Bigfoot ....surviving remnant

[+DieChecker]

20 hours ago, stereologist said:

The issue was that the believer side chose to misrepresent the position by claiming BF was proved nonexistent in other areas. I know because it was my posts that were lied about. I was the one that posted that BF is more often seen in crowded areas. I was the one that suggested it highlighted the way in which people think. But believers openly lied about my posts with some jackass commentary such as, so you think that proves BF doesn't exist in the wilds of Canada because of mistaken witnesses in an Ohio park.

OK. So please show me where " ...BF is more often seen in crowded areas..." can be considered true. The maps of sightings that I have seen seem to be scattered all over, not crowded around urban centers.

https://www.livescience.com/39785-bigfoot-map-sasquatch-sightings-gis.html

That there are many sightings in, or near, urban areas, I will not argue with. I suppose it might depend on the definition of "Crowded areas". Because to me a area that has only one or two houses per acre is not exactly "crowded", especially if they are edged in farms/wooded/swamp. I do agree that many sightings are in rural, but well developed areas, where a BF crossing through probably would be noticed, as lots of fences, and other obstacles would have to be crossed. But, that doesn't mean BF couldn't do such. 

It hurts me that you still are living with anger in your heart, with statements of "jackass", and such. What happened to logic and reason? 

I am sorry that you have chosen to view those posts in one way, while I (as I remember them) meant them (at least initially) in another way. That just because BF couldn't possibly show up in a deep urban park, does not mean that sightings in the Canada wilderness must be false. That is what I took away from the one post about BF in urban parks. If I was wrong, I am sorry, but that is how you presented it, or at least how I read it.

Quote

The problem of course is that it is impossible for a BF to remain hidden in a crowded park. Notice that the park sightings went silent after it caused such a stir? The reason is that the sightings were all mistakes or just plain hoaxes with people wanting to jump on the bandwagon. Even the loonies that want to see BF everywhere including crowded parks eventually realize it is not happening.

I'd agree to a large degree. I believe already did, a long time ago. In the various videos, it is often hard to see what is going on behind screens of branches, when in real life, seeing what is there isn't nearly as hard. Videos are easy to misinterpret and suggest something that really isn't there.

Quote

It seems that head in the sand believers  are just plain asses and can't stand to think that BF sightings appear to be all mistakes or outright hoaxes.

That is because not all have been shown to be such. It is not scientific, or logical, to lump all observations into one basket, by examining only a handful.

Quote

The BS stories such as people hitting them with cars never ever turn up evidence such as hairs on the car. The dead BFs are lies too. They never turn out to be real. It's like the dumb ass lie of the BF in the freezer. They are not just stories. They are fiction. Plain and simple they are tall tales, aka lies.

This has about as much logic as those people who say no one ever finds bear bones in the woods. The statements are illogical, and based on a desire/belief in the rightness of one's opinion.

Quote

The issue with the range of tales by Native Americans is simple. If there were the friendly BF as reported, then where are they? If there were malevolent BF as reported, then where are they? The range of stories is just more evidence that they do not match up with the BF stories of today. Believers want to pretend that BF is connected to the myths of traditions of back then, but that is simply not true. Any BF murders being investigated? Any BFs dropping in on a picnic?

Assume, for a moment, you are a bigfoot. And for the last 150 years people have been shooting at you when they see you. Are you going to be their friend still.

Would you be willing to try being friends with a dog like a Labrador? Then would you try to be friendly in the same way with a wild wolf/bear/cougar? Of course not. Being intelligent, you'd avoid the dangerous animals. BF would avoid most human contact.

Quote

What decades of research shows is that BF does not exist in the areas where they are claimed to be. It's as simple as that. No amount of pretending changes the fact that decades and decades have passed with zero evidence to support BF.

Research by whom? Environmental researchers? I already showed that they can be wrong up to 50% on their guesses at populations, yet we're to believe they would have noticed a being that doesn't want to be found, and is intelligent, and is a thousand times less populous then a bear. OK.......... You run with that weak logic if you want. 

The only.... Only thing that prevents BF from being a real critter is physical remains. Everything else is up to debate, regardless of your "expert?" opinion.

[Merc14]

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It does if the human is feral, around 7 feet tall and covered in thick hair....

How many hair covered, 7 foot tall, feral humans are you proposing are wandering around North America?

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think there is a difference in people looking to shoot bigfoot, and people who shoot it and then realize that it appears very human, and panic.

How many people are you proposing have shot one of the above hair covered, 7 foot tall, feral humans in North America?

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

How do you know? Have you shot one and then examined the corpse?

No, I most certainly have not shot a hair covered, 7 foot tall, feral human and I doubt anyone else has either given how totally ridiculous the scenario is.

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I don't have a lot of time right now... Life/Job/Kids and all, but I hope to eventually get back to the BFRO site and post some examples.

One example, not a few, just one is all that is being asked for.

[stereologist]

19 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think there is a difference in people looking to shoot bigfoot, and people who shoot it and then realize that it appears very human, and panic.

You didn't read all of the reports.

When you do, reconsider your position.

Even without that I do not believe people would panic.

[stereologist]

19 hours ago, DieChecker said:

OK. So please show me where " ...BF is more often seen in crowded areas..." can be considered true. The maps of sightings that I have seen seem to be scattered all over, not crowded around urban centers.

https://www.livescience.com/39785-bigfoot-map-sasquatch-sightings-gis.html

That there are many sightings in, or near, urban areas, I will not argue with. I suppose it might depend on the definition of "Crowded areas". Because to me a area that has only one or two houses per acre is not exactly "crowded", especially if they are edged in farms/wooded/swamp. I do agree that many sightings are in rural, but well developed areas, where a BF crossing through probably would be noticed, as lots of fences, and other obstacles would have to be crossed. But, that doesn't mean BF couldn't do such. 

It hurts me that you still are living with anger in your heart, with statements of "jackass", and such. What happened to logic and reason? 

I am sorry that you have chosen to view those posts in one way, while I (as I remember them) meant them (at least initially) in another way. That just because BF couldn't possibly show up in a deep urban park, does not mean that sightings in the Canada wilderness must be false. That is what I took away from the one post about BF in urban parks. If I was wrong, I am sorry, but that is how you presented it, or at least how I read it.

I'd agree to a large degree. I believe already did, a long time ago. In the various videos, it is often hard to see what is going on behind screens of branches, when in real life, seeing what is there isn't nearly as hard. Videos are easy to misinterpret and suggest something that really isn't there.

That is because not all have been shown to be such. It is not scientific, or logical, to lump all observations into one basket, by examining only a handful.

This has about as much logic as those people who say no one ever finds bear bones in the woods. The statements are illogical, and based on a desire/belief in the rightness of one's opinion.

Assume, for a moment, you are a bigfoot. And for the last 150 years people have been shooting at you when they see you. Are you going to be their friend still.

Would you be willing to try being friends with a dog like a Labrador? Then would you try to be friendly in the same way with a wild wolf/bear/cougar? Of course not. Being intelligent, you'd avoid the dangerous animals. BF would avoid most human contact.

Research by whom? Environmental researchers? I already showed that they can be wrong up to 50% on their guesses at populations, yet we're to believe they would have noticed a being that doesn't want to be found, and is intelligent, and is a thousand times less populous then a bear. OK.......... You run with that weak logic if you want. 

The only.... Only thing that prevents BF from being a real critter is physical remains. Everything else is up to debate, regardless of your "expert?" opinion.

I guess you don't realize that the dots are concentrated by larger population areas.

It doesn't hurt me that you misrepresented what I posted. I expect that from you. See again you misrepresent me here by saying "does not mean that sightings in the Canada wilderness must be false. " Being honest does not seem to be one of your habits.

I think you are dishonest when you say " I am sorry, but that is how you presented it, or at least how I read it. " Regardless of how many times I tried to correct you you continued your dishonesty.

The simple fact is that there is nothing to show as evidence after decades and decades. Stories and hoaxes seem to be all that exists.

You can pretend all you want about evidence but not a single claim of a BF hit by a car has turned up hairs or blood or anything other than a story. Dead BF stories have all turned out to be lies. If you actually had anything to disprove my statements you would have countered them with an example. But I am right.

Here is another bogus story "And for the last 150 years people have been shooting at you ..." That's just more made up malarkey. It has no bearing on the Native American stories I was talking about. You fail again.

You did not "showed that they can be wrong up to 50% on their guesses at populations". At best you showed that populations can vary.

Researchers  as I explained before have never ever found anything to show BF exists and they have been doing detailed studies in areas for decades. The idea that BF is intelligent is just made up malarkey. The idea that BF doesnot want to be found is more made up malarkey. All you have is made up blather. You are spewing made up BS.

It is so ridiculous when people describe the behavior of BF. There is no way they could know.

[Minimalists]

10 Reasons Why Bigfoot's A Bust:

https://www.seeker.com/10-reasons-why-bigfoots-a-bust-1768600582.html#mkcpgn=fbdsc9

The article is old but I think it makes the point....One thing that caught my eye was the article indicated that if Bigfoot was a zoological reality there would have to be a breeding population...Article also points out that the creature has been spotted in every state except Hawaii...I guess Bigfoot has not learned the fine art of swimming or he is afraid of sharks!

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by Alien Origins

[+DieChecker]

On 3/24/2018 at 6:52 AM, Merc14 said:

How many hair covered, 7 foot tall, feral humans are you proposing are wandering around North America?

How many people are you proposing have shot one of the above hair covered, 7 foot tall, feral humans in North America?

No, I most certainly have not shot a hair covered, 7 foot tall, feral human and I doubt anyone else has either given how totally ridiculous the scenario is.

One example, not a few, just one is all that is being asked for.

I'd propose that most reports are misidentification. And those that are not, are few and far between. There likely isn't more then a couple dozen of these people wandering around out there.

I think I've read at least two reports where someone shot a bigfoot and then buried it.

I also am waiting on that one real BF body to turn up. I really am not going to hold my breath over it though. 

[+DieChecker]

On 3/24/2018 at 9:26 PM, stereologist said:

You didn't read all of the reports.

When you do, reconsider your position.

Even without that I do not believe people would panic.

I've seen people panic after shooting a turkey, or chopping the head of a chicken and it flops about, so someone panicking after shooting a "person" seems logical and realistic to me.

 

[+DieChecker]

On 3/24/2018 at 9:42 PM, stereologist said:

I guess you don't realize that the dots are concentrated by larger population areas.

Oh? Really? Well, I absolutely disagree with you on that. Just looking at Oregon, I can see that approximately 90% of the dots are on Federal/State land, or otherwise rural areas. 

Quote

It doesn't hurt me that you misrepresented what I posted. I expect that from you. See again you misrepresent me here by saying "does not mean that sightings in the Canada wilderness must be false. " Being honest does not seem to be one of your habits.

I think you are dishonest when you say " I am sorry, but that is how you presented it, or at least how I read it. " Regardless of how many times I tried to correct you you continued your dishonesty.

And you continued to only present your own view... I don't see the problem. You misrepresented what I posted also. I pointed that out numerous times also.

Quote

The simple fact is that there is nothing to show as evidence after decades and decades. Stories and hoaxes seem to be all that exists.

You can pretend all you want about evidence but not a single claim of a BF hit by a car has turned up hairs or blood or anything other than a story. Dead BF stories have all turned out to be lies. If you actually had anything to disprove my statements you would have countered them with an example. But I am right.

I still can't understand how you can say that reports that were not followed up on are Proven to be Lies? At best you can claim they are unproven. Your very statements are proof that you are being illogical on the subject. Perhaps you have some kind of emotional need to be correct here and overstate your position as fact when it is in fact just opinion?

I do agree there is no physical evidence. If there was, we wouldn't be debating this, would we?

Quote

Here is another bogus story "And for the last 150 years people have been shooting at you ..." That's just more made up malarkey. It has no bearing on the Native American stories I was talking about. You fail again.

You did not "showed that they can be wrong up to 50% on their guesses at populations". At best you showed that populations can vary.

I would disagree. If the scientific data collection was off by 50%, then that is what was shown. That you don't want it to be true, doesn't make it so.

I can't prove that BF hides because of 150 years of shooting at him, but such is a logical argument. When there is a lack of evidence, supposition will have to do, for Discussion purposes if nothing else. So, no, not a fail.

Quote

Researchers  as I explained before have never ever found anything to show BF exists and they have been doing detailed studies in areas for decades. The idea that BF is intelligent is just made up malarkey. The idea that BF doesnot want to be found is more made up malarkey. All you have is made up blather. You are spewing made up BS.

It is so ridiculous when people describe the behavior of BF. There is no way they could know.

So, decades of studies over, what, 1%... 5% of the wilderness areas of the US, and we know everything that is in there? OK....

The idea BF is intelligent is based on it's reported appearance and reported behavior. Are gorillas non-intelligent? They can learn sign language, right? 

[AlaskanSkeptic]

I love how most of these believers are willing to believe eyewitness accounts so easily, but dismiss all  scientific facts presented on this thread. 

[Minimalists]

1 hour ago, AlaskanSkeptic said:

I love how most of these believers are willing to believe eyewitness accounts so easily, but dismiss all  scientific facts presented on this thread. 

Well to quote Neil Degrasse Tyson

"Eyewitness testimony is the lowest form of evidence in science. Which is odd because its the highest form of evidence in a court of law." . May not be an exact quote but you get the jest of it. And I kind of fall in line with his thinking as well...I need something more than "you saw it."

Edited March 31, 2018 by Alien Origins

[+DieChecker]

If a couple hundred people reported sightings of Optimus Prime, wouldn't you think looking to see what it is that they saw would be a good idea? Especially if some of the people were respected members of their community.

One person seeing a pink winged unicorn can be dismissed. If a million people see it, does that not imply there might be something to that unicorn possibly being real?

[fran123]

If Bigfoot does exist and is a species related to humans then there is an easy way to find them. 

Drop a number of mobile phones off in areas where Bigfoot has been sighted with phone numbers of all the other phones in the memory. Set up a command centre to monitor and intercept calls and within a few minutes I'm certain pouting Bigfoot selfies would be soon being sent from phone to phone and the proof would be there for all to see.

 

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

If a couple hundred people reported sightings of Optimus Prime, wouldn't you think looking to see what it is that they saw would be a good idea? Especially if some of the people were respected members of their community.

One person seeing a pink winged unicorn can be dismissed. If a million people see it, does that not imply there might be something to that unicorn possibly being real?

Well there are no cases of hundreds of people seeing a BF at the same time but the bigger problem is that many of these "active" sites are explored afterwards (see all the BF shows and organizations such as BFRO) and no further evidence has ever been found.  Why?  There is no excuse for the total lack of evidence and hence the silliness of multi-dimensions and super hide-and-seek abilities commences. 

[Resume]

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

 

So, decades of studies over, what, 1%... 5% of the wilderness areas of the US, and we know everything that is in there? OK....

The idea BF is intelligent is based on it's reported appearance and reported behavior. Are gorillas non-intelligent? They can learn sign language, right? 

Wow, decades of study.  How about eons of human habitation on this continent in every ecological niche from the High Arctic islands to the Everglades?  Millions upon millions of hunters spending billions upon billions of hours hunting everything from Mastodon to Smilodon to bison and deer for food, clothing and protection, yet not one bigfoot, or piece of bigfoot is left behind.  Nary a tooth, a cape, a skull or a bone.

Then comes the European exploitation of the continent in sort of an opposite direction.  Forests decimated, game shot out, often extirpated.  Whole states cut over until 90% of old growth is lost.  Market hunters and trappers bringing nearly every specie to brink of annihilation from bison and brown bear to migratory waterfowl.  But not one bigfoot fur ever hung from any stall.  In Canada, Hudson's Bay Company explorers were tasked with harvesting every animal possible to ship back to London and Paris, but not one footie ever made the trip.  Humans killed off every single musk ox in the great wilderness of Alaska, and stocks had to be brought in from Canada for re-introduction.  But during all this exploitation, no one has ever produced a bigfoot body, or piece of one.

So bigfoot is very intelligent and adapted to its environment?  As were the First Nations/Native Americans peoples who ultimately ran afoul of human greed and exploitation.  That didn't work out well for them, did it?

Edited March 31, 2018 by Resume
usage

[oldrover]

24 minutes ago, Resume said:

Wow, decades of study.  How about eons of human habitation on this continent in every ecological niche from the High Arctic islands to the Everglades?  Millions upon millions of hunters spending billions upon billions of hours hunting everything from Mastodon to Smilodon to bison and deer for food, clothing and protection, yet not one bigfoot, or piece of bigfoot is left behind.  Nary a tooth, a cape, a skull or a bone.

Then comes the European exploitation of the continent in sort of an opposite direction.  Forests decimated, game shot out, often extirpated.  Whole states cut over until 90% of old growth is lost.  Market hunters and trappers bringing nearly every specie to brink of annihilation from bison and brown bear to migratory waterfowl.  But not one bigfoot fur ever hung from any stall.  In Canada, Hudson's Bay Company explorers were tasked with harvesting every animal possible to ship back to London and Paris, but not one footie ever made the trip.  Humans killed off every single musk ox in the great wilderness of Alaska, and stocks had to be brought in from Canada for re-introduction.  But during all this exploitation, no one has ever produced a bigfoot body, or piece of one.

So bigfoot is very intelligent and adapted to its environment?  As were the First Nations/Native Americans peoples who ultimately ran afoul of human greed and exploitation.  That didn't work out well for them, did it?

 

Still though, might be hiding behind a tree. 

[Minimalists]

3 hours ago, fran123 said:

If Bigfoot does exist and is a species related to humans then there is an easy way to find them. 

Drop a number of mobile phones off in areas where Bigfoot has been sighted with phone numbers of all the other phones in the memory. Set up a command centre to monitor and intercept calls and within a few minutes I'm certain pouting Bigfoot selfies would be soon being sent from phone to phone and the proof would be there for all to see.

 

Even the dinosaurs left behind evidence of their existence 65 million years ago! Here we are talking about a creature  with sightings dating back to 1792 and not a skeleton, fur or anything else besides foot prints that could have easily been faked. Like your idea though....If they are as smart as some claim that is.

[Minimalists]

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If a couple hundred people reported sightings of Optimus Prime, wouldn't you think looking to see what it is that they saw would be a good idea? Especially if some of the people were respected members of their community.

One person seeing a pink winged unicorn can be dismissed. If a million people see it, does that not imply there might be something to that unicorn possibly being real?

Whats up DC? Well first of all you have to consider witness bias and agendas. A lot of folks have these preconceived ideas about what they have seen or heard. Its possible they could be dead on with their accounts, then maybe they aren't.

[Gaden]

17 hours ago, DieChecker said:

...

I do agree there is no physical evidence. If there was, we wouldn't be debating this, would we?

...

 Proving that I was right when I said you have always argued just to be arguing. When I used these exact same words, you chastised me. When I reiterated, you called it wrong headed thinking. Congratulations, you just lost whatever credibility (you thought) you had.

[Dejarma]

On 18/03/2018 at 8:47 AM, DieChecker said:

Except people HAVE found nesting sites, and constructions, and tools, and hair, and feces, and bones

if this is fact then why is it not common knowledge that bigfoot exists?

[+DieChecker]

17 hours ago, Resume said:

Wow, decades of study.  How about eons of human habitation on this continent in every ecological niche from the High Arctic islands to the Everglades?  Millions upon millions of hunters spending billions upon billions of hours hunting everything from Mastodon to Smilodon to bison and deer for food, clothing and protection, yet not one bigfoot, or piece of bigfoot is left behind.  Nary a tooth, a cape, a skull or a bone.

If you are going to include all the thousands of years of native Americans, then you're going to have to understand that almost all native American cultures have stories of big, wild, hairy men. 

Quote

Then comes the European exploitation of the continent in sort of an opposite direction.  Forests decimated, game shot out, often extirpated.  Whole states cut over until 90% of old growth is lost.  Market hunters and trappers bringing nearly every specie to brink of annihilation from bison and brown bear to migratory waterfowl.  But not one bigfoot fur ever hung from any stall. In Canada, Hudson's Bay Company explorers were tasked with harvesting every animal possible to ship back to London and Paris, but not one footie ever made the trip.

Well if we look at stories out of the Old West then there are multiples of incidents of hairy ape men attacking trappers, hunters, miners.... Of those millions of pelts harvested and sent back to Europe... How many are left for examination? Even if a Bigfoot was killed and skinned and sent back to Europe, where would we begin to look for a record?

You are making a definitive statement with zero way to back it up, other then assumption.

Quote

  Humans killed off every single musk ox in the great wilderness of Alaska, and stocks had to be brought in from Canada for re-introduction.  But during all this exploitation, no one has ever produced a bigfoot body, or piece of one.

So bigfoot is very intelligent and adapted to its environment?  As were the First Nations/Native Americans peoples who ultimately ran afoul of human greed and exploitation.  That didn't work out well for them, did it?

So, hunters killed off every large mammal, but we're to believe they wouldn't have killed off bigfoot? Do you imagine they killed Indians and skinned them and sent those back to Europe? No? Then why would you assume that a hairy Indian would be sent back to Europe?

The Native Americans ran afoul of disease for the most part. Are they not intelligent? Is your argument that bigfoot couldn't be real because it would have been killed off, and a record kept? Did every Indian massacre have a record kept?

[+DieChecker]

3 hours ago, Dejarma said:

if this is fact then why is it not common knowledge that bigfoot exists?

Because no physical remains have been found. AND scientifically evaluated. Hair sometimes is "inconclusive", or comes back as Human. Feces come back as Human. That doesn't disprove bigfoot. It only proves that bigfoot is most probably a human... genetically.

[+DieChecker]

9 hours ago, Gaden said:

On 3/30/2018 at 10:30 PM, DieChecker said:

I do agree there is no physical evidence. If there was, we wouldn't be debating this, would we?

 Proving that I was right when I said you have always argued just to be arguing. When I used these exact same words, you chastised me. When I reiterated, you called it wrong headed thinking. Congratulations, you just lost whatever credibility (you thought) you had.

Where did I do that? Show me the "...exact same words"?

Just an FYI, this is a discussion forum, not a scientific journal. Discussion for the point of Discussion is not unheard of.

I freely admit that I like to discuss, often even a bit heatedly. I find it fun, and good mental exercise. 

If I've agreed with you, you should be happy about it.

On 3/22/2018 at 8:00 AM, Gaden said:

 You have always argued just for the sake of arguing. My point stands. If any evidence had been found, ever, there would be no mystery, it would be common knowledge. The biologist or zoologist that proves the existence of viable evidence would gain financially and in popularity to a great extent. Can you point me to any of those papers?

On 3/22/2018 at 10:21 PM, DieChecker said:

And I still say that is wrongheaded thinking, even if the conclusion is correct.

Ah. So I think the thing is I SPECIFICALLY said no physical evidence studied by science. If there had been physical evidence found scientifically to be anomalous, then we'd not be discussing this because BF would be a fact.

That science hasn't examined evidence of bigfoot and found it to be legitimate does not mean no evidence has ever been found. It means it has not been examined by scientific experts.

Again, I think we agree on the conclusion, but you are fixating over stating definitives that are not definitive.

Edited April 1, 2018 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

13 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Whats up DC? Well first of all you have to consider witness bias and agendas. A lot of folks have these preconceived ideas about what they have seen or heard. Its possible they could be dead on with their accounts, then maybe they aren't.

True. I often say that the most likely explanation of bigfoot is misidentification. And I often say that people will see what they expect to see. If someone is camping in Montana and has some expectation of seeing a bigfoot... and then a bear wanders through their camp... they very well may think they see a bigfoot, when the bear runs of into the night. I think this is the same phenomena as people seeing aliens, ghosts, faeries....

[Resume]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If you are going to include all the thousands of years of native Americans, then you're going to have to understand that almost all native American cultures have stories of big, wild, hairy men. 

So what, many societies have wild men stories; they just don't have any wild men to back them up.  As there are no bigfoot to back bigfoot stories.  Not a one.  Anywhere.

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Well if we look at stories out of the Old West then there are multiples of incidents of hairy ape men attacking trappers, hunters, miners.... Of those millions of pelts harvested and sent back to Europe... How many are left for examination? Even if a Bigfoot was killed and skinned and sent back to Europe, where would we begin to look for a record?

Yes, there are stories. Bigfootery is all story, no monkey.  Ever.  As to a bigfoot pelt, they'd be in every major natural history museum, if they existed, which they do not.

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

You are making a definitive statement with zero way to back it up, other then assumption.

Bigfootery is all assumption based on zero (0) reliable observation.  My statement is based on the abundant historical records of the exploitation of North America.

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So, hunters killed off every large mammal, but we're to believe they wouldn't have killed off bigfoot? Do you imagine they killed Indians and skinned them and sent those back to Europe? No? Then why would you assume that a hairy Indian would be sent back to Europe?

Bigfootery describes an ape-like creature more often than not, rather than simply a hairy man. You guys are prisoners of your campfire stories.

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The Native Americans ran afoul of disease for the most part. Are they not intelligent? Is your argument that bigfoot couldn't be real because it would have been killed off, and a record kept? Did every Indian massacre have a record kept?

Your claim, as many do in bigfootery, is that footie is super-intelligent and well-adapted to its environment, so much so that it has evaded all scientific detection.  I merely pointed out that Native Americans, like native populations the world over, were intelligent and well-adapted and yet they were discovered, exploited and annihilated.  To pretend that disease is solely responsible for this annihilation is dishonest, as is much in bigfootery.

[oldrover]

Posting this here as it's the most current BF thread. Al Hodgson died yesterday. It came up on my FB feed this morning, the obituary was by Lauren Coleman.