sockbref

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

sockbref t1_j7lbl2o wrote

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

sockbref t1_j7ksv2i wrote

But we have physical bones of currently known animal species that have lived and died in North America for tens of thousands of years. We don’t have one bit of concrete evidence of a supersized human like primate. Tracks can be faked, it is possible and I’m sure you can agree. Everything had been unknown to us at one time. New species are always being discovered.

For the sake of argument, if you enough people claim to see a chupacabras, or more unlikely, leprechauns let’s say, and all we had were eyewitness accounts and unknown tracks and fur, should this be enough to spend public funding searching for these animals?

2