Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
EHocking said:
Please, please, PLEASE, start checking your facts before spouting your ill-informed opinion as absolutes.
Click to expand...

That is a fact, though. There are no known species of great ape that prefer colder climates over tropical climates( Except Japanese Macaque's)
 
6Macaques are not great apes.
Click to expand...

i know that. They are monkeys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_primates#Habitat_and_distribution

Some species are partially terrestrial, such as baboons and Patas Monkeys, and a few species are fully terrestrial, such as Geladas and Humans. Non-human primates live in a diverse number of forested habitats in the tropical latitudes of Africa, India, Southeast Asia, and South America, including rainforests, mangrove forests, and montane forests. There are some examples of non-human primates that live outside of the tropics; the mountain-dwelling Japanese Macaque lives in the north of Honshū where there is snow-cover eight months of the year; the Barbary Macaque lives in the Atlas Mountains of Algeria and Morocco. Primate habitats span a range of altitudes: the Black Snub-nosed Monkey has been found living in the Hengduan Mountains at altitudes of 4,700 meters (15,400 ft),[92] the Mountain Gorilla can be found at 4,200 meters (13,200 ft) crossing the Virunga Mountains,[93] and the Gelada has been found at elevations of up to 5,000 meters (16,400 ft) in the Ethiopian Highlands. Although most species are generally shy of water, a few are good swimmers and are comfortable in swamps and watery areas, including the Proboscis Monkey, De Brazza's Monkey and Allen's Swamp Monkey, which has developed small webbing between its fingers. Some primates, such as the Rhesus Macaque and gray langurs, can exploit human-modified environments and even live in cities.[70][94]
Click to expand...
 
makaya325 said:
That may be so, however, Gorillas prefer the warmer, moist areas.
Click to expand...

But because they suck at long distance walking, they stay up on the mountain. They have little chats with each other like, "I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna go down there. I know it's paradise." But they never do. They set-up therapy sessions because they sometimes suffer from not getting what they desire.
 
William Parcher said:
But because they suck at long distance walking, they stay up on the mountain. They have little chats with each other like, "I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna go down there. I know it's paradise." But they never do. They set-up therapy sessions because they sometimes suffer from not getting what they desire.
Click to expand...

So, just because Gorillas lack the stamina to travel certain distances, does not mean that we should reconsider their type of environmental perks. :p
 
Unfortunately, mikeyx set you up to derail this thread with your Laws of Nature list. Please take it somewhere else or start a new thread.

Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?
 
Take it somewhere else = begin the topic anew in an appropriate thread. You can then place a link leading to this page with something like "here is where this topic/conversation started".
 
Take it somewhere else = begin the topic anew in an appropriate thread.
Click to expand...

Wait, Im confused. How do i begin a new topic in a thread? Would not that be considered derailing?
 
makaya325 said:
i know that. They are monkeys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_primates#Habitat_and_distribution
Click to expand...
26614a7473561c161.gif
 
makaya325 said:
Very well then:

1. Every living organism, from Elephants to bacteria, leaves it own ecological impact on the environment. EX: a new predator is introduced into a large area full of deer. As time goes on, the deer population will start to decrease, due to the predator consuming them. Bigfoot, however, does not leave any ecological impact on its environment. There is no decrease in deer, elk, bear, plants, etc population, which you would expect if there was a breeding population of monstrous apes, which in reality there is no such thing.

But would wandering small hunter/ gatherer groups leave that much impact in the far northern reaches of Canada. Did the Indians deplete the buffalo?

2. Lack of remains- Every Animal, no matter how rare, has to leave remains behind. Scientists have no trouble finding a new species of insect in the remote, unaccessible areas of the Congo, yet no one can seem to find a population of hairy titans living in such close perimeters to people. The fact that nearly all of NA has been mapped and developed, yet not one finding of any large ape remains, makes the likelyhood of bigfoot plummet extremely low.

But if they buried, burned or even ate their dead, that would make the likelhood of finding remains of small tribes slim

3. Lack of tools- If bigfoot has evaded man for all of these centuries, you would certainly expect tools and culture from such a smart species. The fact that bigfoot is never found, yet is described as smart as a bag of dirt, does not support consistency for it being a real species.

Maybe for some reason they are terrified out of their wits of man and avoid him at all costs. Do apes have tools and "cities"? Its not hard to elude man. Its his dogs that are hard to hide from. Ask Mr Cougar

4. Every mammal, when giving birth, would be experiencing so much pain, which would make them scream their heads off. A sasquatch would require a huge voicebox, and if ever in a painful situation, its voice would certainly be heard for miles and miles.

Aw come on

5. Not all forests remote- Even the Dark, mysterious forests of the PNW are surveyed and mapped to death. Wildlife biologists and park rangers do travel great distances and cover so much land that any large species would be found by now.

Valid point - for the PNW, but not the Yukon NWT and the area around Hudson Bay. Siberia as well

6. Why so few sightings?- If this thing is real, it has to have an MVP (Minimum viable population) of around 4000. If this were the case, people would be running into these things daily, not once in every blue moon.

See above answer

7. No consistent behavior- No one has ever reported seeing a bigfoot give birth, mate, or fight with each other, all of which you would see in a real population of a REAL species.

8. Bigfoot is reported in all 50 states, yet not one sighting has ever lead to good evidence.

Most of the sightings, if not all, in the lower 48 are hoaxes. They don't count. And really? They have been reported in Hawaii??

9. Where the tracks lead to- A couple 1000 of these Hairy giants would certainly leave trackways behind. Don't you think that at least one trackway would lead you to your grand prize?

Again it depends on how remote the place is. It would be difficult to find tracks in, say the Northwest Territories becuse the only people who visit there are fishermen not looking to bag a bigfoot and possible Bigfoot hoaxers. No scientists looking for Bigfoot as far as I know
All that being said. Bigfoot will have to remain a myth until definitive scientific proof is shown.
Click to expand...
 
Tumbleweed said:
Ever been to Bowron lakes wilderness in Northern BC? You can just feel the emptiness as you gaze north and east knowing you could travel for months in a straight line and not see a soul
Click to expand...

Highway 16 is only about 40-50kms away so I don't know about months without seeing anyone.
Bowron Lakes Provincial Park (in central BC) is full of people. So many that BC Parks has to limit the number of people they give passes to. As an ex-BC back country Park Ranger, I can tell you that the back country is full of people. You may not see many when you are a hiker or camper, but when it is your job to find people, they are everywhere.
 
FFed said:
Highway 16 is only about 40-50kms away so I don't know about months without seeing anyone.
Bowron Lakes Provincial Park (in central BC) is full of people. So many that BC Parks has to limit the number of people they give passes to. As an ex-BC back country Park Ranger, I can tell you that the back country is full of people. You may not see many when you are a hiker or camper, but when it is your job to find people, they are everywhere.
Click to expand...

Well sure, Bowron Lakes is well used , but how about going nne 50 miles or 1000. Even Northern BC is sparsely populated, and NWT Yukon and the northern parts of Quebec and Ontario are as empty as the Amazon. Sure there are a few "towns" of 50 - 500 people and roads linking them, but for the most part there are few permanent residents flung far and wide. Like Alaska the long hard winter discourages all but the stubborn -- and the last of the Neaderthals!
 
Lazy scientists are just waiting around for a big game hunter to bag one and bring the remains to them for dissection. Until then, it's ALL anecdotal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom