate a false story for monetary gain or for the pure pleasure of it (ever hear of the Gable film?) and you begin to see why anecdotal evidence loses it's credibility. Likewise, you have to throw out all of the footprints found, because there have simply been too many hoaxers found out about, especially when you consider that a lot of the time one or just a few prints are found in isolation, hardly ever actually leading somewhere.

 So, in over 200 years of exploration, not one body, not one bone, not one pile of poop, not one hair, no nesting sites nor a village, no huts, no tools, nothing in the fossil record. We can find the nest with eggs of a long dead dinosaur on the bank of a long gone river, or the village site from a group of people that died 40,000 thousand years ago, but we can find absolutely no incontrovertible evidence of any kind pointing to bigfoot.  We are in that brightly lit white room and we can see there is nothing else there, we have to conclude that nothing is there.

 If I were out in the woods and saw something, the difference is that my mind would not automatically jump to bigfoot, the same way that if I saw something in the sky that wasn't immediately identifiable, I wouldn't automatically think ET controlled craft.