[Sidhe]

Items we know based on circumstantial evidence:

Black holes exist
Dark Matter and Dark Energy exist

Item I suggest is in the same category:

Bigfoot exists

Theory: Black Holes Exist
Hypothesis: If Black Holes exist, they should leave physical evidence
Experiment: Observation of such evidence

Note that the case for the black hole is circumstantial.

Theory: There is an enormous amount of unseen energy that makes up the bulk of the universe
Hypothesis: This unseen energy (some of it in the form of matter) makes the universe behave in a certain manner.
Experiment: observe the behavior of the universe

From this we infer that dark matter and dark energy do exist. We come to this from the circumference, not from the center of direct observation of the thing itself.

These are scientific analogues of the bigfoot problem. We first noticed that things didn’t add up, then we inferred that there must be an unseen (or unacknowledged) entity to account for it.

There is a body of non-testable evidence in use here in both cases. And we have not (and never will have) observed a Black Hole. We have not observed Dark Matter/Energy, though if the theory is correct, we will. Even if the theory is incorrect, it will have led us to investigate the matter more deeply.

In Biology, the standard of specimen collection has failed over time; ie., species reported extinct when in fact they were only very rare; accounts of surviving groups of small men-like apes (like the recently discovered Hom Floresienses) ignored for centuries until now, with the discovery of a relatively recent skeleton. Scientists seem much more willing to use these anecdotes to entertain the idea that Floresienses may still live now that they've seen a skeleton than they were to entertain the idea of their existence at all before.

The standard seems to be that you can’t trust experience (ie, anecdotal evidence), but that standard is absurd if you dig into it. What is experiment but a rigorously controlled experience?

Taking scientific method’s insistence on repeatability, if something is periodic and largely unpredictable as, for instance, certain particals of matter at the sub-atomic level, and as an elusive creature would be also, the standard can’t apply in the regular sense. No physicist expects to find two electrons in exactly the same place at exactly the same time during two experiments. They know the matter rests on probabilities. Yet no one would be so foolish as to say what they were doing wasn’t science. But it seems to matter to the skeptics that you can’t produce a body of a large bipedal North American Ape right where and when you want it. Do you know how vastly improbable it is that you'll find a bear carcase in the woods? And we have good reason to suspect that there are many more bear in the woods than bigfoot.

Only the body will suffice. But we have the example of Homo Floresienses, and a myriad of others too, to show why this standard doesn’t put one in the best position to say what exists and what doesn’t.

In recent months, I have seen at least two articles about animals thought extinct in an area being found in that area again.

Extreme scarcity does not equal absence. I suppose when I drop my contact lens on the ground and then I can't find it again, it never existed?

And then lets come at this from the other direction and demonstrate that bigfoot is not so susceptible to debunking as some of you have said it to be.

Proposed: the phenomenon known as rods is completely debunked.

RODS- supposedly small flying things that are so quick as to be invisible to the naked eye, but visible on a video camera. A phenomenon only discovered by digital camcorders with zoom. Never seen by cameras with film, never seen with optical zoom, never seen with naked eye.

Explanation -- the digital zoom creates the artifact out of the wings of bugs and birds. On experimentation this is confirmed to happen.

This explanation leaves *nothing* unexplained, and we created nothing new to explain it, following Occam's Razor.

Now try debunking BF.. you simply cannot fully debunk it without creating something new. Because I've already taken up enough of your time, I'll just use one example: the footprints. To explain them all, you have to postulate that there is a significant population of hoaxers, all in communication with each other, willing to do the most physically demanding, even dangerous things, such as put on monkey costumes and run around risking a bullet or two; such as walk up to several miles with fake feet strapped to your feet, something heavy on your back, with an incredibly exaggerated stride, all these things in places people might not even *find* what you hoaxed.. This is a brand new form of human behavior postulated by skeptics! They ask you to believe this on no other authority than their word, rather than entertain the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor has indeed cut against the skeptic in this case!

And you will notice no doubt that most skeptics are quite willing to jump in and say "nyet!" without being all that conversant on the subject they are nay-saying. I think that's an imporant point.

I was interested in this topic for years, but I didn't think bigfoot existed until I had investigated the matter for myself.

The comments about the radar gun weilding witnesses given just above prove that some skeptics don't even bother to read a whole thread before giving their comment..

But maybe my posts are just too long. My bad.

I'll let this stand as the final one. No need to go over it all again and again..

Except I did want to add this, which I consider a perfectly reasonable stance for science to take re: bigfoot:

Bigfoot -- a creature that may exist, but no specimen has ever been collected. Many credible people have reported seeing it, including scientists, doctors, policemen, etc., but the fact that no body has ever been collected makes its existence hard to prove. Some physical signs have been collected, including footprints, scat, hair samples, and body prints, but these alone do not prove the existence of a creature since all of these categories of evidence are susceptible to hoaxing. Statistical analyses of some of the evidence are suggestive of a real population of creatures, however, so further study is warranted.