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

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Where's the photos? I'd say they outwit us consistently .

Trying carefully to answer that as not to offend, you ask that from a believer position, nothing can be that stealthy for that last few hundred years.

[Guest]

What we've missed is the ability to admit "we" are wrong in our assumptions about "how things are" in the world. Our worldview is incorrect. These things have been seen for hundreds of years of recorded history and yet we call them mythological. The hubris is astounding. They haven't been mysteriously stealthy... look at the BFRO database and realize they are HERE and being seen daily. What's mysterious is our inability to accept that we live on a planet with two (possibly) sentient hominid (human) species.

Edited January 12, 2013 by madison5716

[adam2323]

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

I couldnt agree more No way there as numerous in as many areas thats reported

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

I couldnt agree more No way there as numerous in as many areas thats reported

[Guest]

I'm not so sure.

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

sorry I was thinking more along the lines of old mines and large cavesystems.

Edited January 12, 2013 by hesse

[Guest RedRatSnake]

What we've missed is the ability to admit "we" are wrong in our assumptions about "how things are" in the world. Our worldview is incorrect. These things have been seen for hundreds of years of recorded history and yet we call them mythological. The hubris is astounding. They haven't been mysteriously stealthy... look at the BFRO database and realize they are HERE and being seen daily. What's mysterious is our inability to accept that we live on a planet with two (possibly) sentient hominid (human) species.

I think until one gets bagged all would be best served calling them mythological, just as some other animals in the past have been until they were discovered and acknowledged by science.

The BFRO database is a good read, but I would not use it for fact, even the head of the BFRO MM can't seem to locate the very animal he so fondly searchers for, things he is involved with tend to have a certain hype and mystery about them.

[BobbyO]

I think until one gets bagged all would be best served calling them mythological, just as some other animals in the past have been until they were discovered and acknowledged by science.

What about if you've seen one ?

Do you tell yourself it was only a myth then ?

[Explorer]

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.

BobbyO,

The estimates from Derek are indeed small (20 to 50 BF in OP)!

If true, then no wonder the efforts to photograph them are so fruitless.

Has he documented the key assumptions he made in calculating this estimat?

If so, it would be nice to share to see how one goes about such an estimate.

I am no wildlife biologist, so I don't know what is the proper method to estimate.

But I think it is good to attempt to estimate and see what the key assumptions and compare how diverse/broad these assumptions could be.

Not sure if the uncertainty range is only 20 to 50 or much wider.

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.

Wow! I am surprised how low the numbers are for WA (13 Class A in 5 years).

We do know, however, that BFRO does not capture 100% of BF sighting reports in WA, since there are other competing organizations and people might not want to report.

I wonder, among the BFF members (who post here) who have had a BF sighting (anywhere not just in PNW), how many of you have reported it to BFRO?

BC is indeed a place with lots of potential (just like Alaska). Just look at the Grizzly population as a hint.

[Guest]

I would never report to BFRO because I shun that kind of fuss and attention. Just my own position. Nor police, what are they gonna do?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

What about if you've seen one ?

Do you tell yourself it was only a myth then ?

Impossible to answer that with any truth cause it has not happened to me, I can speculate some, knowing me I would try and find the truth, I have seen things on the ocean that I can't explain, but I don't lean toward mermaids or monsters, I have to do what's logical for me and go with a known animal or landscape feature that I seen somehow as different, or it was just a fluke thing, now if I had seen such a thing a few times, then I would be really convinced something was going on.

Edited January 12, 2013 by RedRatSnake

[Guest]

I tried reporting to the BFRO the first two incidents and was unsatisfied with how it was handled.

I have only reported the additional encounters/experiences here. I am sure there are many, many that go unreported to official sites.

[WV FOOTER]

Like finding a needle in a haystack, with intelligence.

[BobbyO]

Impossible to answer that with any truth cause it has not happened to me, I can speculate some, knowing me I would try and find the truth, I have seen things on the ocean that I can't explain, but I don't lean toward mermaids or monsters, I have to do what's logical for me and go with a known animal or landscape feature that I seen somehow as different, or it was just a fluke thing,

Cool.

So how do you explain a big Man like Ape thing looking at you, full on, for 40 or so seconds, that you know is no creature you have ever seen anywhere, either on the TV or in a Zoo ?

Do i put that down to a Bear that just didn't have a shout nor ears on top of its head IE That fluke that you're talking about ?

An Orangutan even though i know it wasn't and no Orangutan's live in the Florida Everglades ?

A Squirrel maybe as it was near a Tree ?

What ?

BobbyO,

The estimates from Derek are indeed small (20 to 50 BF in OP)!

If true, then no wonder the efforts to photograph them are so fruitless.

Has he documented the key assumptions he made in calculating this estimat?

If so, it would be nice to share to see how one goes about such an estimate.

I am no wildlife biologist, so I don't know what is the proper method to estimate.

But I think it is good to attempt to estimate and see what the key assumptions and compare how diverse/broad these assumptions could be.

Not sure if the uncertainty range is only 20 to 50 or much wider.

Explorer, have a listen for yourself.

It's well worth some time i think.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bigfoottonightshow/2012/08/20/special-guest-derek-randles

[Doc Holliday]

.......... I have seen things on the ocean that I can't explain.....

aye captain, so have I....

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Cool.

So how do you explain a big Man like Ape thing looking at you, full on, for 40 or so seconds, that you know is no creature you have ever seen anywhere, either on the TV or in a Zoo ?

Do i put that down to a Bear that just didn't have a shout nor ears on top of its head IE That fluke that you're talking about ?

An Orangutan even though i know it wasn't and no Orangutan's live in the Florida Everglades ?

A Squirrel maybe as it was near a Tree ?

What ?

Sorry I can't answer that question for ya, only you have to power for that, it was your sighting.

[Guest armchairesearcher]

yeah,,but pretty **** close..Canada and Alaska.

should they exist at all....I don't think they're adapted to live in extreme winter conditions as purported.

s

Why not? They could simply evolve the function of growing very long and well insulated fur coats in the winter time, and I mean WELL insulated, because no squatch who lived his entire life in arizona (or anyone from arizona) will be able to survive a day during wintertime here in Winnipeg MB.

But yes, a report coming from the arctic circle is just too ridiculous for me to believe, unless it was this one odd individual who decides to do some long term exploring.