Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[rcfieldz]

no bones

If they were real there would be skeletal remains found many years ago. And the children would have been hit running out in front of cars...

 

[LTC8K6]

That's assuming Dr. Meldrum is correct in his estimate, I don't know that he is, that's why it's called an estimate. All breeds of sharks are not everywhere in the ocean.

There are numerous reasons why you might not find skeletal remains in North America. I'm sure it has been thoroughly dissected here numerous times.The fact that the bones haven't been found isn't damning evidence for non existence either now or historically.

You are not aware of all of the anecdotal evidence prior to 1965. Even if you were, accepting it is strictly up to you. I don't disagree with you on the quality of the vast majority of circumstantial evidence produced thus far for bigfoot but I don't think all of the evidence is faked or misidentified. As for the PGF, it's not thoroughly debunked for everyone, that's simply your opinion.

Keep in mind that we know for certain that human skeletons can last for many decades after the bodies were hidden in the woods of the PNW, and still be recognizable and identifiable.

Yet we still do not find any Bigfoot bones.

 

[Resume]

I think I could use a fishing rod to reel in a squirrel, and a trap to catch a bass.

You just shoot the squirrel. A bass you have to entice to bite, unless you're one of them ninja types that can just grab one.

 

[LTC8K6]

You just shoot the squirrel. A bass you have to entice to bite, unless you're one of them ninja types that can just grab one.

I was challenged, I think, to catch each as if they were the other.

Do you go about capturing a land based mammal, say a squirrel for example, in the same way you reel in a bass?

If you understood that.

 

[Jodie]

oh, well, since they are so numerous, why don't you tell us these numerous reasons? just six or so, not to burden you...and I guess the Green River killer should have gone undetected. And all those fossils that are found in the PNW shouldn't have been found either. And the dead animals found by Fish and Game officials. They shouldn't be finding them. And the road kills. Nothing destroys bodies like gravel and guard rails. Not to mention the fact that bigfoot is reported all over North America, in the distribution of black bears, whose bodies do turn up with regularity. Long story short, baloney, illogical, and uncritical.

I think we are quite aware of the anecdotal stories before 1965. Boogeymen and snipe hunts have a long tradition among parents/children, campers, frat boys, military, loggers, and anyone else who is young, intoxicated, bored, sadistic or attention seeking. You might want to read the books by David Paulides, who sees the native American folklore as describing human beings/invaders/neighboring tribes, etc.

For the best explanation of the bigfoot phenomenon, I would suggest to you that you review your videos of the show "finding bigfoot" and notice all the little kids lining up to say they saw bigfoot. Capeche?

The PGF...ha ha...yes, there are believers, of course there are; there are people who believe the moonlanding was faked, that the earth isn't getting warmer, that cigarettes don't kill people, and on and on.
"The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."

I would say that the chances of a living popular bigfoot are somewhat like the chances of the Pope calling me on my cell in the next three minutes. Can you give an estimate of your idea of the chances?

LOLOL....no it is baloney and illogical that you would assume they would be where all of these things might happen to them if you don't think they exist. Rather than me list the reasons for no fossils let me provide you with some assistance:

Google is your friend ( I haven't posted enough to include URL's)

Considering the Pope probably has a direct line to hell, I don't think it would be all that impossible for him to reach Satan incarnate on earth. For all I know he has you on speed dial

 

[TheJackal]

You indicate all breeds of shark are not everywhere in the ocean, and that is correct. However, the Glyphis shark is particular to a defined region in Australia. If you compare Bigfoot sighting data, you see clustering in the Cascades of Oregon/Washington, the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California and Nevada, and the northern Rocky Mountains of Canada. It's a pretty well defined territory, if you trust the reports of encounters, tree knocks, foot prints, howls, etc. So, I now have a known, defined territory. I also know from the reports and supposed evidence, we are looking at an 8 foot tall, 600 pound primate. Primates need a water and food source. As with humans, most of their population would likely be clustered around available clean water supplies. That narrows the possible range of territory by eliminating the large expanses of forest that do not have available clean water sources. So, now, I can probably plot the sightings in the "known" territory near water sources, and focus my search in those areas. If I am able to do this, I should be able to find said creature.

The other thing is that many of those same locations are typically populated or frequently visited by humans. Human populations cluster around water sources, and a lot of recreational activity occurs at water sources. So, we should have frequent encounters with this creature, and at this point, following at least 100 years of population in these areas, we should have stumbled upon a body, skeleton, road kill, accidental hunting kill, etc. Instead, in that 100 year period, we have blurry Blob-o-squatch photos, one piece of motion picture that has yet to be authenticated, some footprints, and maybe some DNA (though no one is really sure if it's human or Bigfoot). That's why I can't jump on the Bigfoot exists bandwagon. There is still no undisputed physical evidence.

Edit: I should have also indicated that you can likely eliminate areas above the tree line, as there would be insufficient vegetation to support a large primate. That too would narrow the focus for finding the creature. Additionally, during winter months, the food supply above the snow line would diminish, so the Squatch would be driven down into more human populated areas. Is there an increased number of sightings in the winter ?

 

[Jodie]

Point taken on the area that they might inhabit, Jackal, I don't disagree with you, but you assume that they are there to be found. I thought most bigfoot sightings were misidentifications are they not?

So if the only assumption you have is that they exist and that they need certain things to survive then what happens when man invades that territory? Based on my experience with the deer, fox, raccoons, and bob cats in my backyard they either run or walk away and usually to an area that a human wouldn't or couldn't venture. A mythological sasquatch doesn't have to be as smart as a chimpanzee to figure that one out.

 

[Jodie]

I was challenged, I think, to catch each as if they were the other.



If you understood that.

I'ld like to see photographic evidence of your efforts, preferably a video, but the squirrel can not be blurry or it doesn't count.

 

[TheJackal]

I would agree that most are misidentifications; however, if I give the benefit of the doubt that there could be a very slim possibility that there is a North American Primate, then I would conduct a search based upon known primate behavior and supposed territory.

I agree that most of the creatures listed will avoid human contact; however, those same creatures frequently show up as road kill, or their remains can be found in the wild. Heck, my dog has treed everything but a fox, and has tried to catch a deer. The problem is that even if the creature were to shun human interaction, you would still have accidental contact, which, in my opinion, would likely include contact with a vehicle or bullet. It's the lack of physical evidence that I can't get over. With the explosion of sightings following the PGF publicity, you would have to acknowledge that your odds should have increased accordingly for physical evidence.

 

[Jodie]

Keep in mind that we know for certain that human skeletons can last for many decades after the bodies were hidden in the woods of the PNW, and still be recognizable and identifiable.

Yet we still do not find any Bigfoot bones.

And there you have it, the body was there for decades before someone accidentally stumbled upon it because the murderer was limited to an area that was only accessible to humans or the person happened to have a mishap yet again in an area only accessible to humans.

Then again humans are supposedly more numerous if you are of the opinion that the sasquatch population is small. Odds are you will find human remains before you will find a sasquatch's remains.

You can't find bones that don't exist but you also can't find bones in areas that can't be reached without a lot of equipment and a desire to go to the effort and expense based on assumptions of where you think a sasquatch ought to be. It's called finding a needle in a hay stack.

 

[Jodie]

I would agree that most are misidentifications;

I agree that most of the creatures listed will avoid human contact; however, those same creatures frequently show up as road kill, or their remains can be found in the wild. Heck, my dog has treed everything but a fox, and has tried to catch a deer. The problem is that even if the creature were to shun human interaction, you would still have accidental contact, which, in my opinion, would likely include contact with a vehicle or bullet. It's the lack of physical evidence that I can't get over. With the explosion of sightings following the PGF publicity, you would have to acknowledge that your odds should have increased accordingly for physical evidence.

And the same lack of evidence bugs me because I don't understand how it could exist. Because I don't understand how it could exist precludes me from saying emphatically that it doesn't or couldn't exist at all.

 

[Joecool]

And there you have it, the body was there for decades before someone accidentally stumbled upon it because the murderer was limited to an area that was only accessible to humans or the person happened to have a mishap yet again in an area only accessible to humans.

Then again humans are supposedly more numerous if you are of the opinion that the sasquatch population is small. Odds are you will find human remains before you will find a sasquatch's remains.

You can't find bones that don't exist but you also can't find bones in areas that can't be reached without a lot of equipment and a desire to go to the effort and expense based on assumptions of where you think a sasquatch ought to be. It's called finding a needle in a hay stack.

Bigfoot sightings have been going on for 50+ years now. The bigfoot apparently wander into areas where there are people. But not a single dead body or any other bonafide piece if physical evidence exists. I'd like to believe that someone would have either found evidence or simply shot one of the creatures to prove its existence.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

There are plenty of things out there in the forests and the oceans waiting to be discovered.

This kind of insight is lacking around here. Riveting stuff. Thanks for coming.

Do you go about capturing a land based mammal, say a squirrel for example, in the same way you reel in a bass?

Most people around this neighborhood shoot 'em in the head.

I don't think all of the evidence is faked or misidentified.

Let's see your thinking then. Start with the most compelling evidence you have. The PGF? A set of Wallace tracks? Be specific. Because if the best evidence you've got is B.S. then what logic is involved in accepting any of the lesser evidence?

 

[Resume]

Bigfoot sightings have been going on for 50+ years now. The bigfoot apparently wander into areas where there are people. But not a single dead body or any other bonafide piece if physical evidence exists. I'd like to believe that someone would have either found evidence or simply shot one of the creatures to prove its existence.

Yep, a lot of sightings, anecdotes, fuzzy photos . . . but no credible evidence.
We don't have Jack Diddly Squatch.


Apologies in advance.

 

[Dcdrac]

I see big foot every day its at the end of my leg

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Based on my experience with the deer, fox, raccoons, and bob cats in my backyard they either run or walk away and usually to an area that a human wouldn't or couldn't venture. A mythological sasquatch doesn't have to be as smart as a chimpanzee to figure that one out.

This kind of experience is pretty intimidating to those of us who don't get out of our apartments in the city much, so forgive me if I seem naiive.

Maybe you could talk about these sasquatch hiding places where a human could not venture. It's hard for me to imagine what these human-impossible areas would be like, given my lack of experience.

 

[Joecool]

This kind of experience is pretty intimidating to those of us who don't get out of our apartments in the city much, so forgive me if I seem naiive.

Maybe you could talk about these sasquatch hiding places where a human could not venture. It's hard for me to imagine what these human-impossible areas would be like, given my lack of experience.

Even if it were possible for the bigfoot to instinctively go to remote areas to die or hide or whatever, the complete absence of a single piece of bonafide physical evidence makes the legend of bigfoot suspect. If man could uncover fossil evidence and even actual bodies at times, of wooly mammoths, cavemen, and fossil evidence of dinosaurs, I cannot imagine hoe the bones of a bigfoot could completely escape man, given the fact that bigfoot is encroaching areas where man frequents, even so much where there have been sightings in people's backyards.

 

[DennyT]

That you know about Parn, big difference.

Anything regarding bigfoot is questionable at this time but probability meters vary depending on how far up one's rear end it happens to be lodged. Neither cynicism or gullibility are indicators of having good critical thinking skills.

All things considered, this is coming from someone who went to a bigfoot conference undercover who utterly disdains the possibility that the creature exists....critically speaking, I don't think that's anything I would brag about.

All of this is just my opinion, and I also realize that some people with organic brain syndrome, personality disorders, or SOB's tendencies of all varieties might also disagree with me. Not that anyone would ever accuse you of being any of those things, of course.

bigfooters customarily resort to scatological references and ad homs when backed into a corner. This is no different.

By the way, you don't seem to know what a cynic is.

The conference LOL. Even Ketchum is afraid of the Bleevers. If she gets death threats what do you think would happen to me surrounded by 150 of you. LOL. No, you won't catch me at one of those; that isn't just belief, that's fanaticism. Besides, who told you I was there? What's your evidence on that one?

You haven't told us what chances you assign to there being a real bigfoot. Waiting.

Do you claim to have seen one?

 

[DennyT]

LOLOL....no it is baloney and illogical that you would assume they would be where all of these things might happen to them if you don't think they exist. Rather than me list the reasons for no fossils let me provide you with some assistance:

Google is your friend ( I haven't posted enough to include URL's)

Considering the Pope probably has a direct line to hell, I don't think it would be all that impossible for him to reach Satan incarnate on earth. For all I know he has you on speed dial

you can post URL's if you just chop off the first part and make it clear how to fix it. But if that's your excuse not to provide us the info...go with it. Too bad I was looking forward to learning something new.

So it is conceivable the Pope will call. Now, what chances do YOU give for bigfoot being real. And tell us about your own claim to have witnessed "bigfoot."

 

[AttorneyTom]

It seems like every month or two someone from the BFRO.. or some other place likes to register on here and just repeat the same old stuff ? Not only is it not interesting, it is boring, and silly.. The same old "talking points" with no new facts, proof, or thoughts. What they also seem to enjoy is to get way too personal with the folks on this Board. Like they actually know anything about the people here ?

I find it offensive when that happens and it immediately tells me that they are not here to debate, share or discuss anything of intellectual value.

Just me...