Things That Dont Make Sense About Bigfoot

[Guest BCCryptid]

For me, it's:

1. They are nocturnal.

2. They are good swimmers.

3. They are found in so many areas of N. America, yet are still not identified.

1 and 2 are unique among the Great Apes, other than us.

3... well that's the one that's the hardest to swallow. Note also it is self-perpetuating rule, ie, the more improbable the animal is, the more evidence required and the less likely people will be to accept it.

[Guest]

More great point BCC... Does it make sense that some people have followed the tracks in snow and there is no picture? I suppose it does since the terrain might be extremely difficult to move quickly so people should be easily outdistanced. Also it might be by the time you get close enough for auditory experiences it might be getting dark, you might be in a situation where resources or desires are exhausted, etc. Funny plane sightings are not more frequent but if they grab cover quickly (conifers) that makes sense. Its just weird snow tracks dont end up with more photos or observations.

[xspider1]

Great topic treeknocker! The comments above are very interesting so, I'll try not to mess it up.

The idea that Bigfoot are in every state so we should have one is valid, imo, only if we assume that the Bigfoot sitings in every state are equally reliable. I don't think they are.

I think that most bigfoot sitings are mis-identifications or, unfortunately, hoaxes and lies. I think that they live in very remote areas almost exclusively. That combined with the other very real considerations discussed here: acute hearing, natural camouflage, intelligence, wariness, physical strength, etc. are explaining (in real, probable and scientific terms) why we dont have more or better pictures. Thanks!

[Xion Comrade]

Great topic treeknocker! The comments above are very interesting so, I'll try not to mess it up.

The idea that Bigfoot are in every state so we should have one is valid, imo, only if we assume that the Bigfoot sitings in every state are equally reliable. I don't think they are.

I think that most bigfoot sitings are mis-identifications or, unfortunately, hoaxes and lies. I think that they live in very remote areas almost exclusively. That combined with the other very real considerations discussed here: acute hearing, natural camouflage, intelligence, wariness, physical strength, etc. are explaining (in real, probable and scientific terms) why we dont have more or better pictures. Thanks!

1. I personally find it completely preposterous and entirely insulting that the "experts" say that most sightings are actually mis-identified bears. For one, Bears cannot move rapidly on hind legs, nor can they crash through thick brush and they absolutely do not prefer to move on the hind legs. Anatomically they are all wrong for it. Sort of like Gorillas. They can certainly walk on two legs, and do it well. But it is not as comfortable a position, and they are built MUCH better for it than bears! If we could post links, I hope this one works, but it is a video of a Gorilla that has been taught to walk on two legs!

And here is a video of a Black bear, which has lost a front leg, preferring to walk on two legs.

A. Most if not ALL Sasquatch sightings note that the figure displayed NO ears, they either do not have ears, or they are so small they are covered by hair. Most, and I mean 90% of all Sasquatch sightings reported describe a red, white, gray, or mix of red and brown color. It is safe to say that bears of those colors are rarer than Sasquatch(I know they are real). A black Sasquatch is extremely rare in comparison apparently. Most if not ALL Sasquatch sightings report very long arms, down around the knees. Black bear arms do not even pass the torso and are more T-rexish in length.

B. Typical features described in all well observed Sasquatch sightings put great emphasis on the fact that the shoulders are MASSIVE! Their is a member on this board who reports a estimated breadth of 5 feet, and 4 feet is a fairly common estimation. Now, go onto google and type in "Grizzly bear on two legs" seeing as how the grizzlies are quite massive in comparison to the "Tiny" black bears that only stand about 6 feet on hind legs, shorter than most woods-going men. Note how their is NO shoulder breadth! Another thing to note is that most all of a bears hair, of any type, is very tight to the body and short. Only a few inches.

C. Some Sasquatches have VERY long hair, and sometimes just like we homo-sapiens. I have known of Forest Giant Men to have very long beards, even to their crotch, and likewise hair down their back, these two areas are much longer and a different color than what is all over the body(WOULD LOVE SOME INPUT ON THIS! HAS ANYONE ELSE NOTED THIS ANYWHERE???) The hair is several feet long, and the "Fur" which is more hairlike in texture(Wavy, well cared for sometimes) can be 4-5 inches in length and longer on the arms and calves, NOT uniform all over the body(Some not all, some are reported to be quite uniform) A bears hair is always almost entirely uniform and tight.

D. Now one of the biggest ear raisers for a mis-ID in my experience is, well, ears. If a individual notes long pointy ears, it is most likely a mis-id(Very rare mind you!). For example, here recently in my area their was a Forest ranger who had ran to the news after his terrifying Sasquatch encounter! He admitted later though that he was drunk, driving the state issued park vehicle, and driving. He had just put a dead deer in the back of his pickup and was getting ready to drive off when something jarred the truck and pulled the deer out! He looked back to see a HUGE BLACK SASQUATCH!!!! THE THING HAD POINTY EARS!!! And sped off! In realitly it was a small little black bear, letting him know where that deer belonged! Hopefully that man has changed his ways, as drinking on the clock is instant ban hammer material, no less driving and drinking, the nut! The pointy ears AND black fur, instant throw off!

2. I would also like to note, that although Canada may be a great place for Forest Giants, most sightings discussed come from the US by far even! Now, it is unlikely that anyone, even with the most minute of experience in the woods, would EVER mistake a black bear for a Sasquatch, as I have just been over, they just wouldn't unless they were a stone cold Romanticist(Very rare fortunately) It is somewhat reasonable to me that someone mistake a fleeting sighting of a Brown bear for a Sasquatch, as the colors can match superficially.

But, this map of Brown Bear distribution, to my knowledge, destroys any possibility of that matter of factly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ursus_arctos_horribilis_map.svg

3. Another thing I would like to attack here, is that it is entirely possible, after talking to some great researchers (Even talked to Mr.Courtney last night!!! ) that it is possible that they are in 4x4 mode even most of the time. This makes sense to me, as I have been through hikes into thick brush several times. Each time it was impossible for me to remain on two legs squatting through the brush as I would quickly wear my legs out and still not be short enough to cut through, so I would have to get down on my hands and feet for balance and distribution. I am 5'11 and had to do this, imagine a 10 foot Sasquatch! I would also imagine it to be extremely difficult for a creature of that size to walk constantly on two legs through the sort of terrain they do(Remember that what is a easy hike for you with alot of clearance is a tight bottle neck for a 1000lbs Sasquatch!)

SO being that I will suppose they are in 4x4, I can tell you that I have very very rarely, maybe 1% at the most, ever came across a sighting where the Sasquatch was in 4x4. This leads me to conclude that instead of people mistaking bears for Sasquatch, which is preposterous, instead Sasquatch are mostly being written of as BEARS!!!

4. We all must realize, that for the general public especially in America, the Sasquatch is seen as a threat to their religious/world beliefs. It has been fed to most that it is the bridge between man and ape, which is ridiculous, or is a cross between man and ape, just as preposterous. These things are fed to the general public. Since these things are so ridiculous they simply write it off as just some paranormal bullcrap. Bigfoot is not even a THOUGHT in 75-85% of the population, if even that! The education they are given on this subject forces them to put it in the same realm as unicorns, trolls, and dragons, worthless folklore. So, science is wrong, Bigfoot is not a mis-IDed bear at all, but many bears ARE likely mis-ided BIGFOOTS!

Alot of the misconceptions about Bigfoot, anthropology, and so so many things are a product of poor education on the nation's part, where the citizens are force fed a bunch of ridiculous bullcrap, which is ever so evident in the Bigfoot field where NOONE wants to take off the 10foot concrete masks that have been placed their by scientists and other figures of authority. I think that the work that is done in this field, is a step in the right direction to fix this closed mindedness that plagues us and causes so many to not think for themselves. Their is a GREAT scientist/researcher in all of us, and if we all realized our potential, the world would be a step closer to being perfect!

Edited January 14, 2011 by ChrisBFRPKY
Removed multiple offensive terms

[Huntster]

There have been four or so bears killed at least on major interstates in the mtns. of nc in the last five or six years that I know of, most of the time they are young juveniles but not always, many do not make it to the median before dying.

This is true. Occasionally (much more rarely than deer and other ungulates), a very few of the million or so bears on this continent are killed by vehicles. Very few. You can quite likely count the annual unintentional kills and recoveries continent-wide on your fingers and toes.

Now, how many sasquatches do you think exist?..........................

There are also speedy bears that have been witnessed dodging and crossing successfully.

Sorta' like the even more rare accounts of speedy bigfeet that have been reportedly witnessed dodging and crossing successfully.

Let's see, how many reports of actually collisions with bigfeet have there been?..................

[Huntster]

They are found everywhere. Almost every state.

They are reported "everywhere". Almost every state.

They are found nowhere.

See Glickman's report theory:

The relationship in the clustered data is the correlation between population density and frequency: the Group A correlation of +0.9661 is high relative to the Group B correlation of +0.1244.

A second relationship in the clustered data is the correlation between population and frequency. When Group A is separated from the dataset, its correlation to population rises from +0.1192 to +0.5664.

Group A is differentiated from Group B by its high correlation to population density. This is consistent with the model of receiving a report of a cataloged animal (Eq. 1).

Let's assume that manufactured reports will be uniformly distributed across the population. If the rate of manufactured reports is constant, then the frequency of reports should correlate to population. To some degree, this is seen in Group B. There may be other unidentified influencing factors such as mean media exposure to Bigfoot, which may influence the density of manufacturing. The author speculates that Group A and Group B represent different phenomenon. Group B may represent manufactured reports because of the correlation to population, whereas Group A may represent a different phenomenon because of its correlation to population density. The author hypothesizes that if Green's data is the superposition of multiple phenomena that this is the expected result.

[Guest]

Good discrepancy. Reported, observed, tracked, heard. But not verified to science. True.

[Guest]

Believe Bigfoot Exists, But Have Never Seen One. Why ?

This thread was started by Lesmore. It has 19 responses on it. There are 900 members or thereabouts on the BFF. That

means 880 people have no comment or do not participate. THAT doesnt make sense to me either lol. Vewy vewy qwiet.

[Guest RayG]

Here's just a handful of things that don't make sense to me:

• Nature film producer Doug Hajicek, cameraman in tow, follows but fails to FILM immense, crisp, clear, detailed, and enormous humanlike footprints with distinct toes they supposedly found in the early 90's near the shoreline of Selwyn Lake, on the northern border of Saskatchewan. The apparent reason for this was that in the early 90's Hajicek was supposedly unfamiliar with sasquatch.
  
• No bigfoot roadkill.
  
• We've had fantastic technological advances over the past 40 years, yet bigfoot evidence seems no better now than it was then.
  
• 30-foot strides.
  
• John Green's math.
  
• Guesstimates of 7' or more for Patty, when using her own foot as a ruler shows that's not the case.
  
• Conspiracies -- Government, logging industry, etc.
  
• Skeletal anatomy being determined from a plaster cast.
  
• Human lie-detectors.
  
• Claims that science/scientists refuse to examine bigfoot evidence.
  
• Claims that specific bigfoot tracks couldn't possibly be faked.
  
• Bigfoot is reported in nearly every province/state in North America, yet can't be found.
  
• NASI concluding Patty weighed 1,957 lbs.
  

I'm pretty sure if I spent more than a few minutes on this I could easily add more.

RayG

[Xion Comrade]

Here's just a handful of things that don't make sense to me:

• Nature film producer Doug Hajicek, cameraman in tow, follows but fails to FILM immense, crisp, clear, detailed, and enormous humanlike footprints with distinct toes they supposedly found in the early 90's near the shoreline of Selwyn Lake, on the northern border of Saskatchewan. The apparent reason for this was that in the early 90's Hajicek was supposedly unfamiliar with sasquatch.
  
• No bigfoot roadkill.
  
• We've had fantastic technological advances over the past 40 years, yet bigfoot evidence seems no better now than it was then.
  
• 30-foot strides.
  
• John Green's math.
  
• Guesstimates of 7' or more for Patty, when using her own foot as a ruler shows that's not the case.
  
• Conspiracies -- Government, logging industry, etc.
  
• Skeletal anatomy being determined from a plaster cast.
  
• Human lie-detectors.
  
• Claims that science/scientists refuse to examine bigfoot evidence.
  
• Claims that specific bigfoot tracks couldn't possibly be faked.
  
• Bigfoot is reported in nearly every province/state in North America, yet can't be found.
  
• NASI concluding Patty weighed 1,957 lbs.
  

I'm pretty sure if I spent more than a few minutes on this I could easily add more.

RayG

1. That is strange, even seeing barefoot "Indian" footprints 14 inches long in the remote wilderness would be enough to make for a great news article, I guess Doug did not agree! XD

2. Their are millions of bear in North America, but it is extremely uncommon that one be struck by a car despite their notoriously relaxed senses/attitude and close proximity to human civilization. Even a ape, which I do not think a Sasquatch is, is much more intelligent than any bear. And thus would be much less likely to be struck by a car. The Sasquatch also are mostly seen on two legs when crossing roads from what I gather, being that their height can easily reach 8 feet, even if they were struck it would only tag them around the knee from the side, simply knocking them onto the car(All 1000lbs). I would imagine that they would not stick around to be found. They have been hit few times, and hair samples have been collected, but they are never killed apparently. I would guess that if someone were going fast enough to kill one and struck it in a car, the driver would be seriously injured/killed without doubt. Even if the car did manage to destroy the leg it hit, the big guy would have another 3 limbs to run away on.

3. Bigfoot evidence is far far greater now than it was before, science refuses to notice, and you have to dig to find it. Using laser imagery we have been able to approximate the height, stride, and measurements of "Patty" to be 7'6, a stride of over 40 inches(As the tracks at the site showed as well), and was proportioned in a way possibly no human is today. It is now easier/possible to copy and digitize plaster casts using laser technology as well.

Hair samples can be identified properly, and we are now working on extracting Mitochondrial DNA from them.

4. Have never heard of a 30 foot stride, have heard of 5-6 foot strides however...

5. Lol

6. Grover Krantz used that method and came up with around 6'5, I do not know of anyone else using that method. Grover was wrong because the foot in the slide he used was horribly overexposed, the foot in many copies of the film was horribly overexposed. Horrible method to use, cannot see how Grover overlooked this. Also you have to take into consideration that throughout the entire film the subject's knees are bent deeply, foot is turned at a odd angle to the camera, or it is very hunched over.

7. I don't buy any of these. Sasquatch wouldn't even need the forests for survival if it weren't for us. Granted if we logged to the point that we destroyed all of the habitat for Bears, deer, marmots, birds, and fish, we may have a problem their. But I would doubt the public would allow that, as after a certain point it just gets pointless. We have our national parks, which is where most of them relocate to IMO, just tighten up a few laws in the parks and ruin anyone that shoots at one(As from what I gather, it would be the equivalent to manslaughter). Once the no-shoot laws are passed, their habitat would likely be increased exponentially.

8. I know. I look at that the same way I look at skull reconstructions, probably extremely accurate but way over my head. However the skeletal sketches based on the foot reconstructions is not nearly as far fetched as full body reconstructions based on a partial jawbone, stating that it is likely that a giant 12 foot ape species with the cranial capacity of a chimpanzee migrated north across the land bridge when all remains are found to do the opposite, and also as the field of anthropology is notorious for, full skeletal reconstruction based on trace evidence(teeth...lol). It is all assumptions based on near nothing IMO.

9. Human Lie Detectors? You mean determining if someone is a liar by their own testimonials and words? That is A LOT more useful than determining whether or not they are lieing with a near useless polygraph test. Bob H has proven that.

10. Most of them do refuse. They simply do not have enough time or MONEY to look into a "Hoax" as the majority believes this to be. And lets face it, their are a lot more pressing matters at hand than this in the world, like celebrities and sports. The few that are brave enough to look into this seriously all come to the same conclusion, they are real, and all face the same problems, they may lose their jobs/many scheming PHDs around them will be trying to take it from them. Scientists are working people to, with families to feed and hard fought positions to protect.

11. I would say that with today's technology they could be reverse engineered, but still not faked. You would have to carry the apparatus into dangerous and near impenetrable forests without leaving any sign that you where around. As Leigh Culver says, if you are their , you WILL leave sign, and a good tracker WILL find you.

[Guest]

•NASI concluding Patty weighed 1,957 lbs.

WHAT ? Ray, can you explain this one ?

That seems as ridiculous as people wholesale dismissing the chance

that the phenomena is even real.

For those on the complete outside who do not read much about it, I get that.

T

*IF her footprints were 14.5 in long approx since I believe there was variation

divide that into the height of her for approx length. Then compare her body type with

Jim McClarin for approx 3 times bigger girth (fr memory, okay so say 4...)

180x 4 = 720 lb.. 1957 lb ? NASI ? Huh? Pardon, but ... THAT DONT MAKE SENSE lol

[Guest]

I think another thing that really makes me scratch my head is HOW can all this stuff be happening and it gets swept under the rug. So much so that most people do not think they are real ? That doesnt make sense. It goes back to the body thing I guess.. which.. lol..doesnt make sense.

Edited January 17, 2011 by treeknocker

[Guest RayG]

•NASI concluding Patty weighed 1,957 lbs.

WHAT ? Ray, can you explain this one ?

No I can't, it's one of those things that don't make sense. Here's the abridged NASI report. Scroll down to the 'Estimated Mass' section.

RayG

[Guest]

No I can't, it's one of those things that don't make sense. Here's the abridged NASI report. Scroll down to the 'Estimated Mass' section.

RayG

All I got there is an error analysis has not been undertaken. Obviously.

The height estimation is bizarre too thereby increasing the base

weight estimates I suggested earlier. Over seven feet ? That is another thing that don't make sense. I would enjoy hearing how it does. Well, I think I would enjoy that lol.

[Guest RayG]

From the link:

Substituting the chest circumference in centimeters, the estimated mass of the subject in the Patterson-Gimlin film is 887 kg or 1,957 lbs. An error analysis has not yet been undertaken.

RayG