If Bf Is So Widespread, Every State, Every Continent, We Must Have Missed Something

[Guest]

Bigfoot(s) are everywhere, and nowhere.

Now you had to know someone was going to say that sooner or later.

[BobbyO]

Bigfoot reports might be widespread all over states, countries, continents, but the question remains if there is any real Bigfoot anywhere.

Many "knowers" in the BFF have reported seeing them in PNW, so maybe PNW is the best bet.

But knowing that one Bigfoot is real in PNW, does not guarantee that BF in Australia, Florida, Africa, China, etc. etc.

I don't know that they live in the PNW, but I believe they do.

I KNOW they live in South Florida because i saw one there, or at least I know one was in a South Florida 20 odd years ago anyway.

[Guest Kerchak]

I agree. They simply CAN'T be as numerous and as widespread as some believe and yet still no bona fide proof.

Unless you want to bring in the dreaded 'non physical' theory. Yikes. That would the only explanation LOL.

[Guest]

I agree it seems pretty odd for there to be a big bunch of them yet we don't have a skeleton or corpse. But the whole thing is just SO strange that I think we can't rule it out.

[Guest]

If one accepts witness accounts here even then yes, they are in greater numbers more places than one would imagine... (and real!).

I spent a lot of time out there, in a very good situation, and can only conclude their ability to avoid getting seen or filmed is stellar. How do they do it?

Could any one of us, raised in a forest, achieve the same (assuming no need for our material culture/fire)? Perhaps, we are intelligent enough. Ishi comes to mind, but his family died b/c of encroachment, and his material cache taken repeatedly, so he was driven by starvation and grief/loneliness to emerge.

I do now, however, after so much time out there, give credence to the idea that BFs have some "psychic" ability...whatever that is...an unknown even among humans (and no good way to test really) and yet an idea that persists, in religion to BFs.

At some level Humans tend to believe in some kind of telepathy, whether in prayer, or close family/loved ones precognition, etc...

When an idea like that persists, through all cultures, all times, it seems there is something to it, rather than just universal wishful thinking...and the arguments ensue just what that is...(did a diety direct Joan of Arc....or insanity? )

We tend to believe there is some ability like this among ourselves and some animals.....and BFs seem to have "it" whatever it is.....

I haven't a way to demonstrate that telepathy exists, but I think it does based on personal experience, and I extend that tentatively to some BFs....it would explain a lot!

But, almost by definition as a 'serious researcher" we miss that potential ability b/c we do not consider it seriously, and assign even among ourselves the term "nuts" to those that do. Which is kind of strange given society calls even "aper Bfers" nuts.

It's the status quo, we all know there is no real peer review work out there on ESP...and yet? It may still be real, we just can't test or measure yet.

To not even consider it as a possibility is akin to not considering they might digest pine needles, or some other unexpected behavior, just because we don't know of any primates that survive on pine needles? (bad example..but somewhere there ia valid idea..it's just 5am!)

What we are "missing' might be our willingness to consider they are more than most of us think..

Edited January 12, 2013 by apehuman

[BobbyO]

I'm convinced their numbers are really low, really low.

I was recently listenting to Derek Randles and he said that he thought there were only between 20 - 50 animlas on the Olympic Peninsula.

The Olympic Peninsula is PRIME Sasquacth habitat, is predominantly forest with an abundance of water, is 3,600 square miles and only has 100,000 people living in its small towns.

If he's right, or even close to being right which I believe he is is, we'd be talking about a maximum of a Sasquatch per every 72 square miles.

When you take into consideration that the main bulk of that 3,600 square miles is uninhibited, I actually think its a miracle at all that they're getting seen anywhere ther than crossing a road, which is the most common sighting on the Olympic Peninsula.

If these numbers are close to being correct with regards to this area, these animals are super rare, no doubt to me.

[TD-40]

Even Jeff Meldrum doesn't think they are in all 50 states.

[BobbyO]

It's needle in a haystack stuff, it truly is.

I was looking at the BFRO database earlier on today, for WA State, the State with the most Sasquatch sightings and the State that is generally perceived to have some of the best Sasquatch habitat there is, it's had just 13 Class A Sightings in the past 5 years.

It's had lots of " Possible Sasquatch Howls ", but actual Sightings ? Nope, not too many at all.

It's had 7 trackways/print finds since in the last 5 years.

I don't know, unless there's a whole lot that isn't being made public by the BFRO, then there's barely any Sasquatch action in WA State, I know that much.

But one thing being overlooked in all of this, British Columbia..

British Columbia simply changes everything and the main reason we can NEVER have any real idea of Sasquatch populations as British Columbia could have a population of them in the tens of thousands, and nobody would be any the wiser, as nobody is there to see them.

[Guest]

I believe they travel via a cave/tunnel system. That could account for them being reported in every state, yet manage to stay "hidden". I think this topic is highly underrated just as them being up in the trees. We might find out more about this creature by thinking out the box. They profit emensly through our narrow mindedness. Most people don´t even notice them when the walk right by them, just because the do not expect to see a 11 ft tall apelike being standing beside the trail. Add that to their use of caves and tunnels and you have them disappearing into think air. All of that also goes along with people disappearing, also a topic people don´t like and try to avoid in connection to BF. They are out there and yes we can´t control them. They do as they please and have been for thousands of years.

[Guest]

My impression was that in the very rugged and arid area i knew well there was one family unit of at least three in an area consistently over four years that led me to believe there was adequate forage and cover within a six to seven mile radius, but in that territory they would be able to drop to an elevation of just 2000' and up to about 7,200 and all the varying habitats, from desert to alpine.

And, that opportunity exists for at least several hundred BF family's in that mountain range, one perhaps a hundred miles long and tens of miles wide. Pretty much any mountainous area (or remote -swamps, etc) of the US affords that as our encroachment is spotty and they could actually benefit on some levels, as it is the old homestead planting of apples, grapes, and blackberries that make this area a favorite and standout among the pre-existing habitat (although it too is wealthy).

Also, deer populations I believe are important to them as a ready source of protein so follow the deer. In NorCal there is still a migrating heard of 50,000 black tail deer that travel from the 2000' to 8,000 plus seasonally....so, I think it is quite possible that BFs are recovering in numbers today as are eagles, and beaver, and bison, or coyote.

We changed not only policy in the 70's but lifestyle over the last few generations (less than 2% family farmers, few trappers, prospectors, homesteaders....) that has afforded them room to grow (and even disease resistance..small pox to colds?). Our Wilderness designations really gave them a refuge from technology.

I looked at the number of mountains over 5000 feet in the US on Wiki....and also the acreage etc (in fact someone did a nice write up recently on just that....) there is more wilderness and habitat for an opportunistic species than it seems from a monitor, or car, or even atv. I am always blown away by the reality on foot.

And, their own evolution hasn't been at a stand still, if one believes they are capable of interbreeding as neanderthals were...that might be interesting in that an influx of Europeans and Africans might well have changed their path too? Missing 411 anyone?

So? I do think there may be 10,000 in North America...but I don't know....and wonder even with proof how will will get that answer with existing methods.

Edited January 12, 2013 by apehuman

[TD-40]

Population disbursement has always intrigued me. I cannot speak for Canada or Alaska because the estimates there are probably much higher than the US, but I think there are probably only a couple of thousand in the Lower 48. These creatures are thought to roam large swaths of area every day, which would make each family unit's range quite large. And each family is probably not larger than six or so members. Bigfoot are also thought to concentrate in geographic areas that are either dense, remote, or rainy, making their geographic distribution limited to those characteristics. I would think that large primates use up resources in an area and have mating requirements that force them to move on to other areas eventually.

My point is that if there were 10,000 or so of these living in the Lower 48 states, then the sightings, vocalizations, and footprints would be much more widespread and common than they are now. There just isn't enough room for 10,000 giant ape men to roam and exit without being seen much more often.

[BobbyO]

I believe they travel via a cave/tunnel system. That could account for them being reported in every state, yet manage to stay "hidden".

I'm not so sure.

Do your think they rented or purchased the heavy duty equipment needed to make those interstate tunnel systems ?

Edited January 12, 2013 by BobbyO

[Guest]

So? I do think there may be 10,000 in North America...but I don't know....and wonder even with proof how will will get that answer with existing methods.

See italics added above.

If one believes witnesses, they are seen quite often.

And, the habitat certainly supported hunter/gather humans in the millions prior to the modern era. Our natural diet doesn't seem that different.

[BobbyO]

Can anyone answer me why 10,000 is seen as a number mentioned quite a lot ?

Is there any actual thinking gone into it or is it just banded around as it's a real nice, round number ?

[Guest]

Probably b/c a nice big round, but small number, imaginable for many.. But,I did look at mt. peaks with over 5000' and radius of at least five miles for habitat, etc and added some for river ways, etc (and I think they are more adaptive than just northern forests) and on that initial estimate above( that a good 2 mountain with that radius could support a family of four)...lol somehow it did actually add up to about 10K.. give or take a few assumptions! I hear 4-6K a lot too...and Meldrum's famous 450...wonder if we will ever know

Edited January 12, 2013 by apehuman