[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Since I have done a great deal of research regarding sasquatch in reputable scientific arenas, let me offer some bigfoot science, since this is a real science thread.

The argument that bigfoot does not exist because we have not found a body fails scientifically. In science, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Every year we find new species. Once upon a time, people argued that the silverback gorilla and the coelecanth did not exist because there was no physical evidence, yet now we know that these once crypto-species actually exist.

Further, in the damp forests of the Pacific NW, corpses decay so quickly that they typically leave no remains. In fact, there are several species which are known to exist yet we have never recovered remains from specimens of those species from the wild. Even scientists who are strongly opposed to the idea of bigfoot admit that remains would be very difficult to come by.

On the flip side, despite these limitations there are no physical remains from bigfoot, and science demands that there must be such evidence before we assent to bigfoot belief. Circumstantial evidence like they produce on "Finding Bigfoot" means nothing scientifically.

Therefore, when it comes to sasquatch, the most scientific attitude is one of agnosticism, neither believing nor disbelieving in bigfoot.

If folks want to learn more, there are several reputable books on the subject (along with a large mass of junk literature). I recommend Professor Jeff Meldrum's <Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science> as a starting point.

Thats awesome. I never realized how serisous people were about BigFoot until today. I cant belive how much crap there is out there about BF. I mean, there are forums just like this one devoted to the beast!!!! People are wayyyy to serious about big foot.