Leaderboard

The bison is noteworthy in that, when it freely roamed the Great Plains of North America, it would walk into a blizzard, and not retreat before it. Thus, it would shorten the time it was exposed to the storm. Yet the physiology of an enormous ungulate bovine is quite different that that of an envisioned upright, bipedal hominid.

I'm not convinced about that one. I think we should be able to make some pretty educated guesses based on other large primates. Why not? One can make guesses all day long, but without an absolute knowledge of the creature's physiology, the point is moot. Heck, we don't even know if they have hollow hair shafts or not, apparently with all of the hair samples turned in and tested, none are of an unknown primate.

Given that every other North American animal that lives in areas where it gets cold survives, I suppose Bigfoot does. Bears, cats, wolves, minks, beavers, mice, squirrels, deer, elk, marmots, porcupines and people...

I'm sorry, but I will never understand why so many people here consider the BFRO reports to be an impressive source of evidence. ( especially when they fail to see the irony that the larger the pile grows, the less likely bigfoot is to be real.) I have read quite a few of these. The follow-up in many cases is laughable. You can almost see the witness being led by the nose. Things like prior bias stand out like a sore thumb. It's simply not objective to consider this source of evidence with as much weight as people do here. There is a business behind it for Pete's sake. It's like appointing Jack in the Box to be the voice of healthy eating in North America. Point to 45, 450, or 5,000 BFRO reports. In my opinion it does nothing to bolster your argument. In fact, as the number grows the absurdity of bigfoot being real becomes ever more clear. At what number does the whole idea get crushed under its own reporting weight? 100,000 reports? 200,000 reports? A million? At some point even ardent proponents must acknowledge that you cannot have a life and blood creature running around being seen by that many people yet leaving behind no verifiable evidence. It just doesn't happen. Ironically, proponents proudly point to the number of reports in the uber biased BFRO database as somehow impressive evidence. I can guarantee that I could lodge a Class A report today before leaving my house for lunch. This report would end up on the pile. Even more so because I would know what " compelling bits" to put in there to get passed the sniff test of those that consider themselves to be able to sniff out fakes. It would not be hard to do at all. Bear in mind, I am not advocating hoaxing, I am simply demonstrating how easy it would probably be to get false reports into that database. Given that, how can it be taken seriously by anyone? Yet somehow this is what is supposed to compel scientists to march into the woods en masse looking for bigfoot?