George, you're not thinking critically at all. We have no Bigfoot bodies that were killed or died by any possible means. Road-killed is only one of many possibilities.
We see this constantly with Bigfoot believers. It's actually the reverse of "open-mindedness". It is a failure to think critically and a failure to imagine. Try to imagine the logical premises and conclusions of not having a Bigfoot body or body part in over 400 years in North America. Having somebody(s) tell you that they saw or heard one becomes meaningless when placed into the context of the bigger picture.
I agree. Your "line of thinking" is logical. (In my opinion.) Until a specimen is recovered, the thought of an unknown large primate yet to be discovered is almost uncomprehendable. That is the sole bases for my agreeing. Until physical evidence matches the eyewitness accounts etc. the myth will continue to be just that, a myth. However, I cannot/will not ever concede the road kill arguments, etc. holds water. If you analyze the situation and not the subject, it would not even be a debate.
This has nothing to do with Bigfoot or whatever. I simply go back to one of my prior points that I made earlier. A DNR report from 2008 concluded that a grey wolf had been killed by a vehicle. The conclusions were based on DNA tests which determined that the corpse was a wolf. The article went on to state that determining the difference between a wolf and a dog was (in my words) very hard. Nearly exact DNA matches. Based on the belief system put forth by many of the posters on this sight who claim to be informed, I could immediately conclude that the animal was only a large grey house dog that simply looked like a wolf. I could even say that the DNA tests confirm it and the people reporting the incident only wanted to "believe" that it was a wolf.
In court, I do not deal with what if's, in my opinion, etc. For every opinion, I can find someone with as many PHD's who has the exact opposite opinion.
To argue that a Bigfoot should be laying dead in a ditch does not mathematically add up. To say that it does, well, doesn't.
Would I testify before a jury that I believed that Sasquatch existed beyond a shadow of a doubt. No.
If I were asked to give my opinion based on all of the "circumstantial evidence," I would have to say, "maybe."
Most of the arguments presented to refute the creatures existence could be easily argued against. I honestly believe that the Bigfoot/Sasquatch mystery is still an open case.
I think that the modern technology used by average people, (Fleer, night vision, high-tech trail cams. etc.) should solve this mystery in the near future. Remember, the use of internet by the average person has only exploded in the past few years. Night vision and things like that could not be purchased by the average person due to the extreme expense only until recently. (The past few years too.)
If someone, somewhere cannot produce concrete evidence within the next few years, I will be among the ranks who says, "Nah, if one of those Bigfeet were real, we would find one layin dead in a ditch somewhere by now."
