>>387141>it's NOT scientifically possible that if Bigfoot did exist, that there would be _absolutely zero evidence_ of its existence.>Somebody somewhere at some point, would have shot one and brought it in for scientific examination.This is not true. You appear to be unaware that new species of large animals, previously unknown to science, are still currently being discovered with some regularity. That includes primates and ungulates. Let us restrict ourselves to the case of terrestrial mammals:
>The Myanmar snub-nosed monkey, a primate previously unknown to science, was discovered in 2010. A population of these animals was discovered to be living in China, in 2011. >The Saola is a rare species of wild bovine unknown to science until 1992, when some remains were discovered. It evaded all attempts to photograph it, until the first photo ever taken of the animal was produced in 2013 by a remote trail cam. >The Giant peccary is native to South America and was only discovered in 2000. It was previously known to the natives. >Pygmy three-toed sloths were only discovered in 2001, in Panama. >Yellow-striped chevrotains (like a small deer) were discovered only in 2005. >The Kipunji is a new species of monkey discovered in 2003.>Pic related is a Blond capuchin monkey. They were rumored to exist since the 1600s, but were only formally discovered in 2006. >Olinguitos are related to raccoons, and the species was discovered in 2013. The fact that some species of monkeys weren't even known to science until just last year is proof that rare animals can remain unknown to science for a very, very long time. How do you know what new species of land animal will be discovered in the future? You can't. The discovery of new species is an ongoing thing, and at no point can anyone say "well, that's it, all the evidence for everything has already been found."