If My Math Is Correct (Sasquatch/square Mileage)

[Guest]

Whats "psychological manipulation" is the claim that "well, there's a lot of forests so therefore, there's plenty of room for bigfoot to hide".

Horse manure! That is nothing more than simple fact, and I've proven it several times. We live in a tiny percentage of the available land in the N American continent.

And you still can't refute that your maps are designed to badly UNDERstate forest areas and other wild places and OVER state the spread of sasquatch sightings.

Of course that doesn't work for deer, wolverines, bears and mountain lions.

Which have what to do with what, exactly? I've seen deer in town several times and I live in a city of over 160 thousand. There are towns that are being overrun with bears and cougar sightings are not a common, but not unheard of either.

Several of the reports also place sasquatch close to towns and residential areas.

Again, so what? What kind of town/residential area? What is the surrounding terrain like? What resources are available?

Again, you craft your statement to be literally accurate but leaving a badly misleading impression.

Classic psy-ops.

I read the other day about a guy who claims to have photo evidence of BF within the city limits of Philadelphia.  To me that is absurd.

What's the context? What are the surroundings like? Is the claim for a place like (to use another city) Times Square in NY? Or are we talking about outskirts/suburbs that may be near to appropriate habitat?

People were griping about how 'unrealistic' the "Nursing Home footage was because the dumpster was in a "well populated area". Then a researcher who took the time to learn more discovered a wild canyon/draw that led from just behind the area all the way out of town to the wild lands. Perfect insertion corridor for an opportunistic critter.

Context context context.

[Guest]

I tend to agree. I have no experience with the east so I just tend to reserve judgement and keep my mouth shut.

Plenty of remote regions east of the Mississippi mountain ranges and national forests, etc.

Google is your friend.

[Guest thermalman]

If they are that spread out, how can they even sustain a mating population?

Like any other creature, "sniff sniff"!

[Guest]

Horse manure! That is nothing more than simple fact, and I've proven it several times. We live in a tiny percentage of the available land in the N American continent.

 

Forested area does not equal wilderness.

 

And you still can't refute that your maps are designed to badly UNDERstate forest areas and other wild places and OVER state the spread of sasquatch sightings.

 

You know that for sure? So the BFRO overstates bigfoot sighting.

 

Which have what to do with what, exactly? I've seen deer in town several times and I live in a city of over 160 thousand. There are towns that are being overrun with bears and cougar sightings are not a common, but not unheard of either.

 

That there being plenty of forests does not mean animals can go undiscovered. It does happen for bears, deer and cougars.

 

Again, so what? What kind of town/residential area? What is the surrounding terrain like? What resources are available?

Again, you craft your statement to be literally accurate but leaving a badly misleading impression.

Classic psy-ops.

 

Again sasquatch is not always reported in pristine wilderness. Your talk of terrain and such is nothing more than grasping at straws.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

 

You know that for sure? So the BFRO overstates bigfoot sighting.

 

 

And you know that how?

 

 

That there being plenty of forests does not mean animals can go undiscovered. It does happen for bears, deer and cougars.

 

Easy for something to "go undiscovered" if no one of consequence to the proof believes anyone who says they saw one or spends any time investigating the phenomenon.  That simple.  Mountain lions weren't moving east ...until people started believing the evidence that they were.  Coyote were well established in the east before anyone knew it.

 

Again sasquatch is not always reported in pristine wilderness. Your talk of terrain and such is nothing more than grasping at straws.

 

One would never expect such an animal to be confined to pristine wilderness.  Great apes raid crops in Africa all the time.  One would expect a generalist omnivore to take advantage of food resources on the occupied margins of its habitat, and bingo!  That is precisely what sasquatch evidence shows.

 

[Guest]

 Mountain lions weren't moving east ...until people started believing the evidence that they were.  Coyote were well established in the east before anyone knew it.

 

And the evidence was far great from them then for bigfoot. A single cougar left DNA and was roadkilled.

 

One would never expect such an animal to be confined to pristine wilderness.  Great apes raid crops in Africa all the time.  One would expect a generalist omnivore to take advantage of food resources on the occupied margins of its habitat, and bingo!  That is precisely what sasquatch evidence shows.

 

 

Great, then that should give you plenty of opportunity to catch one or for it to be accidently harvested. By the way, you know what happens to apes that raid crops? They get killed.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

 

 Mountain lions weren't moving east ...until people started believing the evidence that they were.  Coyote were well established in the east before anyone knew it.

 

And the evidence was far great from them then for bigfoot. A single cougar left DNA and was roadkilled.

 

Left DNA how?  In a stamped self-addressed envelope?  However they did it (I think they weren't intelligent enough to use UPS), somebody tested that DNA to see what it was instead of doing what they've done many times:  sasquatch?  Oh that's funny [throws it out].  You won't test something to see if it's something you don't believe exists, particularly given how expensive testing is.  Tests have come back 'unknown, possible primate' and 'unknown, primate.'  But that doesn't seem to interest anybody.  One might wonder why that was.

 

 

Great, then that should give you plenty of opportunity to catch one or for it to be accidently harvested. By the way, you know what happens to apes that raid crops? They get killed.o

 

And a sasquatch hasn't.  Yet.  That you know of.  (Although several whose names aren't Smeja or Dyer say they have, and there's no reason not to believe them.)  Chimps and gorillas sometimes get killed because people accept the knowledge about them and share it.  It's very hard to kill something you know nothing about.

 

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

And a sasquatch hasn't.  Yet.  That you know of.  (Although several whose names aren't Smeja or Dyer say they have, and there's no reason not to believe them.)  Chimps and gorillas sometimes get killed because people accept the knowledge about them and share it.  It's very hard to kill something you know nothing about.

 

I can think of a very good reason not to believe them, NO BIGFOOT.  Also, I may know nothing about a Howler monkey, but I could darn sure blow it's head clean off.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

If OP's math is correct science would have a specimen by now.

[Guest]

Oh that's funny [throws it out].  You won't test something to see if it's something you don't believe exists, particularly given how expensive testing is. 

 

 

 

Bigfooters can.

 

Tests have come back 'unknown, possible primate' and 'unknown, primate.'  But that doesn't seem to interest anybody.  One might wonder why that was.

 

Maybe because the tests results are known only third hand from a bigfoot sources?

 

  It's very hard to kill something you know nothing about.

 

It's happened throughout history. It was the case for the mountain gorilla and the megamouth shark. Being "unknown" is not some magical force that prevents animals from getting killed by humans.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

The megamouth shark was like the coelacanth:  pure dumb luck.

 

The mountain gorilla was well known to the locals whose information led to the first specimen.  What, they don't count?

 

What is "a bigfoot sources"?  Do bigfoots/bigfeets/bigtootsies/bigfeetsies test their own hair?

 

Bigfooters can't.  You saw the word "expensive" in there, right?  How many full-timers are there in this field?  None.  How many part-timers?

 

None.  (OK, YOU try making "part-time" money off bigfooters' hours.)

[Guest]

The megamouth shark was like the coelacanth:  pure dumb luck.

 

 

Ah, more excuses and moving the goalposts

 

 

The mountain gorilla was well known to the locals whose information led to the first specimen.  What, they don't count?

The German colonists didn't know what the gorillas were. Robert von Beringe killed one while surveying their outposts.

[Guest DWA]

If "moving the goalposts" means "telling truths that make me uncomfortable," well, I am comfortable with that.

 

The GERMAN COLONISTS....?   Are you telling me that people's color makes a difference to their veracity?

 

(YOU ARE.)

[Guest]

^^^^^Doesn't make me uncomfortable. I gave you an example of an animal being caught without being heard of and of course you have to make excuses.

[Guest DWA]

No excuses here, just knowledge.

 

Passing off superior knowledge of the topic as 'excuses' smacks of, um, an excuse.