kitakaze

Where You Think Bigfoot Does Not Exist.

233 posts in this topic

Here is the BFRO sightings database by region...

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/default.asp

 

Here is a sightings map for the contiguous US...

o-SASQUATCH-SIGHTINGS-MAP-facebook.jpg

 

1 - Please indicate what states/provinces you think Bigfoot does not exist in. For the sake of avoiding discussion derailment, this is about North America (Hawaii not included).

 

2 - How do you explain alleged Bigfoot evidence/sightings reports which come from the states/provinces you indicate Bigfoot does not exist in?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an informal sense, yes. A loaded question, the ammunition critical thinking, by its very definition. The purpose purely to question what one thinks one knows or believes. Having been a ardent proponent, I have experienced this firsthand. In lieu of reliable evidence, we have a discussion forum in which we discuss various aspects of the Bigfoot phenomenon. Members start threads for the purpose of discussion with various thoughts, questions and topics in mind. They can be as simple as fork/spoon topics like such...


This is it. The arena. The modern-day colosseum of battling bigfootery. The place for the big showdown. Proponents vs denialists in a knock-down, drag-out fight to the death (figuratively, of course...) to determine once and for all whose arguments reign supreme.

Have at it!

 

 

Now in the formal sense, no, the single question asked is not a loaded question. A loaded question, or a complex question fallacy contains either a controversial or unjustified assumption.

 

Taking one look at the map above, if it accurately represents Bigfoot species range, there is no reason whatsoever that there should be no reliable evidence of Bigfoot. I will not engage in any derailment of debating whether that is the case or not.

 

What could be the case is that the map is not at all accurate, and that in many of the places where Bigfoot is reported, it does not actually exist. 

 

Hence the thread.

 

Members indicate where they think Bigfoot is not. Not where they think Bigfoot is. Across the continent. Just the PNW. PNW, Texas, Ohio, New York, Florida are places many enthusiasts will indicate where they think Bigfoot is. SO therefore lets discuss where they think Bigfoot is not.

 

Let's discuss why they think Bigfoot is not there. Let's discuss specific cases of alleged Bigfoot evidence/sightings reports from those places and how we could account for them.

 

Bigfoot being a pure social construct is neither an unjustified or controversial point of view when there is no reliable evidence. "But what about all those sightings?" one might say. Yes, exactly that. Let's discuss all those sightings. Those oodles and oodles of sightings you see shotgun blasted all across the east of North America, the midwest and the PNW. Let's discuss the ones coming from where you think Bigfoot is not.

 

Or do you somehow think the topic is invalid? We can always discuss if Bigfoot beheads people, should that be the case.

Edited by kitakaze
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice map.

1. All of them.

2.Hoaxers,liars,misidentifications ,wishful thinking.

 

I think so, as well. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kit,  would it not stand to reason a human population map would correlate with Sasquatch sightings because a human being present is 50% of the equation of a sighting, with the other 50% of the equation being a Sasquatch there to see?

 

Have you seen the overlay map of the rainfall in the United States. The map showed an increase in reports proportionally with rainfall above 35 inches of rain a year. This is what you would expect from an omnivorous animal. The areas with more than 35 inches of rain would support more plant life both for the prey and for the omnivore to eat.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great topic. I wrestle with this question all the time and I can only come up with one conclusion. I don't know.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Or do you somehow think the topic is invalid? We can always discuss if Bigfoot beheads people, should that be the case.

No the topic isn't invalid at all, and I think they're decent questions.

I just personally have an issue with you specifically asking them as you don't believe Sasquatches exist anywhere at all so I struggle to see a positive purpose for you personally asking these questions.

What I do see is you asking them so that you and other of your ilk can rip apart certain members responses if/when they come, which make the entire thread another social experiment for skeptics that ultimately, in the end, will just end in a tonne of sarcastic replies to the answers of your questions.

I will always, always fail to see how loaded questions like this, in this sense, will be a positive for the forum and it's this type of thing, by people like you, that will see people like me frequenting the forum less and less in time.

It's boring me with how predictable and tiresome the skeptics on this forum are getting and I can assure whoever is reading this, it's taking it's toll on the membership.

Nice map.

1. All of them.

2.Hoaxers,liars,misidentifications ,wishful thinking.

 

I think so, as well.

My point entirely.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you want the topic to stay within North America you should specify contiguous North America and excluding islands like Catalina, Nantucket, New Brunswick, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Dominican Republic/Haiti, Greenland, and so forth.

 

Anyhow,  I don't think BF would live in the large North American islands.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is none of them.  But biggie sure does exist in the minds of the faithful in those states and marker dots.  Perhaps the next great map should be in what states does the scientific proof exist?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello kitakaze,

I see one dot in my state of Maine. Depending on who you talk to and what you read there are anywhere from 8-25 reports. Still not much of a turnout compared to say, the Pac NW. With all the forest here one would think every home would have at least one for a pet by now LOL but that isn't the case. As a result I know one place for sure where they don't live- my house! Besides I've read that they can really STINK! The state has been heavily logged and really only the Southwestern part of the state and along the cost to Canada is what I would term heavily populated with development gradually lessening as one goes "downeast" but it doesn't seem to bother the 20,000 black bears much.

I might have to agree with the rainfall connection or more lush undisturbed areas and wonder if the bear populations aren't concentrated in those same areas on the map. My guess is yes. It's where the food is along with relief from the direct heat of the sun. It there were three reasons for fewer or no sightings in some states or regions those would make the most sense- rainfall, Human concentrations, and shade from the sun that otherwise would cause overheating and a lack of cover in which to hide and ambush prey. Just rounding up the usual suspects here.

Of course non-existence should be a part of the equation but I don't think that conclusion is what you're after here even if you agree with it; the point of which was somehow missing in Patterson-Gimlin and Crowlogic's posts.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you want the topic to stay within North America you should specify contiguous North America and excluding islands like Catalina, Nantucket, New Brunswick, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Dominican Republic/Haiti, Greenland, and so forth.

 

Anyhow,  I don't think BF would live in the large North American islands.

Don't forget Prince Edward Island, Canada. That has to be one of the most ridiculous sources of bigfoot reports ( and video ) ever, imo. The place is tiny, and is pretty much one huge golf course with a few farms and towns woven in. It's beautiful there, and I like vacationing there, but habitat for an unclassified, 9ft predatory ape? Hardly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they not? Are they not alleged to feed on deer and other ungulates?   In between ripping peoples heads off, that is :)

 

 

Thanks for the welcome!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello dmaker

 

So it says in some of the reports. I don't think the Maine BF's do that sort of thing though. Too busy keeping out of the way of the chainsaws. I say chainsaws because I don't know the name of the machine that grabs the tree, cuts it off at the base, chews off all the branches, grinds off the bark,  and then stuffs it into the ground for a telephone pole.

 

I don't think it's one of these though:Trencher2.jpg

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites