Leaderboard

This is a Bigfoot discussion board. A forum. Not an academic peer review research committee. And I'm not here to prove anything to you or anyone else for that matter. An archaeological approach to Bigfoot evidence would require a site with known or suspected activity. Followed by surveying and mapping of the area, and if the situation warrants it, a field excavation. Discussing a possible scenario regarding Bigfoot and cattle ranchers is simply thinking out loud. An educated guess based upon comparative evidence. This thread has nothing to do with archaeological research. But once again, I think you know that and are simply trolling.

Hello. I currently live in Central Florida, but grew up in Eastern Ohio. Stumbled on this site last night and decided to join. I have a hunting property in Ohio with ongoing activity, and am hoping for guidance about how to approach the situation.

When I started turkey hunting on a cattle farm, the cattle would come from a long ways off just to stand and stare at me and my decoy spread. I could not get them to leave. I went to my truck to eat lunch. When I came back the cattle had totally destroyed my decoys and my make shift blind. I don't know if they would have done that if my decoys were Sasquatch decoys though.

That's correct, you can't prove a negative. That's why the law deems you innocent until proven guilty.

Have you noticed noticed that you claim to be a Bigfoot researcher and yet most of your posts are irritatingly snarky and trollish drivel? I am simply thinking out look. There is a difference between making educated assumptions and writing a formal academic report of which I clearly am not. If you had bothered to understand the context of what I wrote than you would realize that I am drawing a comparison between known encounters between cattle ranchers and other predators. I am not in anyway making any definitive statements. But I suspect you know that and are merely doing what internet trolls do best.

The question is a legitimate one, as the OP title suggests. Pretty sure unicorns are pretty iffy

To the OP: Prove to me unicorns don't exist. Or let me show you the dragon in my garage.

Throughout history we have always manifested mythical creatures. I would venture a guess that it’s to explain the bumps in the night we hear or put an explanation to an unknown event. Plus who does not like a nice scary story by the fire!

Have you noticed that all of your commentary are presumptions? You claim to be an archaeologist but that doesn't seem to be the case. Archaeologists don't presume, they identify clues and position arguments much differently. What are you basing your presumptions on other than opinion?

I am only familiar with the Mireya Mayor controversy. I had to go and check out the rest and holy crap there are some freaks out there aren't there? I spent quite a bit of time laughing. I don't know what to say about all that stuff. I'm not so sure about Mayors research that she's doing. It seems a little Hollywood to me. If she's legit then Hopefully there will be more solid information coming down the pike.

Possible. Though I suspect conflict with humans would have made Bigfoot comparably rare in the region than they were over a century ago. Similar to the situation that happened with other large predators who preyed on cattle. Although, if given the opportunity I doubt Bigfoot would pass on the opportunity to prey upon cattle given the opportunity. Probably a comparably rare scenario now though than it was early last century.

Agreed. Cattle ranchers probably learned pretty quickly not to let their cattle graze in Bigfoot country. At least without armed ranch hands guarding them. I potentially see a similar situation to what happened with bears and wolves. With armed bands of cattlemen shooting Bigfoot on sight due to predation upon cattle. The species was probably more abundant in the western states before the previous century until conflict with man arose.

No trolling here and I never said I was a researcher. And I never asked for an academic report. And my comments are fully in context. You make presumptions based on opinion. That's clear. You have offered nothing in the way of an archaeologist approach. I'm not am at archaeologist either but I know what they do. You don't. You don't even know how to do archaeology research in the areas you talk about. How is is that I can do that but you can't or don't?