Sorry, guy's Crow's right. Use Google Earth, and look at the area north of Malone, NY, and east of Hudson Falls, NY.
Where in NY, tyr_13?
Where in NY, tyr_13?
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Nope.I thought he said Long Island.
They took Long Island out of New York??? 'Bout time!
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Point taken, but Hudson Falls is well south of the Adirondacks - it's mostly farm country, and you wouldn't say very lost for very long.
There are some bits of the Taconics that could get pretty rough and dense, but from the thickest part I think you'd be drifting into Massachusetts, not Vermont, and if you started in the Adirondacks, you'd have to go through some pretty well settled areas, and find your way across the Hudson River and the Champlain Canal before you started to get lost. IN addition, although parts of the Taconic range are about as wild and craggy and dense as anything anywhere, it's a pretty narrow corridor. Plenty of room for crypto-beasts to hide if they felt like it, but it wouldn't take all that long for a hiker to climb a hill and spot civilzation somewhere (unless, of course, the crypto-beasts are hungry).
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Makaya, you just can not take numbers out of nowhere. For example, you talked about 20 specimens per state. Have you ever heard about the 50/500 rule? It states that for short-term species survival, at least 50 breeding specimens are required (500 for long-term). Note that not all specimens of a population will be able to breed and that the breeding specimens must be in touch. Five isolated populations composed of ten breeding individuals each will have a dim future.
Of course this is a very general, broad rule, but considerations like this one should be considered in any speculation regarding bigfoot population.
Of course this is a very general, broad rule, but considerations like this one should be considered in any speculation regarding bigfoot population.
Don't we wish. Many of us 'savages' (i.e. Upstaters) prefer to exclude everything south of Orange and Putnam Counties.They took Long Island out of New York??? 'Bout time!
Last edited:
I agree completely.
But, if we're going to help Makaya think clearly and logically about bigfoot, shouldn't we all be using fact based arguments?
Hitch
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 834
I'm not sure why we should dismiss farm country when looking for Bigfoot. Seems like a fine place to find a good throwing pig.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
I think we can help mayaka think clearly and logically about Bigfoot but I think mayaka needs to be a willing participant. being forthright is the first step. Mayaka needs to be clear about what he actually thinks about Bigfoot and not just say things for our benefit. If he really thinks Bigfoot existed yet disappeered from the Earth he needs to says so and why. He's said so but everything about the way he posts shows that he's still very invested in the idea that Bigfoot is walking around now.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
They have a known habitat range. They exist as a population within the range proximal enough to eachother to maintain that breeding population. They make noise, they get rowdy (young males that role together especially), and they are in contact with humans. We know about them and though they have plenty of reason to fear humans they approach us and allow us to approach them. If Bigfoot was out there it should be no different.
Last edited:
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Check Kitakaze`s post.
Adult male orangs have a broad territory, encompassing a number of smaller territories which belong to females. A similar case would be those of tigers, jaguars and leopards. Following the rule, you`ll need at least 50 breeding specimens (of course, the number of female specimens will be larger than the number of males) of orang-utangs to have a short-term viable population. Now, imagine the size of each territory and figure out how many space such population would need.
What the "bigfoot experts" say about the size of a male specimen`s territory? Regardless of your speculation of choice -if they form relatively stable pairs, like humans or if an alpha male has an haren of Pattys- its easy to see that a huge chunk of alleged bigfoot country (possibly most of it) probably could not host viable populations if these animal existed due to habitat fragmentation.
Last edited:
Wouldnt they live isolated from each other in na? A long living, slow reproducing animal would have large #'s. What makes you think that people can find bones in highly acidic, moist enviornments, if we cant even find bodies of many 10ft apes in china, where fossilization is great
Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
I suppose I didn't quite word that right. You shouldn't expect deer bodies everywhere you go in the wild. However, deer bodies are found from time to time. While one should not expect to find lots of bigfoot bodies one should expect to have found some remains. The fact that there are not dead deer everywhere is not evidence that bigfoot could exist.
To Old: That is by far the stupidest mistake I have made. I apologize, I had been drinking. However, I would like it if Makaya could furnish some source for his statements.
I will leave the math to the pro's from now on.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Makaya, I think you are mixing unrelated issues and not fully understanding what I am trying to explain.
If the specimens live in complete isolation, they will never breed. Individual territories must overlap. In the particular case where males and females have very small overlapping territories, the required space for a healty breeding population increases even further; habitat fragmentation due to roads, farms, cities, etc becomes an even bigger issue.
Note also that the 50/500 general guideline will still be valid for animals with long lives and slow reproduction rates. I could go deeper and write why the proposed slow reproduction rate and long lifetimes add extra holes in bigfoot`s bucket.
Now, the fossil and remains issue... Well, I am not completely sure on how it is linked with the population aspect we are talking about, but let`s check it out. Please note that it was discussed ad nauseaum at the 411PGF thread and other bigfoot threads - and sorry, it has big gapping holes. I`ll just touch a few problems with this argument here.
1. Bigfeet are supposed to live across a vast stretch of land. Along its alleged habitat, not all soils are as you described. Conditions similar to those which favored the preservation of gigantopithecus in Asia and all the hominids in Africa and Asia do happen and happened in bigfoot country. The very existence of these fossil remains adds another problem to the proposal of bigfeet as real creatures. Why we have their remains and no bigfeet remains?
2. The preservation odds at rainforests is greatly underestimated by many a footer. You already read people right here telling you this. Now, even if the odds are small, think about this- What will happen when you have small odds but test your luck a lot of times?
If the specimens live in complete isolation, they will never breed. Individual territories must overlap. In the particular case where males and females have very small overlapping territories, the required space for a healty breeding population increases even further; habitat fragmentation due to roads, farms, cities, etc becomes an even bigger issue.
Note also that the 50/500 general guideline will still be valid for animals with long lives and slow reproduction rates. I could go deeper and write why the proposed slow reproduction rate and long lifetimes add extra holes in bigfoot`s bucket.
Now, the fossil and remains issue... Well, I am not completely sure on how it is linked with the population aspect we are talking about, but let`s check it out. Please note that it was discussed ad nauseaum at the 411PGF thread and other bigfoot threads - and sorry, it has big gapping holes. I`ll just touch a few problems with this argument here.
1. Bigfeet are supposed to live across a vast stretch of land. Along its alleged habitat, not all soils are as you described. Conditions similar to those which favored the preservation of gigantopithecus in Asia and all the hominids in Africa and Asia do happen and happened in bigfoot country. The very existence of these fossil remains adds another problem to the proposal of bigfeet as real creatures. Why we have their remains and no bigfeet remains?
2. The preservation odds at rainforests is greatly underestimated by many a footer. You already read people right here telling you this. Now, even if the odds are small, think about this- What will happen when you have small odds but test your luck a lot of times?
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
Damn it Malone! To be fair I've always thought of Le Haut-Saint-Laurent as part of New York anyway.
But actually, you'd have to be trying pretty hard to get lost and accidentally find yourself in Canada at that boarder. It isn't exactly a lot of deep woods there around all those farms. Sure, if you followed the Trout you might end up at the boarder station, but I'm pretty sure they'd tell you that that's Canada. The woods near there are crossed by a few dirt roads anyway, besides the rivers and random heavy rills. Pretty good fishing though. It still doesn't actually fit the description, but I don't get any points by being right on accident or technicality.
I'm in the southern tier of western New York, which is affectionately referred to as both 'the snow belt' and 'ski country'. Snow warning in affect until 6 tomorrow morning.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Makaya, this issue has been discussed a lot. Maybe the search function would be handy for you. It would be a nice starter if you -as well as anyone trying to use acid soils to explain the absence of bigfoot fossils- first noticed that fossils do not form in soils but within sediments. You also perhaps don`t know that even what some claim to be bigfoot prime habitat- PNW- is not a desert when it comes down to fossils from the propper age.
Asia is not "great" when it comes down to fossilization. Its just a wide place, with several different types of geologic "settings", not unlike North America and the whole area where bigfeet are supposed to live.
Not to mention that there`s that problem with sighting report reliability. Estabilishing bigfoot prime habitat (assuming they are real) based on sighting reports will be very tricky if you can`t figure out or develop a propper methodology for studying the sightings.
Asia is not "great" when it comes down to fossilization. Its just a wide place, with several different types of geologic "settings", not unlike North America and the whole area where bigfeet are supposed to live.
Not to mention that there`s that problem with sighting report reliability. Estabilishing bigfoot prime habitat (assuming they are real) based on sighting reports will be very tricky if you can`t figure out or develop a propper methodology for studying the sightings.