As for Bigfoot, I confess to a bias. Firstly, I come from the region of the country where the favored name is Sasquatsch (and I have some strange correspondence in my grandfather's letters with a reporter who claimed to have popularized that name). Secondly, my family had a credible (to me) sighting of something that corresponds to the popular description, witnessed by all 4 of them while on a hike along a ridge near Mt. Baker in Whatcom County of the state of Washington. They were looking across at the adjacent ridge with binoculars, observing another hiking party making their way up the trail. Clear sunlight viewing. They could see their clothing, etc. Then they noticed on another ridge, next to that, with a bright snowfield, a solitary figure making its way up the slope. Erect, walking in a strangely rigid way, and all dark, with no differentiation as to clothing. Also taller than the other human beings at the same distance. (The other hiking party was unaware of this solitary figure.) This went on for minutes, and all members of my family had the opportunity to compare the hiking party with the figure through the binoculars. The available theories seemed to boil down to: (1) a bear walking erect up a snowfield, or (2) a sasquatsch. The first option was, frankly, low credibility on account of bears not behaving like that. So, my position is to keep an open mind. After all, the okapi was not recognized until 1901. The coelacanth was not discovered until 1938.
I would concur. I was just doing some research on the Minnesota Iceman and believe some games are being played with regard to keeping (or at least trying to) the proverbial "genie" in the bottle. It seems fairly clear to me the way {they} are adamant about disproving or "debunking" something only serves to give the alternative view point more water. Compare that to the UFO/Pentagon stuff recently and it just puts the nail in the coffin for me.
Thanks for the formatting clue!
As for Bigfoot, I confess to a bias. Firstly, I come from the region of the country where the favored name is Sasquatsch (and I have some strange correspondence in my grandfather's letters with a reporter who claimed to have popularized that name). Secondly, my family had a credible (to me) sighting of something that corresponds to the popular description, witnessed by all 4 of them while on a hike along a ridge near Mt. Baker in Whatcom County of the state of Washington. They were looking across at the adjacent ridge with binoculars, observing another hiking party making their way up the trail. Clear sunlight viewing. They could see their clothing, etc. Then they noticed on another ridge, next to that, with a bright snowfield, a solitary figure making its way up the slope. Erect, walking in a strangely rigid way, and all dark, with no differentiation as to clothing. Also taller than the other human beings at the same distance. (The other hiking party was unaware of this solitary figure.) This went on for minutes, and all members of my family had the opportunity to compare the hiking party with the figure through the binoculars. The available theories seemed to boil down to: (1) a bear walking erect up a snowfield, or (2) a sasquatsch. The first option was, frankly, low credibility on account of bears not behaving like that. So, my position is to keep an open mind. After all, the okapi was not recognized until 1901. The coelacanth was not discovered until 1938.
I would concur. I was just doing some research on the Minnesota Iceman and believe some games are being played with regard to keeping (or at least trying to) the proverbial "genie" in the bottle. It seems fairly clear to me the way {they} are adamant about disproving or "debunking" something only serves to give the alternative view point more water. Compare that to the UFO/Pentagon stuff recently and it just puts the nail in the coffin for me.