If so, then their estimates are half of DWA’s. About 2,000 animals in North America,

I didn’t read anything there of Mr. Coleman’s estimates (DWA must be referring to a totally different Estimate than the TBRC).

Still, this is only an estimate. When the animal is proven, a more accurate field count should be made.

I did not know at the time that I wrote that post that it was your population estimate. DWA said it was TBRC’s, an ogranization of which I am not familiar, not mentioning it was your organization until just quite recently. For the statements I am sorry.

I don’t have a guess as to how many Bigfoot there are in North America: The hijinks aside form DWA I would be hesitant to give a number, due to so many unknowns about the creature itself and reaction by media and pseudo-skeptics at population estimates. Plus there is also the differentiation we have to make between Neo-giants and True-giants, which might very well take a chunk out of the 4,000 Bigfoot population estimate. To me I would guess the number could very well be 4,000 or higher, depending on the actual range of the creature, of which we have not a full knowledge of. It could very well be also that a tiny population exists in Canada (Nahanni Valley) while everywhere else sightings are based on hoaxes mis-identification and escaped apes and monkeys (Not likely I think, considering that Bindernagel concludes that Sasquatch exists on Vancover and similar isles, and there is I believe about a million acres or unexplored regions in North America where the animal could easily hide). Meldrum thinks there could be some populations in the Appalachains (probably not spelled right) as well as the PNW, But until a survey is carried out we won’t know, and we have only estimates left until the animal is proven and we get the surveys, estimates that are not excepted by the mainstream Scientific community.

I’m going to look up TBRC, Never heard of it before till now.

Also, I’m not sure how I got pulled into this, but if you Hapa are calling any of my population “laughable, idiotic, and sad” ~ besides that being a personality-based and not intellectual critique ~ I would enjoy reading your best guesses.

Cheers, gentlemen.

No offense to Mr. Coleman on this regard. Nevertheless, I disagree.

Just because I consider Coleman’s work the right stuff does not mean I agree with everything he says.

Up the highway.

If you consider Loren the right stuff, and you should, then you must be OK with his “laughable, idiotic, and sad” population estimates.

Down the road.

(sneeze)

As I told you last time, we simply have to agree to disagree. Personally the writings of Meldrum, Shuker, Coleman, and others like them I consider the right stuff. I am however will attempt to snag Bindernagel’s latest book from Amazon.

Ruppert Matthews is the author of numerous books on history, Natural History, paranormal/unexplained including Cryptozoology.

Here is an alphabetical list of his books.

Here is the website’s homepage.

Ironically, I was once like you. I’ve grown to think differently, no doubt reading the same things you have. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[sigh]

Gotta read the right stuff. There’s a lot of dross in this field. Read: most of it, including your citations. (Ruppert Matthews?)

Down the road, dude. I sounded like you, once. Then I read up. The right stuff.