Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sockbref t1_j7lbl2o wrote

Reply to comment by JStevens84 in Bigfoot sighting in pa deemed credible by people who believe in bigfoot. by mynameisalso

I was using a hypothetical. If enough people want to believe in leprechauns then they will think they see them. What’s a leprechaun but a tiny human? Imagine the opposite of a Bigfoot. Instead of large tracks there could be tiny foot tracks. Seems just as possible. We have just as many leprechaun bones as we do Bigfoot ones.

2

JStevens84 t1_j7leab1 wrote

I notice how you completely ignore my point about it being something worthy of further study. We know a giant ape lived up until about 100,000 years ago and all we have to show for it is 4partial jawbones and some teeth. We’ve catalogued probably less than 1/4 of all species on the planet. Combine that with all the aforementioned evidence and it’s absolutely plausible that it exists and warrants further(read:any at all) study.

You don’t have to look into it, but if you do I think you might have more of an open mind about it.

1

sockbref t1_j7lgzr6 wrote

To answer your point about being worthy of study, hearsay and circumstantial evidence doesn’t seem to be enough for scientific research into the matter. If it were, you better believe there would be droves of studies and researchers out looking and finding the evidence out there. The notoriety alone would be enough motivation for some but the mostly finding an unknown bipedal human like ape in our backyard would be groundbreaking. It hasn’t happened. Why not?

2