Guest Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Pennsylvania and the northeast are heavily forested but Oklahoma and Texas don't have much at all. There is an apparent and unfortunate disparity between what you can find on the internet and what you can find on the ground. However, even I can find this, another internet link that shows all kinds of heavily forested area in states that "don't have much at all." http://bit.ly/1as0mDV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 This has always been one of my problems with bigfoot. Why would it have such a large range and yet be so rare? Are there any other species whos population is spread all across north america yet low enough populations to be endangered? When you add in the Yeti, Yowie, Yeren, Orang pendek, etc bipedal apes reports cover a good portion of the globe. It would be much more believable if bigfoot reports were restricted to a more specefic geographical location and habitat. There are large animals that once ranged over large portions of the continent. I can think of the Bison and the Grizzly Bear as two of them. Of course they were hunted to extinction over much of their range, so that doesn't apply to Bigfoot. 100,000,000 Bison killed by humans, Grizzly Bear which ranged all the way to Mexico? Killed by humans. Bigfoot ranges from Maine to Arizona, PEI to Alaska, and south to Florida, Texas and Mexico, but no loggers, hunters, or trappers ever got a bead on one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Pennsylvania and the northeast are heavily forested but Oklahoma and Texas don't have much at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_cover_by_state_in_the_United_States I would think if Bigfoot was anywhere these days your best bet would be in BC north of Vancouver. Lots of forest low human population density. Look at the next two up from Oklahoma.....Colorado and California......surely you do not believe that those two western states are devoid of trees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Pennsylvania and the northeast are heavily forested but Oklahoma and Texas don't have much at all. There is an apparent and unfortunate disparity between what you can find on the internet and what you can find on the ground. However, even I can find this, another internet link that shows all kinds of heavily forested area in states that "don't have much at all." http://bit.ly/1as0mDV Absolutely. In 2009 I drove the Talimena Scenic Byway through OK and AR. And especially in OK, it is some of the most extensive wild country - all in forest - that I ever saw from a road. And I will put my wild roading - including much of Western Canada, New Zealand, the Scottish highlands and the majority of the Alaskan road system - up with anybody's. People keep talking about the inadequacy of forest resources to support these animals. Every statistic one can conjure up about every kind of large wild animal in NA contests this. It's yet another byproduct of the assumption that "no one ever sees them," which is itself easily refuted by the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted July 17, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) Bigfoot ranges from Maine to Arizona, PEI to Alaska, and south to Florida, Texas and Mexico, but no loggers, hunters, or trappers ever got a bead on one. Ever heard of Justin Smeja? Ever heard of Ape Canyon? Ever heard Teddy Roosevelt's story of Bauman? Never heard of hunters deciding not to shoot because bigfoot looked too human? You can find a lot with google searches. MIB Edited July 17, 2013 by MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 I guess you must be new to this. Or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 The analyst was Dr. Ketchum. This is where the issue lies. That's not it. That one episode of destination truth is what sparked her study and brought in the samples. This was long before her release of her paper. Listen to DWA on this, There are few scientists brave enough to take on the stigma of bigfoot or Yeti's. Most can barely attach their name to their own work when samples are tested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Hello WSA, ("Honey....before you get us all another round of drinks, show them your frozen Sasquatch turd, why dontcha?" ) LMAO!! Absolutely, hands down, the best line of humor in the entire thread. Might even be my new signature! Hey there back, hiflier. Glad to supply a laugh. If you start screening t-shirts, I want a cut! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Pennsylvania and the northeast are heavily forested but Oklahoma and Texas don't have much at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_cover_by_state_in_the_United_States I would think if Bigfoot was anywhere these days your best bet would be in BC north of Vancouver. Lots of forest low human population density. I guess you have never been to Texas, don't go by movies like Smokey and the Bandit or the new Lone Ranger to judge the terrain. East Texas and much of Central Texas have tremendous forest and wooded areas with plentiful year aound river and creek flows plus the endless numbers of stock tanks and reservoirs and a richer more diverse year around food supply and mild winters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 And they may have killed a Sasquatch as well but did not make a necklace out of finger nails......to be traded for an iron pot and end up in a museum somewhere. Drew? Your simply making assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 East Texas and much of Central Texas have tremendous forest and wooded areas with plentiful year aound river and creek flows ... Are you sure? Because this guy found a map on the internet and so... Drew? Your simply making assumptions. The same ones he's always made, ad nauseum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Well, we can talk about how "there's no way one of these hasn't gotten killed by now" all we want. Fact is, all that's happened is that one hasn't been killed that has passed up the chain of custody to scientific confirmation. That's all. That's not inconceivable. In fact the evidence suggests that that is happening, and I can't just toss the evidence because that seems somewhat unusual to me. To do that without addressing what the evidence represents? Nope, can't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) Green means trees, sure is alot of devoid areas in Washington State and some of that area must not be any Squatch there. Eastern third of Texas is green BTW if not half Edited July 17, 2013 by GEARMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Fact is, all that's happened is that one hasn't been killed that has passed up the chain of custody to scientific confirmation. That's all. Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 The analyst was Dr. Ketchum. This is where the issue lies. Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts