As colorful and interesting as they are, there is simply no point in injecting "eyewitness accounts" into a debate intended to convince a skeptic of anything. The fact that you say that this is someone's account... or that you read someone who wrote about this being someone else's account... or whatever... doesn't make it something that I can invest any particular weight into. Understandably.
Of course, I do agree with the subtext of the believers' argument -- which often comes down to
if these things aren't out there, how can so many people claim to have seen them? I don't have a particularly good answer to that -- other than the long-standing myth of the ape-man having somehow just become such a part of folklore and legend as to be a part of the human unconscious (possibly something along the lines of the "bright light" you experience upon death, which many people explain away the same way).
Interesting stuff - I have read about lots of accounts of bigfoot sightings and encounters, including the guy under the tree (I assume it's the same guy, or else it's the same legend by different branches of the same telling tree) -- and while I'm not necessarily casting apsersions, I also am not inclined to accept them as evidence of anything but myth and perhaps odd human behavior.
Quote:
|
You can touch it, you can see it, you can smell it, you can film it, you can take a picture of it, you can get a recording of its voice, you can watch it walking, eating, bathing, swimming, hunting, sleeping and doing many many other things besides -- there is no facet of a bigfoot's life that is closed to observation.
|
But, apparently, you can't actually get a piece of it for conclusive investigation, or stick a dart in it, or take a picture that convinces skeptics, or anything else of that nature. I applaud your sincerity, but there's a credibility concern, I think, when you suggest these matters are so one-sided.