Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 As far as the "staying hidden" aspect. I think that this map illustrates that the PNW doesn't have a monolopy on hard to reach places.
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 it seems plaus 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. The lack of good trail cam images that are publicly available is a conundrum. The best possible explanation for this is that they are intelligent enough to figure out that the trail cams are something that humans place for a purpose. They might not know the exact purpose, but they would likely observe placement and also observe humans coming back to excitedly go through the images on the cameras. I'm not necessarily subscribing to this notion, but I think that if they are as intelligent as their behavior suggests this may be possible. I'm not sure what you mean by , "My other argument is there are reports of them being in every state and that just does not pass the test of reason." Is it reasonable to expect that a highly intelligent and adaptable animal would contain itself to only a small geographic area? Or would it be more reasonable to expect that it would expand its territory? I'm thinking that BF can cover a lot of ground in terms of distance per day when it needs to, and in times of drought or when the weather changes I would expect that it would cover a wide range during its lifetime. I remember in Oregon a BF with a particular coloration pattern was sighted in several locations over a very wide area. If an individual has a wide ranging area, then it is reasonable to expect that with the next generation(s) they would expand to new areas that are just as good for foraging opportunities. Animal distribution will expand to fill an appropriate habitat.
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 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. Circular reasoning fallacy.
BobbyO Posted May 31, 2012 SSR Team Posted May 31, 2012 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. Cheers Cool summit. But you have to give a reason. Look at this and then give me a reason why not, please ?? http://www.stancourtney.com/Forests.html
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 I don't think many people understand the implications of stating something doesn't exist. Or just isn't there. Every piece of evidence has its own brush stroke for the bigger picture imo... Going a bit further: They could be supernatural beings and we would never know. Would it really make sense then to say there is a zero chance?
Rockape Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 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. Well, there are some trail cam pics, it's just whether or not that's what we think it is. As for shooting one I've seen stories by hunters who saw them and could have shot them, but didn't because it looked "so human" and also wasn't sure if it was someone in a suit trying to pull a prank. And if they are as intelligent as believed, and I for one believe they are very smart, that would explain a lot of why they are not caught in traps or run over. I mean, do we get reports of bears or "panthers" being run over by vehicles? I don't know, can't recall any. And I also doubt many of the stories from areas that are less dense in forest. It seems BF would want to stay in the deep woods for cover. But then, I'm not one to believe every story of BF that comes along, I'm very skeptical of many. Undoubtably some stories are lies, or crazy people or hoaxers, but not all of them.
Guest Darrell Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Maybe bigfoot is here? http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/29991-urban-bigfoot-proven/page__fromsearch__1
Rockape Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 it seems plaus The lack of good trail cam images that are publicly available is a conundrum. The best possible explanation for this is that they are intelligent enough to figure out that the trail cams are something that humans place for a purpose. They might not know the exact purpose, but they would likely observe placement and also observe humans coming back to excitedly go through the images on the cameras. I'm not necessarily subscribing to this notion, but I think that if they are as intelligent as their behavior suggests this may be possible. Excellent reasoning and I also believe that could be why. There is also the possibility they associate trail cams with hunters and weapons, and perhaps think a trail cam is some sort of weapon which is best avoided. I think it's possible they could sense the electronics. A question, do trail cams use something like an infrared beam? I have no idea how they work. If so it's possible BF could see that and avoid it. Maybe bigfoot is here? http://bigfootforums...__fromsearch__1 Hiding in plain sight. Cunning devils they are.
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) Cool summit. But you have to give a reason. Look at this and then give me a reason why not, please ?? http://www.stancourt...om/Forests.html Interesting graphic to be sure. I don't doubt the terrain is there, I usually head for the places where I can avoid the weekend warriors and or dark skies. I just wonder, in one of the most developed countries in the world, how a population of BF could stay hidden, other than on the most remote fringes, where winter is not a major issue. I think people are getting into most areas. I have run into folks in some pretty wild and out the way areas on interior BC and on the rocks of Alberta. I can't imagine no decent picture or video being captured between today, and say, Bluff Creek 1967. I could be wrong, there is no doubt about that. I guess, sitting here in my office here in Alberta, it is easy enough for me to try and justify my claims. I know that. Aside. My wife thinks the whole BF thing is laughable, but when she joins me in the back country, on rare occasions these days, and I bring up the topic and tell her some of the classic 'tales', she doesn't think it is all that funny after that. And I never miss the opportunity to bring it up. Cheers Edited May 31, 2012 by summitwalker
bipedalist Posted May 31, 2012 BFF Patron Posted May 31, 2012 Well at one time I had a backyard sighting; where they exist now, is anyone's guess. Good luck to all the Bigfoot seekers out there. When at first you don't succeed, try, try..... again.
salubrious Posted May 31, 2012 Moderator Posted May 31, 2012 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. Here's why we don't find them: 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. If you look at a map, any map, it shows roads and trails but nothing of what is in between. I have pointed at the '3-mile Trackway in Northern Minnesota' a number of times as something that shows why we don't find BF. If you look at that trackway, its not following a trail, especially one humans are on. Look at any map; there is far more land that we don't see than that we do, simply because we stay on trails for the most part, even if they are only game trails. BF (apparently) does not. BFSleuth, How much closer do you think you could get to that trail you were hiding near and not be detected if you laid on your stomach (ach- chiggers!)? I for one have only been 3 feet off the trail and never been seen, even when people looked right at me (counted 17 people)! The idea that a creature can hide even easier if it already has natural camo does not sound far-fetched at all. Sighting reports and my own class B experiences (rock clacking, footprints, trackway and a *possible* stick structure) indicate that they are in Minnesota and Wisconsin too.
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Maybe bigfoot is here? http://bigfootforums...__fromsearch__1 Argument from April Fool?
indiefoot Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Have you ever tried to tell a Sasquatch where to exist?
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) Without living in either the states of Canada I can't say i know the areas but for unproven animal, I have a very hard time taking EVERY single eye witness claim as fact. I'm amazed by how someone will make a claim against something here but then someone else will say "well there is this report of whatever happening" like that makes it more real? There is a reason why eye witness reports dont always hold up 100% in court. Edited May 31, 2012 by Ghuda
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 I have never posted here before and didn't read every post in this thread. That said, I live in Ohio and find it very unlikely to have bigfoots living here... we don't even have bears here anymore. Anyway, I'm a hopeful skeptic, if that makes sense.
Recommended Posts