Ironically, the places I have spent time roaming around the wilderness are bordering exactly the places with low population density that you think could harbor bigfoot. He isn't there. You might as well tell me there are lost cities of gold in the upper Amazon.
You covered every inch, wow. You are as well travelled in that state as any person living, I'd imagine. Ironically, I've lived in Memphis nearly my whole life. Never seen a single person from Three 6 Mafia. The fact remains that in the last decade, a cryptid has been rediscovered. In the last 5 decades, two additional cryptids have been rediscovered. I imagine somewhere in Japan, there was a salty sea merchant who had covered every inch of water... that he covered... and never saw a giant squid. And yet, they were found. Mountain gorillas were "lost" for nearly 50 years, and were re-found... by one guy. In your vast and timely canvassing of the areas you immediately rule out, how many square feet, ie: the distance between your shoulders, would you say you covered? As an estimation. I'd like to just put a percent on your travels. I will easily allow that the odds of a habitat of bipedal primates existing in North America, other than humans, is less than the odds of me winning both Powerball and MegaMillions in the same week. But, for sake of argument, let's put a percentage on the acreage you've covered before we just go ahead and completely rule it out. For perspective sake.
I'm going to start looking for Bigfoot! If I find one I'm not sharing any of the millions of dollars that I get from finding him with anybody!
Keep dreaming of sasquatches in the mist. See how that goes for you. Mountain gorillas in the remote corners of Africa do not compare to bigfoot sightings 2 hours from Seattle. Neither does anything concerning a creature who lives in the depths of the ocean.
I've come across about few. A couple seemed to have been hit by cars and ran off and died (busted up ribs, legs in different directions). Most were fawns that seemed to have been killed by coyotes/dogs. One had been gut shot.
Keep being a dried up absolutist (which, by the way, has very little to no place in science or life) with no imagination. See how that works out for you. How many square feet? 1/10000th of a 1/16th of the State of Washington? Cryptids, meaning, non-common biological creatures rediscovered... yea. You are right. Those in no way compare to OTHER CRYPTIDS. Mountain Gorillas are not in remote locations. They are in only limited locations and in limited numbers. They, in fact, are constantly killed by warring factions simply crossing the border. Jesus H, very [uck fay]ing remote. Do you actually know anything about cryptids or... do you just want to lay down your absolutes for the sake of putting them down?
Study up on biogeography and biodiversity, particularly contrasting tropical regions versus temperate. You'll see that comparing sasquatches and mountain gorillas makes no sense, ecologically. There is no scientific evidence for bigfoot, despite decades and fortunes spent looking. It isn't "absolutism" to reasonably postulate he doesn't exist until some sort of evidence indicates otherwise. Fact: there is no physical evidence for bigfoot. Until that fact changes, there is no reason to theorize he does. Otherwise, I can't prove there are not monsters under the bed. I haven't looked under EVERY bed. People have been talking about them for hundreds of years. I mean, I don't want to be an absolutist.
If you accept that we are primates, then you accept that primates are capable of colonizing various climates. So stating that two species of primate existing in two different zones, when primates have done quite well in varying climates does not hold. The rest of your post I have little disagreement with, with the exception of how you view "necessary to theorize" and absolutism. Stating that Bigfoot has no scientific evidence is perfectly acceptable. As you well know, science deals in probability. As I have said, the probability of a bipedal primate other than human existing in North America, or anywhere, is very nearly zero. Absolutism is your previous set of statements that absolutely declares it is not there. That is my only disagreement, because absolutism, on either side, is something to be deplored. Absolutism is fanaticism. As to unnecessary to theorize, there is much within life and science that lacks evidence, but is still necessary to theorize so as to study or bring about study. As an academic, I take exception because, should you choose academics, posturing on things that only have evidence based leads to less discovery, less science and less imagination. I don't mind your take on Bigfoot, just your presentation.
That wasn't my point. It has nothing to do with where primates are or are not found (Japanese snow monkeys come to mind). It has to do with the odds of a large endemic mammal being confined to a tiny range so as to go unnoticed on a large non-tropical landmass. A Siberian tiger gets noticed, but not a sasquatch. A snow leopard, but not a sasquatch. An ecosystem supports the same species for thousands and thousands of square miles, but only a tiny isolated patch of several hundred square miles holds a sasquatch, and just hasn't been encountered yet when folks passed through? That isn't logical. If you are arguing about me saying "it isn't there" rather than, "there is a 99.999 % chance it isn't there," so be it. I refer you to the many times I have referenced not being able to prove a negative, including an instance in this thread. I am not sure why that didn't satisfy you, so here it is again. As an academic, I am disturbed at your misuse of the word "theorize" in an academic context and implore you to discover its actual meaning in a scientific context. "Theory" is not about "imagining possibilities."
It is actually quite logical, if we, that is, humans, are considered to be predators, then yea, a group of less territorial animals will move away from and remain away from a more territorial group. Meaning, when we moved West (old West, original sightings, Indians held them to exist, their lands destroyed, etc) we more or less herded them into a smaller zone. If an animals habitat is altered, including its food and territory, then so too will the locations to which it is confined. Theory has multiple contexts. A "scientific theory" is a set of tested, repeated and verified observations. Theory is about imaging possibilities. Don't confuse the two. I'm not saying "those looking for Bigfoot are exercising scientific theory," I am saying "those looking for Bigfoot are exercising theory." Theory is exactly about imagining possibilities. Scientific theory is possibility tested, verified and observed. One requires a qualifier, the other does not.
I disagree with your characterization of "theory." Looking for bigfoot is attempting to make an observation. The observation is that he isn't there. So why would one then "theorize" that he could be? They might HYPOTHESIZE, that he is there, but not "theorize." The common vernacular uses the word differently than what it means in a scientific context. Furthermore, your little hypothesis of why Bigfoot remains undetected still doesn't explain the lack of material evidence of bigfoot. It also ignores the fact that North America was home to 30 million people or more prior to the arrival of Europeans, who were also competing for resources or space (and thus would be with bigfoot). Also, why are these creatures not encountered at the edge of their range, like, say, with every other mammal on this continent? It makes no sense. There is not a reasonable chance of these creatures existing. Their is a next to impossible chance of them existing.
Not at all, as I see it. Hypothesis is mere thought, fleeting or otherwise. Theory is thought acted upon, either qualitatively or quantitatively. Scientific theory is theory confirmed. If Newton had merely said, "Something is causing things to fall," but never attempted to test that something, he would have hypothesized, not theorized, and Newtonian forces would be named after someone else. That is your difference between theory and hypothesis. Sorry for breaking this up by quotes, but my phone is shite for responding. Again, many tribes have oral traditions of Bigfoot. So yes, while there were spread out tribes, of not huge numbers by comparison to land mass, there is anecdotal evidence they those tribes tribes encountered something they believed to be a bipedal primate, and one would assume with greater regularity than seen now. Thus providing "evidence" to support such a hypothesis of decreased habitat and thus decreased areas of current "residence." As to material evidence, this is subjective to what one feels is evidence, and distinguishing between true evidence and fraud. But, there are foot print castings (fake, probably a lot, all of them? Yea, maybe.), there are "sightings" (again, falsified? Yea, maybe. Misrepresentation because of altered memory, or lack of proper animal identification? Absolutely.) And video "evidence" (again, fake or real?). So it there is questionable evidence out there, some with scientific study completed that is, to date, not definitive at best. So the purpose of theorizing is to distinguish the fraud from the real. A noble goal in all of science...
