Let's Do Some Math...

[Guest]

Persistent, though, I will say that for you.  Definitely persistent.

 

The point of the OP was made fifty years ago.  There's more than enough ground on this continent for a large, thriving population of these critters.  All these assumptions of How Mighty We Are cut no ice in the face of almost total societal denial, the biggest weapon we wield against progress.

I'm doing this without reading the posts, I'm sure you know that.  The same thing said over and over thousands of times gets very predictable.

 

Me too?  Yeah.  (You could change that but choose not to.)  But the evidence says I'm right.

This continent was once home to millions of bison, mammoths, mastodons, horses, rhinos, camels, tapirs, and even billions of passenger pigeons. Just because there is room and habitat for all of these species does not mean they are all here still. That is not evidence.

[Guest DWA]

Not at all the point of the OP, which is that two of the skeptical shibboleths that say sasquatch can't be real don't have anything backing them up.

[Guest]

^^who is saying that bigfoot CAN'T be real? I didn't read that anywhere in this thread.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Read the OP again.  Missed it.

[dmaker]

The point of the OP was to use bear populations to guesstimate at sasquatch populations so that he could use his low population guesstimate to support his assumption that we don't find sasquatch corpses because they are so rare an animal. But what he overlooked was that he opened the door quite wide for the legitimate question of why do we not see a comparable number of bigfoot corpses to bear corpses? If one follows the OP's logic and guesses then that is a perfectly legitimate question. 

 

OP states we have X number of bears and Y number of bigfoots. He then says therefore bigfoot corpses should never be expected to show up. However that does not follow his own opening logic. If we have X number of bears and we know we have at least x number of bear corpses. We should expect to have y number of bigfoot corpses according the logic model used by the OP. However we have ZERO, not y. 

 

Someone needs to explain why we have zero instead of ANY.

 

Instead, we have a bigfoot advocate that jumps into the thread, ignores the question repeatedly being asked, and instead says bigfoot is real, the evidence says so. End of story! We have all heard this a thousand times from this advocate and would be more interested in him actually answering the question being put to him ( and anyone who cares to answer).

Edited April 7, 2014 by dmaker

[indiefoot]

Are we suggesting BF and bears treat their dead companions the same way?

[WSA]

I don't accept your premise dmaker, that "we" don't have a BF corpse. While "I" don't have one, and "you" (probably  :-) ) don't either, the "we" in your post above, I know, refers only to peer reviewed scientific sources, reported through mass market news channels or publications. Nothing wrong with holding out for that at all. But, I think it ignores a body of evidence that encompasses a much larger congregation, and a longer reach back in time. When we say 'we" don't have a BF corpse, we should be careful to maybe say this includes the assumption that if "we' had a corpse, we'd all have seen it on the evening news. I for one am convinced it probably hasn't worked out that way. I do hold out hope though. 

[Cotter]

I'll wade back in this mess again.

 

While there are assumptions piled on assumptions in this thread, I think the disconnect is occurring whereas another assumption, that has the sticking point of 'where are the bodies' attached, is prevalent.

 

That assumption is that a BF specimen is as easily obtainable as a bear specimen.  Likening the intelligence of BF to that of a bear.

While the OP uses assumptions to show how rare a population of BF is.  I don't think one can apply it to how rare a BF specimen (slab monkey) is.  

 

While it makes for some entertaining posts, this thread is spiraling due to the secondary assumption.

 

I am of the camp that feels if BF exists, there are entities that are well aware of it.  But there are other threads to discuss the 'what's' and 'why's' of BF existence if in fact a specimen is already or has already been on a table.

[dmaker]

"That assumption is that a BF specimen is as easily obtainable as a bear specimen.  Likening the intelligence of BF to that of a bear."  Cotter

 

 

I see nowhere in this thread where that is claimed. I do not make a direct link to corpse retrieval/discovery and the intelligence of the animal. Lots of intelligent animals die and people come across their corpse.  To think that a bigfoot, regardless of alleged intelligence, would never die somewhere separated from the bigfoot coroner team is unrealistic in my opinion. And attempting to securely yoke intelligence and body retrieval is just one more way of saying the answer to any skeptical inquiry is that bigfoot is too smart. 

[Guest Llawgoch]

I'll wade back in this mess again.

 

While there are assumptions piled on assumptions in this thread, I think the disconnect is occurring whereas another assumption, that has the sticking point of 'where are the bodies' attached, is prevalent.

 

That assumption is that a BF specimen is as easily obtainable as a bear specimen.  Likening the intelligence of BF to that of a bear.

While the OP uses assumptions to show how rare a population of BF is.  I don't think one can apply it to how rare a BF specimen (slab monkey) is.  

 

While it makes for some entertaining posts, this thread is spiraling due to the secondary assumption.

 

I am of the camp that feels if BF exists, there are entities that are well aware of it.  But there are other threads to discuss the 'what's' and 'why's' of BF existence if in fact a specimen is already or has already been on a table.

 

 

Nobody is making that assumption except the OP.

 

The OP is the one who chose to compare population numbers.

 

I have said all along that if there are other factors involved, comparing population numbers is pointless.

 

However, if you choose to compare population numbers and ignore other factors, as the OP did, then the conclusion you have to draw is the opposite one from what the OP drew.

 

I don't know how often I have to say this.

[Cotter]

^I disagree.
 

The OP used bear population and an estimated BF population to show the BF/mi^2.

 

Nothing in the OP indicates anything about hunting BF or bears.  It wasn't until later that the hundreds of thousands of dead bears came into play.  Those numbers included bears harvested by hunters.  It was those numbers used to 'debunk' the OP's original statement.

 

The OP used those numbers (estimated all around) to make the following statement regarding comments he/she feels are not valid based on the numbers provided:

 

"“Bigfoot doesn’t exist because there is not enough forest coverage for them to hide in.â€

 

“With all the technology we have and how easy it is to search the forest, we should have extracted a body by now.â€

 

Which, if I'm not mistaken (please correct me if I'm wrong), but no one has addressed those comments, but turned the thread into a "bigfoot should have been shot by now" type discussion.  

 

Which is not how the thread started, nor is it the intent of the thread (far as I can tell).

 

Perhaps that is why you find yourself typing the same thing over and asking why people 'don't understand'.  Bear harvesting stats have no relevance to the OP's challenges unless one can show it is as easy to harvest a BF as it is a bear.

 

(I think my post came across a bit snide, so I'll apologize in advance).

 

Thoughts?

[WSA]

If we do want to hunt/kill BF, I think it is obvious not many humans alive today have the skill set to give them anything like a probability of succeeding, and the numbers of those actually in the field trying to do it, are vanishingly small at this stage. (Not meant as a sleight at all to those who are going to school on those skills and trying to increase the number of  boots on the ground). I would not be telling you anything surprising if I pointed out that bear don't enjoy the same advantages. So, the probabilities of a man with a gun coming within shooting range of a BF are predicted to be overwhelmingly in the category of chance encounter. Reading through the sighting reports for those reported by armed witnesses you'll find more than a couple. I only know of one who confessed to actually squeezing off a round and missing, and he thought it was a bear he was shooting at.  I can think of at least a half-dozen modern reports that document a purported kill, but the body was abandoned out of fear and uncertainty as to what the shooter shot, or was gone when he returned to check for the body.  One at least documents a purported wounding, and the presence of blood. There are no doubt several other such reports, and you can hypothesize all you want about the truth of those, but that is not a large number, even if you assume all are truthfuld. No doubt some of them are fabrications.  The reports where a man with a gun faces a BF and no shots are fired? We have quite a few of those too. Those fall into a number of categories:

 

1. It looked too human  for the person to be sure enough to fire.

2. They had no reason to justify killing something they weren't hunting, and in "cold blood."

3. The size of it made the person  fearful that if he shot at it, and missed, he would be in big trouble.

4. The size of it made the person fearful that if he did shoot at it AND actually hit it, he was undergunned and would only wound it, and would be in even    bigger trouble.

 

I think this just about covers the idea that a hunter with a gun, either shooting a BF on purpose, or by accident, is anything but a slight probability. If somebody were able to confidently tell me it never has actually happened, I would not be surprised, nor would it diminish in my mind the compelling nature of the balance of the other evidence. Like anything though, the more that are trying to do it, the more the probability goes up of it happening and being sufficiently documented.   

Edited April 7, 2014 by WSA

[Guest Llawgoch]

^I disagree.

 

The OP used bear population and an estimated BF population to show the BF/mi^2.

 

Nothing in the OP indicates anything about hunting BF or bears.  It wasn't until later that the hundreds of thousands of dead bears came into play.  Those numbers included bears harvested by hunters.  It was those numbers used to 'debunk' the OP's original statement.

 

The OP used those numbers (estimated all around) to make the following statement regarding comments he/she feels are not valid based on the numbers provided:

 

"“Bigfoot doesn’t exist because there is not enough forest coverage for them to hide in.â€

 

“With all the technology we have and how easy it is to search the forest, we should have extracted a body by now.â€

 

Which, if I'm not mistaken (please correct me if I'm wrong), but no one has addressed those comments, but turned the thread into a "bigfoot should have been shot by now" type discussion.  

 

Which is not how the thread started, nor is it the intent of the thread (far as I can tell).

 

Perhaps that is why you find yourself typing the same thing over and asking why people 'don't understand'.  Bear harvesting stats have no relevance to the OP's challenges unless one can show it is as easy to harvest a BF as it is a bear.

 

(I think my post came across a bit snide, so I'll apologize in advance).

 

Thoughts?

 

 

It's not about shoot a bigfoot necessarily,   it's about recovering a Bigfoot body or part thereof in some way.  Extract one, as you say.

 

And the fact remains, if it was all about numbers, we should have one, based on the OPs numbers, IF they are comparable to bears.  And if they are not comparable to bears, there's no point comparing.

 

The fact that we don't means it isn't all about numbers and they are not comparable to bears, so the OP really didn't make any meaningful points.

 

The reason we don't have a Bigfoot is either because there aren't any, or because Bigfoots are behaving in a way that make a numerical comparison with bears meaningless.

 

The point being that the OP hasn't "laid anything to rest" and in fact drew the wrong conclusion from the numbers they put forward.  It hasn't advanced the debate in any way.

Are we suggesting BF and bears treat their dead companions the same way?

 

Well, I'm not.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Llawgoch

[salubrious]

Someone needs to explain why we have zero instead of ANY.

 

 

I think I did that earlier in this thread. Are we going in circles?

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/46648-lets-do-some-math/?p=827499

[roguefooter]

Okay so Bigfoot may be too scarce to see all the time, but what about the bones? If they bury their dead why no bones ever uncovered?

 

Giant parcels of forest are cleared every day, but never any Bigfoot bones being unearthed. No I don't believe in any kind of cover up because that's one of the jobs I used to do- clearing land with a dozer and logging-style road construction. You find all kinds of things, but no Bigfoot bones.

 

It's not only companies doing land clearing but also private individuals. Think about how much land in this country has been cleared- every city and house that sits on land that used to be woods. Zero Bigfoot bones.

Edited April 8, 2014 by roguefooter