Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest Scout1959]

Why is that the only explanation? Why isn't another explanation that there are no bigfoots?

As for intelligence, it doesn't matter how smart you are, you can still be ignorant of things. There is no way that any bigfoot - make that every bigfoot (except Patty of course) - knows that of all the human devices they encounter in their daily wanderings, the ones that we call "cameras" will capture visual images of the bigfoots. If they somehow did know what cameras did, they'd have no logical reason to avoid them, as no camera has ever caused harm to any bigfoot.

The other thing "intelligence" can't help you with is to prevent your remains from being found after you die, that is, of course, unless you use your intelligence to somehow launch your remains into space on a collision course with the sun.

We can invent a bigfoot that is at least as smart as we are or even smarter than we are. I still wouldn't see how that would explain anecdotal accounts of bigfoot behavior (like banging on trees and screaming like the Hulk - thanks Wickie) or the lack of confirmatory evidence of a single piece of a bigfoot.

LOL, I like that collision course with sun comment.

Because if you ask rural residents across the US the majority have never had sightings or seen evidence for it's existence.

This was always my Dad's big hang up. His best friend (a NA gentleman) had a very up close encounter with a bigfoot back in the 1960's. I once asked my Dad what he thought about that, his comment was "well I've lived here all my life, outside all day everyday and I've never once seen one". He wanted to believe but since he had spent his whole life outside (a Rancher) he couldn't believe that if they were around he wouldn't have come across at least one.

I don't know how his buddy could have mistaken the identity though as he too lived his whole life outside. (another Rancher)

[Guest]

LOL, I like that collision course with sun comment.

This was always my Dad's big hang up. His best friend (a NA gentleman) had a very up close encounter with a bigfoot back in the 1960's. I once asked my Dad what he thought about that, his comment was "well I've lived here all my life, outside all day everyday and I've never once seen one". He wanted to believe but since he had spent his whole life outside (a Rancher) he couldn't believe that if they were around he wouldn't have come across at least one.

I don't know how his buddy could have mistaken the identity though as he too lived his whole life outside. (another Rancher)

I have read many accounts like your dad....individuals who have spent their entire lives outdoors in rough terrain attributed to harboring BF...which claimed the fact that they had never seen one. Now that doesn't negate those who have claimed to have seen one...but it does put into question the reliability of those *BF* sightings.

Oh..if I may *BUMP* my recent earlier question on BF NUTRITION>>> How do they sustain a daily caloric intake of 8-10K calories in the midst of winter?

They dumpster dive at the local indian casinos

There actually have been accounts of this..still..it's going to be a real challange to describe *credible* feeding scenario for the isolated BF in a remote forrest in the midst of winter.

Edited December 30, 2012 by ronn1

[WSA]

What I mean by the urban bias to be skeptical of BF evidence....

The three most common challenges I hear to the plausibility of BF existence are these:

1. How can it stay hidden?

2. What could it eat?

3. How come we don't find bodies?

Frankly, the mere posing of these questions reflects a huge failure of appreciation for the rural conditions in the U.S. and natural systems in general (not to mention human density shifts and deer population trends). These types of questions are hardly ever asked by people who spend any significant amount of time in the outdoors, especially by a hunter or any owner of any large tract of rural land. For most rural residents, I'd hazard to say the answers are axiomatic. (Yes, there are other questions pertinent to Sasquatch study, but these recur most often)

When you couple this lack of knowledge with a cultural propensity to view the rural population as unsophisticated, superstitious or uneducated in general...well...I think the bias is palpable. Like I said, I think this gets in the way.

[Guest]

You could say that alot of bigfoot sightings have an "urban bias" or a bias toward populated areas.

[WSA]

Not sure you I can draw any conclusions from that graphic Bukwas.

What I do know though is that our population centers have a lot of prime wildlife habitat cheek-to-jowl. I'm always amazed how quickly you can transition from one to the other. These days too, how many visitors off-trail do you suppose even your most visited state parks get? As a lifelong backpacker and frequenter of backcountry, I can assure you the "90-10" Rule applies: Ninety percent of the visitors to public land are confined to a identifiable 10 percent of the land area. You can also segment it even further: Then only on weekends and holidays when the weather is nice. This applies to even the most frequently visited parks in the country, such as GSMNP. And private lands? Fugeddaboudit. They see far, far fewer visitors per year... even if you're talking about fallow hunting lands, which also get tramped only during a few weeks per year. Timber lands? Even fewer. Corporate farmed corn/bean fields? Some don't see a boot on the ground except when Joe the Combine Operator mounts and dismounts. Now, do you suppose Sasquatch hasn't figured out the same?

Those population centers also have lots of protein on the cloven hoof running around for the taking. Odocoileus virginianus is now firmly ensconced in suburban America. To co-opt a phrase used by federal prosecutors: Follow the [food source].

Shoot, if you wanted to DESIGN a habitat better suited for an apex bipedal predator, you'd be hard pressed to improve on the one we now have.

[Guest]

Not sure you I can draw any conclusions from that graphic Bukwas.

That Bigfoot is sighted in near or in human-populated areas, particularly east of the Mississippi.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[WSA]

Just some back of the envelope calculations....

The deer herds in GA, MI, OH and IL-- four states that apparently support Sasquatch populations-- are estimated to be 1.2m, 1.8m, 750k and 800k respectively...roughly 4.5 million undulates.

The land area of these states is roughly a combined 211,274 sq miles (and a combined human population of roughly 42,000,000). That works out to be roughly 21 deer per sq mile (somebody check my math), although we know there are not too many deer on Michigan Ave.

So, what was the question?

That Bigfoot is sighted in near or in human-populated areas, particularly east of the Mississippi.

Well, the whole danged country is "populated", if you want to be exact. I mean to say, anything living in the lower 48 is bound to be in proximity to humans, right? The better question, I think, is how and where are the people/habitat/food distributed and at what densities? Many animals have come to realize we inhabit only small footprints, even while grouped densely. Take a walk on a winter's night in your average gated community to realize this quite starkly. Shoot, do it on a summer's night and make the same observation. Air conditioning and cable teevee where our two greatest gifts to Sasquatch. We occupy only a small suite of rooms during most of our leisure time, and that applies to many rural communities as well. How many Sasquatch sightings occurr through windows? Lots. There is a reason for that.

[salubrious]

I find that hard to swallow.

We can take a picture of the pimple on my butt from outer space and they they communicate by banging on trees?

Yes. One thing we humans tend to overlook is that we are not adapted to our environment. BF is.

Why is that the only explanation? Why isn't another explanation that there are no bigfoots?

Because there are BFs. For those of us who have had direct encounters without ambiguity, that is just how it is.

Prime directive for bigfoots: Use our superior intelligence to never let the humans find us.

Frequent behavior of bigfoots: Make exceedingly loud noises in the woods, often in response to the humans.

??????

Correct. Apparently, they like to mess with us. That was reported in Indian 'legend' and is nothing new.

Not putting down your sighting, mind you,but if they are so intelligent why are they living the "caveman" lifestyle? Why not build bigfoot cities, ride hoarses,

or even invent soap? And how do they even know what a camera is? Plus, since their dead bodies aren't turning up by the dozens each year, you would think that their population would have exploded with in the century.

This is not to inflame anyone, just coming from an "ordinary Joe" who has alot of questions, with no logical answers

As mentioned above, we humans are not adapted to our environment. BF is. see below:

Well said..

I suppose a BF proponent would likely answer that had they done all the things you describe here..including USE OF FIRE, which is the big *ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM*, they would have been easily detected. I don't think the type of *lifestyle* ascribed to them precludes superior intelligence, albeit one MUCH different than human. Having said this...I can't comment on the intelligence of a theoretical being.

A BF does not have a use for fire! Humans do. Think about it. One of the reasons we can control fire is that we are relatively hairless. That is also why we need it. Almost all the accoutrements we have acquired over the centuries are in search of greater comfort, especially in northern and extreme southern latitudes, which could not support as much human life as they do now, were it not for the discovery of fossil fuels. BF has no need of these things.

I have a theory that we nearly hunted them to extinction millennia ago. The ones that survived did so by being very stealthy and by avoiding humans. IMO if we as a species really knew about them, its likely that we would still be going after them. But too many centuries have gone by where they have been successful enough (hence the occasional sighting) that as a culture for us they have slipped into myth and legend.

[WSA]

Salubrious....on that theory of homo s. hunting them to near extinction: And there were no doubt ecnounters with other species where we succeeded in doing it all together. If the m. DNA studies are to be believed (yeah, I know) there was some kind of evolutionary bottleneck experienced by the species, from which it recovered by inter-breeding with human females. Human caused attrition is the most likely cause, I would argue.

Consider a more passive cause for a near-extinction though: Good old human borne pathogens. There is abundant evidence the Columbian exchange resulted in a native American die-off of astounding proportions. These deaths occurred out of sight and mostly without the awareness of the Europeans who later declared they had come to claim an empty continent. If the Indian populations had no immunities to these common European diseases, why would a Sasquatch? The impact on a smaller population would have been far greater, and take far longer to recover pre-epidemic population levels.

[Guest]

I would still like somone to explain how a BF can obtain a daily caloric intake of 8-10K in the midst of winter in the forrest.

As mentioned..there have been accounts of predation on deer liver's...but that would require quite a bit of active hunting.

BF aren't bears and lack claws and proper teeth for facilitating the kill. Besides...deer (and smaller game) would be very difficult to catch in the winter snow. Even in fall and spring, this is still a factor as far as I'm concerned.

This is no insignificant matter to consider...in fact, I would put this (over finding the bodies/body parts) on the top of my list as to the viability of their existance. These are very large animals and require significant food intake. I just dont see available resources for them in winter...they don't hybernate.

Edited December 31, 2012 by ronn1

[salubrious]

I bet they don't need as much food as we do to stay warm.

I friend of mine saw one at 11,000 feet on a ridge in Alberta in the middle of March some years ago (he was piloting a plane). Its pretty obvious they can stay warm in the cold.

Here in Minnesota or Wisconsin in the winter, no worries, there are plenty of deer, herds in fact.

[WSA]

Wildman.....sure, I'll take a crack at that one.

Let's just skip over the idea that Sasquatch don't hibernate. Of course, noboby has any idea if they do, or not. Let's just say they don't, and discount the contribution that would make to the calorie in/calorie out equation. Even so, this would be dependent on climate where the animal dwells. If we're discussing Skunk Apes, well, no I don't imagine they do.

As for how many calories a sasquatch would require daily to maintain critical body functions, I have no earthly idea. Nobody alive could tell you that, I don't think, nor would you want to credit such an opinion if they did.

But asto your question as to how it would kill a deer, I think the most widely accepted theory is that they hunt by ambush, a method favored by most top predators as it returns the most calories while expending the least. When you are running after your quarry, you are losing. One thing the thousands of contact reports show is Sasquatch are prolific hurlers of objects, rocks especially. A throwing stick is also the most primitive form of hunting tool there is, and quite efficient. You also have to consider the tremendous advantage the size, reach and stride of an animal that large would have in hunting a deer or other small game. By all reports, they are very fast, agile, silent and stealthy....all attributes calculated to put dinner on the table. From the many descriptions contained in the encounter reports (and which any serious student of this crypid should read) I have no trouble believing a deer would be quite easily taken by a Sasquatch. You also have to consider the likelihood they are omnivorous, and all of the other calories available to any omnivore. Bears provide a useful comparison on that point. A black bear or grizzly is just as content to munch on, say, pine nuts and termites as a juicy deer haunch. (Well maybe not AS content, but a bear has gotta do what a bear has gotta do). Credible accounts have been made of finding what might just be Sasquatch eating areas, which look all the world like something left by somebody eating fried chicken and piling up the bones...except the piles contain multiple deer skeletons. Well, I suppose nobody can eat just one....

[Guest]

An adult moose needs almost 10,000 calories a day to maintain body weight and they get through the winter just by foraging. Just tossing that out for comparison.

[Oonjerah]

I gotta go with the foraging. That's been reported by a person/people who thought they

saw a bigfoot.

They say it takes 1 acre of land under cultivation to feed 1 person or 1 head of livestock.

Land under cultivation may produce 10 times as much food (wild guess) for a human as

uncultivated land. The production ratio to support livestock is much lower. Why? 'Cause

horses can eat stuff I can't.

Common sense tells me that Bigfoot is eating a lot of stuff that I can't eat, and because my

reality is so narrow, I assume that he can't eat it either.

I know I'd die before I tried to live on acorns. The taste -- Yuck-ptooie!!

Bigfoot walks thru the woods, sees a banquet where I am starving. (Yet he still loves

human garbage also. Flexible he is.)

As long as I assume that Bf doesn't/can't exist, then I also have to assume/imagine a lot

of reasons why he can't exist ... and the further I am from his habitat, the more fanciful and

inaccurate my reasoning will be.

[Guest]

An adult moose needs almost 10,000 calories a day to maintain body weight and they get through the winter just by foraging. Just tossing that out for comparison.

Things is..there's a LOT more vegetation available for MOOSE, since they are ruminators (like cattle) with multiple stomachs for processing vegetation that a BF could not.

I gotta go with the foraging. That's been reported by a person/people who thought they

saw a bigfoot.

They say it takes 1 acre of land under cultivation to feed 1 person or 1 head of livestock.

Land under cultivation may produce 10 times as much food (wild guess) for a human as

uncultivated land. The production ratio to support livestock is much lower. Why? 'Cause

horses can eat stuff I can't.

Common sense tells me that Bigfoot is eating a lot of stuff that I can't eat, and because my

reality is so narrow, I assume that he can't eat it either.

I know I'd die before I tried to live on acorns. The taste -- Yuck-ptooie!!

Bigfoot walks thru the woods, sees a banquet where I am starving. (Yet he still loves

human garbage also. Flexible he is.)

As long as I assume that Bf doesn't/can't exist, then I also have to assume/imagine a lot

of reasons why he can't exist ... and the further I am from his habitat, the more fanciful and

inaccurate my reasoning will be.

If this BF is a hominid..(and it's certainly a primate), it's digestive system *should* be very much like ours. They certainly cannot eat the wide variety of vegetation that cattle (moose example in previuos post) can with multiple stomachs (ruminators).

Wildman.....sure, I'll take a crack at that one.

Let's just skip over the idea that Sasquatch don't hibernate. Of course, noboby has any idea if they do, or not. Let's just say they don't, and discount the contribution that would make to the calorie in/calorie out equation. Even so, this would be dependent on climate where the animal dwells. If we're discussing Skunk Apes, well, no I don't imagine they do.

As for how many calories a sasquatch would require daily to maintain critical body functions, I have no earthly idea. Nobody alive could tell you that, I don't think, nor would you want to credit such an opinion if they did.

But asto your question as to how it would kill a deer, I think the most widely accepted theory is that they hunt by ambush, a method favored by most top predators as it returns the most calories while expending the least. When you are running after your quarry, you are losing. One thing the thousands of contact reports show is Sasquatch are prolific hurlers of objects, rocks especially. A throwing stick is also the most primitive form of hunting tool there is, and quite efficient. You also have to consider the tremendous advantage the size, reach and stride of an animal that large would have in hunting a deer or other small game. By all reports, they are very fast, agile, silent and stealthy....all attributes calculated to put dinner on the table. From the many descriptions contained in the encounter reports (and which any serious student of this crypid should read) I have no trouble believing a deer would be quite easily taken by a Sasquatch. You also have to consider the likelihood they are omnivorous, and all of the other calories available to any omnivore. Bears provide a useful comparison on that point. A black bear or grizzly is just as content to munch on, say, pine nuts and termites as a juicy deer haunch. (Well maybe not AS content, but a bear has gotta do what a bear has gotta do). Credible accounts have been made of finding what might just be Sasquatch eating areas, which look all the world like something left by somebody eating fried chicken and piling up the bones...except the piles contain multiple deer skeletons. Well, I suppose nobody can eat just one....

I would still like to know what food sources are AVAILABLE to BF in the Northwest in winter. I don't think deer alone will account for their primary food source. If this was a MUCH SMALLER animal..say under 100lbs..I could see an argument here for food sustainance. BF are not bear nor are they wolves and cannot hunt in packs as wolves do. If they did, we would see them doing so as we do wolves..of which they're aren't that many of either.