Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) I reference geography, but it's not necessarily geographic location that gives me pause. I use it as a reference but it is remaining hidden that is the big thing for me. While I accept that if BF were an actual living breathing being, I'm sure there are loads of places it could survive, heck, even thrive. But in my opinion, I can't see it remaining a mystery and not catalogued in any area outside the remotest areas of the PNW. But hey, it's just an opinion, and I can't write here what my Dad used to say about my opinions! Cheers Edited May 31, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 While on a Blackbuck hunt in Texas the ranch owner, a very intelligent and successful man, related an account where he and his best friend observed a Sasquatch along the Sabine river. They examined the tracks and decided not to discuss the sighting for fear of ridicule. That was good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) 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. Actually I dont give a lot of credence to most sightings. I also dont think bigfoot can be everywhere, so that means if its seen everywhere most of the sightings are not sightings. Common sense is our friend, we need to use it as much as possible. Edited May 31, 2012 by Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lone Squatcher Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Where Does Sasquatch Realistically Exist? All over the world, same creature, different name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 So if they exist everywhere, why cant one be killed, captured, found, or photographed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) Where Does Sasquatch Realistically Exist? All over the world, same creature, different name. I don't think they are in every country lol. I believe some of them are not the same species. (Orang Pendek, Skunkape) So if they exist everywhere, why cant one be killed, captured, found, or photographed? Killed: Likely happened (sierra shootings & some other stories) Captured: Not sure Found: Likely happened Photographed: Happened ^just my opinion btw Edited May 31, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Right, worth about the same as yours, both of us want to believe, but I suspect one more than the other. I dont have to want to believe. I know. No chance. It is 2012 - show me some proof, any proof, one decent photo, you know the drill. I've looked at a lot of satellite data and LiDAR data for that state, part of my job with ongoing projects in both Texas and Louisiana, but that means nothing when it comes to BF, it just does not exist in Texas, sorry. But that is my worthless opinion. Cheers Cant say ive ever been to texas, but have heard enough from people I trust that they are there. I understand its your opinion but its very funny that you think Ontario is sas free as well.Your way off the mark there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 In order to assume you would know where it lives, would be to assume you know more about it than is known. How do you know there are not different types of habitat it uses. Maybe there are the deep woods, all natural type, and maybe there are the type that live a little closer to man, and take advantage of all that has to offer, increased critters, crops, etc. Maybe the increase in sightings over the years is because of just that. Perhaps some have moved a little closer, and are getting seen more,but the whole Bigfoot culture actually contributes to their elusiveness, rather than expose them. You can post any piece of evidence you want, and within minutes, it will be proclaimed a hoax, no matter if there is any basis, or thought behind it, simply "hoax" "fake" or what ever label is supplied, usually followed with some sort of indignant remark. With out knowing how intelligent it is, or its true life style, you cannot make a guess on habitat, other than to follow the pattern of the sightings. We know nothing of population density, is it a healthy population? A recovering population? Saying it is not somewhere, because there are to many people, completely disregards that people see it......is that really that complicated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I think BF exists in areas far wider than what is commonly recognized or thought. Seems many, including Dr. Meldrum want to place it in the PNW alone. Jeff and I disagree on that. Too many upstanding folks are seeing something in the South and other areas. Unlike others, I place high credence in sighting reports. I just do not see where those making the claims have too much to gain from falsely making them and know full well that most do not report their sightings for fear of ridicule. So shoot me. I believe in the veracity of our members most of the time. Still can't buy into the incredulous claims of certain things, but for the most part I trust our membership. I assume a lot of the reports are innocent mis-identifications, but not all by any stretch. Seen too much posted from folks of the utmost credibility, who are woodswise and not some weekend warrior city slicker decked out like Little Lord Fauntleroy. I also think/believe/know there are those among us who *know*. I could name names but won't as I gave my word I wouldn't. The subject and people here are not as looney as some would seek to have you believe. They are good and upstanding folks, no different from you or I. They've seen something and are convinced/know. I envy them and their personal resolution. But if I didn't believe the majority of them I would not be here. So I guess I believe BF exists where the folks/members are claiming to see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Great point HRpuff. I am in the same boat as you. There are just way to many credible people seeing something for there to not be some type of creature/ape, what-have-you in the woods of North America. With all the sightings reported, if we only accept 10% as credible and not a misidentified animal or man that still leaves a ton of reports, not to mention all the sightings that will never be reported or were so brief that the person just wasn't sure what was seen. The ones that really peak my interest are the ones from people who have spent a lot of their lives in the outdoors and have had the chance to watch a bigfoot or sasquatch while it had no idea they were there. Many of these people have had sightings where they were able to view them with bino's or a spotting scope for several minutes taking in all the details. Reports such as these come down to two things, either these folks are lying or there is an unknown north american ape. I truely have a hard time believing that all these people are lying or making up a story or seeing something that is not actually there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) Some people claim that different types of these animals exist, so how do we classify a sasquatch from the other types and what regions do the types exist in? Edited May 31, 2012 by wudewasa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 What I always wonder is just how much real estate does a Bigfoot family require to reasonably exist. Here in Florida, we have densely populated areas, but also many thousands of acres of very thick woods, swamps etc. A good part of the undeveloped areas are along rivers. For example, this sighting: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=30267 It was near the southern end of a very large series of wooded areas that stretch from the Wekiva River Basin almost to Jacksonville. The immediate vicinity of the sighting is an area consisting of almost almost 20,000 acres of undeveloped woods, much of it very thick. If you look at this part of Florida on Google Earth, it is easy to see the 'corridor' that could enable undetected travel for many miles to the North of where this sighting took place. Between the edible plants and the critters in both the water and on land, I have no trouble believing that the big guy could survive quite well in my State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I live in East Texas having hunted and fished the woods here all my life and while I have never seen a BF and can't say with certainty they exist here, this area does seem to be idea habitat for them, dense forest with areas that no one goes, not frequently anyway. There are other animals here that have been said not to exist in this area. My family farmed the Neches river bottom land and I heard stories all my life about mountain lions, or as they called them "panthers". Several others who lived in rural areas here could tell the same stories. But science insisted these animals did not exist here. To say they did would bring on laughs and ridicule the same as saying BF exists. I was laughed at not only by fellow classmates but the teacher also when I mentioned this in a high school science class. I was told, these people are just telling you stories to see if you beleive it or are mistaken. Well, with the advent of trail cams several photos of panthers have come forward over the last several years and one fellow even shot one. Now there is no doubt by anyone that they live here . The official line for years also is that Red Wolves are extinct in this area, but I have seen them with my own eyes. I have worked as a vet tech and even have some college time towards that area and have worked with dogs and studied them for some time. If I know anything in life I know canines and I know what I saw was not a coyote or mix breed dog. There are coyotes everwhere here and I have seen plenty and I know the difference. So this is in part what fosters my BF belief. I am fully aware that science does not know everything despite the fact many of them don't like to admit that. To know something for certain often requires a lifetime of living in the same area and the observances that accumulate over that lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Well, with the advent of trail cams several photos of panthers have come forward over the last several years and one fellow even shot one. Now there is no doubt by anyone that they live here . This takes me back to one of my key skeptical arguments, and that is when there are animals where they are not supposed to be sombody comes up with a decent picture from a trail cam, shoots one, catches one in a trap, or runs it over with a truck. But with bigfoot, we get really nothing. My other argument is there are reports of them being in every state and that just does not pass the test of reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 First of all, I'm glad this conversation was continued from the other thread. I've been enjoying reading it. Secondly. My daylight sighting was in New Hampshire. Doesn't get much further east from the PNW than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts