Leaderboard

All those reports and yet no proof. Perhaps it is the reports that should be found lacking. Well, no chimpanzee skeleton fossils are found either. I'm sure that the Chinese, Tibetans, Southeast Asians, Europeans, and North Americans over the past 500 years all got together and decided they'd just pull everyone's leg. Perhaps skeptics are too dense to consider the body of evidence. I once had a guy tell me that thirty-five pound of air in a tire weighed 35 pounds. Even after explaining it was psi exerted on the tire, he remained unconvinced. He really wasn't interested in knowing diddly squat. You mention chimpanzee skeletons a lot. Yes, they are restricted to fairly narrow geographical ranges. Yet you also mention reports from all over the world. In that case, it would seem odd some form of fossil evidence is not available. I say again, perhaps it is something about the report system, or a penchant for humans to report giant, hairy hominids that aren't there. But if reports come from everywhere, their remains should be far more common than those of chimpanzees. I'll be simple. No chimpanzee fossils - but chimpanzees are plentiful. Any argument that there are no BF fossils, therefore BF doesn't exist is just ludicrous. 0 = 0. Zero chimp fossils, zero BF fossils. Yes, we have BF reports, narratives, descriptions, drawings, paintings, tapestries, and carvings - from all around the world - for centuries. Nothing is wrong with the "report system." Hallucinations are individual events - not a series of identical, collective narratives and renderings from most every culture over written history. One other thing reported multiple times is that BF don't abandon their dead, but collect them to their own purpose. I have seen a couple reports of the BF in the process of burying their dead. That would certainly make them a bit more difficult to find. Chimps don't bury their dead, and yet we still can't find chimp fossils. Not one climate/terrain on earth is constant - so chimp fossils should be available somewhere that used to be jungle. But they're not. Something else for you to consider is that we may have Cryptid primate fossils but simply call them something different.

I think there are probably more BFs misidentified as bears, rottweilers, cows, or stumps, than animals misidentified as BFs.

Close enough. The thing we have to keep in mind is that new species of proto-humans and other primates are regularly identified from new fossil finds, or from the reclassification of old. And several have only been identified within the last couple of decades. There are also species already identified in the fossil record that could well be bigfoot. Some, like Heidelbergensis, that buried their dead. If we are looking at an extant species that buries it dead and for which candidates are represented in the fossil record, the "Where are the bones?" argument carries less weight.

Well. Homo Erectus I saw the other day lived as recently as 35,000-50,000 years ago. They keep moving it up. If that's the last fossil evidence, then that doesn't mean that's when they died off. Just in case, keep your eyes peeled.

I'm looking. Whether I find or not, I've never felt a moment to be wasted while out in the field.

Ok, show us what you got, how have you succeeded?