Leaderboard

I very seriously hope they are never discovered, I think our anti-natural overbearing control freak society would make life a utter living hell for them, just like it does for us. Most all people are totally terrified of a basic black bear to the extent they will shoot on sight if it is seen anywhere remotely close to their home, a creature whose biggest attribute is being timid and which is virtually harmless...I shudder to imagine what the general public would do if they found out something as big, scary, and in-your-face as a bigfoot had EVER killed a human being, every single one of them would be skinned alive by our gross soccer mom society. Period. No debate. Crap man, most of the people around here are afraid of bobcats and coyotes and see them as a real danger in the woods...give me a freaking break.

Read on, and discover how owl hoots are really not, and rodent bites are really not, and pebbles landing on one's camper are sure sign of bigfoot.

Hi Sunflower - Those taps sound like the ones that followed me on around the lake shore after I'd had a 10-15 minute whistling exchange with something behind a 15 foot thick layer of high elevation firs ... something that knows about taking turns and can count. Concerned? Not anymore. That is one spoooooky place. Something on the order of chills down the spine. Ominous. And lonely beyond what's explainable by just being empty. Not since that day, though. While all of those things are there, it's like their context changed. I've had more weird stuff happen but it strikes me as funny, not threatening. It's like ... well, like being in on the joke. MIB

I don't accept your premise dmaker, that "we" don't have a BF corpse. While "I" don't have one, and "you" (probably :-) ) don't either, the "we" in your post above, I know, refers only to peer reviewed scientific sources, reported through mass market news channels or publications. Nothing wrong with holding out for that at all. But, I think it ignores a body of evidence that encompasses a much larger congregation, and a longer reach back in time. When we say 'we" don't have a BF corpse, we should be careful to maybe say this includes the assumption that if "we' had a corpse, we'd all have seen it on the evening news. I for one am convinced it probably hasn't worked out that way. I do hold out hope though.

The point of the OP was to use bear populations to guesstimate at sasquatch populations so that he could use his low population guesstimate to support his assumption that we don't find sasquatch corpses because they are so rare an animal. But what he overlooked was that he opened the door quite wide for the legitimate question of why do we not see a comparable number of bigfoot corpses to bear corpses? If one follows the OP's logic and guesses then that is a perfectly legitimate question. OP states we have X number of bears and Y number of bigfoots. He then says therefore bigfoot corpses should never be expected to show up. However that does not follow his own opening logic. If we have X number of bears and we know we have at least x number of bear corpses. We should expect to have y number of bigfoot corpses according the logic model used by the OP. However we have ZERO, not y. Someone needs to explain why we have zero instead of ANY. Instead, we have a bigfoot advocate that jumps into the thread, ignores the question repeatedly being asked, and instead says bigfoot is real, the evidence says so. End of story! We have all heard this a thousand times from this advocate and would be more interested in him actually answering the question being put to him ( and anyone who cares to answer).

You mistake me. I was simply stating that if you indicate you respect someone, they will be more likely to respect you in return. You opened this sequence of comments with the premise that Native Americans lied then and are just as likely to lie today. I was trying to point out to you that respect is essential to a mutually beneficial exchange, perhaps too subtly, Now you float the premise that I have some sort of prejudicial attitude leading to a double standard. It is unappreciated. Nutshell: You made a prejudicial comment about Native Americans using a historical reference as basis with an obvious lack of understanding regarding its context. I objected. Now you try to pull me into the mud. No thanks.

I believe I understand now. This isn't simply a matter of flawed logic, it is also a matter of projection. Logic, or the lack thereof, I can address directly. Where pathology is concerned, I can only offer sympathy.

There you go again. Not even those who conducted the perception studies you cite go so far as to claim that all people misperceive all of the time, yet you persist in asserting this. So I can only conclude that this is a matter of obstinance and that further argument would simply be a case of everyone getting dirty and the pig loving it. "It" being the attention received.

I think that the best piece of advice to give to someone who wants to go out and see a bigfoot is to NEVER go into the woods looking to see one, I mean sure you pick a spot you are sure they could/are in and experiment with things that could get their attention,, but I think the real trick is to just enjoy yourself out there as much as you can. If you are snooping around like some dang uptight hunter man-on-a-mission type of deal tracking and stalking around it is going to be a very major turn off to them(Not to mention possibly make them view you in a threatening manner) and you are going to burn out on it all fast. Robert Morgan said it best, always think you are being watched, always.

So, strange people show up, who have a reputation by then of slaughtering whole tribes, and start bothering you, taking what they want, and threatening your people. They're crazy about some myth they've heard and say someone pointed them in your direction. You wouldn't smile and say, "Oh, that! Yeah, it's about a month in that direction."?

IMO they are way better off being undiscovered.