Debunk The Debunking

[Guest RayG]

They are seen on or near Highways but i don't really think it's frequently..

I don't think limited exposure to Roads is being undermined by the Reports on or near Roads either, that's just where the people are as overall as opposed to 50 Yards to either side of a Road Highway where people are not generally & we can't seriously think that a good % of a Sasquatch day/night is spent on or near Road's..

They cross them, they may even use them as a way of travel at times too but it's about majorities & minorities & i can't see how anyone would think that the majority of their time is spent on or near Roads &/or Highways.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that sightings frequently occur on or near roads, not that bigfoot spends the majority of their time there.

John Green's early data seemed to support that. For example, in his Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, (pages 454-455), he writes:

• "Including both sightings and tracks, by far the greatest number were reported on roads --37 on major highways and 245 on lesser roads including dirt roads. Total reported in the woods was 118; on stream banks 111; in people's yards, including those close to farmhouses, 105; in wild open areas 78; on hillsides 75; on farms 72; on beaches 61; on trails 32; in swamps 31; in running water 18; in still water 15; in berry patches 11, and in the sea seven...
  Dealing with sightings only, not tracks, the witnesses were in moving cars 170 times; on foot 164 times, and at home 134 times. Of the drivers, 44 were on main highways and 126 on lesser roads...
  ...the most common type of report in British Columbia is a sasquatch seen on the beach from a boat in the daytime. In every other area the most common type of sighting is by a driver on a side road at night... the most common form of sighting is by someone driving on a side road, in the fall, in California or Washington."

Granted, that info is from more than 30 years ago, but I suspect the numbers in relation to the proximity of roads remains quite high even today.

My argument is that if this is some rare, highly intelligent, reclusive, super-ninja-ape-like-creature, sightings on or near roads should be nearly non-existent, especially at night, when they can use their heightened senses to avoid human contact.

RayG

[gigantor]

Good point RayG.

[Guest RayG]

• no road kill because ___________ <-- insert excuse
  

Found this 2008 Wildlife Roadkill Identification Guide, produced by the Ministry of Transportation in Victoria, BC. Animals included in it are the following:

Badger, Black Bear, Grizzly Bear, Bison, Caribou, Cougar, Coyote, Deer (Mule, Black-tailed, & White-tailed), Elk (Roosevelt & Rocky Mountain, Moose (Alaskan, Northwestern, & Shiras), Porcupine, Sheep (Bighorn), and Wolf.

No bigfoot.

RayG

[Guest]

Raises some good questions too, thanks Ray. How bout if there is an area that is remote with a road that goes through it.. say a National Forest. Now in three years nothing happens with the entire number of vehicles that go through there. We all know that wildlife does cross roads. And another year goes by. All of a sudden, a housewife on her way home after working a second shift sees a figure cross the road. In the middle of no where.. she tells her husband, not always a standard procedure with husband or wife.. and he reports it. Ok road report. But.. look at how many cars went by before we got one in that area. might not be another for 5-10 more years. Now on a national basis if you look at that.. and apply it

it still looks like its kind of rare.. and it certainly didnt hang around the road.. but if they are often active nocturnally it makes sense that some of them simply cross roads. But my favorite part is the super-ninja-ape-like-creature word. AWESOME And thanks for that ! AND if you tally that National Forest report with the other reports maybe similar or even more rare.. that is a lot of reports.. remember the potential habitat size. Just a consideration on what you wrote.. many other possible scenarios I would think.

Hey... you already answered that BC roadkill report Ray.. remember.. super-ninja-ape-like-creature

Edited December 13, 2010 by treeknocker

[Guest RayG]

But you see the obvious conundrum, right?

This night-ninja-wood-ape should never be spotted at night crossing a road, given that his acute hearing, smart-as-a-human-intelligence, speed-of-foot, and 20/20 night vision should give him the heads up long before a vehicle comes driving along, right? And if it doesn't, then why no road kill?

RayG

[Guest]

What if it is just a regular flesh and blood animal present in low numbers, and not a Super Ninja Ape Like Creature?

As a point of clarification, the guide that RayG linked to is intended only to help someone identify what animal has been struck by a vehicle, and does not include any useful information such as number struck each day, week, month or year, for example (or even to state definitively that even one of each animal listed has in fact been roadkill).

FWIW, I would not expect a guide like this to include any animals not 'known' to be in the area, and that would of course include BF (not 'known' to the Scientific Body Politic), but I would also not expect to see the Lowland Gorilla in this guide, but we know that Gorilla's exist.

So I am not sure what the real intent is other than to suggest that since BF is not in the guide it must not be real?

Of course, there is a law in Skamania Co, Washington, since 1969, that says it is illegal to kill a BF, does that 'prove' that they exis then? Does this 'cancel out' the guide not having BF listed? Just how silly do we want to get?

What would be interesting along this line of thinking, IMO, would be to look at animal population and range distribution, overlaid with highways and known game trails, both as it is related to BF sightings and as related to roadkill for known animals.

For example, does the North American Badger, with an estimated breeding population of only 200 in all of BC (shown as 'few' and with a limited range), have the same kind of roadkill exposure as a percentage of population, as an animal of similar size but larger population, like the Coyote (shown as 'moderate' to 'plentiful' for essentially all of BC). Certainly an interesting question.

[Guest]

But you see the obvious conundrum, right?

This night-ninja-wood-ape should never be spotted at night crossing a road, given that his acute hearing, smart-as-a-human-intelligence, speed-of-foot, and 20/20 night vision should give him the heads up long before a vehicle comes driving along, right? And if it doesn't, then why no road kill?

RayG

What if he just doesn't care and the fact that he is illusive is just our perception of him since we don't supposedly see them often? The illusiveness may be due to other factors besides bigfoot's personal preference, assuming he has one. To me, nothing is a given with bigfoot. I have favorite theories but nothing I definitely believe about this creature. We may have that illusiveness all wrong since it is possible that he is seen much more than we ever here about.

[Guest]

But you see the obvious conundrum, right?

This night-ninja-wood-ape should never be spotted at night crossing a road, given that his acute hearing, smart-as-a-human-intelligence, speed-of-foot, and 20/20 night vision should give him the heads up long before a vehicle comes driving along, right? And if it doesn't, then why no road kill?

RayG

TK: I do see the obvious conundrum, yes. Problem is.. I see a lot of them.

Regarding the idea you are expressing, and quite well I might add, it causes concerns parallel with no body.

What do we know? That might be the question...

Regarding the idea it should never be spotted at night crossing a road..my first question to that is ... WHY?

Because there is no road kill... ? References to them you know .. must be a biological reason.. if its because they cannot exist, then we have a lot of other problems that need explaining.. which is another conundrum. A whole boatload.

[Guest RayG]

What if it is just a regular flesh and blood animal present in low numbers, and not a Super Ninja Ape Like Creature?

While I personally think that if bigfoot exists it is a regular flesh and blood critter and has no special 'talents', not everyone thinks that. I have seen numerous ninja-like qualities attributed to bigfoot over the years. Everything from bigfoot being impervious to bullets, running as fast or faster than a horse, and able to detect the presence of humans or trail cams, to having eyes that allow them to see in the dark.

As a point of clarification, the guide that RayG linked to is intended only to help someone identify what animal has been struck by a vehicle, and does not include any useful information such as number struck each day, week, month or year, for example (or even to state definitively that even one of each animal listed has in fact been roadkill).

FWIW, I would not expect a guide like this to include any animals not 'known' to be in the area, and that would of course include BF (not 'known' to the Scientific Body Politic), but I would also not expect to see the Lowland Gorilla in this guide, but we know that Gorilla's exist.

So I am not sure what the real intent is other than to suggest that since BF is not in the guide it must not be real?

The guide includes animals known to end up as road kill in British Columbia, so no, I would not expect to see Lowland Gorillas, or Alligators, Cheetahs, or Koala Bears, or any other animal not found in the area. The intent is to show that Bigfoot inhabits the very same area as those animals in the guide, yet bigfoot never ends up as road kill. Why not? Are we to believe that bigfoot is smarter than every animal that presently lives in British Columbia, including humans, who are also not included in the guide, but occasionally end up killed when they are struck by a vehicle as they try to cross the road? (as recently as November 6th, 2010)

Of course, there is a law in Skamania Co, Washington, since 1969, that says it is illegal to kill a BF, does that 'prove' that they exis then? Does this 'cancel out' the guide not having BF listed? Just how silly do we want to get?

My argument is that bigfoot never shows up as road kill, not whether or not Skamania County once had a no kill law, which they amended in 1984.

RayG

[Guest]

Ray

In the state I live in.. we have no road killed cougar. We get significant reports ea year complete with images, scat and tracks. But a contact told me if we had naturalized cougar then we would have roadkills. Look at Florida. A percentage of that entire population get taken out every year or so I am told by.. roadkill. I have not verified this statement but I believe given the conditions of Florida, the numbers of tourists and concentrated areas of habitat for the cats, plus the vulnerabilities a smaller body mass would have to vehicles, to be potentially true. Now, let us look at Montana. I have a friend there.. he is in charge of the predators that cause problems in the entire state. I asked him if he had numbers of roadkilled mountain lion there (Felis concolor) also called cougar, catamount, puma, American lion, screamer, panther, etc..

He said No, not that I am aware of. So.. I asked him so.. do you have an established breeding population of cougar in your state ? He looked at me, with one of those faces that defies description, and asks me if I am joking.. then I told him the full story regarding my contact and I was asked how was it he could hold the job he had with comments like that ????????? Now take the two species and compare them.. one is much larger and much rarer than the other. So there is one biological comparison which may support some of the factors referred to as why reports of collisions with sasquatches are rarely reported.. let alone resulting in dead bodies along the highway.

TK

[Guest RayG]

Regarding the idea it should never be spotted at night crossing a road..my first question to that is ... WHY?

Exactly. If they are smart enough to never be captured by trail cams, and never end up as road kill, why are they so stupid they get spotted crossing roads?

RayG

[BobbyO]

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that sightings frequently occur on or near roads, not that bigfoot spends the majority of their time there.

John Green's early data seemed to support that. For example, in his Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, (pages 454-455), he writes:

• "Including both sightings and tracks, by far the greatest number were reported on roads --37 on major highways and 245 on lesser roads including dirt roads. Total reported in the woods was 118; on stream banks 111; in people's yards, including those close to farmhouses, 105; in wild open areas 78; on hillsides 75; on farms 72; on beaches 61; on trails 32; in swamps 31; in running water 18; in still water 15; in berry patches 11, and in the sea seven...
  Dealing with sightings only, not tracks, the witnesses were in moving cars 170 times; on foot 164 times, and at home 134 times. Of the drivers, 44 were on main highways and 126 on lesser roads...
  ...the most common type of report in British Columbia is a sasquatch seen on the beach from a boat in the daytime. In every other area the most common type of sighting is by a driver on a side road at night... the most common form of sighting is by someone driving on a side road, in the fall, in California or Washington."

Granted, that info is from more than 30 years ago, but I suspect the numbers in relation to the proximity of roads remains quite high even today.

My argument is that if this is some rare, highly intelligent, reclusive, super-ninja-ape-like-creature, sightings on or near roads should be nearly non-existent, especially at night, when they can use their heightened senses to avoid human contact.

RayG

No Ray, i understood exactly what you were saying..

I am however saying that the reason why there are the Sightings on the Roads is that, that is where people are. People have to be somewhere to have the Sightings, people travel frequently on Roads ( not necesarrily BF ) therefore that's why there are the amount of Sightings there are.

By your logic, if BF's didn't use Road's like you say they shouldn't, there would be virtually zero actual Sightings/Reports/Visuals at nighttime of them, full stop.

But there are, & they're often on or near Roads, where the people are & where the people use great big lights so they can see things when they're driving because we can't see very well in the dark.

& BF's do use Roads also like i said, Roads' cut through their Habitat so they may utilise them or at least cross them which is when they get seen.

I just don't think i can see how anyone would think that the " majority " of their time on or near Roads &/or Highways.

[BobbyO]

Found this 2008 Wildlife Roadkill Identification Guide, produced by the Ministry of Transportation in Victoria, BC. Animals included in it are the following:

Badger, Black Bear, Grizzly Bear, Bison, Caribou, Cougar, Coyote, Deer (Mule, Black-tailed, & White-tailed), Elk (Roosevelt & Rocky Mountain, Moose (Alaskan, Northwestern, & Shiras), Porcupine, Sheep (Bighorn), and Wolf.

No bigfoot.

RayG

Of course not, it isn't recognised Offically as an Animal in Canada.

[BobbyO]

But you see the obvious conundrum, right?

This night-ninja-wood-ape should never be spotted at night crossing a road, given that his acute hearing, smart-as-a-human-intelligence, speed-of-foot, and 20/20 night vision should give him the heads up long before a vehicle comes driving along, right? And if it doesn't, then why no road kill?

RayG

I understand completely with what you're saying, yet i can't give you a definate answer sadly but my belief is that that law of averages says that Roadkill will be how this whole thing is solved, surely ..

But to " attempt " to answer what you're saying & i've thought about what you've said above extensively previously, here are some possibilities.

There are Reports of them being seen in the Rear View Mirrors crossing Roads so that would suggest that at least some of them have the nous to see the danger pass FIRST before crossing a Road which is a start for us by suggesting they are nnot just " another dumb Animal " like the rest..

People generally are looking in front of them granted, who's to say we wouldn't have multiple more Road Crossing Sightings if people did in fact look in the Rear View Mirrors a little more ??

But as to why the DO cross in front of Cars, i think it could be a number of things..

I think it could be a Game possibly ( dangerous Game granted ), kind of like our version of Chicken ?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game)

It could be younger, less Mature individuals that haven't yet grapsed that it's better for the Car to pass before crossing.

They could be testing themselves with Cars, testing their speed & agility against the fastest, biggest " thing " they've ever seen.

All of what i say does point to adolescent & a form of " training " really..

Alternative we could just say that some didn't look when they crossed the Road, just how people don't sometimes.

There are Reports of collisiions, it's not as if collisions have never been reported..

I can't tell you why there have been no Road Kill but then again i can't tell you why there haven't been good Pictures of them on Game Cam's.

But what i do know is that there hasn't been any Road Kill reported PUBLICALLY & i think what's made public is very different at times to what does actually happen.

Not saying there has been a Road Kill as one, but i am just saying that i wouldn't be surprised if there had been, we just haven't been told about it.

[Guest]

Exactly. If they are smart enough to never be captured by trail cams, and never end up as road kill, why are they so stupid they get spotted crossing roads? RayG

Ray, here is the best I can do for you..

1. Is it possible.. that they are sooo smart they have realized that the likelihood of getting hit here is small because they are so fast, done this soo many times before and are desensitized (due to repetitiously being successful) with this ? I assure you that if they had the intelligence of known NA predators.. they would be hit much sooner than later.

2. Remember.. NEVER is a big word.. I think.. and I may well be VERY wrong, that there are simply more of them NOW than there used to be. I dont know if they are speciated, I do not know if there are various levels of unknown variable giants.. and I sure do not know if there are if they can hybridize, or produce intergrades between differernt levels of geographical races.. I do not know. But IF and yup, that is a BIG IF.. they are increasing.. then like Bobby O said, maybe that is something that is going to happen.... a roadkill. If pop densities (all conjecture) were and have been low since the domestication of this continent I would expect an increase in numbers now if they are governed by biological law. (Due to modernized natural resource management making sure that game animal supply satisfies demand.. if it does, then you can expect a by product being predator pop increase.. and sasquatches should benefit from the combination of habitat management and significant prey spp including top notch fisheries. This points to the chances of another collision Ray.