• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

hominids

i know blue bears exist, but the point was that science has never found a full carcass of this animal, despite searching for decades in the himalayas.

do opinions hear differ for the yeti than bigfoot?
 
makaya325 said:
i know blue bears exist, but the point was that science has never found a full carcass of this animal, despite searching for decades in the himalayas.

do opinions hear differ for the yeti than bigfoot?
Click to expand...

Kit thinks I'm bitter. But Kit thinks a lot of things that never pan out. So rather than you get the fatal questrion asked by one of the usual suspects I'll save them the trouble now. What sort of hard evidence do you have that the hominids you mention exist. Reports are not hard evidence, legends are not hard evidence. In the absence of hard evidence there is only opinion. I am of the opinion that the class of hominids in question have gone extinct. My negative view concerning the issue is far from that of the Footers. So the last bastion of the existence of Sasquatch rides in the PGF and the jury is still out on that one. But hey there's been better than 40 years for Patty and the last of her realitives to expire. The lads have been on good behavior with you, perhaps because nasty little me is circleing above but don't be fooled.
 
makaya325 said:
i know blue bears exist, but the point was that science has never found a full carcass of this animal, despite searching for decades in the himalayas.
Click to expand...

Who ever put it in your head that a Tibetan blue bear body has never been found? Someone told you that because you didn't read it from any factual source. I'm guessing Bigfoot forum, book, or Bigfoot enthusiast on TV. I don't know if you noticed it but I gave you a couple of pictures of Tibetan blue bear's in Japanese zoos.

Science has blue bears. They can study them, weigh them, measure them, put their heads up against their chests and listen to their hearts beating. Science can feed them, have their picture taken with them, and change their poopies.
 
Crowlogic said:
The lads have been on good behavior with you, perhaps because nasty little me is circleing above but don't be fooled.
Click to expand...

You flatter yourself. It probably has something to do with not whining about what a bad place this is and logging in everday.;)
 
makaya325 said:
but what about the reports from remote bc or alberta? i think its good to dismiss most reports, and have skeptics realize only a fraction r true, and that they arent seen over the continent
Click to expand...

Can you give me a cite for the reports from remote B.C. or Alberta? I don't generally keep up with Bigfoot, but as an Albertan in B.C., I like to keep an eye on my neck of the woods.
 
well ,generally, reports come from canada, so look it up?'

kitz, we have only 1 blue bear. yet science has not found another one dead or alive after countless expeditions to the himalayas. considering the fact most people, proponents and skeptics, are armchaired, no wonder why we dont find anything.

look im not trying to start anything, just stating my opinion
 
makaya325 said:
well ,generally, reports come from canada, so look it up?'

kitz, we have only 1 blue bear. yet science has not found another one dead or alive after countless expeditions to the himalayas. considering the fact most people, proponents and skeptics, are armchaired, no wonder why we dont find anything.

look im not trying to start anything, just stating my opinion
Click to expand...

I don't think you're starting anything, we're just coming to an understanding. I don't know where you're getting the idea that there is only one Tibetan blue bear we can observe. I showed you three separate bears, two in captivity. I don't know about these countless failed attempts to go recover one either. They're rare. Extremely, extremely rare. It doesn't mean we're at a loss to explain Tibetan blue bears.

Oh no, you brought out the armchair bit. Please, please, please, Mayaka, try to think about this realistically. You are at a computer now and so am I. That doesn't mean anything. People are out there every day in Bigfoot land doing all manner of things without a single shred of reliable evidence of that supposed giant mammal that has to live, eat, find others, hump, sleep, poop, and die.

Let me see if we can walk through this rationally. You think Bigfoot is in BC and Alberta. Where in either of those provinces do you think Bigfoot is living and breeding and why?

BTW, I don't think the first sentence in your post there was directed to me. You may not know how to use the quote function here. If there is a post you wish to respond to then at the lower right of that post you will see a set of options including quote. If you use that, it will be much easier for us to know who you are speaking to.
 
kit, people are out there going on with their lives, and some are reporting to see large gorilla like animals. bc is the homeland of squatch, regardless of its existence or not. if you go to look at reports, you can see that most are from washington, oregon, upper cali, all of those areas are considered remote by modern society. i think people in other states are trying to copy off of the real sightings in the main bf territories for attention. gorillas give birth every 7 years, so its not like a primate would give birth everyday. whether you believe it or not, there have been sightings of these things mating, and before you throw out the woos, remember that lions are known to participate in "orgies" with one another

people are out in biff land, but are they spending every second looking for bigfoot? nope. i know what you mean by finding things on accident, but its better to look for things rather than just wander around expecting to find a bone of an incredibly rare animal. did you ever find wolverine bones while hiking or camping?
 
Last edited:
makaya325 said:
people are out in biff land, but are they spending every second looking for bigfoot? nope. i know what you mean by finding things on accident, but its better to look for things rather than just wander around expecting to find a bone of an incredibly rare animal. did you ever find wolverine bones while hiking or camping?
Click to expand...

And yet some people are out there and or have been out there. I spen the better part of 2 years in the Adirondacks in some very remote areas doing environmental research. Had endless hours in the forest day and night day in and day out and got to know the region very, very well. During my time in the field I was not of the Bigfoot/Sasquatch mindset but I'm certain that if there was something to be encountered in the region I would have encountered it. I'll tell anyone flat out no don't waste your time there looking for Bigfoot. And lets not forget that there are dozens of occupations and pastimes that put people out into the suspected habitat of Sasquatch. There are eyes out there and is the intentional sighting any less proable simply because the intent of the sightee may be focused in other things.

If the numbers are low enough an animal can stay below the radar. However what is that number? 100, 200, 600? And what of the range? The reputed range is large and the proported sightings frequent enough to impy numbers of significance perhaps in the thousands. Numbers that potentially large over a range so reportedly large fairly screams that there has to be at least one unlucky Sasquatch that stepped in front of the wrong logging truck or got in the sight of one too many trigger happy hunter or just plaing died and was found by a lumber crew where if fell. This doesn't happen, ever anywhere. Of course we don't run across T-Rex tearing up the barnyard but we know why. Rex is long gone, he was but he ain't no more. I don't find it unreasonable to assume that Sasquatch could have lurked when this country was populated by the FNP. Its not unreasonable to assume that Sasquatch could have lurked in the days when settlement by whites was sparse and wholesale deforestation and putting to plow and home haden't eaten up so much of the place. But we're everywhere, we go everywhere, we're loaded from head to toe with imaging capture devices and yet our devices while capturing hordes of images of countless things fail to capture Sasquatch. So while Roger Patterson and his film are in my good graces I'll say the following. Had you gotten into Northern CA before 1972 you may have caught a glimpse of Pattys fading linage. Perhaps there was a group of about 20 in 1967. Even a modest attrition rate would have put paid to it by 1972.
 
Crow, i believe even with cameras, we arent focusing on looking for such a thing, so no one should complain about the lack of photos. Yet when videos are taken-theyre dismissed?\

Crow, lets cut the sightings in half or even quarters, and the population size shrinks dramatically. If bf was in every state, it would have been found by now. but if its in 1 or 2 states, probably not
 
Last edited:
I would go for a small creature, about the size of an orang-utang or an australopithecine (1.5m tall) at Southern Asia or Africa as the most plausible one, given the existence of fossil record and ape species. At that part of the world, I would guess the legends may reflect the memories of some extinct species.

Makaya325, you are greatly underestimating the number of people who do field works at bigfoot country and the time they stay in the field. Every singe one of these individuals is a candidate to get reliable evidence if bigfeet are real.
 
Correa Neto said:
I would go for a small creature, about the size of an orang-utang or an australopithecine (1.5m tall) at Southern Asia or Africa as the most plausible one, given the existence of fossil record and ape species. At that part of the world, I would guess the legends may reflect the memories of some extinct species.

Makaya325, you are greatly underestimating the number of people who do field works at bigfoot country and the time they stay in the field. Every singe one of these individuals is a candidate to get reliable evidence if bigfeet are real.
Click to expand...


Wow here I am quoting in agreement with a sometimes nemisis. However Correa is correct. When I was doing field work I developed an amazingly sharp eye for all kinds of details within my environment, sights, sounds and smells. Although I was in the field to collect water samples and record visual health of lakes, ponds and rivers the secondary requirments were of the general health of the environment as a whole. Had I been there to monitor deer behavior I could have done so since I encountered them so often and in such numbers that got to know them whether I was there to study them or not. And so it was with a lot of the fauna. I don't get outinto the woods nearly as often as I'd like to now but when I do it only takes about an hour or two for the observation reflex to kick in.
 
makaya325 said:
whether you believe it or not, there have been sightings of these things mating, and before you throw out the woos, remember that lions are known to participate in "orgies" with one another
Click to expand...

What on earth do those two things have in common other than they both make me giggle?

Even if there are small populations of bigfoot around it will take an actual body in order to convince most people. This is due to the large amount of purported evidence has been shown to be fake. Bigfoot researchers and their evidence is to be viewed with a very healthy dose of skepticism. Even if there are honest BF researchers out there it appears there are many more scam artists.

As for what may exist I would have to go with a small hominid as was mentioned earlier but I doubt it.
 
Did I really read in one of the above posts that, essentially, Bigfoot must exist because lions have orgies?

Did I read that?

I think I know how it feels to go insane.
 
Ashles said:
Did I really read in one of the above posts that, essentially, Bigfoot must exist because lions have orgies?

Did I read that?

I think I know how it feels to go insane.
Click to expand...


Well then, I, for one, welcome our Big Foot overlords!

Seriously though, as has been pointed out on another thread, the Pacific Northwest is not devoid of people, observers, scientists, etc. If there was something to find, it would have been found by now. We are not in the Himalayas.
 
The pacific northwest has its wildlife studies and surveys, but so do the Himalayas. Take Snelgrove for example: why are there no articles concerning wildlife studies taking place there? Sure, some alleged bigfoot sightings occur near man, but what about the ones that occur very very far from civilization?

Do you guys think its reasonable to discover, lets say a new rodent, in Africa?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom