NathanFooter Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 I doubt that there are any family units that don't know what we are and our nature { if there are any they must be in the remote wilds of canada }. We drive loud vehicles, shoot guns, chase thier food for antlers, NEED lights, fly planes over head, bush wack throught the wilderness for electric and phone lines, and leave a trail if smelly garbage everywhere we put our feet. Heck our cities glow bright for over 50 miles and we do have crazy people that work thier way through the wilderness looking for gold or running from the law.
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 I doubt that there are any family units that don't know what we are and our nature { if there are any they must be in the remote wilds of canada }. We drive loud vehicles, shoot guns, chase thier food for antlers, NEED lights, fly planes over head, bush wack throught the wilderness for electric and phone lines, and leave a trail if smelly garbage everywhere we put our feet. Heck our cities glow bright for over 50 miles and we do have crazy people that work thier way through the wilderness looking for gold or running from the law. Yes, we do do all of that, but my point is that we do all of that on a very *small* percentage of the unsettled land in which they dwell. A great majority of the area they live in has not been explored by humans in large numbers.
NathanFooter Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 True we do not go through these areas in any mass but we do go through them enough that over the say 40 year lifespan of a bigfoot that we do get seen and most likely talked about. I also think that the creatures crossing roads and wondering are young males looking for thier own turff and female, it would make sense that they would see alot of human activity and meet other troupes and pass on information.
Oonjerah Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Consider a paved road as a "human track." We leave far wider, longer and more numerous tracks than they. They can't go terribly far without crossing our tracks. Or as it has been put more than once: the objections to sasquatch are urban objections. Thank you! That's a perfect, concise way to say it. It's been bugging me for over a month: The most adamant disbelievers sound as if they've never been outside the city limits. I was told recently by an otherwise intelligent gal living in AU, if Bigfoot did exist, it could only be 1 or 2, because your PNW isn't big enough for a breeding population. -or- There's not enough for them to eat out there. And they will never stop saying there are no scat or bones; there is no evidence.
Guest DWA Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I'll never get over the 'not enough to eat' dodge. Homo sapiens bands roamed the same woods for generations; shared them with a lot more animals; and there was more than plenty for everybody. Never mind that the most insanely successful wildlife stories of recent times - whitetail deer, feral pigs and cats (maybe some wouldn't call those successes) and wild turkey - more than make up for what might not be in those woods anymore. And then there's this: how the forests get to be forests, to wit, the vast majority of their produce is composted, uneaten. Edited November 30, 2012 by DWA
Sasfooty Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) When you start your post with "You don't get the picture" then you are telling me that you are right and I'm wrong, end of discussion. You don't get the picture because you're picturing them all neatly tucked away in remote wilderness. That's not how it is. HOW do you know this? I know it by knowing dozens of people who also have them regularly visiting their homes, some very close to towns. These people all know others, that I don't know, who are having the same experiences. And the others know others. I think there are hundreds, if not thousands of us. And if we try to let you know that we will probably not be subscribing to your position just yet, well, then we can expect insults. As many insults as you constantly dish out, you should not be surprised to get a few back now & then. I've been reading your insults all this week, although I haven't recently been the recipient until today. Reap what you sow, & all that. Saying that "I don't believe you" & then hiding behind "But I'm not calling you a liar" is still an insult. I'm getting tired of ignoring insults. If you don't subscribe to a position, why do you feel the need to insinuate that the person who has it is either lying or crazy? Would you actually like to DISCUSS some of the behavior that you've seen? I've been told more than once, & probably a few of them were you that told me, that I should keep my "fanciful stories" to myself. It seems to be irritating some members here to no end, & goodness knows that I just hate to be irritating. So, no, I wouldn't like to. Edited November 30, 2012 by Sasfooty 3
Matt Pruitt Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 ^^ I want to vote up this post, but I already voted up your first post on this thread. Well said, Sasfooty.
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Whatever you say, Sasfooty. This is not really what I intended this thread to be about. I tried to respond to you with my true feelings without being insulting. Clearly that didn't work for you, so that's that. You clearly know better than all of us, and have no problem telling us as much. We should just take it. Otherwise, we are insulting you. I fully understand the dynamic between us, happy?
Sasfooty Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Is this where I'm supposed to be all ashamed for being rude when you express your true feelings? Sorry, but I'm not feeling ashamed yet. I've seen that tactic before & it didn't work then either. However, I'll move along now & leave you free to carry on your thread without interference from my opposing view.
BobbyO Posted November 30, 2012 SSR Team Posted November 30, 2012 They'd have to know about Humans to survive like they do in my opinion, certainly survive to a decent age anyway.
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 I don't see how the vast majority of them could be oblivious to our presence. I like what BastetCat said about centuries of living with tribes of Native Americans - true. As we expand our cities and build out, we are encroaching upon their habitat. Makes sense we encounter them more often. In addition, here in the PNW (I am in Oregon) it's only been inhabited by pioneers and their descendants for the last 160 years or so (with the Native American tribes who have been here much longer but maintained a more sustainable population). It hasn't been until the last 100 years that there have been large cities at all! When I went to Europe, I was boggled at the idea that this land had been inhabited for thousands upon thousands of years. When I went back east in the US, I was amazed at several centuries of cities and towns. Out here in the PNW, everything still feels kinda newly settled. Though we are populating it relentlessly, it is still quite a wild country - get off the beaten paths and it is still wilderness. And the logging. Yes, they've seen us log the forests they live in quite extensively here in the PNW. The first home in Eugene was established in 1846. That's essentially yesterday. We've invaded their quiet country and taken over! Yes, they know we are here...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Yes, we do do all of that, but my point is that we do all of that on a very *small* percentage of the unsettled land in which they dwell. A great majority of the area they live in has not been explored by humans in large numbers. Very quaint viewpoint. So you don't think the semi-rural area's, farmlands, hunting leases have been ''explored by human's in great numbers''???BHWHAWHAHAHAHAHA
NitroSquatch Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) This is an interesting topic, and different points of view have added to the discussion, though I wish it didn't so require us to glean information through the fog of war. Much of the discussion comes down to this: How much would the entire Sasquatch population intersect with the human population? As some have observed, there is a great deal of land that has been traversed in some way (over time) by either Native American tribes, logging, hunting, exploring, building of roads or stringing of power lines, etc. But for a family, group (whatever) of Sasquatch, how would all of this translate into # of sightings or interactions with humans per year? And, how complete an understanding of humans would be formed from these interactions combined with prior knowledge? Some additional considerations or questions: Do humans and Sasquatch populations interact mostly on the fringes of their respective habitats, or is the majority of the Sasquatch population involved at some point in one of the estimated hundreds to thousands of sites o' habituating like Sasfooty's? (Does the average bigfoot family include like 1.5 human pets?) How migratory would we suppose the Sasquatch population is? How much territory would be covered by an individual in a lifetime? How capable is the average Sasquatch of understanding human culture? And, how robust is Sasquatch communication - and how social are they, so that understanding can be passed from group to group and generation to generation? I've got all ?'s and no answers, but I'm interested hearing more from those with applicable experiences. edit:formatting Edited December 1, 2012 by NitroSquatch
Recommended Posts