My theory on bigfoot

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Interesting!
That was a piece of information I hadn't considered, but it does "fit".
I wouldn't ascribe it to the majority of them tho. It's a piece of the reports that I haven't correlated to regions yet either, but I'd be very interested in doing that.

What I will put out there is BF live in our "gaps".
In general we go from home to work and back again. Each of us have pretty predictable routines no matter where we live. Steering clear of us isn't difficult. Add to that we aren't looking for them. Not in our daily lives. We keep "assuming" they are far out into the wild. Should we stumble across "sign" that should trigger us into realizing "something is off" we instead rationalize it.

I'll qualify that by adding of course you should rule out normal things first.

Now ask yourself, strategically, what better way to keep tabs on humans than staying in the shadows doing recon?
We leave our blinds up, we leave our homes surrounded with trees and shrubs for cover, homes are built with so much insulation they are more and more soundproof. Once a week we may have a BBQ or mow the lawn, laundry is done indoors while we sit in AC and watch TV. Sadly I'll add since the invention of invisible fencing we leave our pets out assuming just keeping them in the yard they'll be fine. We stick to trails while hiking, we stay in designated areas in parks and camping.

Humans "assume" a whole lot.

We leave all manner of stuff laying around as well. Factor in illegal garbage/junk dumping we've left massive "artifacts" of our own for Bigfoot to cart off and become familiar with.

They don't go to work, they don't have to hit the store before it closes, they have no real pressure or time constraints.
So just how much time for observation of humans do you think they have had? While it unnerves us to consider it, they aren't stupid and while they may get "context" of some things wrong we make things too easy for them.

While we're off chasing stick structures and casting tracks I've only run into a handful of folks willing to think as a Bigfoot and strategically go in at carefully considered pinch points to verify these theories are correct. All the gear and camera's are of no use if you can't find them. All the bluster in the world won't help you if you can't get in, and then be able to extricate yourself either.

Just my 2 cents worth

a reply to: Caver78

They don't go to work, they don't have to hit the store before it closes, they have no real pressure or time constraints. So just how much time for observation of humans do you think they have had? While it unnerves us to consider it, they aren't stupid and while they may get "context" of some things wrong we make things too easy for them.

Well if Bigfoot is and actual real life flesh and blood creature. Well I would say its had plenty of time and ample reason to as you say it "live in our gaps" In fact going on the whole premise of if Bigfoot is and actual flesh and blood creature that has been around, then yes its possibly had hundreds of thousands of years of practice on how to avoid there more hairless neighbors.

Now that is a lot of time to practice on how to avoid humans or how to avoid anything. Besides humans are not all that perceptive, and we sure as hell can just be dropped in the middle of nowhere and survive much less live. We are more like ants or bees, our whole evolution has been based on group dynamic.

I know, I have passed and drove by people I knew in broad daylight who were trying to honk, or talk to me without even remembering till much latter when they said something about it. And well, how well do you think people really understand or know the world or even universe around them? For the most part it is like Platos cave, only as much as the shapes thrown in front of there eyes see. There still arguing about crap from hundreds of years ago. Who said what and who did what, its not hard to distract humans, just plug in the tube or give them a color team to cheer at.

So it stands to reason that if Bigfoot was around, and around for hundred of thousands of years at the same time as humans were slowly getting less hairy and more you know sophisticated, they would have long figured out how to avoid humans, and likely a lot of other tricks as well. For all we know they can see in the dark in infra red, and even have crazy sonar hearing, even ways of communicating among themselves we dont know about.

They would not be so much as a group hive mind creature like humans are, but more like cells of individual traveling nomads, there would not be a massive amount of them out there, but they would be around. In a way if they exist they do and are much more suited to this planet in many ways, after all we cant even survive a night out there in the cold woods without a bunch of gadgets and clothing and other things, all of which took many centuries to not only invent but implement.

Now ask yourself, strategically, what better way to keep tabs on humans than staying in the shadows doing recon? We leave our blinds up, we leave our homes surrounded with trees and shrubs for cover, homes are built with so much insulation they are more and more soundproof. Once a week we may have a BBQ or mow the lawn, laundry is done indoors while we sit in AC and watch TV. Sadly I'll add since the invention of invisible fencing we leave our pets out assuming just keeping them in the yard they'll be fine. We stick to trails while hiking, we stay in designated areas in parks and camping.

Humans "assume" a whole lot.

Ya! Like I said very very predictable behavior, from day to day it does not change much, even when we go in to the woods we stick to the predestined paths carved out for us by others many many years ago, and those were only carved out by humans because they followed deer trails. For something that would be in its element out there and intelligent. That would be quite literally like just avoiding the clear and marked paths, it would be as hard for them as it would be for us to avoid see some railtracks and some noise in the distance over that hill, we see and hear those two together and instantly know it is not a good time to cross.

While we're off chasing stick structures and casting tracks I've only run into a handful of folks willing to think as a Bigfoot and strategically go in at carefully considered pinch points to verify these theories are correct. All the gear and camera's are of no use if you can't find them. All the bluster in the world won't help you if you can't get in, and then be able to extricate yourself either.

Well dont know about that, by all the bigfoot supposed spotting some have ran into the old fellow. Though there are no shortages of supposed Bigfoot vid captures out there. Maybe there all fake, or maybe only a quarter are fake, or who knows, but there are sure a lot of them, and more are added every year.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Considering that the minimum viable population for Bigfoot, according to all the alleged sightings, would have to be in the tens of thousands, I'd say that even with millions of years of practical application, it would be next to impossible for hairy giants to avoid human detection sufficient to remain elusive.

As for videos, though a bit boring and dry, this is the most accurate (parody) I have seen depicting Bigfoot hunting and capture:

Please disregard this post.

a reply to: SensusCommunis

It would all depend on the mating habits and life span of the creature. As little to nothing is known about the cryptid for all we know it could be an asexual reproduced with a life span of 300 years and only reproduces once every 150 years.

a reply to: crimsongod21

The little we know is based on a complete lack of viable evidence, and a lot of alleged sightings with absolutely no scientific support.

Your suggestions are not biologically sound. If Bigfoot is not subject to the same biological laws that govern the rest of like organisms, then it should be indisputably proven before offering extraordinary hypotheses.

You left out habituators. It's a whole scene. It's easier to infiltrate err i mean investigate than it was 10 to 15 years ago.

a reply to: SensusCommunis
10,000 may be a worldwide population so who knows, you know if Bigfoot actually exists that is.

Though I do not know about that vid? If it is an attempt at humor it has failed at that. I suppose they should try harder, you live and learn I suppose.

But anyways if they were to actually try and look for Bigfoot by actually going out in the woods and poking things with a stick, well it just may take them in the neighborhood of 30 years to cover the ground from the WA Seattle forest area to the edges of were the forests poke from Canada into Alaska, in fact in that manner quite a bit more, lets just say they may die of old age if they started when they were 15yrs old.

And that just may be with modern conveniences as well. Or if they were somehow immune to such trivialities as sleep, food, rain, snow, being or getting sick, or from any other manner of things, and all that jive.

It took pioneers to cover a good chunk of time to cover the continental US the Oregon trail alone just for the foot and horse traffic took to over 20 years to set by fur trappers and the whole mountain men types who were out there practically on the move every day, and the wagons of settlers that latter followed practically by the tens of thousands, lets just say they had a bit more experience then the dudes in the vid, definitely more then the guy that got his head stuck in a tree.

And even then the trail was not passable by wagon for some time. In fact it was not till modern times with automobiles and trains that things really picked up. And how long did all this take to get this far? Practically hundreds of years, and only with modern technology has most of it really been passable and build, there is still plenty of forest area to cover or places were you would be hard placed to walk to.

So ya I would say there is plenty to cover or places that a species of animals especially if they were intelligent can not only hide in, but pretty much thrive. Though the forests are shrinking yearly so in time who knows, right?

The biggest forests are in Russia, according to this site, and the Russian forest alone would cover the whole continental mass of Australia by itself, and second and third place would both be bigger then India easily. So ya! I would not say there is no hiding spots out there.
10 Largest Forests by Country

Basically bro, while at an attempt at humor. What I am saying is that if that is the scope of a Bigfoot search, well then I would think they would be hard pressed to spot elk while on a trip to elk pass in Yellowstone in summer, in elk rutting season. Quite a feet to achieve, and almost an impossibility. But I believe if anybody can achieve that, then those people and all these so called Bigfoot hunters have all the tools to achieve such an impossible thing.

And you know what? That just may be the scope of all Bigfoot search parties that we have had so far out there by people. So ya, if I was Bigfoot, well even for me it would not be that hard to not be spotted by others. They are simply the most elusive ninjas species of the forests of world simply by default, simply because it just would be just so damn easy.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

"10,000 may be a worldwide population..."

Based on...?

There are thousands of alleged sightings all over North America. Because Bigfoot are compared to both apes and humans, or a varying degree of hybrid thereof, according to the number of sightings, and studies of minimum viable populations, there should be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of breeding individuals. Hardly a number that can easily avoid human detection. Especially when all like mammals are well known to fight for territory, fight for mates, act carelessly in their youth, come out in the open in times of hunger, etc. And yet we have zero evidence for any of this aside from inconclusive noises and empty testimony.

I agree that the video isn't very funny, but it more than succeeds at satire. It's the Bigfoot hunters that need to live and learn.

So how many so-called Bigfoot hunters do you know that do more than go out in the woods, poking things with sticks? I can name a small handful, myself.

I'd say that today's technology is a bit more advanced than the covered wagons and hand carts of the pioneers' day. Speaking of the early pioneers and fur trappers; where are the thousands of sightings they had?

There are over 380,000 miles of roads in National Forest areas, with over 1.7 million vehicles traveling those roads each day. (link) Add all the local forest areas, and you have almost triple those numbers.

There are hundreds of thousands of forestry workers in many fields who cover the forests each day. Add the millions of researchers, local hikers/campers, tourists, etc, and you have millions and millions of people who dot the woods in which the most remote area is thirty miles from a road. All the people who claim to have seen Bigfoot, compared to those who had opportunity to do so, is less than a fraction of 1%. Not very good statistics.

So, even with the best technology at hand, considering the success record for finding Bigfoot, that is indeed pretty much the scope of Bigfoot search/research.

a reply to: SensusCommunis

To be fair when discussing a hypothetical creature it is fair to propose hypothetical explanation on there existence.

a reply to: crimsongod21

I agree. Still, the hypotheses should be within reason. Unless evidence is able to prove otherwise, the alleged Bigfoot is an ape, and should be subject to the same biological and natural laws as any other ape.

a reply to: SensusCommunis

You are "assuming" they are ape, when in fact many times, altho anecdotal, they are reported to be incredibly intelligent and human-like.
Also the OP keeps leaving the door open to "if they are real".

Both misconceptions. I would posit they are both smarter than us, and definitely real.
We supposedly advanced as homo sapiens and now work 24/7, are tied to technology and much like peasants of the middle ages sweat paying our tax bills yearly.

Not to say living wild is a picnic or ideal but realistically they answer to no one. The ultimate freedom.

Now demanding I prove breeding populations an pulling definite scientific proofs out of my butt isn't going to happen.
I can't anymore than anyone else can. However if you actually track sighings over the years you certainly CAN nail down possible areas of breeding populations. It'd be up to you to after that to go do some field work. I have neither time nor inclination, if it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck how about we quit arguing what a duck is and move along?

The other insane hypothesis flying around is due to their large size they have to have a large caloric intake.
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha

Do some botany research. For starters they may not have the same type of digestion as Homo Sapiens an even if they do...there are plenty of plants out there to satisfy this need. Reports point to them being omnivores. So going with the flow here let me say The Carrier Nation of British Columbia survived due to eating basically tree bark. It's a historical fact. Peoples of other countries relish bugs...termites are reputed to taste like popcorn. Neither may appeal to you but finding enough calories out there in the woods isn't difficult. Add in the odd dog or cat, snakes, raccoons, possums, deer, fish or aquatic life an things get simpler.

Outside of metro areas there are literally miles of farmland to snack off of unnoticed.
Wildlife, IE prey is moving into the burbs. Plus we toss out all kinds of leftovers. Backyard gardens anyone? Feral hogs are spreading like wildfire, anyone besides me hear that dinner bell? Piles of carcasses from chicken houses, township roadkill deer dumps are also reputed to have some interesting Bigfoot activity. Go figure...

a reply to: Caver78

I'm not assuming they are ape. I'm not even assuming they exist. The vast majority of books about them assume that they are ape. I'm simply playing along.

For the record, humans are also ape ... technically.

I did not respond to the OP, I responded to a particular post. Even if I did respond to "if they are real", my post still applies.

Not only do they answer to no one, they don't answer at all. The ultimate freedom is non-existence.

Praytell, how would one go about nailing down possible areas of breeding populations?

Getting up in my years, I don't hike as often as I used to. But in the day, I hiked all over Central and Northern California, and through much of the Rockies, especially in the Tetons. I have visited many popular "Bigfoot hot spots, have read widely on the subject, and have done my share of scientific research. Living only an hour away, I had a very pleasent visit with Jeff Meldrum in his Idaho University lab, and have exchanged friendly emails with a number of self proclaimed Bigfoot experts. So I'm not one of those armchair skeptics that are so often criticized and disdained.

I'm not arguing what a duck is. I'm arguing what Bigfoot is not, and that is logical, according to most reports. By the way, when we look for a duck, we find it, and it isn't a fraction of the size of the alleged Bigfoot.

Yes, it makes (sarcastic) sense that a breeding population of hairy giants can eat very little in proportion to their size and still be thirteen foot tall, two ton goliaths. I agree that someone should do their bwahahaha research. We can find evidence of foraging and predation for even the smallest creatures, but not enourmous hairy giants. Gee, I wonder why. Oh wait, they're just that smart, despite the fact that they live in worse conditions than Neanderthals.

As for being back yard opportunists ... and zero evidence to back that up ... really?

originally posted by: Greggers
To get this thread back on track, I just wanted to add that I was especially intrigued by the eyewitness accounts stating that Big Foot's eyes glowed red, seemingly with their own interior light. That's creepy as hell. If it's not eye shine (as mentioned above), what could cause that?

My siamese cat's eyes glow red at night, but that's eye shine from the moonlight.

That was the creepiest part of my sister's account...she said they were lit up like a jack-o-lantern. Definitely not eyeshine.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
My mother's poodle just got killed last month, the same way. I just found out about it from my niece. She was a little indoor dog...somehow got out and no one noticed til they found the remains the next morning.

a reply to: OrdoAdChao

a reply to: tigertatzen 
Ever compare your experiences to the Skinwalker Ranch case? I see a lot of parallels. 

Yes, and it is frightening how some of the skinwalker accounts mirror some of my own experiences out there on my mom's property.

Actually what Tigertatzen has described has been reported many times in the South Eastern and Southern US. Not meaning to be too crude or unfeeling since the loss of a pet is nothing to joke about but "peel'n eats" have happened many times before and is recognized Bf behavior down south with both dogs and coyotes.

If anyone has done any hunting an trapping peeling a carcass is the easiest way to go about skinning one.

To SensusCommunis,

apologies if I replied with a bit of a chip on my shoulder. I've been following Bf reports since the 70's.
The whole, "is it real" debate doesn't fly with me, and hasn't in years. Time to get to the meat and potatoes an skip the sillies. If you've read hundreds of reports you can certainly narrow down some things. Behavior demonstrated consistently across the board in different regions of the US is one.

Up North hunting leases and baiting for one. Hunting leases don't exist in the northern states and baiting is illegal as well. So the encounters will be different as will the BF's behavior. On a lease that's used only several times a year both groups, human and BF are competing for territory and game. Plus the bait, as far as the Bf is concerned.

Up north hunters are free to use public game lands, National Forests plus with owners permission private land. Instead of just several times a year of human interference, as different game animal seasons come in, hunters are more scattered out unpredictably over wide areas through-out the year.

So you are going to see this reflected in the reports. Down south the BF are more aggressive and insistent that humans vacate the woods. Up north it's easier to just dodge 'em and pull a "fade". Put yourself in a BF's shoes, a few times a year down south not only do humans put out bait several weeks before hunting season starts, but some all year long. Drawing in deer and other prey. Then the humans invade! Or so it seems to them. So the behavior you see is pretty self explanatory. It's a lot of territorial posturing and so far that behavior has worked for them.

Up North you get reports occasionally of a BF interfering with a deer or moose kill but it's more opportunistic than seemingly planned by the BF. Down South they "seem" to wait and shadow hunters deliberately to snag the kill.

Now this is just one example of using the reports to delineate behaviors. Everything is pretty much right in our faces if you get over the idea that anecdotal evidence is useless. If there aren't enough reports in your personal area use another areas as a comparison to what's different in the few from your area. Haul out topographical maps and start using
www.daftlogic.com...

to check out cross country distances between reports. Those results alone will shock you silly. BF goes cross country as the crow flies dependent on the difficulty of the terrain, humans use roads, so what appears as random different sightings are actually maybe all linked. Do that for multi year reports and patterns emerge. Home territories if you will indulge me.

None of this is rocket science....truly it isn't.

After that you have to get out into the woods....BF trails "seem to " parallel game trails. Find a game trail and then look for the parallel one. BF bushwhacks, humans don't. We'll follow the game trail, oblivious, like the deer using it. It's been noted by others BF likes to stay 1/2 way down a hill and off the ridge line. so if you are watching the ridge, or on a ridge watching the river bottom you are missing exactly what you were looking for. The BF trail part way up the hill going across the hill slope.

a reply to: Caver78

No apologies necessary. You're standing up for what you believe in. That is to be respected, whether I agree or not.

I have been involved with cryptozoology since reading Heuvalmans' "On the Track of Unknown Animals" in the late 60s.

It is an in depth study during all those years that has turned me into a skeptic and disbeliever.

In the case of Bigfoot, you have offered a lot of data concerning it's hunting/foraging habits. But can you offer even the tiniest evidence that can be indisputably substantiated by the scientific method to support that data?

There is tons and tons of data on Bigfoot, much of it contradictory. None of it substantiated even a microscopic bit by critical thinking, logical evaluation, or the scientific method, and no one who accepts the existence of Bigfoot can see the irony in that.

Being purely anecdotal does not automatically make something worthless. But to be of any value, there has to be more than just words.

a reply to: SensusCommunis

"10,000 may be a worldwide population..." Based on...?

Its something I said. As in, ya maybe there worldwide population if they existed is pretty low, ie 10,000. I mean who would know. Besides lets just say Bigfoot is real and exists. How do you suppose they have stayed allusive for practically not only hundreds of years but all of practical human history?

In fact the fact alone that they exist pretty much rips up a whole lot of what we would call history and even what we would know of so called evolution and our place here on planet earth like cheesecloth. But hey! You know! This is all theoretical. So don't take it so seriously.

Hardly a number that can easily avoid human detection. Especially when all like mammals are well known to fight for territory, fight for mates, act carelessly in their youth, come out in the open in times of hunger, etc. And yet we have zero evidence for any of this aside from inconclusive noises and empty testimony.

Well I would suppose that they have learned about 50,000 years ago to keep a low profile or there more hairless neighbors would be attracted to there shenanigans.

You know we are accustomed to having it easy, in my opinion human evolution just may have been the easiest road that there is in the cosmos, we dont have any natural competitors that are on our level, we dont even have a natural predator, ie something that is just as smart and intuitive as us and can kill us just as easily even with satellites from space. Does that not strike you ass odd? The only thing humans seem to really have to worry about is other humans.

So I suppose you could say we can afford to do all those things like, fight for territory amongst ourselfs, fight for mates in trivial matters, act carelessly in our youth, go to strange and new places in times of hunger, or make as much noise as possible without having to worry about something taking our head off from miles away.

But if we could not afford to do any of that, or have had those privileges, then we would not do it. Again this is all theoretical, but if Bigfoot existed, and have been lets say evolving alongside humans for the past hundreds of thousands of years? Do you not think they may have learned a thing or two in all that time?

In fact whats even more disturbing is that fact that if they did exist, our downright ignorance and blindness to all of it that have been going on right under our noses, would speak volumes to a great many things.

So how many so-called Bigfoot hunters do you know that do more than go out in the woods, poking things with sticks? I can name a small handful, myself.

So what are you trying to say. That your a Bigfoot hunter, and that vid you posted was not as I originally thought a poor attempt at humor. But an attempt at a documentary on the total ineptness of so called Bigfoot hunters that are out there?

Now that is totally a shocker.

I'd say that today's technology is a bit more advanced than the covered wagons and hand carts of the pioneers' day. Speaking of the early pioneers and fur trappers; where are the thousands of sightings they had?

Actually there are plenty of stories from back then as well, even going back to the first pioneers as well, not to mention the natives as well. So were are they thousands of stories they had? Long dead because they did not have commendations and print to make it convenient for you today, in fact most of them who so called "conquered the west" could not read or write. But even with all that, plenty of stories out there if one were so inclined to look.

But hey, here is a story that survived, thanks in part to one Teddy Roosevelt, who recounts a story told to him in a book he wrote The Bauman Story

There are over 380,000 miles of roads in National Forest areas, with over 1.7 million vehicles traveling those roads each day. (link) Add all the local forest areas, and you have almost triple those numbers.

Yes! But what is your point? Are you saying that bigfoot does not exist because there are roads in national forests were people drive there cars through? You know if big foots existed they are likely to have an organ called ears which is prone on primates for the purpusees of hearing both prey or predators amongst a thousand other uses, you know. And if you have been in a heavily wooded area, it is something like being in a tunnel, that is sound can travel a long ways, especially among the canopy of trees be they small forests or hundreds of miles of trees.

And yes there are 380,000 milles or roads in the national forests areas. And all those roads are for all intensive purposes there for tourists to folow the beaten and proved traveled paths for a long long time. And even though they would stretch for hundreds of thousands of miles if you add them up, they still only cover but a small percentage of actual land mass in these National Forests were they were built.

There are hundreds of thousands of forestry workers in many fields who cover the forests each day. Add the millions of researchers, local hikers/campers, tourists, etc, and you have millions and millions of people who dot the woods in which the most remote area is thirty miles from a road. All the people who claim to have seen Bigfoot, compared to those who had opportunity to do so, is less than a fraction of 1%. Not very good statistics.

Yes I know its quite disturbing, very disturbing indeed. If it turns out that there are a species of primate out there who has existed all this time. That would say something, it would say humans are not very perceptive even with all the advances and technology to something that has been hiding right under there noses.

Or there is something more going on then just what we believe, or possibly even imagine. Or not.

So, even with the best technology at hand, considering the success record for finding Bigfoot, that is indeed pretty much the scope of Bigfoot search/research.

Yes! As that documentary vid you posted showed. That vid shows quite well the scope of Bigfoot search and research. Its why I refer to it as a documentary. It clearly shows the total and complete ineptness of humans to achieve such a thing as search for Bigfoot.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Its something I said. As in, ya maybe there worldwide population if they existed is pretty low, ie 10,000. I mean who would know. Besides lets just say Bigfoot is real and exists. How do you suppose they have stayed allusive for practically not only hundreds of years but all of practical human history?

So, it’s a number you just made up? This would make sense since almost everything about Bigfoot is, in fact, made up. It would be a lot easier to say Bigfoot is real and exists if it wasn’t so incredibly allusive. The best way to not be detected, is to not be real.

In fact the fact alone that they exist pretty much rips up a whole lot of what we would call history and even what we would know of so called evolution and our place here on planet earth like cheesecloth. But hey! You know! This is all theoretical. So don't take it so seriously.

In other words, you believe we should dismiss history, logic and science to support a lot of empty testimony?
Why would I take something that doesn’t exist seriously? That’s a rhetorical question. I wouldn’t.

Well I would suppose that they have learned about 50,000 years ago to keep a low profile or there more hairless neighbors would be attracted to there shenanigans.

So, the super intelligent Bigfoot, that live in less productive conditions than the Neanderthal, about a (made up) 50,000 years ago, learned to be smarter than the dopey humans (who have been around for thousands of years), who have gone on to send men to the Moon and make many astounding discoveries, which is how the Bigfoot can avoid the humans? Yea, right. What could make more sense?

You know we are accustomed to having it easy, in my opinion human evolution just may have been the easiest road that there is in the cosmos, we dont have any natural competitors that are on our level, we dont even have a natural predator, ie something that is just as smart and intuitive as us and can kill us just as easily even with satellites from space.

Many scientists, mostly in the psychological sciences, make many parallels between us and early man, who was often on the menu. So I would have to disagree that human evolution “may have been the easiest road that there is in the cosmos”.
The layman gives much less credit to human senses, which can be incredibly adaptive and keen (inherited from early man), than they deserve. Men and women in dire situations, especially during war, have proved this again and again.

...but if Bigfoot existed, and have been lets say evolving alongside humans for the past hundreds of thousands of years? Do you not think they may have learned a thing or two in all that time?

In fact whats even more disturbing is that fact that if they did exist, our downright ignorance and blindness to all of it that have been going on right under our noses, would speak volumes to a great many things.

So, Bigfoot is excused from being subject to the biological laws that rule every other ape or ape-like creature, or even every mammal for that matter? Based on...?

So what are you trying to say. That your a Bigfoot hunter, and that vid you posted was not as I originally thought a poor attempt at humor. But an attempt at a documentary on the total ineptness of so called Bigfoot hunters that are out there?

Now that is totally a shocker.

No. It is, indeed, a poor attempt at humor. No argument there. Well, I did chuckle a couple of times, to be honest. It does, however, portray Bigfoot hunters for what they truly are (with a few admirable exceptions), great big jokes.

Too obvious to be a shocker.

Actually there are plenty of stories from back then as well, even going back to the first pioneers as well, not to mention the natives as well. So were are they thousands of stories they had? Long dead because they did not have commendations and print to make it convenient for you today, in fact most of them who so called "conquered the west" could not read or write. But even with all that, plenty of stories out there if one were so inclined to look.

But hey, here is a story that survived, thanks in part to one Teddy Roosevelt, who recounts a story told to him in a book he wrote The Bauman Story

Nonsense. There are thousands of pioneer journals, many of which can be seen by simply googling them. Only a tiny fraction of them, that I’m aware of, speak of anything closely resembling Bigfoot, and even those tiny few are too obscure to say it couldn’t have been a bear.

Theodore Roosevelt enjoyed telling wild tales, and this “goblin-story” was a doozy. At no time does Theodore say he believes the tale. To the contrary, he states:

“...but he was of German ancestry, and in childhood had doubtless been saturated with all kinds of ghost and goblin lore. So that many fearsome superstitions were latent in his mind; besides, he knew well the stories told by the Indian medicine men in their winter camps, of the snow-walkers, and the specters, [spirits, ghosts & apparitions] the formless evil beings that haunt the forest depths, and dog and waylay the lonely wanderer who after nightfall passes through the regions where they lurk. It may be that when overcome by the horror of the fate that befell his friend, and when oppressed by the awful dread of the unknown, he grew to attribute, both at the time and still more in remembrance, weird and elfin traits to what was merely some abnormally wicked and cunning wild beast...”

Aside from claiming, in the tale, that the “bear” had walked off on two legs, there is nothing in the narrative that leads us to believe that the “goblin” was anything other than a bear, which can appear to be walking on two legs when its tracks overlap.

You’ll have to do better than just one story from back when, and a whole lot better than that one.

Yes! But what is your point?

My point is rather obvious. According to the sites I linked to, there would be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of breeding individuals, surrounded by millions and millions of people. No amount of “evolutionary learning” would allow them to escape discovery under those circumstances. Especially when they are so careless that there are thousands of people claiming to briefly see them.

. If it turns out that there are a species of primate out there who has existed all this time. That would say something, it would say humans are not very perceptive even with all the advances and technology to something that has been hiding right under there noses.

Or there is something more going on then just what we believe, or possibly even imagine. Or not.

So, humans, who know what is inside a molecule, who photograph the rarest animals on Earth, who cure many of the most puzzling diseases, who have solved many mysteries and near impossible to solve crimes, who can spot suspicious activity from a satellite photo, etc, are not very perceptive? Again: Yea, right. What could make more sense?

As for more going on that we believe or imagine...
Based on...?

That vid shows quite well the scope of Bigfoot search and research. Its why I refer to it as a documentary. It clearly shows the total and complete ineptness of humans to achieve such a thing as search for Bigfoot.

Especially when it doesn’t exist.