1) some more researchers, copied this from wikipedia, hope it ok with you.
"Although most scientists find current evidence regarding Bigfoot unpersuasive, a number of prominent experts have spoken out on the subject, offering sympathetic opinions.
In a 2002 interview on National Public Radio, Jane Goodall first publicly expressed her belief in bigfoot, "Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist. . . . Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, 'Where is the body?' You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."[21] Several other prominent scientists have also expressed at least a guarded interest in Sasquatch reports including George Schaller, Russell Mittermeier, Daris Swindler and Esteban Sarmiento.
Prominent anthropologist Carleton S. Coon wrote and presented his essay Why the Sasquatch Must Exist during his life; it was published after he died. In the essay he wrote, "Even before I read John Green's book Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, first published in 1973, I accepted Sasquatch's existence" (Markotic and Krantz, 46). Coon examines the question from several angles, stating that he is confident only in ruling out a relict Neanderthal population as a viable candidate for Sasquatch reports.
As noted above, Napier generally argued against Bigfoot's reality, but he also argued that some "soft evidence" (eyewitnesses, footprints, hair and droppings) is compelling enough that he advises against "dismissing its reality out of hand" (Napier, 197).
Krantz and others have argued that a double standard is applied by many academics to Sasquatch studies: When a claim is made or evidence is presented alleging that Sasquatch is genuine, enormous scrutiny is applied to the claim or evidence, as well as it should be. Yet when individuals claim to have hoaxed Bigfoot evidence, their claims are often quickly accepted, though they typically lack corroborative evidence.
In 2004, Henry Gee, editor of the prestigious Nature, argued that creatures like Bigfoot deserved further study, writing, "The discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as Yetis are founded on grains of truth ... Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold."
2) No giant squid, you say so haughtily? If they ever do find a bigfoot will you deny its existence as well?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4288772.stm?ls
whoops, I saw just now that you need a live specimen is required for you to believe it. Too bad they are nearly impossible to catch alive, they may never exist in your mind. Still, I think since the scientific world believes in them you can call them even
remotely real.
3)I will just quote you for this one.
I respectfully but strongly suggest that you expand your research to include subject matter experts from the other side. If not, you aren't AT ALL keeping an open mind--you've decided for yourself that Bigfoot somehow doesnt exist, and aren't considering the enormous amount of proof that's out there.
works both ways buddy boy. You call it time wasting, I have already stated it's like a hobby, and I enjoy the mystery of it. You may as well tell people not to read fiction novels, or only watch crappy reality television. Do you try to convince christians god doesnt exist?
