WHY DO THE FEDS WANT BIGFOOT TO REMAIN UNDCOMENTED & MYTHICAL?

[Huntster]

2 minutes ago, norseman said:

.........I don’t think their numbers could be high coexisting with us.........

 

I agree. It's like grizzly bears and wolves co-existing with large populations of humans. If we aren't willing to accept human and livestock losses, it won't be happening successfully.

[MIB]

5 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

I agree. It's like grizzly bears and wolves co-existing with large populations of humans. If we aren't willing to accept human and livestock losses, it won't be happening successfully.

 

Maybe, maybe not.   This seems rooted in ape camp thinking .. rooted in a notion that sasquatch acts on instinct rather than culture or intelligence.   Think about what we think we know about physical differences that lead to behaviors that avoid conflict, things like diurnal vs nocturnal, gracile vs robust, near bald vs hairy, running under hot sun across open plains vs walking nights on frozen mountains and the relative foot adaptations for each, about the need for tools and fire vs lack of those needs.   

 

Maybe that isn't limited to biology, maybe it extends to deliberate behavior selections that minimize conflict.    Mind you, I can't prove it does, but I don't think we can safely assume it does not.  "Religion", be it formal or be it mere human assumption of uniqueness / specialness, may tell some folks this can't be true but that's all it is .. assumption.    If there is a baby in this bathwater we need to keep it all, not make random guesses and throw out parts which might indeed have the baby in them.

[Huntster]

27 minutes ago, MIB said:

.........Maybe that isn't limited to biology, maybe it extends to deliberate behavior selections that minimize conflict..........

 

Oh, I believe that fully. In my example of grizzly bears, Anchorage is a perfect example. We have an estimated 60 grizzlies living within municipal borders. Not all behave nicely, but many do. Ditto the wolves. And I suspect sasquatches are smarter than the bears and wolves.

 

With regard to Anchorage and its wildlife, recently I was told that the wolf packs that inhabited Ft. Richardson were ultimately destroyed. Their issue was that people would illegally walk their dogs on Army land, and the wolves eventually learned that they could take the dogs right off their leashes. As the problem grew, the Army "studied" it until attention waned...........then they killed them off.

 

The bears? They can be a real problem. Fish and Game has killed 8 brown bears and 12 black bears in Anchorage this year.

 

https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2026/09/22/bears-have-broken-into-vehicles-destroyed-garage-doors-even-tried-enter-home-anchorage/

 

As long as sasquatches remain mythical, police and wildlife officials won't be killing sasquatches when fearful folks call them.

 

[norseman]

5 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Maybe, maybe not.   This seems rooted in ape camp thinking .. rooted in a notion that sasquatch acts on instinct rather than culture or intelligence.   Think about what we think we know about physical differences that lead to behaviors that avoid conflict, things like diurnal vs nocturnal, gracile vs robust, near bald vs hairy, running under hot sun across open plains vs walking nights on frozen mountains and the relative foot adaptations for each, about the need for tools and fire vs lack of those needs.   

 

Maybe that isn't limited to biology, maybe it extends to deliberate behavior selections that minimize conflict.    Mind you, I can't prove it does, but I don't think we can safely assume it does not.  "Religion", be it formal or be it mere human assumption of uniqueness / specialness, may tell some folks this can't be true but that's all it is .. assumption.    If there is a baby in this bathwater we need to keep it all, not make random guesses and throw out parts which might indeed have the baby in them.

Sasquatch is an Ape and so are Homo Sapiens. And Apes are smart, very smart in the animal kingdom. Gorillas, Orangs and Chimps all can be taught and use sign language. They all exhibit some form of tool use. 

 

But as you say? Subtle differences in morphology and behavior lead to big differences over time.

 

This species was so so close to us but didn’t make it. We out competed them. I think Sasquatch is still here because it didn’t choose to compete with us. It’s related to us but it’s a much more distant a cousin than say a Neanderthal. IMHO.

 

 

[georgerm]

Quote

"This species was so close to us but didn’t make it. We out competed them. I think Sasquatch is still here because it didn’t choose to compete with us. It’s related to us but it’s a much more distant a cousin than say a Neanderthal. IMHO," said Norseman

After the Neanderthals went extinct during the late Pleistocene or 11,000 years ago, the Homo sapiens dominated the Homo species world of Europe and parts of western Asia. We have fossil records that show this in various museums and universities, but why do we lack fossil records of Sasquatch living in Europe, and Asia? Seems like the fossil records has never been found, or they never existed. Why? Is it because Sasquatch never lived in Europe or Asia back then and arrived there more recently? We don't even have a fossil record showing Sasquatch lived in North America during the late Pleistocene, or even today? Why? We have fossil records of Neanderthals and their flutes they played. Are there undiscovered Sasquatch fossil records for Paleontologist to find? 

[Huntster]

45 minutes ago, georgerm said:

........ why do we lack fossil records of Sasquatch living in Europe, and Asia? Seems like the fossil records has never been found, or they never existed........

 

I believe it's because they have never lived at high density. They have always been at much lower population densities than us.