Guest Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) Originally posted in another thread in response to a question, but was warned against doing so. This is my reply to your post Cotter. Cotter, You’re right, I’ve never physically studied any unknown primates, never studied and unknown hominids either. I do appreciate that there are those that do. The limit of my primate study is from my undergrad in physical anthropology. I suppose I did a lot of book work on primates during that time, but I am no primatologist, that’s for sure. When I finished my undergrad in phys anthropology, I then decided that money would be better for me than a life dedicated to academia, so I went into Geomatics, where I still am today. Loved that field, especially paleoanthropology, still do, but life can be expensive. L Anyway, I suppose my opinion is based on my own time following the BF phenomenon, been interested as far back as I can remember. Don’t remember what triggered my interest, but something did. At one time I had read every scrap on the topic, met with folks, including Steenburg and Markotic, and considered myself fairly up to date on the field. This, being in the earlier days of the Internet, was about all an interested dude could do, aside from get out there, which I did, but not so much to look for BF, more because that is what I liked to do, still do. Back then, my theory of BF being mainly in the PNW made pretty good sense, it was largely the common perception. Not that there weren’t those claiming other areas, but those weren’t the ones we heard much from, so my opinion is based on the common perception of that time, at least published, and my experience and interactions from that time. Once the net started to get big, and BF related sites started to proliferate, my views came into question. People were setting up sites dedicated to areas in NA where I thought it was unlikely that BF could exist. If so and so could accept the BF exited in *****, and another researcher was claiming BF in another hard to believe area (for me), then I came to question my own beliefs. If they were convincing themselves, maybe I was doing the same. This brought the whole BF question into focus for me. This is a large part of why I ended up leaving the whole topic on the backburner for a decade or more. I had to question my own belief. I suppose, if I were to step outside and examine my pet theory from the outside, I would say that all the continuing reports and such left me still believing the BF could exist. Thus came the marriage of my skepticism and my believe into my basic pet theory that seems to irk some today. I guess, to make it plain and simple, I think BF could exist in the PNW and maybe attached areas, is nocturnal, and has survived as an unknown by adapting to a strategy of strictly avoiding humans, and having done so for thousands of years. Cheers Go Kings! Edited May 30, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Well said. I will also add that there are reports of sightings in every state in the US and applying any type of common sense leads me to conclude this just cant be. I think the PNW, N. California, Rocky mountain states, and maybe some areas of Minnesota, Texas, & Wisconsin. Not sure about the southern states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted May 30, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 30, 2012 My class A encounter was in SW Colorado. I had a class B in North Carolina and also in Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, L also found other evidence within a mile of the class B, a trackway and a rather difficult to explain stick structure (difficult to explain as it is certain that it was neither wind nor kids). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AllSport Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) What is your level of personal experience in the state of Texas? Have you spent any time here in the wild? Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of Texas Ecology would know that the state is vast and comprised of perhaps the most diverse set of ecological zones of any state. West Texas which often comes to the mind of those with little outdoors experience here, is more desert, and caprock, similar to Arizona. East Texas, and North East Texas comparable to Louisiana, being comprised of millions of acres of dense pine and hardwood forests and nearly innumerable lakes, rivers, bayous, sloughs and creeks, sustained by high annual rainfall. http://www.tpwd.stat...00_1070k_08.pdf http://www.tpwd.stat...00_1070t_08.pdf It's not all cactus, and tumbleweeds down here in Texas. I could show you some primordial hardwood forest, that would change your mind quickly. 60 million acres of Forest http://phys.org/news157268101.html Edited May 30, 2012 by AllSport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Our US division does quite a bit of work in the Texas and Louisiana, I'm aware of the geography and the bush. I have been to some of these areas you are referring to but only for work related field visits, so I can't say, other than being well aware of the terrain and flying over some of it, I have ventured into it on foot much. My visits to Texas otherwise have been mainly to Houston and several ares in West Texas, which I know are not related to BF activity. Our crews are exposed to these area quite a bit though, not that that means much, other than to say it does see the exposure of seismic exploration. It is not this aspect of Texas that rules it out for me though, I know there is the real estate to make it possible. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toejam Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 i used to think one had to go to the PNW to have any possibility of an encounter. It's taken a few years but the truth has revealed itself. Most could never accept it. Remote mountainous regions is what most feel comfortable with. Just looking at the reports shows that's not the case. When you have an experience or more, then it becomes not where they can be, but when will your next incident occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) Lets try calculating the numbers in the BFRO database. All together Alberta, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska & Idaho: 1429 sightings. Every other State/Province: 2983 sightings. It's approximately twice as likely there are Bigfoot in places other than the Pacific North West. So I think it's highly likely Bigfoot exist in many places around northamerica, not just the PNW. Edited May 31, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Well said. I will also add that there are reports of sightings in every state in the US and applying any type of common sense leads me to conclude this just cant be. I think the PNW, N. California, Rocky mountain states, and maybe some areas of Minnesota, Texas, & Wisconsin. Not sure about the southern states. It seems you are beginning from a point of giving some credence to sighting reports, as I do. Yet you are then saying that based on geography you think entire swaths of the continental US should be excluded. I'm not sure I follow the logic. Is this based on the fact that human population is denser than in the West? There has been discussion that BF, as an omnivore, would have a territorial distribution similar to bears. Any habitat with sufficient tree cover, water, fish, game, and edible plants will be adequate for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I think that it makes sense for sasquatch to exist in broad areas, as opposed to only the PNW. Either sasquatch and their ancestors originated in North America, or they migrated here. If they migrated from modern-day Russia down into the PNW, I don't see why they would have stopped. Not to mention that as their population grew, they would spread outward. Or they could have came from the Atlantic, over the ice, even earlier. In this instance, they would have spread from east to west as opposed to west from east. I personally find it plausible that they first mainly settled in the PNW, and spread from there. This is why the more robust specimens are likely to be found there. I also think that their population is rather large, and they had to spread to survive. I assume they have some decent social skills among one another, but facing overpopulating a certain area and depleting resources, they would have to either spread out or die off. I think one of the biggest hurdles of accepting sasquatch as a living animal is the notion that most have of an "animal." Most people don't consider humans animals, despite that they really are. Many compare sasquatch to an animal that is completely different from a human, and they probably are, but they are probably right under humans in terms of mammalian intelligence. Once one accepts that they utilize their intelligence to avoid humans as much as possible, it becomes more plausible that they could actually exist without us having discovered them. But really we have discovered them, just not scientifically. I used to believe that their intelligence was nowhere close to human intelligence, but in their environment human intelligence doesn't mean much. They have been OBSERVING our behaviors for a long time, and despite what we may like to think, avoiding us is actually probably quite easy. They may even be almost as intelligent as us, which makes it even harder to find them. So anyway, I just think that most people underestimate them, and this is the reason we haven't found them yet. I think the problem is brought to scale when one relates hunting sasquatch to hunting a Native American of the 16th or 17th century. Someone that has been in the woods their whole lives. They are big, but they keep enough distance that if they remain still they cannot be seen. It is not that hard to remain hidden from us. So anyway, nice thread, and I think it is plausible that they are anywhere that has adequate resources to support them. That is all they care about, besides solitude, when choosing a living location imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted May 31, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted May 31, 2012 Florida for sure and i'd highly likely assume places in between there and the PNW if i had to bet my like of it so that doesn't really narrow it down a great deal i'm afraid.. Always good to have a reference like this when we're making these kind of calls and saying " this place can't sustain them " and " that place can't sustain them " etc too, kudos SC.. http://www.stancourtney.com/Forests.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 My second sighting was in east Texas, big thicket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Big Tex would sure be surprised to know he's been wasting his time finding tracks and such in his research areas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) I've been out there with BigTex, certainly an active area, even during the drought. Edited May 31, 2012 by Tautriadelta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 They have been OBSERVING our behaviors for a long time, and despite what we may like to think, avoiding us is actually probably quite easy. They may even be almost as intelligent as us, which makes it even harder to find them. So anyway, I just think that most people underestimate them, and this is the reason we haven't found them yet. I think the problem is brought to scale when one relates hunting sasquatch to hunting a Native American of the 16th or 17th century. Someone that has been in the woods their whole lives. They are big, but they keep enough distance that if they remain still they cannot be seen. It is not that hard to remain hidden from us. So anyway, nice thread, and I think it is plausible that they are anywhere that has adequate resources to support them. That is all they care about, besides solitude, when choosing a living location imo. Good post, Jiggy. I would like to focus for a moment on the point you made that it is easy to hide from humans. As an experiment several weeks ago, when foilage still hadn't started growing in to create cover in the understory where I live in the PNW, I did an experiment at a very popular hiking area. I simply stood still next to a tree about 30' off the trail. I was in plain view standing next to the tree and I didn't wear camo, simply a dark green jacket and blue jeans. I stood there for 15 minutes, during which time 27 people walked by. Nobody saw me. There were 4 dogs among the hikers as well, and I expected at least one of them to take notice, but they were all on leashes and their masters were busy bossing them around so not even they noticed. It really isn't hard to hide from humans. We have great ability to focus our attention, but perform poorly in environments that have a lot of stimuli. In thick woods we are surrounded by 360º of visual input, not to mention the vertical dimension and what lays at our feet. Most people hiking that trail were focused on where they were walking, perhaps not to trip on a rock or root. They aren't looking around. Nor are they really listening or smelling much of their surroundings. To think that just because you hiked a trail through a valley that you have therefore surveyed the entire valley for fauna is human hubris. We just aren't that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Sasquatch also still have the same skills in operation that allowed them to avoid' compete with and outlast some apex predators like Sabertooth, dire wolf, American lion and short faced bear. We had our ingenuity, community and numbers. Sasquatch had their own tools and theirs aren't forgotten. Not to mention that they had to avoid us back then as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts