I feel as if though I can explain thoroughly enough each and every point that you have made thus far about the nonexistence of a bipedal, upright
walking ape currently residing in the Pacific Northwest.
1. From the evidence we have collected, Bigfoot has existed for quite a while, and that's very evident from the Native Americans and the older tribes
that have stories dating back thousands of years who have told tales of upright creatures and 'Wild Men' or 'Hairy Men.' Also, we didn't have the
technology to examine bodies and bones back in the past, and you need to remember that Sasquatch are very well when it comes to hiding. Also, I
wouldn't be surprised if other Sasquatch would take the body of another Sasquatch (possibly a family member) and either A) bury them somewhere else or
B) take them to a different place where the bodies couldn't be found. This may not be the case, ultimately, but it is certainly a possibility.
2. I do not believe (not have I ever believed) that we are witnessing the extinction of a undocumented species nor are their number declining rapidly.
Sasquatch (as mentioned above, and will be mentioned several times) is very good when it comes to hiding and cloaking itself in the wilderness. That's
why we don't see them very often. There are multiple videos on YouTube that, while some appear to be very identifiable hoaxes, show a Sasquatch hiding
behind a tree and sometimes the cameraman doesn't even know that he is in the process of filming a Sasquatch.
3. I have already discussed this so many times on previous forums that it's almost unbearable for me to speak out about it yet again. I have met a few
hunters who have seen the creature and a ton who told me what they would do in that situation. On a first note, the hunters who have seen one (and
this goes for all hunters I have met) say they would rather not shoot a Sasquatch just because of how murderous it would seem and how unique it would
be to see one. Also, hunters more than likely rarely come across Sasquatch, cause yet again, they are very good at hiding. What would you do (as a
human, naturally) if you saw a bear. I know that I would sure hide behind tree and not make a peep the entire time and not make myself known. It
wouldn't surprise me if Sasquatch did the same. Also
4. When it comes to sightings, I'm not sure if I could get a good photo due to the heat of the moment. If I was a Sasquatch and wouldn't want to be
bothered, I'd leave at the first sign of a human. Secondly, all humans are usually too shocked or surprised too pull out a camera. Also, they've seem
to have adapted to trail cams and the use of them. We are pests to them when it comes to finding evidence, and I'm sure they're not as dumb as
5. Do I even need to discuss? I'll just bring up a few points and then move onto the next point. We have not taken up as much land as you think. No,
not even a single sliver compared to the entire forest. The forests across North America stretch as far as the eye can see. Take any of the areas in
between Lewis County, Skamania, and even Skookum Meadows. It's all forest.
6. I've already mentioned about the body hypothesis on my first point, so I won't explain it again. However, when it comes to bones, there are several
valid theories of why we never find anything. First and foremost, the acidic and not so forgiving forest floor of the Pacific Northwest. Ever seen the
video on YouTube where they leave a fresh body out to see how it disintegrates over a period of time? It completely disappears due to maggots (bones
and all) and other parts of the first floor. I probably need not explain more. Ah, but we have had hair, and DNA evidence supposedly, does that
tighten the hole any more?
7. This relates to the body subject. No need to explain here as it seems it's just going back to the matter of bones and a skeleton.
8. More than likely, they're omnivore, and they have a plethora of different option to choose from. Set me with a set of hunting and survival skills,
and watch me live out in the forest. Of course, a Bigfoot is well adapted for this environment, so that's very self explanatory.
9. How does this prove that the creature does not exist?I'm legitimately confused. So what if it lives for 5 minutes? Doesn't mean it does not exist.
1. I don't think everyone can either be lying or misidentifying what they're seeing. That's saying tens of thousands of people are either lying or
2. We have DNA evidence. Could that DNA be contaminated? Yes, very likely. But what about the evidence that isn't contaminated.
3. There is a small collection of very good photos and video out there, like the Patterson Gimlin film.
4. The forest is very, very, very, very BIG.
edit on 8-3-2012 by AustinMorrow because: Spelling and grammatical error check.