Guest DWA Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) I doubt what you heard was a Bigfoot. The population density is just too high for one of them to slip in and out unnoticed, and the area is far too small for one to live there unnoticed. I don't know what you heard, but I think its safe to say that it was not a Bigfoot. Well, given some of the places other wild animals have been seen, I never dismiss evidence with assumptions, and all of what you've got there are assumptions. The thousands of reports with nothing approaching mainstream time-of-day yet, much less proof, are ample evidence that "noticed" does not mean "confirmed." I mean, isn't this exactly why the animal isn't confirmed yet? A general assumption: no way it could be here...? Edited January 27, 2014 by DWA
Sasfooty Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Who said that they're "living" there. They can travel long distances in a short time. I was in Yellowstone Park once, but I don't live there.
NathanFooter Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Who said that they're "living" there. They can travel long distances in a short time. I was in Yellowstone Park once, but I don't live there. I do not doubt they can travel great distances in a short time, there simply is not many good reasons to go to that location. Low food resources { easy access anyway }, low cover and high human population all indicate it is a high risk low reward area.
Sasfooty Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 There is absolutely NO reason at all that I would ever want to go there, but that doesn't mean that there is no reason that they wouldn't want to. They live very complicated lives, have their own agendas, & there could be something terribly important to them there. Too many people try to assign their own beliefs & ways of thinking to them, & it never fits. Never.
Cotter Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Sasfooty - what would you speculate they would want from that area that is so important that they couldn't find it in other, less risky areas?
NathanFooter Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 The only thing I am assigning to the sasquatch is the general needs of any living thing, also the data indicates they avoid areas of high human population. Nothing with with a brain in it's head and the drive to avoid humans { like the reported information shows } would go to a small scrape of forest in the center of human development. I would love to know of a data set indicates other wise. ,,Too many people try to assign their own beliefs & ways of thinking to them, & it never fits. Never. ,, It sounds like YOU are assigning beliefs and such to sasquatch, it would have to be the case if you KNOW ,, it never fits. Never. ,,. Belief is never enough so I will go with what the data.
Sasfooty Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Well, just speculation, mind you, but ....a person, a natural resource, such as plant or mineral, a terrestrial "anomaly". There could b any number of things to draw them to a certain place.
Guest What is that Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Before man began building cities, the land had other uses. It could be burial land for their deceased, old stomping grounds that they are drawn too time and time again. Or they are just sweeping their territory, mapping it in their own way and taking note of any food sources like crops or dumpsters. It could be a rogue male looking for a mate, travelling in that direction because he doesn't have access to google earth, doesn't realize there isn't anything else out there in that direction but man and his cities. Although the combined scent of many humans should alert him, but they are curious beings, so I am told. If he finds easy prey and access to food, he will stay until he finds it too busy or too inhabited.Here in the north we get moose,deer, wolves and bears wandering into town but they quickly leave once they have been harassed by people, caught and relocated or killed. My only sighting was within the edge of a small town. Of course it could be grow ops with their stash, illegal hunters, squatters or fellow squatchers who have seen Finding Bigfoot. Be careful out there, if you travel alone, or get separated, you can easily find yourself the hunted.
Cotter Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Well, just speculation, mind you, but ....a person, a natural resource, such as plant or mineral, a terrestrial "anomaly". There could b any number of things to draw them to a certain place. Do you know of anything in particular they've sought after in the past that has led them to be a bit more risky? I guess for plants/minerals I would think there would be other, better places to go to find them. But the other items you listed, not so much. terrestrial anomaly - do you know of certain anomalies they would target? Thx Sasfooty.
Sasfooty Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 No, I've never heard of them doing anything risky. But I do know that they're all about rocks, plants & "special places".
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Well, all this is nice but beside the point. Read the OP. If what he heard (wish we had a recording) sounded like a bigfoot, it does not matter where it was. It could be one. Period. One cannot can evidence based on unfounded assumptions. Just like the OP said about nature and surprises. The biggest problem in this field is denial. And proponents and skeptics are almost exactly equally guilty.
Sasfooty Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 I don't see how it's beside the point. The OP asked "So... do you think it's possible?" And some of us think it's possible & explained why. And as usual, most of us don't think it's possible & are explaining why. It would be boring if everybody just said "Yes, it's possible" or "no, it is not possible." 1
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 My point is that the "not possible" arguments are based almost wholly on what may be incorrect assumptions. If all those other animals the OP mentions are coming back there...the likely smartest and most adaptable of the whole bunch isn't....?
Sasfooty Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 Of course they are!!! If they were looking for BF, based on correct assumptions, they would be having a lot more success. 1
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2014 Posted January 28, 2014 And again my point: Saying "no way that can be a bigfoot" is not, to me now, strictly me now, the most impressive line coming from folks who can't "Find Bigfoot."
Recommended Posts