Bigfoot Is Nearly Everywhere Is An Untenable Pretense

[Guest Crowlogic]

In the beginning of the modern bigfoot era the creature was said to inhabit the PNW.  It made a certain amount of sense as the region is suitable for such a beast in many ways.  However the idea of the animal was so enticing that an entire social subculture grew up around it and in the space of a decade or two bigfoot was nearly everywhere in the lower 48 states.  

 

In order to subscribe to this belief one needs to put the number of specimens at a much higher level which puts them into the tens of thousands up from the several hundred during the PGF era.  Today there are bigfoot clubs and organizations all over the map and they all share three things in common.  Bigfoot, special dispensation as to why bigfoot can exist virtually in secret most of the time and a total lack of actual proof backing up the believer's positions.

 

It is often said that if you perpetrate misinformation enough times it acquires a ring of truth albeit a counter-fit ring of truth.   Eventually perhaps the entire issue will go full circle and bigfoot will again become what the Native Americans first considered it to be.  A kind of spirit guardian of the forest.  And yes Virginia the FNP considered it to be a spirit being and not a flesh and blood organism.  That it evolved into a flesh and blood entity has more to do with western man's thought processes which are far less accepting of spirit entities.

 

In any event the beat goes on and the game gets ever more detailed in ever more ways except where it counts.  

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

To quote the Bard: "what's in a name? That which we call a  rose by any other would still smell as sweet."

 

"Big Foot", "Sasquatch" are names for a huge, hairy creature. Is the Foulke monster a "Big Foot" or is it some other kind of monster? Was the monster that walked through a Baltimore neighborhood in the 1970s a "Big Foot" or some other kind of monster? Is the Skunk Ape a "Big Foot" or is it another kind of monster?

Edited May 18, 2015 by ChasingRabbits

[Rockape]

It is often said that if you perpetrate misinformation enough times it acquires a ring of truth albeit a counter-fit ring of truth.   Eventually perhaps the entire issue will go full circle and bigfoot will again become what the Native Americans first considered it to be.  A kind of spirit guardian of the forest.  And yes Virginia the FNP considered it to be a spirit being and not a flesh and blood organism.  That it evolved into a flesh and blood entity has more to do with western man's thought processes which are far less accepting of spirit entities.

 

While I agree many FNP stories have been misconstrued in order to perpetuate BF, not all saw it as a mythical creature. Many were like us, they wondered what in the heck it was and applied mythical and supernatural aspects to it.

 

I also agree on the population. In my opinion these creatures, if they exist, would have to be extremely rare and are bordering on extinction, if not already extinct or at least functionally extinct. They could still be scattered about the continent in small pockets however.

[1980squatch]

Crow, largely agree, statistically speaking BF seems to be one of those cases that is extremely unlikely to be real, almost impossible.  The never-ending BF community zoo antics only acts to reinforce that.

 

But, BF exists anyway, after all extremely unlikely things end up being true on occasion...

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

So you are saying that the idea of bigfoot residing in areas outside of the PNW is due to invention and fabrication, and that this idea was set in motion by the popularity of the sightings in the PNW? So basically people started seeing bigfoot everywhere due to the popularity of the idea? Personally I am aware of reports outside of the PNW that pre-date the years when the bigfoot craze began. Often local monster tales are the result of misinterpreted sasquatch sightings. Of course legend will be woven around the truth, making separating these two elements nearly impossible, but this is to be expected in my opinion and has no real bearing on the validity of bigfoot. Then of course there are the Native American accounts, from which it can be deduced that sasquatch was seen well before any popular name was associated with bigfoot- before the track finds that spawned the media frenzy that resulted in the term "bigfoot." There are probably other points I am leaving out. I just believe that there is evidence suggesting that bigfoot was around before the idea itself went mainstream.

 

Approaching the problem from another angle, it stands to reason that a living, breathing animal such as sasquatch would have no issues when it comes to man-made boundaries. IF they were confined to the PNW there would be a logical reason for such, and I cannot find a good one. These animals need very little, and the fact that they have hands, height, intelligence, etc., means that a wider variety of food sources are available to them than is the case for other animals. I think it makes perfect sense that an animal who was the alpha predator would extend its territory as far as it could, whether due to overcrowding, the search for food, or some ingrained need to migrate.

 

I have to disagree regarding the sasquatch population size. To account for all sightings, factoring in the probability of actually seeing a bigfoot versus the number of individuals in sasquatch territory who could potentially have a sighting, I think that tens of thousands is probably correct, but not hundreds of thousands. Look at grizzly bears, whose population is only two-hundred thousand individuals or so. My estimates for population size have changed over time, but I think anywhere around 50,000 in North America is close to the mark. Perhaps the population is smaller than anyone expects. I think that is possible, and still could explain the number of sightings. And we must remember that in modern times, with the advent of the internet and how this affects sasquatch information, connections are made that were not possible to make decades ago.

 

As far as Native American interpretations it is a mistake to say that all tribes and groups thought of bigfoot as a spiritual or non-physical being. I know that you did not say as much, but you did give a single example of a tribe who believed sasquatch were non-physical beings, and I just did not want anyone to be swayed by this and think that all tribes shared the same view. The sheer number of independent tribes of Native Americans, groups who had no real contact or sharing of ideas, who have sasquatch in their culture is very credible evidence. I mean the odds of such groups independently inventing a creature like this is so small as to be virtually non-existent. Perhaps this could be debatable, IF the descriptions were different among the various tribes...but the descriptions are so similar that it is quite obvious they have some basis in reality, meaning that there was an actual creature that these ideas were based upon. Of course there were going to be slight differences, but this is due to the interpretation of what was seen, not what was seen. To put it another way, these groups had physical sightings of bigfoot, and their knowledge of its behaviors and physical appearance were facts- their observations were limited to these facts however, so they had to essentially fill in the blanks. Having a spiritual side to their culture it stands to reason that some groups of Native Americans would assume that bigfoot was a spiritual entity. This is why we see differences among these groups regarding just what bigfoot actually is, while descriptions are relatively similar.

Edited May 19, 2015 by JiggyPotamus

[JDL]

I think it is more untenable to postulate that an adaptable, intelligent, and stealthy primate would confine itself to just one area.  The natural tendency of a species is to populate any habitat that can support it.  This is true of cougars, coyotes, deer.  Why would it not be true for bigfoot?

[Guest]

So what, you're proposing that BF are specialists and female BF can only conceive with their backs to a PNW redwood? Here we go again with skeptical ideas of bigfoot being crazier than any maximum woo version.... and you're doing that thing, again where you think if you can confine the argument to that logging boss saying he faked tracks, you've got the whole thing wrapped up. Sorry, natural phenomena, breaking out all over, try something new.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I can see how one might think that sasquatch are paranormal entities. Their ability to avoid detection almost boggles the mind. You could be in an area where there are a lot of them and still never see a single one. They give people the impression that they're bordering on extinction, even though they're probably not given their range. Their most unnatural characteristic to me is their behaviour.

They're made of flesh and blood like any other animal, but their existence isn't the result of evolution. Those who believe that they're hybrids are a little closer to the truth than those who believe they migrated here.

Edited May 19, 2015 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest Crowlogic]

I think it is more untenable to postulate that an adaptable, intelligent, and stealthy primate would confine itself to just one area.  The natural tendency of a species is to populate any habitat that can support it.  This is true of cougars, coyotes, deer.  Why would it not be true for bigfoot?

All of the the other animals you name are real and pay the price of expanding range.  Such as getting shot, poisoned and hit by vehicles.  Bigfoot seems to miraculously avoid such inconveniences and remains out of reach.  The wider bigfoot's range is quoted to be the less believable the myth becomes in part for the known consequences of being around humans.

So what, you're proposing that BF are specialists and female BF can only conceive with their backs to a PNW redwood? Here we go again with skeptical ideas of bigfoot being crazier than any maximum woo version.... and you're doing that thing, again where you think if you can confine the argument to that logging boss saying he faked tracks, you've got the whole thing wrapped up. Sorry, natural phenomena, breaking out all over, try something new.

Woo?  Let's consider the woo factor of adults tramping about looking for something they'll never find and adding to the excuses as to why they don't find it.  And it all flies in the face of supposed ever increasing places the object of their search is said to be along with the increasing numbers of the thing in those places.  Yes much woo.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Isn't part of the answer in the question? Bigfoot as a PNW phenomenon is a modern thing: prior to that there were stories of creatures right across north and south America. None of those caught a fire like bigfoot so it just appears that there is something contrived when in fact the bigfoot furore is the product of pre existing phenomenon plus media interest.

Ecologically there is no obvious reason why bigfoot could not occur in dense woodland right across the continent. Whether it does or not who knows, but it is perfectly feasible.

[JDL]

So the original logic flaw is compounded with a second now.  1st logic flaw:  They can only exist in the PNW.  2nd logic flaw:  They are only dumb animals.  The entire approach to this topic is prejudicial.

[Guest Crowlogic]

So the original logic flaw is compounded with a second now.  1st logic flaw:  They can only exist in the PNW.  2nd logic flaw:  They are only dumb animals.  The entire approach to this topic is prejudicial.

No logic flaw.  Go back and read the OP.  Go back and learn where the tracks and photos were first made public.  Then you will know where and when the modern bigfoot era began.  As for it being a nearly universal member of the fauna of North America the major logic flaw lies in the universal failure it's proponents to furnish proof of it's existence.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

No logic flaw.  Go back and read the OP.  Go back and learn where the tracks and photos were first made public.  Then you will know where and when the modern bigfoot era began.  As for it being a nearly universal member of the fauna of North America the major logic flaw lies in the universal failure it's proponents to furnish proof of it's existence.

 

The logic flaws/fallacies are

1. "affirming a disjunct": Big Foot inhabits the PNW or Big Foot inhabits various parts of North America. Big Foot inhabits the PNW  therefore, Big Foot cannot inhabit other parts of North America.

2. "appeal to authority": First Nation Peoples said Big Foot is a spiritual being, therefore, Big Foot is a spiritual being.

3. "appeal to ridicule": the entire premise of this thread.

 

Frankly, it's illogical to give logical arguments to an illogical premise.

[WSA]

You might as well say that coyotes are "supposed" to be exclusively west of the Mississippi. Things with legs move. When they move, they are looking for food and suitable habitat as these resources are never static, and neither are the  animals that require them.  Where they go to do that is where you will find them. Frankly, to be puzzled by this simple biological fact is patently absurd.    

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

You might as well say that coyotes are "supposed" to be exclusively west of the Mississippi. Things with legs move. When they move, they are looking for food and suitable habitat as these resources are never static, and neither are the  animals that require them.  Where they go to do that is where you will find them. Frankly, to be puzzled by this simple biological fact is patently absurd.    

 

Big Foot (coyotes for that matter) signed a 200 year rental lease, so if they break that lease they will have to pay the remainder of the rent and they won't get the security deposit back.