Are Sasquatch Numbers On The Rise In Your Opinion?

[roguefooter]

Hello roguefooter,

 

S'matter? you don't believe in the lesser Bigfoot?  

 

Bigfoot doesn't call them "lesser Bigfoot", they call them 'underachievers'.

 

That's according to my secret sources.

[hiflier]

Hello roguefoot,

If I run into one then I hope it's one of those lesser types. Probably nothing worse than an over achieving, A-type personality Sasquatch to run me ouda da woods; it would be my luck. I've read about those- 9 feet tall and bullet proof. Should probably stick to databases, eh?

Edited November 21, 2013 by hiflier

[Hammer102492]

OP an increase in bigfoot numbers is dependant upon the bigfoot power bosses and whether they desire to secede parts of their territory to other lesser bigfoots.

This thought ring true to me. I think we have something new here since

2012, maybe its a young gun breaking new turf in our valley.

From my experience here, this theory makes sense.

Thanks for sharing your good idea!

[Guest DWA]

Well, there's no way to really answer this question directly.

 

But when one looks at forest recovery, particularly in the Eastern states, and the amazing rebound/expansion of animals from deer to bear to moose to turkey, one can, you know, 'do the math' and say:  sure not an unreasonable thought to have.

[dmaker]

Do the math meaning make a wild guess?

[Guest DWA]

Who needs to?  It's kind of elementary that when the food goes up the predators go up, and when it comes to habitat, sauce for the goose is sauce for a lot of ganders.

[JDL]

Well, there's no way to really answer this question directly.

 

But when one looks at forest recovery, particularly in the Eastern states, and the amazing rebound/expansion of animals from deer to bear to moose to turkey, one can, you know, 'do the math' and say:  sure not an unreasonable thought to have.

 

 

Do the math meaning make a wild guess?

 

 

For Pete's sake, skeptical's just fine, but at least be consistent with standards.  If one can't be consistent, one is not a skeptic, one is just a heckler.

 

Just yesterday, someone demanded that a hypothesis that bigfoot use gravel pits be backed up by evidence that other large predators use gravel pits.  Yet today, when DWA BEGAN his post by stating that since populations are increasing among both prey and predator species, it isn't unreasonable that the same trends also apply to bigfoot, the same someone ridiculed it.

 

Doing the math doesn't just apply to discrete numbers, it also applies to numerical trends.

Edited November 21, 2013 by JDL

[Guest DWA]

^^^Correct.

 

One does well in this field to just do the elementary science oneself, and not place one's trust utterly in the hands of a scientific mainstream the central tendency of which is to get gobsmacked by the achingly obvious.

[BobbyO]

 

Reported encounters are far greater now than in the past - yes, the ease of reporting and the reduction in barriers to reporting cause part of this.  But it does not necessarily account for the entire difference.  

I'm not so sure Trog.

I can't see how we would even begin to attempt to work out that reports are much greater now than in years gone by, because of course in years gone by there was nowhere near the type of communication available to so many people as there is today.

We still get reports added to databases from years gone by, pre internet, and that's not necessarily because these people have just decided to tell of their encounters, it's because before, pre internet, there was virtually nowhere to be able to tell of their encounters and certainly with nowhere near the amount of accessibility as there is today to submit a report.

[dmaker]

If alleged Squatch numbers are on the rise, then would there not be an increased chance of someone finally providing some verifiable evidence? Or is that expectation unfounded, despite the increase in numbers?

[Guest Stan Norton]

Well I guess that is a reasonable assumption but who knows. Not sure how we can have any idea of population size at all if the species isn't even recognised. Essentially, we know diddly.

Let's hope that somewhere in the deepest depths of the Ouachitas an opportunity will present itself...we may then at least have a starting point.

[Guest DWA]

If alleged Squatch numbers are on the rise, then would there not be an increased chance of someone finally providing some verifiable evidence? Or is that expectation unfounded, despite the increase in numbers?

One might think that more animals = more opportunities.  But then all the variables come in regarding accounts by hunters who, for various reasons, didn't shoot. 

 

And of course at least two reports that I'm aware of (non-Smeja non-Dyer) of people who killed one and didn't turn over the evidence, one because he had no idea what he'd shot and didn't want anyone to know he'd shot it, and the other for reasons that ...well, Grover Krantz didn't provide that guy's reasons, simply relating that the guy's description of the animal's foot matched perfectly with what Krantz had theorized would have to pertain for a biped that size..

 

I guess I would say that I'm not going to consider the animal's existence less likely just because nobody shoots one that negotiates the chain of custody to scientific confirmation.  If the evidence continues to say they're out there, I can't say "somebody has to have shot one" when people have claimed to do just that, and we still don't have confirmation.

 

I never use assumptions to draw conclusions, just evidence.

Edited November 21, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I'm assuming one of your guys is the one mentioned by Bindernagel in his Discovery of the Sasquatch?  I don't really buy that story.

[Guest DWA]

Well, it's just one story.  But I don't see any more reason to not buy it than to buy it.  Particularly when the guy's description of what he shot - long before 'bigfoot' was a household word - shows so many congruencies with not only ape morphology but also sasquatch reports.

 

And his explanation that the animal, seen from the rear in very dense brush, looked to him like the rear view of a moose he'd just wounded sounds a whole lot more plausible to me than that thousands of people are confusing bears with apes.  People know what the two look like.  And when people see an unknown, they try to describe it in terms of what they know.   (As our hunter here did, and as hundreds of other eyewitnesses did too.)   The opposite doesn't happen.

Edited November 21, 2013 by DWA

[JDL]

Cougar populations are on the rise, but I've still only seen one in the wild despite the fact that we used to regularly have cougar tracks around our fishpond.  Stealth is stealth.  Active avoidance is active avoidance.  And all encounters are circumstantial.

 

The circumstances of an encounter give context, meaning, and reason to what some may consider a random event.  If one dismisses all such information as anecdotally worthless, then one misses out on the depth of understanding.

 

To determine whether or not something is or is not is the shallowest of goals. 

 

Instead of standing at the end of the pool screaming at people to get out of the deep end, one might consider getting one's hypothetical feet wet.

 

By the way:

 

Anyone know how Archimedes would determine whether or not an immersed foot belongs to a squatch or not?

 

By checking to see how much hair on the foot is wet.