That reply wasn't addressed to you specifically but as you seem eager to engage. First, I'd suggest you spend more time in the field searching for answers and not base your entire stance on current scientific knowledge and reasoning of others alone. If you really want answers you'll have to get your hands dirty. But, I suspect you don't really want answers.
Thanks for your suggestion.
I've spent much of my 57 years in the out of doors, indeed from the arctic to the tropics, hunting, camping, fishing, a bit of free-climbing, orienteering, etc. In fact, I began getting into hunting with a bow (Shakespeare Necedah, 45# draw) at the same time I came across the PGF stills, which is when I began researching how it might be possible that such a creature might exist. My friends and I determined through our combined skill set, outdoor knowledge, and research into NA history that it was unlikely at best. The intervening years have only reinforced that inevitable conclusion.
I think what you mean by getting your hands dirty means re-interpreting natural phenomena like tree breaks, weather degraded footprints and bobcat-in-heat (or fox vixen) screams as footie done it, the
only answer you're interested in.
It seems most would rather try to draw alone into an argument in which the only thought required on their part is to deny. In short, it means those individuals are incapable of having any meaningful conversation on the subject.
Chris B.
There has been much meaningful dialogue on this subject here, and not all that much of it has come from proponents I'm afraid. "I seen one," and "They're elusive (or ilusive)" just aren't very coherent or convincing arguments. Saying it over and over doesn't make them more convincing. Every passing day without bigfoot merely enforces the lack of bigfoot anywhere. Remember, you bring in footie, I donate 2 grand to the wildlife conservation group of your choosing.
I know I'll never have to make that donation.
