I would have to say the fact that as big as the animal is, that no body has ever been found. At least, not found and brought in to be documented. I know that a body doesn't last long once it hits the forest floor, but this is a BIG animal..........and no body being documeneted is still somewhat of a snag, with me.

They may dispose of theit own dead, or hwhen ready to die, the one ready to pass away may intentionally go to a secluded place to expire. Who knows, but I am still amazed that as many of these animals that there has to be for a viable breeding population, that no corpse has been drug to civlization by someone wanting their reward money. Its not like bringing a dead racoon to claim the pelt money, a body of this animal would set one for life, financially. So if a body were out there to be had, I think it would have been had....and taken full advantage of.


I think most all of us who join a forum such as this either lean towards, or fully beleive in, its existence.
So to those of you who are in the former, and are still not 100% convinced, what aspect of sasquatchery, if any, is it that keeps you from going full tilt boogie towards its existence?

I have to agree, but I'll also say that this is the only reason I consider when doubting.

In addition to the lack of physical evidence, I'm sometimes discouraged that remote trail cams have not provided much of anything in the quest to find this creature.

Just some of the things that make me doubt:

The 'breaking news' that turns up nothing. Pine Ridge, South Dakota; Norway House, Manitoba; Honobia, Oklahoma; Malaysia; Bossburg, Washington; Bluff Creek, California; Cave Junction, Oregon; Teslen, Yukon; Skookum Meadow, Washington; Chopaka Mountain, Washington (Memorial Day footage); 50 Years With Bigfoot, Tennessee; New York Baby Bigfoot Footage; Almost every BFRO expedition; Little Eagle, South Dakota; etc. etc.

The advances in technology over the past 40 years, yet no better evidence now than then.

Numerous bigfoot reported crossing highways, yet no road-kill. Ever.

Proclamations based on speculation.

RayG

Edit to revise my list

Three things, really:

• The 'perfect' nature of the enigma -- everything seems perfectly constructed to ensure continued obfuscation of the truth. This plays into the idea that BF is a psychic phenomenon (by psychic, I mean of the psyche but in a fundamental and collective sense, not in a surface sense of individual mental foibles).
• Discredited 'smoking gun' evidence such as dermal ridges. Amazingly, this also plays into the 'perfect' enigma: unexpected properties of water, cement, and soil which combine to fool experts in the field of prints.
• Much as some need to be skeptics, others need to believe -- and I think this works against us. Too much certainty either way is a problem.

Other than that I tend to think that BF is a physical creature.

1. I have never seen one
2. please refer to one

The End

Just trying to help.

That part about the Indian Tracking guide and Roger Patterson coming out of the woods, is killer, Do you think it was Gimlin in the Indian Tracker guide Wig? or just Bob Gimlin Indian tracker guide?

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I regard the technology thing as somewhat two edged, film makes for far better evidence than video or digital cams, if patterson shot with a VHS camcorder, we'd have an animated blobsquatch, film cams handle faster. With greater ATV popularity, fewer hunters walk deep into the woods, ergo are heard coming by the smarter critters. Game cams take too many pictures, anything with an ounce of awareness is gonna see the flash going off half a mile away and remember it. Thermal imaging might make for breakthroughs (If it's ever hooked up to the recording device at the right time ) but there's really not that many units out there. HD video cams and 10+ megapixel cameras might start making an impact, things that were previously blobsquatches might now show enough detail to be intriguing, however they're getting paired with tiny lenses that don't grab much light, ergo will not capture darker objects with sufficient detail to tell what they are. Basically, most of what qualifies as "advances in technology" is the equivalent of marching into the woods in dark glasses and earplugs banging cymbals together.... unless intelligently applied. Meaning, it doesn't really equip the "average joe" to better see and record BF by accident.



For the roadkill thing, pulling some figures out of my butt, seems to indicate that there would be about 1 sasquatch near miss a year on average, when compared to figures for intelligent predator roadkill vs population. Human pedestrian fatalities in NA average about 10,000 PA (high estimate) for a total NA population of 500,000,000, so that's about 1 in 20,000... which seems high, since odds of any kind of fatal vehicular accident are given at about that over a lifetime... but anyhoo, that suggests that there should be a Sasquatch hit about every 4-5 years going on midrange population estimates. However, if we took out all pedestrian fatalities not happening in cities.... I'm betting that would drop 10 fold, so one Sas roadkill every 40-50 years might be more on the mark. So ummm, if you're relying on that one, get everyone you know to drive twice as fast and 10 times more often, and we might get lucky sooner.

I just got done reading John Green's book from 1977. The fact that no progress has been
made in the last 30 years definitely adds to my doubt.

After all these years, nothing. No significant evidence what so ever.

I am disappointed that all the hair analysis and dermal ridge studies by educated experts, don't seem to have impressed much of anyone outside of the group of diehards who were already convinced. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see as its made much headway, even though it should have.

I've never seen one is the reason for my doubt. I look in bigfoot sites on the internet everyday in hopes for some breaking news story that one has been captured, preferably alive.

g'day...here in australia we have the hairy man/yowie, similar sighting, stories, footprints, hair etc etc....but no hairy man........
In saying this, I live in the tropics, rainforest surrounds....I track cassowaries(big Bird) endangered etc.....rainforest is full of feral pigs, some over 200kilo....you see them hit by cars now and then and over the course of say a month, you can watch them decompose and the bones scattered....gone.......very few people wander the woods....those who do stink of deodorant, human sweat and crash through like a buffalo, even when they think they are being quiet.......hairy man, hears you from a mile away and smells you from 500metres away....he is out of there by the time you wander by......bigfoot like hairy man is largely nocturnal, quite intelligent if not very.......as long as habitat is big enough and we do not officially 'mainstream' know he exists...he's ok....he can avoid us, wander behind our houses and into our backyards at night....peeking through windows....

but in 2007, with 230+million of you Yanks sharing its landmass, and these 8foot tall hominoids still undetected, no bones, no body....no nothing in the end, does make one wonder whether we have been deluding ourselves....a gathering of people whom convince each other they exist by our loss of objectivity....in the hope that there is still some mystery left outside of this dirty grey manmade world.....

Me....I know hairy man is there, too many sightings from too many people, from too many walks of life.....add to this the footprints 17inch long, hair, turd.......science has its flaws....relying on physical evidence is one of them, for there are many things we do not know..........we have panthers/big cats here along the east coast of australia....thylacine stills wanders the bush in tasmania and up here in the remote rainforests of northern queensland....people see them quite often...I have spoken to many......they are not all lying or seeing things....

70years ago the evidence on bigfoot, or hairy man, or the thylacine/marsupial tiger, panther/big cats, would be enough to classify them as existing....read books here in australia written 100years ago about the wildlife, early settlers, bushmen etc and you'll find their encounters with all the above animals.....science is not the truth but a tool to understand more... it has cracks that some things fall through......

...by the way in my travels of collecting hairy man and marsupial tiger stories, I ask many of the old bushmen; whats the biggest python you have ever seen...measured....the biggest is a 45foot amethystine python measured taken from a river near where I live in the 1960s.... have a 36footer and many 30footers as well.............they are docile creatures, but the big ones could eat you if they pinned your arms and slowly squeezed.....I remove them from round peoples chicken pens where I live...they are beautiful things....had my hand swallowed once, was like rough sandpaper, thats all.......bit of blood but fine....gave it a good wash cause its the bacteria than can kill you........cheers rod

Rod, I'm ever so glad you've joined BFF! Your posts are informative and thoroughly entertaining. Please keep us informed of developments in the search for Yowie, and I hope the summer's not too hot for you. Best regards, mate!

And Nepal has the Yeti, and then you have the Almas, and the Orang Pendek, etc.

And even though all these different areas of the world have their own version of sasquatch type creatures, still, not one documented body to study.

Given the amount of these things that HAVE to die, regularly, from all these different variations of the beast, all OVER the world, and still not the first documented body.........that can make any believer start to wander.

I don't doubt they are there. I doubt they will be found.

Thanks Husker...good to be here....I live in the tropics so its humid as well as warm...just been body surfing....gather old winter is closing in on you over there.....

We over-rate ourselves, we humans.....we are jack-of-all-trades.....adaptable....but expert at none......bigfoot/hairy man is somewhat adaptable to still be round in the year 2007, with all the habitat destruction and its ever shrinking world....but it is an expert in avoiding man.....it has to be....and it is damn good at it......hunting them is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.....maybe our new technology may help but I have my doubts......bigfoot/hairy man is mainly nocturnal, its eyes see differently to ours...sensitive to heat/infra-red......at night it follows heat trails left by deer, roo...whatever....we set up camtrails for example, make sure we make it seem all natural to 'our eyes'.....but to bigfoot, all our sweaty hand marks, scent, scuff marks, flash like neon signs at night...most of the times we see them is because of their curiosity or like in the Patty footage, it was out in the open...........

I do not want to paint Bigfoot as some kind of Superfoot, its just we over estimate ourselves, especially in the woods and especially hunting them.....go for a swim in the ocean, swim as fast as you can, as smoothly as you can....then watch a fish do it.......in its habitat it makes us look retarded...I have swum with sea-turtles where I live and they with one flick of their flippers are gone....and me with my snorkel and flippers on are left behind feeling pretty clumsy and uncordinated.....cheers rod

What makes me doubt?

1. There isn't a single decent or undisputed photgraph or video in existance
2. Not a body, bone or DNA sample
3. The field is littered with crackpots, shady characters, wishful thinkers and outright hoaxers. Yes there are some good folks researching but we're talking about disbelief here so please do not take offence.

All of the excuses of why dead bodies are not found simply don't fly. With all of the 1000's of lumberjacks, hunters, forestry rangers, nature photographers, and hikers, by now a body should have been found. I was 50/50 in my belief for years but in recent times my belief has dwindled to 85% certain that it dosen't exist.

1. Well, there IS that Patterson/Gimlin thingy. Mind you, one can't take "undisputed" video/photographs of a still disputed animal. The fact that no corpse has been found guarantees the PG film dispute. That doesn't mean, however, that it doesn't depict an actual uncatalogued animal.
2. Haven't there been a number of DNA samples proferred as possibly belonging to a sasquatch? The problem is, we don't know what sasquatch DNA looks like because the creature is still disputed. Once again, we're asking for things that won't be available until AFTER the animal's discovery, a discovery that will render discussions like these moot, anyway.
3. So's the world. Cryptozoology has no gatekeepers like the established sciences do, no checks and balances. The only qualifications one need meet to be a cryptozoologist is the successful inhalation of oxygen and exhalation of carbon dioxide and a love of cryptozoology. Witness the JFK assassination. For every researcher with his head on straight, there are 30 people clinging to loonball batshit theories, as well as free pamphlets that they made at Kinkos meant to prove to you their loonball batshit theories; and for every researcher with his head on straight, there are 50 sly, cynical hucksters with money signs in their eyes and books to write who realized decades ago that they could make a killing on this.

In my opinion, none of these makes for good enough reason to discount this thing's existence, not even the tired "where's the body?" argument.

The closest we have to proof is the Patty Footage.....not based on we have it on film, but what anatomically this creature does in the film footage......the muscle mass and flex in its shoulders and legs are pretty darn good..its gait...its stride and weight depth left in the dirt are all good examples of a real, big, heavy animal....but the clincher for me.....the key to why I think this footage is most likely a bigfoot is the 'elbows'..........take a look at where the elbows bend....now compare it to where our human elbow bends...................if it were a fake, some big guy in a hairy suit, then his elbows would bend higher up the arm.....these elbows bend halfway down a man's forearm...........arms are too long, elbows bend too low to be anatomically possible for a human to do it...we are talking a 7foot height here...take another look at the footage and the arm length and elbow bend and explain to me how that is faked in 1967......cheers rod

At this point the PGF is the only piece of evidence that I consider. That said IT, like everything else in this field, is riddled with too many questions to take seriously except as a very interesting film. As for hair samples and DNA notice there isn't a single instance where a DNA sequence pattern has been arrived at to tell us anything about where this mysterious unkown primate sample fits in with humans and the other great apes. If there was ever a legitamate sample done by a legitmate lab they would know exactly where the crerature fit in on the primate line. This thing has gone on too long without real results to be taken seriously anymore.

Some evidence is quite compelling but... If it were anything like any other animal, a body or at least DNA should have been found. Only a creature that is making an active effort to avoid humans should have been this evasive and it also would have to have been lucky. There are several explanation that can explain such a hyperelusive lifestyle, but they all seem sort of contrived and would seem to exist only for this creature. The lack of a conclusive DNA sample is probably the biggest strike against. It is not reasonable to assume that a specimen is needed with modern techniques of DNA sequencing. A hair or something else with usable DNA should have been found. We are overdue for someone to get a good sample with useful DNA if this creature exists in significant numbers.

The "perfect enigma" strikes again. If BF bury their dead under massive boulders as has been reported, and humans who kill one with a rifle are so shaken up by its resemblance to humans that they also bury it and do not let the body come to light, that might explain the lack of a body, but that doesn't make it any easier to accept that a creature is out there that is almost impossible to document. It does stretch the bounds of what is credible. Not to flip this thread in reverse, but I do have a countervailing thought to this objection: if the genus homo produced the most intelligent, competitive and generally fit (in survival terms) primate to ever inhabit the planet (us), why should all other homo lineages have died out, while pan, gorilla, and pongidae have persisted to the present? The answer: perhaps all these homo lineages haven't died out, but instead represents the 'covert' ape up until humans became the dominant life form on earth (other than bacteria, of course) and thanks to technology no longer had a need to conceal themselves. Think about aboriginal forest people: it is not unusual that they are rarely seen or detected unless they choose to be. Why should it be less so with BF if he exists?

Lets see...

Gotta go with the no body thing first, sorry.

But secondly, because there are people out there who will intentionally perpetrate a hoax. Knowing this, every piece of "evidence" that we see/hear or even experience, has to be doubted, right from jump street. And go from there.
Kinda takes the fun out of it.

The best evidence was found over 40 years ago.

No bodies found.

With advanced technology, still no definite proof.

And still just as questionable today as it was then I might add. Maybe more so...............


Sorry, I'm a party pooper.

Oh, and I also forgot to say. Even with the expansion of society and housing into places were wildlife used to live, no one has found one yet.

It's not an excuse, it's fact.

Recently I remember a time lapse of a deer carcass in the woods.. that deer carcass lasted a week, leaving bones. Those bones likely didn't remain that long as well.

Personally, I believe that black bears exist. I've seen them. I have never ever found a skeleton of one. Come to think of it, I cant remember ever having come across a deer skeleton, either.

Theres also the argument out there as to why many pictures of bigfoot are blurry. Personally I think the counter-argument is that when people see a big foot, they get exited or scared and end up taking a bad photograph. I know how hard it is to photograph something when you are exited about seeing it, especially when it is on the move. I know for sure though if I say a 8 foot hairy ape, Id just want to take a quick photo and then get the hell out of there.

I know here in Australia, that dead animal carcasses do not last very long...now the chances of stumbling upon a dead bigfoot carcass or bones is pretty slim.....as for blurry photos, I also know how hard it is to take decent photo of a wild animal, but the fact that almost all alleged bigfoot photos are blurry undermines it.........
My doubts are based in we have no evidence when all is said and done in the year 2007, despite all the claims, expeditions, new technology like video cameras etc.....believers will argue we do, but we really do not until we have a speciman....everything else is periphery stuff........rod

Even if the no body has been found hinderance is not accepted, there have still been no bones, either. And bones will last a long, long time, save some that are gnawed at by various rodents and such.

You would think that there must have been a skull, jawbone, big ol spine, pelvis, or some part of the skeleton found by now, given as long as bones will remain.

Unless they cremate their dead........?

Hi

I also would like to know why all the bigfoot pictures and vid's are blury, why no bodys, we have all read the stories of them being killed and then walked away from or buried, again no bodies or remains dug back up, what happened to that hunter in TX that said he killed two ???

But i still belive because of all the sightings etc
Tim

QUOTE(Quake @ Dec 27 2007, 05:37 PM)


Remember the Tri-State Crematory 326 bodies dumped on an estate in Noble Georgia over a 30 year period. The only way it was ever discovered was that a dog dragged a human bone into a womans yard. Even then local authorities refused to believe it was so. The EPA was called in to investigate the crematory and that is when the bodies were discovered.

These bodies laid on the estate not far from a church and a number of houses. The sheriff and a number of dignitaries attended a wedding on the property just months before the discovery was made.




Link


As for why I doubt, I've never saw one in person. I had a possible encounter, but never saw what it was.

I think most of us have read, or heard about, the forestry worker, or fire fighter, or whatever, who confided in someone that they had found a dead animal that looked to be human in face and hands. I think they were fighting a fire, or somethign, and found it.

Another supposed body that somehow got misplaced.

This thread, in one act:

Act 1--

"Why do you doubt they exist?"
"Because, in all of this time, they haven't been proven to exist yet, man!"
"Oh. Um...any other reason?"
"No. That about covers it."

Fin

I found one the other year, lasted 2 weeks. They last about 4 weeks on the side of a highway from roadkill to barely a trace (if they don't dissappear in entirety in the first 48 hours)

I'm tending towards the opinion that we "woulda had a skellington by now.." if they did bury their dead. Woulda been found as some subdivision rolled over previously virgin land. (Though they probably only last a few tens of years under most conditions, maybe not even 10 in some soils, particular conditions required for hundred year plus survival)

Doing some quick and dirty figuring, it appears mortality rate even in hunter gatherer societies for humans is only around 1% (A lot of 3rd world countries have higher rates, circa 3%, but are known to have civil wars , droughts, epidemics, etc.) Presuming that the corpses and skeletons of bigfoot are scavenged and dispersed into "uninteresting" form in about 4 weeks and presuming a population of around 5K, that makes for on average about 4 "easily discoverable" bodies lying around continental NA at any one time. However, by easily discoverable, I'm meaning, noticable as a body of "something" and it most probably crawled into the deepest most tangled thicket it could find, so casual observation would be problematic. Then we have the problem of the entire area of NA being pretty damn large to hunt through. If you could cover 100% of a quarter of it in a month, search every square inch, you'd have a good chance of finding one body. At the spring thaw, you might have about trebled your chances. I'd have my doubts though that a single man could adequately search a single square mile thoroughly enough once a month*, with a quarter of the landmass being about 2M square miles, you'd need 2M people on the hunt for a month to only have a good chance of finding a body.

(* IF, IF a man could thoroughly search 8 hours a day, and in each hour thoroughly covered a 12ft wide strip, one mile out, one mile back two miles total, when sometimes in rough country it can take an hour just to get a mile through it, without digging behind every bush and poking every crevice, and he did that for 30 days, then he woulda covered a square mile)

So really, until anyone can convince me that there's 2 million people searching every nook and cranny of the continent, continuously, every month, for several months (to cuss Murphy), and they STILL haven't found a body, then I might start seeing their point. The fact that a few hundred timber cruisers, a few thousand recreational hunters, a few hundreds of thousands who hike trails etc have never found a body, in what are for these purposes, somewhat casual visits to the woods, even over many many years, does not phase me. Remember also it's not a "someone will see it eventually" thing, it's kind of a "whack-a-mole" situation where one dissappears, another one dies somewhere else, so less intense "searches" (i.e. casual observation) over longer periods of time, do not add up to near the same odds as a 2 million man solid month of searching. Maybe, just maybe every few years one drops dead somewhere "obvious" but given only maybe a week for it to be instantly recognisable (in close) for something unknown, given that reporting rates of "live" ones is maybe only 10% and given that people may in general may be somewhat reticent in approaching what appears to be a rotten smelly bear from 50 feet away, that doesn't help much with discovery odds either. Now, expecting one of these people to also have the ambition to report it to anyone intersted enough, with a convincing enough story, in a timely enough fashion, with enough detail as to location to allow it to be found, packed out and described... is also something of an optimistic stretch. Bearing in mind it's gonna be pretty much gone in a couple more weeks. "It was here, somewhere" saith the witness "Honest", "Maybe I got turned around, but I swear it was here, odd how something that big could just disappear" ...

Now if there were some epidemic of a prion chronic wasting type disease in ursids, then we might have a hope in hell, if DNR type folks raised awareness enough to get joe public to want to help by reporting every dead bear, and they had got the funding to investigate and dig out every dead bear brain for analysis. Then, such a program might if continued a few years, get a Sasquatch through mistaken ID.

I do not doubt

I have, on both accounts..

So have I. More than once.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. In addition to the items you've already mentioned, think of all the other things we have for bigfoot research today that were not available back in 1967. DNA sequencing, cell phones, internet, wireless devices, remote imaging, GPS navigation, Google Earth, email, personal computers, laptops, fiber optics, data storage, databases, instant messaging, LCDs, etc. etc.... and still bigfoot eludes us.

With regards to the lack of any roadkill, I'm not speculating, I'm being factual. There has never been a reported bigfoot roadkill despite numerous sightings of bigfoot crossing the road. That's just one of the things that raises my doubts.

RayG

Communication tech improved, woohoo, now we can argue about it faster with more people at once. GPS navigation... useful, but I don't see how it's can be seen as a magic bullet for increased chances of finding Sasquatch, particularly when you've got the "I don't wanna go down that small ravine there, I'll lose lock on the satellite" factor. Remote imaging hmmm, so you're telling me that imaging systems that have a resolution of about ~10cm from orbit in broad daylight, should have been able to get incontravertable proof of a critter suspected to be mainly nocturnal. Patty film has resolution at least 20 times better than that btw, most "blobsquatch" pics are at around 10 times better res, and anything worse than that gets the "probably a tree stump". All the rest of that crap is actually probably just distracting people from getting down and dirty and covering the ground themselves.



But for the space 500 yards ahead and 500 yards behind the car, it's the 3 yards in the middle that do the reckoning. Ergo, presuming the position of the BF with respect to vehicle is totally random, it's about 300/1 against the vehicle occupying the same space as a BF within the parameters of a vehicle being close enough to a BF on the road to observe it. So our 50 reports of BF crossing the road may appear numerous, but do not yet appear numerous enough to conclude that "if one hasn't been hit by now then they don't exist" which would be analogous to declaring after 2 rolls of a dice that "Six never comes up".

That's presuming that we have a deaf/blind imbecile of a creature aimlessly wandering across roads without due regard for anything that might be moving on them. If we are accepting of the fact that binocular vision confers excellent judgement of speed and distance, then we might expect some minimal caution on the part of a BF most of the time. Bear in mind also that BF grew up with the automobile. It's not like you could round up a dozen gorillas from the heart of Africa and release them in the middle of a US city, and figure that the ensuing 30%+ traffic incident rate would be representative of BF adaption to traffic.

No known apes have been found in North America, and lack of body or good vid keep me having some doubts. Hair samples interest me though.

Yes, the easier and faster more people can communicate the better. Is it better to curse the darkness or flick on a light?



None of it is a magic bullet, so to speak, but any improvement in determining location or position gets a thumbs up from me.



If I'm going to be going out in an area I'm not familiar with, I'd like to have as much info available as possible. That would include topographical maps, and yes, satellite imaging if it's available for that area. If you find no use for it, so be it, but I believe it's another useful tool.



Wouldn't that apply for any large animal? Like moose, for example.



I've never claimed they don't exist, nor does your included quote reflect my opinion. I just find it curious that thousands of vehicles travel along our roadways each day, in virtually the same territories, states, provinces, counties, and municipalities as bigfoot, and yet there has never been a confirmed roadkill.



One could argue the flip side of that is a creature, quite unlike us humans, that has never ever died an accidental death, whether it be as roadkill or any other method.



Apples and oranges when you compare apes and bigfoot. Well, more like flanoots and oranges actually. Based on the descriptions, you'd be more accurate comparing humans and bigfoot.

RayG

Well that's my point really, incremental improvements are nice, you can get a bit more focussed, I think for all the preparation and ancilliary equipment though, if you don't do the right kind of stuff on the ground then you may as well be looking in central park as anywhere more "interesting". If I stay at home 24/7 I know exactly where I am, but it don't really help the effort. BTW the topo maps in some GPS units are based on 50's era aerial surveys with minor updates since. Anyhoo, if you had a decent topo map back in 1960 and knew how to use a compass, you were as well set up to figure out where you are and where you're going as we are today. Albeit only to within a hundred yards or so, not 3 or 4.


Yes certainly. I'd say there's several hundred times more moose sightings from vehicles than hits. I've seen 100s of squirrels from the car and hit one last year, and 50 or so deer and haven't hit one of those yet. I know about 50 drivers locally and three of those have hit deer that I know of, if they see as many deer as I do that makes a rough and ready 850 to one shot between seeing a deer and hitting one. That's not statisitically significant being a small sample, but seems in the same ballpark. Deer roadkill seems prevalent, 'coz if there's a dead deer on the side of the road, it's a fixture for a period of time, if you drive by and notice things, you're 100% likely to see it, therefore the 1000s of people that drive past that day also have opportunity to see it. So when you drive through likely killzones a lot, it probably seems as likely to see a dead deer as a live deer, but out of all the people who drive past in the days or weeks it takes to dissappear, only one of them hit it, and it's only one deer.


It appears to me to be simply a matter of numbers. Despite the high number of vehicles on the roads and miles driven, there's not enough of them to make roadkill a very likely event.

True IMO, and if we had figures for number of humans hit crossing rural and semi-rural roads, we'd find low probabilities of BF roadkill in those too. For a start all NA wide figures include cities, and secondly, humans seem more likely to get hit in rural areas while walking along the paved surface of roads, we'd have to have seperate out figures for "crossings" since we don't seem to have had enough reports of BF walking along the paved surface of roads to take notice of. So for all our hundreds of millions in population and millions of vehicles on the roads, we're probably at a one in a few hundred thousand chance of being hit crossing a rural road. Anyway, going with the National Safety Council one year odds of approx 50,000-1 of being any kind of pedestrian (walking along or across the street) being killed by a vehicle in any location, city or rural. With a postulated population in the 5000 range, you can see our odds of a BF being hit in any one year are about 10-1 if they are as traffic aware as humans and secretly jaywalk in our cities. So it kinda looks overdue from that, but I'm not convinced BF is doing much crossing between parked cars, mistiming the lights, or waiting in bus queues destined to be mown down by drunk drivers.

Anyway, when we start numbering BF road crossing reports in the thousands, then I'll begin to agree that "It's weird we haven't had a roadkill yet", but it will take hitting the 10s of thousands before I'm gonna think "hang on, maybe this is looking like they're non-corporeal phenomena" due to you can't prove a "six won't come up" with only a handful of rolls, or even a few dozen, it takes hundreds, to "prove" it thoroughly, thousands.

Flash.

What makes me question? I have no doubts. Why I can see that people question, every crossways fart is claimed to be BF. It gets all hyped up, then it is proven false. I really wish folks that claim to have photos…cough *BFRO* cough…would not make claims that are false. This does more to hurt than to help, in my opinion. Of course any publicity, even negative, is good publicity…right….right?

What makes me doubt it is the fact that there is an alleged primate walking the woods in the USA undiscovered in 2008, no bones, no nothing....... and it can get this big.....hard to explain away with...oh there's sooo much wilderness out there?


Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

Everything that's 'crossways' has to be Bigfoot, what else could it possibly be? Don't be dissin' crossways farts when you don't know nothin' about them mister. They're Bigfoot. And yeah, where are all those non-bear 'photos' that have been promised by the <coughcough>? As for Bigfoot publicity, short of using it to attract potential paying customers for some funky Bigfoot Round-Up Thing™ you got goin' on <coughcough>, I don't see any valid reason there needs to be any publicity of anything Bigfoot anywhere, that is if you're trying to satisfy me. What does it really do for me as BigfootWeirdo647 the person? Lets others in on 'our little secret'? Oh great, now they know.