Leaderboard

Actually Sasfooty, that's not it.

There are plenty of threads that will lead to opinions getting expressed on the subjects of range and population. I thought I'd start a thread to zone in on opinions as they stand at this point in time. I'd rather this topic not turn into an existence debate but rather discussion about population, density, range, migration, etc. IMO, IF BF exists, it would be in a small numbers and rather nomadic in nature. This would connect a few dots in the Bigfoot mystery for myself but opens up other possible mysteries. 1. Sightings - a nomadic BF could account for its ellusivness. If it's always on the move sightings could be far and few between and not really repeatable if it's a county away in 2 days. Let's say a sloppy BF is seen on a given date if it's seen again a week later it could be 100 miles away. It would take months/years ( or never ) to actually put a pattern to a single BF on the move. That's even assuming each witness actually reported it to an "authority" that was looking for BF. 2. Habitat - A nomadic BF if elusive, leaves a small enough "footprint" to avoid detection if in an area for a brief time. This smaller "footprint" is reflected in both the local food chain and changes physically to its surrounding environment. That's all I got for now but hope to add more later. I'm interested in hearing what people believe and any pro's or con's to your beliefs.

They have a well developed instinct for self preservation, & "know" when something isn't right. Even a fly knows when there's a danger of being swatted.

Likewise. However, the tail slap is truly unlike a rock splash. One is a surface slap which can have quite a loud pop at times but it does not have the deep water / displacement effect of a rock, especially a large rock. MIB

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5697