Not Enough Wilderness In Midwest To Support Bigfoot?

[GuyInIndiana]

I can state with great confidence that are no bigfoot in the state of Indiana or Illinois or the Great Plains states or the arctic tundra. You also then have to consider what bigfoot would eat in the Winter when black bear hibernate. Do bigfoot hibernate? This would create a northern bound as well.

 

Then, like many others out there, you've got no grasp on what it takes for them to "exist" in places. *They* are *here*. Maybe not in great numbers, but here none-the-less.

[Guest DWA]

As a rough estimate of the possibility of bigfoot, you could take the American Black Bear population and divide it by 100. We start with black bear because these are large, solitary, omnivores. In other words, there are no characteristics of black bear that appear to make them more likely to be seen. Therefore there cannot be as many bigfoot as black bear because the sightings are much more infrequent.

 

There is one characteristic of black bear that makes it hundreds of times more likely to be reported:  people accept that it exists.  Invalid yardstick, right off the bat.  It stands to reason that if sasquatch are real, encounters are many times the reports.

 

There are no black bear in Illinois or Indiana, and only a peripheral population in Ohio in the southeast corner of the state. There are no black bear in the Great Plains states.

 

That anyone knows of, yet.  I'd be willing to bet there are bears in IL and IN.  Biologists are getting surprises like this pretty often lately.

 

An estimate like this does tend to contradict the claim that there are bigfoot in every state but such a claim is not really based on common sense.

 

It's based on reports.  A claim not based on common sense is simply to deny the reports are happening when the reports say they are.

 

The state of Indiana does not have mountains or deep forest where a large animal could hide.

 

Just driving the interstates, you're wrong there.

 

I can state with great confidence that are no bigfoot in the state of Indiana or Illinois or the Great Plains states or the arctic tundra. You also then have to consider what bigfoot would eat in the Winter when black bear hibernate. Do bigfoot hibernate? This would create a northern bound as well.

 

Many state with great confidence that bigfoot are human; saucer people; emissaries of the spirit world; and psychic.  I have equal confidence in your statements and theirs.  I wish folks would wait until the thing is confirmed to find out how much they (don't) know.

[Branco]

Quote DWA:

"Many state with great confidence that bigfoot are human; saucer people; emissaries of the spirit world; and psychic.  I have equal confidence in your statements and theirs.  I wish folks would wait until the thing is confirmed to find out how much they (don't) know."

 

Let's think about that. I imagine there are a lot of people out there that  believe that people who are h--- bent and determined to kill one without even having seen one of them should heed their own advice to "wait until the thing is confirmed to find out how much they (don't) know.". 

If all these other people have some opinions as to what they are -without any real basis for those opinions - ; surely a member of the kill club has at least some idea of what they are trying to kill. What do you think they are?

[Guest DWA]

First, I'm not a member of the "kill club," although I understand those who are given the baseless scoffing that's been going on for decades.

 

Observations aren't taxonomy; so I don't know what they are.  But three possibilities seem to suggest themselves from the observations:

 

1) Ape;

2) Unique and very surprising close relative of humans;

3) Something else, in a unique place on the primate family tree.

[Guest DWA]

I'm also holding out the possibility that it's all of the above - in other words, there's more than one species of non-sapiens NA primate.

[Guest]

Observations aren't taxonomy;

 

True, not many people would believe a wallaby is further from a jerboa than a whale from a hippo

[Guest DWA]

...or a hyrax anywhere near an elephant.

 

That's my problem with "human" diagnoses; they presume that we're the Only One That's All That.  Maybe we aren't.

[MIB]

I'm also holding out the possibility that it's all of the above - in other words, there's more than one species of non-sapiens NA primate.

 

It would be irrational to omit that possibility.   Or that there's a non-primate involved, or ... etc.   "'til we know what is, we don't know what isn't."   (Is it hubris to quote myself? )  Logically we might lean in some direction, but we plain do not have evidence or data to support ANY conclusion, positive or negative, other than there sure seems to be something(s?) going on out there.

 

MIB

Edited October 22, 2013 by MIB

[Guest DWA]

^^^Right.

 

I think the problem that mainstream scientists (and the public) have in getting their arms around this is twofold:

 

1) All the science that is done, practically, is on things we know about, not on things about which most of us are in denial or acting on received wisdom that it Just Ain't So;

 

2) No matter how many experience something, there will be no public acceptance until science accepts it.

 

I didn't even mean to leave out your possibilities.  (Shoot, could be a marsupial.)  We don't know, because observations aren't taxonomy.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

This is an interesting question in my opinion. It is true that sasquatch sighting maps thin out in this area, and it is also true that there are not really many large tracts of forest land, when compared with other areas of the United States. However, there are still sightings in these states, including Nebraska, and here is what I believe might be going on.

 

These areas are often open plains, often times with bluffs and rock formations, hills, and clumps of trees here and there. Actually, there are quite a few trees, but they are not densely packed like those of a forest. So there is a lot of open land, but there is also plenty of cover for sasquatch, not only because of the trees that are there, but because of the other impediments and hills that break up the line of sight. I think it is possible that there are fewer reports in these areas because A.) there are fewer sasquatch, or B.) the sasquatch can easily see when people are nearby because of the more open terrain, and they will remain in cover or take some other route where they are not likely to be seen.

 

So it could be relatively easy for them to move around, despite the larger amount of open ground. Plus, I don't think that there are too many people out in these uninhabited areas, which is the opposite of forests, which draw hikers, campers, hunters, cyclists, etc. Sure, there are some hunters and whatnot in these areas, but like I said, it could be easy for the sasquatch to notice them. The terrain may not seem conducive to sasquatch survival, but the open terrain works both ways, and can be utilized by the sasquatch for their purposes as well.

 

I am not saying this explanation is correct, although IF there are sasquatch in these areas, and I believe there are, it is logical that they would not simply walk out on the plains when they know there are people nearby. And someone at a distance is not going to see them unless that person is using a high power scope or binoculars or some other enhancement device. In fact, getting a high powered device like this, and scanning in these open areas might be a decent way to have a sighting, since the sasquatch will not be able to see the person from so far away.

 

Now, as for the question of whether these areas can support a sasquatch population. It is logical to theorize that the larger distributions of the sasquatch population exist in areas that are heavily forested. They have everything they need there. But, there are going to be sasquatch in areas that are not so densely forested, but these animals are going to be found in smaller numbers. I think the sasquatch are intelligent enough to realize that they need to vacate the area in which they live when other sasquatch are starting to populate it in too high a number. But, this is assuming they stay in a general area for extended periods of time to begin with. Maybe these animals living out in places like Nebraska will travel to more forested regions over time.

 

But I believe that it is possible these areas can support a sasquatch population, albeit not in the numbers found in states like California, Oregon, Washington, Texas, etc. I was just looking at some maps online and it is important to point out that even the "desert" states seem to have sufficient forested areas that would support a sasquatch population. So whether the sasquatch use their intelligence to keep from overpopulating a specific area, or whether it is simply an instinctual drive, I do not know. But either way, I think they will refrain from packing themselves too densely in a small area, especially if they are territorial animals that wish to protect their area from other animals of the same species. 

 

There are just so many questions that don't have answers, as we all know, therefore we have speculation in abundance. And I admit this is all speculation, albeit somewhat "educated" speculation in that we think we know a thing or two about these animals. Plus, certain aspects MUST be true for sasquatch to exist in the first place. One of these aspects is that they actively avoid people to a certain extent. This is because if this were not true, we probably wouldn't be speculating, because we would have proven the species and found out much about them. Some will say that a logical explanation is that they simply don't exist, but I cannot accept this hypothesis. Having seen a sasquatch myself was enough, and that is what makes me so sure about certain things, especially that their MUST be explanations for certain things. So while it may seem to be mere conjecture to some, many of us are presenting our ideas from a position of knowledge, in that we KNOW sasquatch exist.

 

I wish everyone could have an encounter, because then we could get off of the idea of "whether" they exist, and move on to "how" they exist, because they do in fact exist. So anyway, to reiterate, I believe that every single state in the continental United States has a sasquatch population. Some are likely quite small, especially if they could be compared with the populations of other states, but they exist nonetheless. Remember, sasquatch do not acknowledge the territorial boundaries established by humans. Their only concern about a potential habitat is whether it affords them food and solitude, and if you've ever been to these open areas of the midwest, you will know that there is plenty of solitude to go around. And plenty of food, as there are all kinds of foliage, critters and animals, fish, bugs, worms, etc. Sasquatch likely eat all types of things. Think about this...Some Native American tribes survived in the most desolate places this hemisphere has to offer. From Tierra del Fuego, all the way to the Arctic Circle. So I think that sasquatch can survive in the abundant plains of the midwest, which are MUCH better than the areas I mentioned, lol.

[Branco]

You're right JP. If the NAs could survive in any area long enough to develop settlements, so could Bigfoot. It would not require vast wooded areas; all that would be required are wild game, edible plants and good water. The NAs and Bigfoot could peacefully forage in the same areas because they worked at it on different shifts. BF's "midnight shift" serves him well. 

[salubrious]

As a rough estimate of the possibility of bigfoot, you could take the American Black Bear population and divide it by 100. We start with black bear because these are large, solitary, omnivores. In other words, there are no characteristics of black bear that appear to make them more likely to be seen. Therefore there cannot be as many bigfoot as black bear because the sightings are much more infrequent. There are no black bear in Illinois or Indiana, and only a peripheral population in Ohio in the southeast corner of the state. There are no black bear in the Great Plains states.

 

I can state with great confidence that are no bigfoot in the state of Indiana or Illinois or the Great Plains states or the arctic tundra. You also then have to consider what bigfoot would eat in the Winter when black bear hibernate. Do bigfoot hibernate? This would create a northern bound as well.

 

IF one were to take this as gospel then Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota and South Dakota are not 'great plains states'. All have a black bear population.

 

FWIW there is a long tradition of BF sightings in South Dakota, near and in the Black Hills but seems like an isolated pocket.

 

Danbury Wisconsin is in a sort of epicenter of BF sightings- I hear about a number of them that don't seem to get onto the BFRO. One sighting got on FOX News locally, near Stillwater, MN, part of the same corridor. Moose Lake MN seems to be in the same corridor- there were enough sightings up there that the Finding BF folks made an episode near there.

 

My girlfriend and I had an encounter of sorts at our friend's cabin- rock clacks at midnight. The cabin is remote enough that there was no way it was anyone we knew or didn't know putting one over on us. You need hands to do rock clacks. That was in western Wisconsin near the town of Alma.

 

Black Bear have been seen in the eastern suburbs of the Twin Cities in recent years (actually, I know of one that made it as far as St. Paul proper). Something seems to be pushing them out of the more wooded areas to the east according to the DNR.

[MIB]

JP -

 

The other factor to not overlook is that night is concealment.   If there are no lights, an open meadow is as good as a forest, miles of corn field becomes as good as miles of wilderness.   Unless there are nearby roads with headlights of passing cars, they can move around in darkness with us none the wiser.   What is needed, then, is places to hang out with good concealment and not much disturbance during daylight hours, not trackless forest to hunt / forage in all day long.

 

edit to add: That's not to say that miles of trackless wilderness aren't better yet ...

 

MIB

Edited October 22, 2013 by MIB

[Guest]

 I can tell you firsthand it is not very hard to hide at night from passing cars. A lil story. back in the early 80's I was around 14 and a small group of us would string 8 track or cassette tape across the road in our neighborhood. A car would approach and not see it until they got very close and usually slam on the brakes if they saw it, if they saw it at all. Fun and games, right? Quite often the driver would get out and look around and we would be hiding right there in the bushes 10-15 ft. from the road.

[Guest DWA]

^^^The very reason I don't think sasquatch in every Midwestern state is a stretch is the species it's "hiding" from.