Are There Any Existing Animals Similar To Bigfoot, In N.a.

[Guest Kerchak]

Not just North America Lesmore, bigfoot is unprecedented anywhere on the globe. There are no other examples - anywhere - of large, terrestrial animals (50 kg +, let's say) that occupy an enormous distribution (multiple continents - or even continent-wide in one land mass), occur in multiple habitats, and have been encountered for centuries but for which not a scrap of physical evidence can be confirmed. Mountain gorilla, okapi, Vietnamese antelopes - these all fail the distribution test when used as bigfoot analogies. Yes, they were described recently, but all are restricted in range to relatively inaccessible areas where, once Western scientists got to them, it was relatively easy to obtain physical specimens. Bigfoot is not like that at all - it is purported to occur in areas where humans live and work every day in addition to areas that are true wilderness. Bigfoot - or things like it - are also purported to occur in Australia, Indonesia, Asia, and North America.

Yes, bigfoot is described as generally interested in avoiding humans, and adept at doing so. But it is believed to range over a huge area, occupy multiple habitats from the boreal forest to the tropics, and occur in landscapes that are not wilderness by even the most liberal interpretations of that word. So it is unprecedented - there are no good analogies for something like a bigfoot, despite the assertions of many to the contrary. Unprecedented does not mean that bigfoot cannot exist, just that there's nothing else like it if it does.

Sounds like a bust then.

Move along. Nothing to see here ladies and gents. Right?

[Guest]

Sounds like a bust then.

Move along. Nothing to see here ladies and gents. Right?

Only if you ignore the last sentence of my post.

[Guest Cervelo]

In regards to black panthers I have seen one pretty close (less 300ft) cross a road north west of wilmington nc. Once I realized what I was looking at I actually sped up jumped out of my truck (very remote rural road) ran onto the woods fumbling with my cell phone then realize what I was chasing promptly high tailed it back to my truck. At first I did say what's this big black lab doing getting ready to get run over but the second it moved it took my breath away. Moved well....like a cat and the kicker for me was the tail almost as long as the body. I have never seen Bigfoot but spent time very close to very large animals (elephants, rhinos and lions) but this was the most exciting thing because it was so out of context. My mind had decide it was a dog until it moved and quite frankly freed my mind that biggie could be out there as well.

[Guest]

Mountain lions in NY state come to mind. Seen for decades, one even by a State biologist, a few fuzzy photos (big housecats?), some deer kills covered with leaves (Mt lions do that) with tooth puncture marks on the neck, but no bodies. Consensus is that any that are out there are escaped animals from private collections. The deers carcasses had neck puncture marks but no claw marks indicating de-clawed animals.

On a related note there was an attempt to re-introduce lynx to the NY Adirondacks about 15 yrs ago. It was an unequivocal failure. The radio collared animals simply had home ranges that far exceed what even the Adirondacks could provide. They continually moved and most got hit by cars withing a couple years of release. Sometimes what seems wild and remote to us just isn't large enough to support some animals.

[Huntster]

Not just North America Lesmore, bigfoot is unprecedented anywhere on the globe. There are no other examples - anywhere - of large, terrestrial animals (50 kg +, let's say) that occupy an enormous distribution (multiple continents - or even continent-wide in one land mass), occur in multiple habitats, and have been encountered for centuries but for which not a scrap of physical evidence can be confirmed. Mountain gorilla, okapi, Vietnamese antelopes - these all fail the distribution test when used as bigfoot analogies.

That is incorrect. Even lowland gorillas (which number into the hundreds of thousands and occupy large areas of equatorial Africa) remained a "crypto" beast for centuries until 1856.

Yes, they were described recently, but all are restricted in range to relatively inaccessible areas where, once Western scientists got to them, it was relatively easy to obtain physical specimens.

I believe that sasquatches have been reduced in range to relatively inaccessible areas where, once Western scientists get to them, it would relatively easy to obtain physical specimens.

But they won't, because they refuse to try, so sasquatch numbers may be reduced even more.

Bigfoot is not like that at all - it is purported to occur in areas where humans live and work every day in addition to areas that are true wilderness.

Actually, they are purported to occasionally occur where humans live and work every day, but are purported to range primarily in more remote locations, thus indicating individual animals attempting to move from area to area.

Bigfoot - or things like it - are also purported to occur in Australia, Indonesia, Asia, and North America.

But not Africa or Antarctica. If bigfoot was a creation of the imagination, why is that, Professor?

Yes, bigfoot is described as generally interested in avoiding humans, and adept at doing so. But it is believed to range over a huge area, occupy multiple habitats from the boreal forest to the tropics, and occur in landscapes that are not wilderness by even the most liberal interpretations of that word.

And Glickman's report density cluster theory explains why that might be so.

[Huntster]

And I would say another thing these animals you list, is there are clear pictures of many of these beasts.

There is a moving footage of a creature which matches the description of a sasquatch, complete with casted footprints from the site, taken in 1968 in California. The California Dept. of Fish and Game has never been mentioned as interviewing the photographers, looking at the original (or even a copy, for that matter) film, searching the area afterward, etc.

Why is that?

[Huntster]

Ok your right we're all wrong, delusinal, lying whatever next This baiting path of questioning has been beat to death in so many other threads here. I'm a skeptic myself. But unless we need practice typing why keep going down this same predictable path.

1) In order to feel and portray oneself as superior in intelligence from the unwashed who accept things without proof

2) In order to kill belief itself

3) In order to prosthelize the ideologies of skepticism and/or denialism

4) In order to kill any growing support to pressure the appropriate wildlife management agencies from conducting their very first investigation or census regarding these creatures

Sorry to vent on you but I feel better and that appears all this fourm is for:)

It is for some.

[Huntster]

These examples might fit your requirements...

1) The Jersey Devil. Outrageously rare, never photographed, approximately the weight of a light human (S.W.A.Guesstimate of 80-150 lbs, my mother is in that weight range). A lot of people believe it is a myth.

2) Melanistic (black) cougars. Seldom photographed (never a good one), no bodies, a couple of hair samples, same weight range as a regular cougar - 115 to 198 lbs. Biologists will tell you that cougars don't come in black and the photos are of out-of-scale domestic cats.

My personal sasquatch is the American pine marten. I first learned about them in my hunter safety course in Wyoming. I've never seen one (same for bigfoot), never met anyone who has seen one (I have met people who have claimed to see a bigfoot), never seen one in a zoo, never seen the corpse or pelt of one, and I have seen more photos of sasquatch than photos of American pine martens. I would like to see a pine marten more than I would like to see a sasquatch, as pine martens can't tear my arms out of their sockets.

There is no evidence that sasquatch are real, until you see one for yourself. That is why I look.

Thank you for such an excellent post/response.

I am among the lucky who have both seen martens and had close encounters with them. Once one "invaded" our moose hunting camp. We returned from (unsuccessfully) trying to track down a bear that had been shot (a rather nerve racking experience for some in the group), and upon walking into camp, had a creature growling at us from the brush. I actually thought that bear had tracked us down and wanted revenge, and grabbed my rifle, and as I traced the growling, found a marten in a spruce tree above our garbage pit (that we hadn't burned yet). He was as cute and unafraid of us as you can imagine! The rest of the gang shortly left for more moose hunting and I stayed in camp to prepare dinner, and "Marty" kept me company for an hour or so. I even had him approach within a foot or so as I sat in a camp chair. He almost ate out of my hand. Got photos of him, too.

Like you, I've never seen a sasquatch. I found a trackway once, but would love a sighting.............

[Huntster]

Lesmore, on 22 October 2010 - 01:05 PM, said:

[*]Occasionally photographed....but the picture never seem to be clear enough to confirm what actually for sure, is in the picture ? I've been an avid (amateur) photographer for years and I'm amazed at not so much the poor quality of photograph, but amazed at the what seems to be almost 100 % consistency of poor photography of pictures/films purporting to be Bigfoot. How can this be ? If someone could enlighten me, in valid manner in regards to how can the examples of photography that claim to be Bigfoot be so consistently poor ?

One of the possible reasons.

http://www.sasquatch...ent/view/42/29/

There are several others.

I read your article, Jim. Well done. It was excellent.

[Guest Lesmore]

deleted by poster

Edited October 23, 2010 by Lesmore

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 23 October 2010 - 07:24 AM, said:

There is a moving footage of a creature which matches the description of a sasquatch, complete with casted footprints from the site, taken in 1968 in California. The California Dept. of Fish and Game has never been mentioned as interviewing the photographers, looking at the original (or even a copy, for that matter) film, searching the area afterward, etc.

Why is that?

Do you have more details.

A simple google search using the key words, "Patterson-Gimlin Film" will overwhelm you with information, and from an acceptance, skeptical, as well as a denial point of view.

Please find any reference to the California Dept. of Fish and Game. Any at all.

BTW, in reference to your signature 'ditty'.

God is dead" - Nietzsche.

"Nietzsche is dead" - The Huntster

The correct version of this and I recall from my university days in the early '70s' is:

God is dead" - Nietzsche.

"Nietzsche is dead" - God

Yes, but those who agree with Nietzsche can't seem to hear God. I wanted to ensure that they heard the message, so I'll tell them myself.

[Guest Lesmore]

A simple google search using the key words, "Patterson-Gimlin Film" will overwhelm you with information, and from an acceptance, skeptical, as well as a denial point of view.

You gave a general reference. I guessed that you were making reference to the Patterson-Gimlin film. It would of been clearer if you had added these key words in the original post.

Please find any reference to the California Dept. of Fish and Game. Any at all. I was actually at a Patterson-Gimlin presentation many years ago, when they did the western US and western Canadian tour. I listened to Mr. Patterson quite closely and my friend and I sat in front row seats as close as possible to the screen, as the famous film rolled.

Yes, but those who agree with Nietzsche can't seem to hear God. I wanted to ensure that they heard the message, so I'll tell them myself.

I think the original statement stands quite well by itself. I don't think even you will deny that many, more people are / will be aware of God....then ever will be aware of Huntster.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Lesmore

[Huntster]

I think the original statement stands quite well by itself.

I do, too. However, I like my version just as well. I can argue with dissenters about Nietzsche's death with much more passion than God is likely willing to do.

I don't think even you will deny that many, more people are / will be aware of God....then ever will be aware of Huntster.

No doubt (even though there are plenty who argue that there is no God to be aware of.........there is nobody yet who claimed that the Huntster didn't exist and, after hours of debate, didn't regret such a statement). But many, many more people will read about Nietzsche's death from my typing than from God's...............

Edited October 23, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest]

Ok, getting back to the topic. I hadn't thought about the big black cats. I've known two people who have seen Sasquatch and more people than I can count on two hands that have seen black panthers, mountain lions, jaguars, whatever kind of cat they are. So obviously something can stay hidden for as long as it wants to stay hidden out in the wild. I think we are all too soft these days to realize how little we see out in the woods and how fast you can disappear out there. People get lost everyday and are never found until someone accidentally stumbles upon the remains years later.

[Guest Robert]

Not just North America Lesmore, bigfoot is unprecedented anywhere on the globe. There are no other examples - anywhere - of large, terrestrial animals (50 kg +, let's say) that occupy an enormous distribution (multiple continents - or even continent-wide in one land mass), occur in multiple habitats, and have been encountered for centuries but for which not a scrap of physical evidence can be confirmed. Mountain gorilla, okapi, Vietnamese antelopes - these all fail the distribution test when used as bigfoot analogies. Yes, they were described recently, but all are restricted in range to relatively inaccessible areas where, once Western scientists got to them, it was relatively easy to obtain physical specimens. Bigfoot is not like that at all - it is purported to occur in areas where humans live and work every day in addition to areas that are true wilderness. Bigfoot - or things like it - are also purported to occur in Australia, Indonesia, Asia, and North America.

Yes, bigfoot is described as generally interested in avoiding humans, and adept at doing so. But it is believed to range over a huge area, occupy multiple habitats from the boreal forest to the tropics, and occur in landscapes that are not wilderness by even the most liberal interpretations of that word. So it is unprecedented - there are no good analogies for something like a bigfoot, despite the assertions of many to the contrary. Unprecedented does not mean that bigfoot cannot exist, just that there's nothing else like it if it does.

I think you may be missing the obvious choice for an animal that is very similar to BF, based on what you have written.

Homo Sapiens.