Do You Really Need Proof?

[Guest TooRisky]

Hmmm as a learned scholar and card carrying skeptic, 5 posts on this subject seem to not be hindering your important research into what ever you do in your unknown highly educated profession field at some unknown college having a PhD in some unknown field that you will not bring forth for unknown reasons...

I seem to remember a person who pulled off the biggest BS life enhancing PhD owning full of crap story that was busted by special forces guys after he pulled that crap on them... He turned out to be a lonely pig farmer or something like it...

of course you will remain unknown.

[Guest Lesmore]

Hmmm as a learned scholar and card carrying skeptic, 5 posts on this subject seem to not be hindering your important research into what ever you do in your unknown highly educated profession field at some unknown college having a PhD in some unknown field that you will not bring forth for unknown reasons...

I seem to remember a person who pulled off the biggest BS life enhancing PhD owning full of crap story that was busted by special forces guys after he pulled that crap on them... He turned out to be a lonely pig farmer or something like it...

of course you will remain unknown.

I think it's a wise policy to follow. I know that I'm reluctant to provide any..... possibly identifying details about myself, on a public forum. In fact...why would you want to provide that kind of information ?

Edited October 21, 2010 by Lesmore

[Guest]

The impact of discovery is likely to be more profound on humanity than on sasquatches.

Huntster,

Bingo! Any intelligent species that has evaded formal discovery this long needs no help from mankind.

Pteronarcyd

[Guest Kerchak]

Shhh. Don't tell anyone, but Huntster only believes in a PNW sasquatch. He thinks there might have been bigfoots at one time elsewhere in the Lower 48 states, but that they're all gone now. Therefore, you folks in Oklahoma, Ohio, Florida, Kansas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Kentucky, Virginia, Arkansas, Texas, etc. - you're not really seeing bigfoots down there. As he likes to say, he's a skeptic.

Well there are actually a fair few folks amongst the 'believers' who look at this logically. Logically it's harder to accept there are sasquatch running around in all those named states pus others (in other words widespread and in significant numbers) and yet still no bona fide proof (or even a piece of interesting footage of them outside the PNW). Logically it is easier to accept that if they exist they are probably fewer in numbers and restricted to the north west corner of the US/Canada and not spread out in all sorts of terrain from sea to shining sea.

I don't know where they aren't, but I do have a pretty good idea of where they are.

[Branco]

Shhh. Don't tell anyone, but Huntster only believes in a PNW sasquatch. He thinks there might have been bigfoots at one time elsewhere in the Lower 48 states, but that they're all gone now. Therefore, you folks in Oklahoma, Ohio, Florida, Kansas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Kentucky, Virginia, Arkansas, Texas, etc. - you're not really seeing bigfoots down there. As he likes to say, he's a skeptic.

Thanks Professor. It was my mistake. For some reason I thought he was a hunter from a Southern area. If he has never seen one, or seen convincing evidence of them, he should be a skeptic. Being a skeptic myself for over 40 years, I can understand that. I'm still skeptical of some of the things I hear and see in the woods. Every odd sight and sound is not Bigfoot related.

A lot of folks from the NW have that very erroneous belief. The Native Americans didn't stop and stay there; can't understand why people believe The Other Tribe would. Appreciate you clearing that up for me.

[Branco]

There is no "information" that leads me to believe that there are no longer sasquatches in Oklahoma. That "belief" is primarily an admission to skeptics in order to try to reduce the use of "sasquatches in the open Great Plains" game that is so common from them. I openly stated that I could be wrong (and I could be), and that it is a belief, not a statement that I claim is fact. Again, semantics in order to reduce skeptic games.

You are correct; there are plenty of reports from areas of Oklahoma, however, I truly believe that if sasquatches are still existing in the Oklahoma area, they are a remnant population cut off from other areas where larger populations of sasquatches might exist.

But in all honesty, I truly don't think many sasquatches are left in existence at all, and the last great stronghold for them is in the PNW, and that range as well is shrinking. I base that belief on the low number of overall reports, the unknown number of those that are manufactured or misidentifications, and the differing regional report densities.

Hunster: Thank you (and Saskeptic) for taking the time to clear up some things for me. You are to be commended for for stating and clarifying your beliefs. I respectfully ask that you consider some facts, observations and opinions of my own regarding the population and distribution of Sasquatch (Bigfoot, Hairy Men, The Other Tribe, etc.).

Look at a map of the U.S. rivers. Remember the dispersion of the Native Americans. Their long-term migration followed the major rivers that formed on the Eastern slopes of the Continental Divide. Their major camps were along the banks of these rivers, especially at the intersections of smaller rivers or major creeks. No question about that. NA legends in all areas east of the Divide indicate the The Other Tribe followed them, or were there before they arrived. Look at the "Rivers" map. You can figure out why the areas of the Deep South have been the ultimate destination for both the NA and The Other Tribe. They could go no further. That is why certain areas of the Deep South have a unusually dense population of these creatures (and more reported abnormal descriptions of the animals and their tracks, - thought by many to have been the result of in-breeding).

These creatures inhabit EVERY major river basin in the South/Southeast, except along portions of the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers where agricultural develepment has rendered those area inappropriate habitats. There is evidnece to indicate the populations of these creatures have either increased, or the populations concentrated in many of the the South/Southeastern areas over the past 50 years.

Anyone believing that these creatures are only found in the NW simply do not have a comprehension of the big picture. Time will, unquestionably, confirm what I am stating as an opinion, and what for myself, a known fact. The esimates I have seen of this country's population of the animals is, in my opinion, grossly underestimated. (Those estimate numbers would not even cover those in the S/SE, much less the whole country.)

I am betting that the proof will come from DNA samples taken from various areas of this country.

[Guest UPs]

Hello,

This is one for all those who have actually seen a Bigfoot I think.

I can't help thinking that if Bigfoot was ever discovered to be a real animal (a recognised animal, by the scientific community) that it would be bad news for the creature. No matter what anyone said, some of the animals would be taken from their natural habitat by scientists to have tests done, to be prodded and poked, to see what the creature could do for mankind. Their habitat would no doubt become in jeopardy due to the increased number of people looking for them etc'. It happens with a lot of animals. The fact is that, if the animal is real, it has done a remarkable job to stay largely undetected for thousands..millions, of years. So I'm not too interested in the "science could help protect the species" viewpoint.

So, with that in mind, are eyewitnesses satisfied in their own knowledge that the creature is real? Is it really necessary to prove its existence, for reasons other than, "I told you I was right"?

Best regards,

Lee

Lee, I will try and answer your question. For me, knowing will be the first step and from there, I would probably want to prove it to at least my family and friends, but not necessarily the scientific community. If I decided to go that route, it would be to shake the scientific community up and that certainly would happen with absolute proof. I think many scientists have not done their jobs properly and the few that have deserve to be rewarded. Would that be enough for me to come forward with proof (if I had it)? Probably not, but if I chose that path, I would want to be involved in the serious research that would follow. UPs

[Guest]

He turned out to be a lonely pig farmer or something like it...

Chicken.

That particular individual took any opportunity to brag about his experiences and act superior to others. In retrospect, he was an obvious poser. I don't do that: I (usually) explain my positions calmly and rationally. I don't claim anything outlandish about myself: I'm an associate professor of wildlife ecology at a research university in the U.S. Big whoop. There are dozens (hundreds?) of people like me in similar institutions. The only time I ever play "the professor card" is when someone accuses me of never doing field work, or knowing nothing about publishing, or silly stuff like that. Of course, people only accuse me of such things because they don't like it when I tell them that (gasp!) I'm unconvinced by the evidence offered to date for "bigfoot."

If I ever choose to go public with my personal identity on the BFF, I predict that your reaction would be . . . boredom, because I am exactly what I said I am. I don't care if you believe me or not about what my day job happens to be, because one's job, experience, training, qualifications, etc. are largely irrelevant to discussions of bigfoot. If you have a piece of a bigfoot then I'm willing to consider the verification of that evidence as proof of bigfoot. If you don't have that, then I'm under no obligation to believe you whether I'm a wildlife ecologist or not. It's that simple, really.

[ShadowBorn]

Hello,

This is one for all those who have actually seen a Bigfoot I think.

I can't help thinking that if Bigfoot was ever discovered to be a real animal (a recognised animal, by the scientific community) that it would be bad news for the creature. No matter what anyone said, some of the animals would be taken from their natural habitat by scientists to have tests done, to be prodded and poked, to see what the creature could do for mankind. Their habitat would no doubt become in jeopardy due to the increased number of people looking for them etc'. It happens with a lot of animals. The fact is that, if the animal is real, it has done a remarkable job to stay largely undetected for thousands..millions, of years. So I'm not too interested in the "science could help protect the species" viewpoint.

So, with that in mind, are eyewitnesses satisfied in their own knowledge that the creature is real? Is it really necessary to prove its existence, for reasons other than, "I told you I was right"?

Best regards,

Lee

After Seeing them I say yes i am very satisfied and found that i do not need to try to prove thier existance to know one.I think that i can state hear and say that the proof might not come from here in the USA but From China.But those who have seen them here know the truth and whether they are willing to share those stories is up to them.

Drew

I agree with that you can be in those woods where bears should be and never see one but thats not to say that a bear is not there.Well the same goes with these creatures ,and it does not matter if it is day or night because they could be standing near you and you would never know it.

[Huntster]

Hunster: Thank you (and Saskeptic) for taking the time to clear up some things for me. You are to be commended for for stating and clarifying your beliefs. I respectfully ask that you consider some facts, observations and opinions of my own regarding the population and distribution of Sasquatch (Bigfoot, Hairy Men, The Other Tribe, etc.).

Look at a map of the U.S. rivers. Remember the dispersion of the Native Americans. Their long-term migration followed the major rivers that formed on the Eastern slopes of the Continental Divide. Their major camps were along the banks of these rivers, especially at the intersections of smaller rivers or major creeks. No question about that. NA legends in all areas east of the Divide indicate the The Other Tribe followed them, or were there before they arrived. Look at the "Rivers" map. You can figure out why the areas of the Deep South have been the ultimate destination for both the NA and The Other Tribe. They could go no further. That is why certain areas of the Deep South have a unusually dense population of these creatures (and more reported abnormal descriptions of the animals and their tracks, - thought by many to have been the result of in-breeding).

These creatures inhabit EVERY major river basin in the South/Southeast, except along portions of the Mississippi and Arkansas Rivers where agricultural develepment has rendered those area inappropriate habitats. There is evidnece to indicate the populations of these creatures have either increased, or the populations concentrated in many of the the South/Southeastern areas over the past 50 years.

I have to agree with your observation that both human and wildlife migrations and movements follow drainages. I see it here in Alaska all the time. More, the amount of forested land in the South is very impressive. And I do strongly believe that these creatures inhabited those areas of the South (and even Midwest) that were suitable habitat. More, I will not discount the possibility that there are still sasquatch populations there.

However, I also believe that:

1) Their primary and most favorable habitats are wet areas with relatively high rainfall. And there are plenty of such areas in the South and Midwest.

2) The human population in both the South and Midwest has grown exponentially in the past 500 years, and most of that has occurred in the past 300.

3) As that human population has grown, the South and Midwest has become more "cut off" from the rest of the continent as migration routes have become populated (humanity loves river drainages, too.....indeed, they were our continent's first highways, especially east of the Rockies).

4) I believe this has created "pockets" of remnant populations in the South, East, and the few suitable habitats in the Midwest

5) When this happens, over the long term (a couple of centuries), remnant populations are in grave danger of dying out

6) If there are still remnant populations of these creatures in the South, Midwest, and East, I believe they are in grave danger of extinction (if that hasn't happened already in some of those habitat pockets)

Anyone believing that these creatures are only found in the NW simply do not have a comprehension of the big picture.

Most report databases prior to the Bigfoot Media Circus (beginning in the late 1950's) recorded very few reports in most areas of the continent. The most significant exceptions were Ohio and Florida. It is unfortunate that more comprehensive report databases were not created prior to the 1950's. We may have a better "big picture" if there had been.

The esimates I have seen of this country's population of the animals is, in my opinion, grossly underestimated. (Those estimate numbers would not even cover those in the S/SE, much less the whole country.)

I have seen estimates that I believe are grossly overestimated. One of the primary arguments from skeptics/denialists is that if there were large populations of these creatures, it would indeed dramatically increase the likelihood that the proverbial "slab monkey" would have been provided by now. I think they're correct.

More, the entire BFRO database includes a mere 6,000 or so reports. Some of these are dated into the 1800's. There are probably several thousands of black bear sightings per day on this continent. That alone indicates a rare creature.

[Branco]

I have to agree with your observation that both human and wildlife migrations and movements follow drainages. I see it here in Alaska all the time. More, the amount of forested land in the South is very impressive. And I do strongly believe that these creatures inhabited those areas of the South (and even Midwest) that were suitable habitat. More, I will not discount the possibility that there are still sasquatch populations there.

However, I also believe that:

1) Their primary and most favorable habitats are wet areas with relatively high rainfall. And there are plenty of such areas in the South and Midwest.

2) The human population in both the South and Midwest has grown exponentially in the past 500 years, and most of that has occurred in the past 300.

3) As that human population has grown, the South and Midwest has become more "cut off" from the rest of the continent as migration routes have become populated (humanity loves river drainages, too.....indeed, they were our continent's first highways, especially east of the Rockies).

4) I believe this has created "pockets" of remnant populations in the South, East, and the few suitable habitats in the Midwest

5) When this happens, over the long term (a couple of centuries), remnant populations are in grave danger of dying out

6) If there are still remnant populations of these creatures in the South, Midwest, and East, I believe they are in grave danger of extinction (if that hasn't happened already in some of those habitat pockets)

Most report databases prior to the Bigfoot Media Circus (beginning in the late 1950's) recorded very few reports in most areas of the continent. The most significant exceptions were Ohio and Florida. It is unfortunate that more comprehensive report databases were not created prior to the 1950's. We may have a better "big picture" if there had been.

I have seen estimates that I believe are grossly overestimated. One of the primary arguments from skeptics/denialists is that if there were large populations of these creatures, it would indeed dramatically increase the likelihood that the proverbial "slab monkey" would have been provided by now. I think they're correct.

More, the entire BFRO database includes a mere 6,000 or so reports. Some of these are dated into the 1800's. There are probably several thousands of black bear sightings per day on this continent. That alone indicates a rare creature.

It is obvious you have given this subject much thought; your comments are sensible and rational. I really believe that you and I see the situation a little differently because we both have a deficiency of field experience in the other's area of the country. While I have traveled all over the country, what knowledge I have was gained solely in the South & Southeast. The eastern part of Oklahoma and Texas were my western borders, and the southeren part of Missouri my northern one. I have absolutely no knowledge concerning BF in the Midwest or the Northwest.

There are hundreds of country folks in Arkansas alone who know a lot more about the critters than I because the animals have inhabited certain areas of the State for generations. These folks are VERY reluctant to speak to any "outsider" about what they have seen or know, but they will share their knowledge with "locals" if they are approached in the right way, and one-on-one. The same is true for the folks in nearly all States in the S/SE. There are not as many local "BF Researchers" in the S/SE as there are in the Northwest. If there were, the estimates of the population of the animals would jump like the Chicago voter list before an election.

Anyway, thanks for your response. I learned from it.

[Huntster]

It is obvious you have given this subject much thought; your comments are sensible and rational. I really believe that you and I see the situation a little differently because we both have a deficiency of field experience in the other's area of the country.

That is likely true, and (like I indicated) to compound the differences is the lack of database collection from areas east of the Rockies previous to the BFRO.

There are hundreds of country folks in Arkansas alone who know a lot more about the critters than I because the animals have inhabited certain areas of the State for generations. These folks are VERY reluctant to speak to any "outsider" about what they have seen or know, but they will share their knowledge with "locals" if they are approached in the right way, and one-on-one. The same is true for the folks in nearly all States in the S/SE.

I fully agree with this, and it is also true of aboriginal communities and remote communities in the PNW, like Southeast Alaska. Rob Alley pointed this out in his book Raincoast Sasquatch, and my own experience with relatives in Southeast Alaska confirms that for me.

[Guest Lesmore]

I quote from your post.

"Do You Really Need Proof? Isn't it enough to just KNOW"

For many it is just enough to know, to not require proof....I might add to just believe....not just when it comes to making their own decision on the existence of BF, but on many other things in life.

For others....it's important to have proof, to know for an unalterable fact...it isn't enough to just KNOW...to just believe without question. This also applies not just to their own decision on the existence of BF, but on many other things in life.

I belong to the second group.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Lesmore

[Branco]

I quote from your post.

"Do You Really Need Proof? Isn't it enough to just KNOW"

For many it is just enough to know, to not require proof....I might add to just believe....not just when it comes to making their own decision on the existence of BF, but on many other things in life.

For others....it's important to have proof, to know for an unalterable fact...it isn't enough to just KNOW...to just believe without question. This also applies not just to their own decision on the existence of BF, but on many other things in life.

I belong to the second group.

So, if you are sincerely interested in the "proof", what have to done to obtain it?

[Guest Lesmore]

So, if you are sincerely interested in the "proof", what have to done to obtain it?

I don't believe in the existence of BF, the Unicorn or the Loch Ness Monster. The reason why, is I've never seen any evidence or proof to convince me that it exists.

I need fact, not opinion to form my views.

Other people are different in how they develop their views.

On the other hand, perhaps one believes in the existence of BF. If this statement is accurate, then one either believe they have seen proof or evidence that such a beast exists.

Or they just 'believe' and their belief is so rooted, that any argument, proof or evidence to the contrary, is not accepted, because they just 'know' and therefore believe.

I don't which category you fit into, or perhaps I've missed a category.

Les