Guest Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Size 12 you are right on. outta plusses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I'll catch it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) They aren't going extinct!!!! Where did you get an idea like that? More likely, they're waiting patiently for us to become extinct. 3-5 billion passenger pigeons became extinct, why is it not possible a small number of supposed primates could not, or are not?http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon Edited October 17, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 17, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted October 17, 2014 I think if existence was close then we'd start to see a dramatic drop off of sighting reports, that's just common sense for me. Where actual visual sightings reported publicly across the continent are concerned, this is via the SSR so this is not all public reported sightings but just an idea from what we've got logged so far. 2004 - 25 2005 - 20 2006 - 26 2007 - 13 2008 - 26 2009 - 36 2010 - 38 2011 - 47 2012 - 44 2013 - 23 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 Hello BobbyO, Thanks for those figures. Is there any chance that the numbers may indicate that any of the sightings are of the same creature? In other words, and your opinion, are the all sightings of different individuals or could some be of the same individual? I know it's one of the reasons we compile databases so I thought I'd ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 How do you know that? Maybe they are rampant where you live..... Maybe so. I see no reason to believe their numbers are diminishing. 3-5 billion passenger pigeons became extinct, why is it not possible a small number of supposed primates could not, or are not? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_pigeon I didn't say it isn't possible. I said it isn't happening, & if you'll note the disclaimer in red in my sig line, it says that anything I say is likely to be just IMO. But as to your comparison to passenger pigeons, as far as I know we aren't hunting them into extinction for food, nor is their habitat being destroyed, so the passenger pigeon comparison.....doesn't compare. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 If everything goes extinct. I wonder when it is the alligator/crocodile time to go. We are draining swamps to make land to farm, even with that they are not going extinct anytime soon. The alligator/crocodilians have been here for as long as 200 million years, are a non intelligent, non reasoning skills, non learning from their parents species. Most of the Native American's said that the Sasquatch were here before they were, so My Opinion is that they will be here when we exterminate ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 17, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted October 17, 2014 Hello BobbyO,Thanks for those figures. Is there any chance that the numbers may indicate that any of the sightings are of the same creature? In other words, and your opinion, are the all sightings of different individuals or could some be of the same individual? I know it's one of the reasons we compile databases so I thought I'd ask. I haven't specifically looked at that yet to be honest H, but I know off the top of my head that there are numerous Class A's in WA State that are within a week of each other, in the same general area. The closest way to even have a chance of doing this and having an indication of if some reports would be of the sane animal possibly would be by colour and general size but even then size can be badly misinterpreted as can colour. The general location could also help but we don't know how far they move and when, or if they stay put, are nomadic, live in family groups etc etc. Again, so many questions with virtually no definitive answers. Anyone who genuinely thinks current research practices on this animal are adequate are a million miles away, no doubt about that for me. We know so little, and it's actually quite sad. It shouldn't be left to amateurs like us all to be asking these questions with little to no idea of the answers, it's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Maybe so. I see no reason to believe their numbers are diminishing. I didn't say it isn't possible. I said it isn't happening,.... Proof positive please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Don't spend any meaningful time waiting..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) Before I consent to accepting a declining population, even as a hypothetical, I want to state that I believe the sasquatch population to be on the rise. I feel that their population was probably large at some point in the distant past, and for it to be small today it must have declined. I do not think hunting by humans would have caused the decline of the sasquatch, unless that hunting took place before the advent of human writing and record-keeping. If that was the case, it is likely that their population has been increasing since that point. If sasquatch were never hunted in any meaningful numbers, then the only thing I see that would have caused their population to decline is disease. I believe that the diseases that ravaged North America with the arrival of Europeans could have had a detrimental effect on the sasquatch population, if it was possible for such diseases to spread to the bigfoot, considering they were isolated for the most part. I do not feel that lack of food sources would have ever been a problem, and I see no reason for a declining population. Crowding by humans, imo, will only become a problem for them in the future, or at least to such a degree that they start dying out in large numbers. By that point they will likely have been documented. But hypothetically assuming the population is declining, I will offer my opinion on some of your questions. Does the government know of the existence of sasquatch? Undoubtedly. It almost seems like it would be impossible for them not to know, considering they are the go-to guys for groups like the forest service employees, police officers, etc...They are basically the people that these latter people will call. And average citizens are going to call the forest service people or the police, who in turn go to the government. So they must know. Rather, certain individuals within certain governmental organizations are privy to this knowledge, as I do not believe it is advertised. It is knowledge of the need-to-know variety, and secrecy within the government is nothing new, even with non-intelligence related organizations. I would bet that they even have multiple bodies, or have had them in the past, at which point they studied these animals. They likely know much more about them than we do. Any scientists that are tasked with working on this subject would be sworn to secrecy by having to sign certain documents. If they work for the government then that is a given for work of a classified nature, and if they are only contracted by the government they will not gain access to such information until they have agreed to not utter a word about what they are told. I went through an interesting military debriefing when I left the air force, and I imagine that the more you know, the more intense the debriefing. I know that my uncle, when he left the air force, told me about actually being threatened with physical violence, among other things, if he was to divulge any secrets about what he knew...I still don't know exactly what he did since he won't talk about his experiences, but given where he was stationed I am relatively certain it related to nuclear weapons. My point is just that it is likely the same with any classified material within any government organization. Consider also the sheer number of sighting reports from military personnel, or those on military bases, police officers, forest service employees, etc..If any one of these types of individuals finds sasquatch remains or other sasquatch evidence, they are never going to go to the news or the public. Never. They are going to go to their superiors, those who outrank them or who are in charge. Those people will in turn do the same thing with something of this nature. I suppose that everyone might not grasp just how things work within such an organization. There is not really any freedom of action when you are not the boss. So once this fact is understood it is much easier to understand how such things are kept from the public. Those who were involved can tell stories, but they are not likely to have any corroborating evidence, simply because they will not be allowed to keep such evidence. And we do have stories from these types of people, those who allude directly to a government coverup, which is what I personally would expect for the reasons I've outlined above. Regarding a declining population, again hypothetically for me, I think that the government scientists who are actively studying the animals know little where the population is concerned. Like I already mentioned the odds are with them for acquiring a body, simply because such a specimen would funnel its way to the government, probably from the forest service or police. So they know about its anatomy and physical makeup, but they are still going to run into huge problems in attempting to study the animals in the wild, and as such they are not going to have a clue about their population. They are not worried about disclosure by any means. They don't care if they are caught with such knowledge, because it makes no difference. So I doubt they are hoping sasquatch will die out or anything like that. Why wouldn't they tell the public? Even though secrecy is nothing new where government organizations are concerned, unless they are legally obligated to share certain information, which they are not in the case of sasquatch, there must be some reason that they have refused to make the announcement of their discoveries. We don't know how long they've known, but my guess is "not long." Maybe since the 80's at the earliest. That is when I think they got hard proof, or a body, although they might have known of the animal before then. The main reason I believe they haven't told us about bigfoot is that they still know nothing about them. They don't know their temperament or whether they're dangerous, and they likely do not want to cause a panic that would keep people from visiting the forests, causing a decline in revenue, and then there are the hits to the logging industry, and any other things that take place in the woods. Federal land would have to be set aside for the bigfoot, and given the size and range of the animals, it would likely be a lot of land, since they probably need a lot more than most animals under federal protection. The problems that we face when hunting for bigfoot are also faced by the government scientists. I remember the story from the military guy who claimed he was part of a squad who went out with scientists on a bigfoot quest, seemingly to study or find evidence of them. If this story is true then it would suggest that these government scientists did not know whether they should fear sasquatch. I mean how many scientists who study animals go out with an armed group of soldiers for protection? To draw this post to a close, here is what I know: I know sasquatch exists, and I know that it would be extremely unlikely for the government to be ignorant of this fact. Perhaps they haven't studied the animals at all, which would make it more likely they wouldn't tell us about them. That is possible. Why exactly they haven't told us is still a mystery, but it is not a big of a mystery as sasquatch itself. Edited October 18, 2014 by JiggyPotamus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Jiggy, I would like to know more about this story: "I remember the story from the military guy who claimed he was part of a squad who went out with scientists on a bigfoot quest, seemingly to study or find evidence of them. If this story is true then it would suggest that these government scientists did not know whether they should fear sasquatch." We live in Coos Bay, Oregon, and I ask hunters and rural people about bigfoot in a joking way, but it works, and I get reports. These reports come from distinct geographical areas. My hypothesis is that family pods of bigfoots occupy distinct regions or geographical distinct areas created by rivers, ridges, development, and low lands. These family pods claim territories that are about 20 miles by 20 miles in a range of irregular shapes that might total 400 square miles. They maintain these territories like other primates do. This theory is contrary to the 'wandering bigfoot family pod theory' where the same animals are seen hundreds of miles apart, and reports are no indication of population since the same animals are repeatedly reported. According to national geopraphic biologist, Mountain Gorillas occupy a much smaller territory: "The leader organizes troop activities like eating, nesting in leaves, and moving about the group's 0.75-to-16-square-mile (2-to-40-square-kilometer) home range." http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/mountain-gorilla/ See my map below that predicts how many bigfoots might exist in some of the best habitat found along the Pacific Coast line. My figures might be way off and let's say bigfoots occupy twice the range of 20 miles by 40 miles, or 800 square miles. So cut my bf numbers in half. Just an opinion, so hack away at it................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 18, 2014 Author Share Posted October 18, 2014 Hello JiggyPotamus, Read every word; a great post with several lucid lines of thought. One thing does come to mind here: The carrot. Let's say that a scientist is approached in the field of....oh, IDK, anthropology? The deal on the table is the opportunity to study an incredible animal if they agree to keep silent. What scientist in any field who is insatiably inquisitive regarding new finds would give up a chance to study something so remarkable? Keeping mum would be a small price to pay for a look and for being able to do research on such a creature. Just lobbing in my two rocks here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 18, 2014 Author Share Posted October 18, 2014 Hello georgerm, Nice way to approach this. So waiting out extinction doesn't seem to be a valid scenario and that's fine with me Sasquatch has been reported in groups. It also plays into my thinking that road crossings will be a repeat phenom which is why I've encouraged folks to drive them frequently. It also plays into the idea that the populations are low regardless of the number of sightings. It also tells me that if you've thought of it then there's probably a good chance that federal and state entities have as well. This too pushes home the idea of looking for them around the area of an early forest fire outbreak. IMO there are many opportunities to get closer to this; these are but a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teegunn Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 A valid question is that how is it we can find, document and get a close estimate of Mountain Gorilla populations, have Gorillas in zoo's, have their complete DNA sequence, but have not one bit of any of the other hard evidence for BF? It's fine to extrapolate numbers, but when the numbers for one side are currently at a known zero, it really is just pure conjecture. Until there is a body, or enough of a body, well, pure conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts