Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=Dd714;24811139]I used to like the stories about bigfoot/sasquetch, whatever you want to call them. In the 21st century, as late as the 50s, maybe even the early 60's, it was plausable. But not now, today, with so much of the earth mapped, charted, satelite imagary, video-tapped, fenced off, paved over, logged and replanted, development in forensics and DNA, it's just not plausable anymore.
Where my family saw the something they saw, if you went to the out cropping above the spring, there was 180 degree view. It was very rugged and dense vegitation as far as the eye could see. There was one house that I knew of on the other side of the valley, on our side, only 4 homes. Each home was part of 1,000+ acre parcels.
The valley is fully of wildlife, deer being the most abundant and we saw those maybe once a month (only on the back roads. In two years I saw a bear once, his poop twice. I saw a lynx twice and saw evidence of a mountain lion kill. Those are the animals that we know about and how often I saw them while living in the middle of no where. (google Kneeland air port, find the river to the east and follow it north and south just a bit). For a creature that may be even more uncommon, a sighting may never happen.
Either way- all those creatures saw me many more times than I saw them. If Bigfoot has any intelligence beyond that or typical wildlife. He's going to make an effort to avoid us.
You need to come and hang out in the Pacific Northwest sometime.
There are huge areas that might as well be complete wilderness.
And no "satelite imagary" is going to see through dense woods and tree cover.
I've done alot of hiking when I was younger, including out west, including Alaska...and I've been trekking in Nepal if we want to discuss the Yeti (no of course I didn't see one, in fact it never really crossed my mind while I was there, so not much to discuss). Wilderness is all relative. You would be suprised at the lack of old growth virgin forest in the US. There are some hold outs indeed. In Washington I think Olympic is all old growth. But evey square inch of the eastern US, except for a few patches, and great swaths of the western US have been logged and replanted, several times over, in the last couple centuries. Most of it was layed bare before the 1900s in the east, a sad fact. All those logging roads remain, and are used. People just don't realize that.
The only sectors I would describe as wilderness in the US is in Alaska - there they have mountains, rivers, that aren't even named.
Cutting down a forest takes a while and makes a lot of noise. Just like deer, it is possible that bigfoot moved out of the area and came back(or didn't) when the trees were larger and the undergrowth was thicker. The fact that there have been replantings does not really rule out the existence of bigfoot however. Many animals learn to live within areas where humans also live and some of the stories involve them stealing food from outhouses etc
I've done alot of hiking when I was younger, including out west, including Alaska...and I've been trekking in Nepal if we want to discuss the Yeti (no of course I didn't see one, in fact it never really crossed my mind while I was there, so not much to discuss). Wilderness is all relative. You would be suprised at the lack of old growth virgin forest in the US. There are some hold outs indeed. In Washington I think Olympic is all old growth. But evey square inch of the eastern US, except for a few patches, and great swaths of the western US have been logged and replanted, several times over, in the last couple centuries. Most of it was layed bare before the 1900s in the east, a sad fact. All those logging roads remain, and are used. People just don't realize that.
The only sectors I would describe as wilderness in the US is in Alaska - there they have mountains, rivers, that aren't even named.
On the island of Manhattan in New York City, there is still some ancient forest left and even a few ancient trees, like a honey locust on Fifth Avenue. The ancient forest that is left is in a park on the north of the island in the section called Inwood.
Cutting down a forest takes a while and makes a lot of noise. Just like deer, it is possible that bigfoot moved out of the area and came back(or didn't) when the trees were larger and the undergrowth was thicker. The fact that there have been replantings does not really rule out the existence of bigfoot however. Many animals learn to live within areas where humans also live and some of the stories involve them stealing food from outhouses etc
Of course, but we aren't talking about racoons and rabits, or even deer and black bears, but huge ape-like creatures. Creatures the size of brown bears and buffalo do require lots of living space, and the loss of habitat (as well as hunting) did exterminate them from certain regions of the country. Deer and black bears flourish near human habitation, but they also are commonly seens to such a degree that they become pest animals. Another point - Animals the size of BigFoot, if it subsist on vegetation alone, may require the consumption of 50 or more pounds of plant a day to survive. The point here being twofold - 1.) loss of habitation will result in exterminations, and 2.) It makes their existence more evident and obvious, in the same way that experts can find evidence of grizzly bear and other animals.
Another point, why can man find other obscure animals and keep track of the number in existence in the rugged wild to such detail, but not find Bigfoot? An example is the Mountain Gorrila. An endangered species in extremly rugged areas of the Congo. We not only know of their existence (even knew before Europeans explored those areas in the 1800s), but keep careful track of the number remaining, which they have almost down to the single digit estimates - 790 or so, all tracked in an undevelope area of the world the size of texas.
Of course, but we aren't talking about racoons and rabits, or even deer and black bears, but huge ape-like creatures. Creatures the size of brown bears and buffalo do require lots of living space, and the loss of habitat (as well as hunting) did exterminate them from certain regions of the country. Deer and black bears flourish near human habitation, but they also are commonly seens to such a degree that they become pest animals. Another point - Animals the size of BigFoot, if it subsist on vegetation alone, may require the consumption of 50 or more pounds of plant a day to survive. The point here being twofold - 1.) loss of habitation will result in exterminations, and 2.) It makes their existence more evident and obvious, in the same way that experts can find evidence of grizzly bear and other animals.
Another point, why can man find other obscure animals and keep track of the number in existence in the rugged wild to such detail, but not find Bigfoot? An example is the Mountain Gorrila. An endangered species in extremly rugged areas of the Congo. We not only know of their existence (even knew before Europeans explored those areas in the 1800s), but keep careful track of the number remaining, which they have almost down to the single digit estimates - 790 or so, all tracked in an undevelope area of the world the size of texas.
Very true. Loss of habitat means adapt or move to where they can survive.
I don't thnk 50 lbs of vegetation is hard to come by in the wilderness. Mountain lions and coyotes are pretty good at steering clear of humans. It's not that difficult. People tend to go inside the house after dark. The ones that become pests are the ones that lose their fear of humans, or begin to associate humans with food. If a squatch existed, I would think it would learn pretty quickly to steer clear of humans.
As for being veggies, I have heard of sighting of a bigfoot walking off with a pig under their arm. So, really, no one knows if it is vegetarian or to what degree it finds meat for it's diet. (If it exists, mind you. )
Wildlife biologists, hunters, and people who live far from town can tell you a lot of animals can live right on the outskirts of small towns. Tracking animal populations is not as easy as you think. And one size does not fit all. Tracking a gorilla population is entirely different from tracking another species. Just saying.
If there is a bigfoot, it wouldn't care if it is traveling through an old growth forest or a replant. And I have worked on a regeneration crew for the forestry. The animals are usually aware of you long before you are aware of them. We spent an entire summer in Northern Idaho in the USFS and not once did we see the carcass or skeletal remains of a bear. The only deer carcasses we saw were in the river. The cleanup crews of nature are pretty efficient.
Bottom line is I have to agree, someone somewhere should find some evidence of the creature if it did in fact exist. But who knows. I still like to thnk it does exist. Just the dreamer in me.
Given that there is zero evidence of bigfoot, it comes down to a fallacy argument with those who do believe it does exist. The argument "prove it does not exist".
No, prove it does. All of the development, hiking, mapping, etc, yet not one item of physical evidence to state bigfoot exists. Not a strand of hair, a tooth, a bone, nothing. In the era of everyone and their brother having some sort of recording device, still not one bit of evidence bigfoot exists. Everyone's stories are now from the 80's, 70's and before, strange how the lack of them come now. The only evidence ever produced is "I saw one"; "a friend saw one"; "here are some footprints".
I'm not sure I can buy that the Sasquatch are real animals anymore. Interdimensional perhaps, like all the other beasties people keep seeing on quiet country roads. However, if their are flesh and blood animals to find, I think researchers should focus on the isolated Alaskan/Canadian raincoast. A number of the best sightings are from there. If there is a breakthrough...I'm betting it will be there.
Given that there is zero evidence of bigfoot, it comes down to a fallacy argument with those who do believe it does exist. The argument "prove it does not exist".
No, prove it does. All of the development, hiking, mapping, etc, yet not one item of physical evidence to state bigfoot exists. Not a strand of hair, a tooth, a bone, nothing. In the era of everyone and their brother having some sort of recording device, still not one bit of evidence bigfoot exists. Everyone's stories are now from the 80's, 70's and before, strange how the lack of them come now. The only evidence ever produced is "I saw one"; "a friend saw one"; "here are some footprints".
I am sure that many will refute this. These were found by a retired SAR man.
Please note that the smaller log has been pushed into the ground. How big a person would it take to push it into the ground? No machinery marks at all either.
Last edited by Versatile; 07-10-2012 at 08:17 AM..
Reason: too add more!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
