Why Is It Easier To Find Large Animals In Third World Jungles Compared To North American Forests?

[Guest Stan Norton]

We also need to remember that the current putative distribution of sasquatch is only really the distribution of people who state they saw one: there is an inherent bias in the data. To have a sighting you need an animal, plus a human, plus an ID, plus a willingness to report as such. It may well be that the apparent frequency of urban/suburban sightings is a result of folks there being more likely to report (as it is more outrageous than normal) and/or the obviousness of such an animal in that habitat. Who knows? But the data are messy...

[Guest DWA]

Well, true.  The inherent vulnerability of even a very large and consistent base of eyewitness testimony, when it is for something utterly unconfirmed, is the inability to sort wheat from chaff.  One is left with the not-meaningless-but-not-ironclad 'credibility of the witness'.

 

There are few reports I have read for which I could say,  toss that one.  But that's a problem.

[Guest]

Then there's the fossil record, not a lot of NA animals are missing from the fossil record, and if BF existed, it would be in there to. 

[Rockape]

Problem I see with this:

 

1. Bigfoot is seen in semi-urban areas, on highways, in parking lots, behind garages etc... , Most of the sightings in the databases are near trails, in campgrounds, around fire pits, looking in windows and things.  Why would you need to go into the deep deep remote woods to find an animal that is clearly, based on the sighting record, typically seen in well-traversed areas?

 

Personally I think the majority of sighting are bogus, and ones in well developed areas are more likely to be hoaxes. That doesn't mean one can't wander through a populated area now and then. I just think that if they do exist they are extremely rare and generally stick to the deep woods.

 

2. Wildlife surveyors can count with extreme accuracy, large mammals by using a FLIR camera and a Cessna.  Why is Bigfoot immune to that surveying method?

 

 

A good question. Again I'd go back to the rarity. Also I'm not sure how accurate you can make out one animal using an airborne FLIR. That is generally used for heard animals, which are easier to find and count. Plus, I'm not so sure a wildlife agent would want to say something is a sasquatch unless it is a clear, unambiguous photo.

 

But like I say, good question, I have seen FLIR images where there is no doubt what you are seeing.

Then there's the fossil record, not a lot of NA animals are missing from the fossil record, and if BF existed, it would be in there to. 

 

We don't really know that it already isn't. Some hominids in the fossil record are there based on but a few bones. There could have been a mistake.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Then there's the fossil record, not a lot of NA animals are missing from the fossil record, and if BF existed, it would be in there to. 

But the fossil record is inherently sketchy -  less than 1% of species are likely to be represented, tops. Can we seriously be surprised if one species does not appear (yet)? This is not a clinching argument by any means.

[Cotter]

 

A good question. Again I'd go back to the rarity. Also I'm not sure how accurate you can make out one animal using an airborne FLIR. That is generally used for heard animals, which are easier to find and count. Plus, I'm not so sure a wildlife agent would want to say something is a sasquatch unless it is a clear, unambiguous photo.

 

But like I say, good question, I have seen FLIR images where there is no doubt what you are seeing.

 

If you were a wildlife agent, taking a FLIR survey, and saw an upright walking figure.  Would you assume it is BF?  Or assume it was a hiker/hunter/camper/landowner.

 

Question - how would one of these guys distinguish between a person and a BF?

But the fossil record is inherently sketchy -  less than 1% of species are likely to be represented, tops. Can we seriously be surprised if one species does not appear (yet)? This is not a clinching argument by any means.

 

Stop injecting facts!

 

;-)

[Guest Darrell]

But the fossil record is inherently sketchy -  less than 1% of species are likely to be represented, tops. Can we seriously be surprised if one species does not appear (yet)? This is not a clinching argument by any means.

But can we rest solely on that argument? We dont need the fossil record to know people, deer, elk, elephant, aligator, bear, and such exist because they are actual living things. The lack of a fossil record for a creature that may not even exist, ever, isnt really important is it? 

[Guest DWA]

^^^^As I have argued time out of mind.

 

Pulling the fossil record to argue against sasquatch is a total non-starter.  The evidence says so.  People are seeing it; hearing it; finding its tracks; etc., so it doesn't help one's argument to tell me the fossil record makes them liars.

[Guest]

I'm 52 years old and have seven kids. Not once in my life have I ever heard of anyone near my hometown renting a monkey suit to be a bigfoot hoaxer! My kids have never heard of anyone either.  Now a duck dynasty beard maybe, but not a monkey or gorilla suit!

[Guest DWA]

To account fully for sasquatch reports, the population of such suitfolk would either exceed that of many states or include some of the world's most athletic, indefatigable and did we say large? people, or both.

[Incorrigible1]

I'm 52 years old and have seven kids. Not once in my life have I ever heard of anyone near my hometown renting a monkey suit to be a bigfoot hoaxer! My kids have never heard of anyone either.  Now a duck dynasty beard maybe, but not a monkey or gorilla suit!

Respectfully, I doubt you nor your kids hear of all activities in your hometown. A hoaxer, by his nature, is bound to be quite secretive.

[Guest Stan Norton]

If you were a wildlife agent, taking a FLIR survey, and saw an upright walking figure. Would you assume it is BF? Or assume it was a hiker/hunter/camper/landowner.

Question - how would one of these guys distinguish between a person and a BF?

Stop injecting facts!

;-)

Sorry. Can't help it...;-)

[Guest DWA]

If you were a wildlife agent, taking a FLIR survey, and saw an upright walking figure.  Would you assume it is BF?  Or assume it was a hiker/hunter/camper/landowner.

 

Question - how would one of these guys distinguish between a person and a BF?

 

He would immediately identify the biped as a human to protect his livelihood.  It's a tried and true scientific technique.

[Guest Nalajr]

I don't know if this means anything to your question or what you are raising, but since I am a huge fan of African Hunting, particularly Dangerous Game hunting, I try and read about it when I can and watch videos of hunts.  The hunts I really enjoy watching are Cape Buffalo and ELEPHANT hunts.  Just something about chasing and hunting the BIGGEST land MAMMAL on earth and one that will regularly kill anyone that gets close to them.

 

In may videos and passages I have read about hunts there are some of the most experienced hunters and trackers in the world and contrary to what people believe, they say it is very difficult to find an elephant even when they are 30 yards from you.  When I first saw a form of that statement on video, I immediately called BS on it.  These guys were on a hunt and the trackers had found the one they wanted by its tracks.  They tracked and followed it for hours and hours, going 30 KM in a day.  They would track it to a thick area of growth and would have the camera right there with them while saying into the microphone "we've tracked this Bull for 2 days over 50-60 km and we're right here with him, he's within 50 meters of us but we can't hear or see him."  Sure enough the camera would pan and scan and there was nothing, not a wisp of evidence that would tell them that an elephant was within a mile of them and then after a few minutes of watching and listening a tiny bit of movement was spotted and suddenly their elephant walked into frame for all to see.  INCREDIBLE.

 

I've also talked to some elephant hunters about it and they readily admit that man is no match for them.  They are incredibly agile, quiet and very smart and they have little trouble eluding man when they want to even when the hunting party is within 100 meters of it.  It is difficult to buy that you couldn't find a 10 ton elephant that stands 13 feet at the shoulder when you are right up on him.  Nature has her ways and has equipped her creatures with extraordinary abilities to elude trouble and survive predation even by the worlds ultimate predator, MAN.

 

I know this story has literally nothing to do with looking for SASSY, but it does show how easy it is for an animal as HUGE as a full grown BULL ELEPHANT to stay hidden in his own environment.

 

Nalajr

[Wheellug]

N American forests compared with 3rd world Jungles?

 

N Americans live in homes with TV and other preoccupations. Outdoors is that, out. Mostly to be viewed in daytime when they can see.  

 

 

3rd world countries still have people without electricity or many things we take for granted.They must commune with their surroundings.