(10-10-2020, 07:44 PM)F2d5thCav Wrote: Yeess. As Ivan T. Sanderson pointed out in his fascinating work, Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life, there are those huge areas of rugged wilderness throughout the world, of which we have catalogued only a fraction of their fauna. Just think about what is called the "montane" country of the NW USA and much of western Canada -- millions of square miles of forested ridges and mountains, most of which is only very rarely penetrated by humans, and even then, only in small numbers.
But science is perfectly comfortable declaring that such a biped could NOT live in that stunningly huge wilderness . . . never mind that said scientists don't go on years-long walkabouts through those wilderness areas and are often solely pontificating from the safety of their lectern.
We shouldn't forget a bunch of bananas when we walk through such areas, no telling when we might meet Magilla.
Cheers
I agree with you on all your aspects, just because scientists looked and saw nothing, doesn't mean there's nothing there.
The percentage of fossil discoveries is miniscule compared to the animals they say walked the Earth in the the past, yet
the public accept their rulings without doubt.
(In the Smithsonian, they had a brontosaurus skeleton with its head on the wrong end for years!)
It may have seemed ludicrous to suggest a hairy man-like being would live in the Himalayas, but like everything, the reports
are taken out of context, when in reality, most of the accounts tell of seeing them in the lower areas where the foliage is
better.
Taken out of context and sadly, so was Sanderson. The doubt is even mentioned here.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.