• Announcements

    • masterbarber

      Help Support the BFF   09/08/2016

      Help Support the BFF by purchasing a premium membership. Premium members are directly supporting our forum and our ability to keep it up and running. Without this vital resource and our all volunteer staff, we would not be able to sustain a web presence. The annual access fee allows us to maintain server space, renew software subscriptions, purchase new apps that benefit our members or ease efforts for staff and so forth.   The cost is $20.00 (US) per year- per membership, about $1.66 per month. In the future, an alternative may be a members only forum, as a way to continue the forum's funding source. I'm sure most of us would prefer that not be the case. If you are currently enjoying the content you read here then I urge you to Thank the Premium Members and to consider joining in support of the BFF. It's the only way we will continue to provide the current level of content access.    Please follow the below link for all the details: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/30015-important-news-premium-access-memberships-are-now-available/   Best Regards, masterbarber Director, BFF
    • masterbarber
gigantor

Poll: Do You Think BF has a Viable Population?

Topic will be automatically locked at 03:00 PM

Poll: Do You Think BF has a Viable Population?   59 members have voted

  1. 1. I'm curious to see what members think about the status of BF as a species.

    • BF Does Not Exist. It Never Has.
      7
    • BF Existed at Some Point but it has gone Extinct
      3
    • BF Exists now but it is Endangered. Its population is so low that it probably won't make it.
      7
    • BF Exists now and it is a viable species. It should survive if its habitat is protected
      21
    • BF Exists now and it is doing Great. Its population is large enough.
      21

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

124 posts in this topic

Fossils ... no.   Remember, temperate rain forest with acidic soils stack the odds against preservation of fossils considerably.   

 

If you push forward the idea that they live only in the Pac NW, not the midwest, not the desert SW, etc,  you're also, realize it or not, pushing forward the idea they live only where fossils are least likely to be preserved.   You can't have it both ways.

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably Sasquatch would have entered North America through the Berengia land bridge. Maybe a lot of this is underwater now. But we have many fossils that survive from that time.

 

http://www.beringia.com/exhibits/ice-age-animals

 

While the volcanic soil of the PNW is not the best place for fossilization? Arctic permafrost is...... in fact certain societies have actually eaten mammoth steaks at yearly banquets. 

 

And Im not pushing forward the idea they only live in the PNW. But reject the idea that they are a healthy breeding population in 49 states. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, somewhat, cautiously.    There seem to be a lot of assumptions made that should be questioned.   If they traveled the coastal strip which is now underwater, or if they traveled on the ice over areas now submerged, how many fossils will there be?   How many human remains have we found underwater off the coast from that time?    How many human remains have we found in north america in permafrost ... omitting deliberate burial there?    What do you think their numbers were relative to mammoths that you mention?  

 

I don't think most states have a stationary breeding population in the sense you're suggesting.  It's not relevant.   The numbers might not represent a viable population if stationary and in isolation, but they're not stationary and it's not in isolation.  I think the travel web is such that there is a diffuse but very viable breeding population that overlaps all 49 states with concentrations in many that are indeed viable even in isolation.   

 

MIB

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some believe that Homo Heidelbergensis could be closely related to bigfoot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites