NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

In my estimation Bigfoot (et al.) is the most plausible of the crypto's. Like many, I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to point to the high probability of their existence. Dermal ridges that are distinctly primate, reported behavior, typical shyness, and the ridiculous number of footprint casts that have been made. The foot prints themselves show distinct mechanical differences in foot function from that of humans. Hoaxers are out there. But, I cant fathom of hoaxers trouncing through the mud in far remote places on the off chance someone might notice the prints.

Food is plentiful. Habitats are vast and largely unsettled. The creatures seem to prefer to be nocturnal. But, man is fairly prolific so encounters happen. I think, given the evidence already collected, the case for Bigfoots existence is mounting and its habits are being mapped. I think it only a matter of time before definitive proof is obtained.

Loch Ness or other lake monsters -- Nope. Not enough food in the Loch to support a community of animals that size.
Mokele mBembe -- Possible but highly unlikely.
Pterodactyls -- Nope. Too big to have gone unnoticed. The open air offers little refuge. So we would have seen it.

<blockquote data-quote="Ron Collins" data-source="post: 116791" data-attributes="member: 574">In my estimation Bigfoot (et al.) is the most plausible of the crypto&#039;s. Like many, I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to point to the high probability of their existence. Dermal ridges that are distinctly primate, reported behavior, typical shyness, and the ridiculous number of footprint casts that have been made. The foot prints themselves show distinct mechanical differences in foot function from that of humans. Hoaxers are out there. But, I cant fathom of hoaxers trouncing through the mud in far remote places on the off chance someone might notice the prints.Food is plentiful. Habitats are vast and largely unsettled. The creatures seem to prefer to be nocturnal. But, man is fairly prolific so encounters happen. I think, given the evidence already collected, the case for Bigfoots existence is mounting and its habits are being mapped. I think it only a matter of time before definitive proof is obtained. Loch Ness or other lake monsters -- Nope. Not enough food in the Loch to support a community of animals that size. Mokele mBembe -- Possible but highly unlikely. Pterodactyls -- Nope. Too big to have gone unnoticed. The open air offers little refuge. So we would have seen it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ron Collins, post: 116791, member: 574"] In my estimation Bigfoot (et al.) is the most plausible of the crypto's. Like many, I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to point to the high probability of their existence. Dermal ridges that are distinctly primate, reported behavior, typical shyness, and the ridiculous number of footprint casts that have been made. The foot prints themselves show distinct mechanical differences in foot function from that of humans. Hoaxers are out there. But, I cant fathom of hoaxers trouncing through the mud in far remote places on the off chance someone might notice the prints. Food is plentiful. Habitats are vast and largely unsettled. The creatures seem to prefer to be nocturnal. But, man is fairly prolific so encounters happen. I think, given the evidence already collected, the case for Bigfoots existence is mounting and its habits are being mapped. I think it only a matter of time before definitive proof is obtained. Loch Ness or other lake monsters -- Nope. Not enough food in the Loch to support a community of animals that size. Mokele mBembe -- Possible but highly unlikely. Pterodactyls -- Nope. Too big to have gone unnoticed. The open air offers little refuge. So we would have seen it. [/QUOTE]

Verification