JDL Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I don't think anyone has it all figured out. Some are simply more experienced than others. Jane Goodall lived with chimps, is/was an expert on them, and we're still learning things about them. Each level of knowledge simply reveals and provides access to a deeper level of questions. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss, though, the possibility that someone can have repeated encounters with bigfoot. If, for example, you live along a migratory route through arid country and right on top of one of the few potable water sources surrounded by better vegetation and an assortment of small prey (essentially an oasis), you're more likely to encounter them on a seasonal basis. If you camp in dozens of places in the Sierras over the years and find one particularly isolated beautiful spot that you go back to time and again, don't be surprised if they favor it for the same reasons you do (isolation, food sources, water sources, fish, etc), and don't be surprised if they interact with you repeatedly. But these are happenstance. Could a person go further and develop an understanding that locations like those above improve his/her chances of encountering and interacting with them? Why not? It is essentially the scientific method. If it pans out there's no reason why that individual shouldn't be able to develop the opportunity to gain more knowledge if they can more regularly put themselves in the same time and space as a group of bigfoot. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyzonthropus Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Well put! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Depends on what you call a "monster", I guess. To some, the gorilla is a monster or the hippopotamus or the great white shark. I was of course speaking of unproven beasts such as Sasquatches who are everywhere,but nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedSallis Posted April 28, 2015 Author Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Disagree with the analysis, I'm afraid. There are not "everywhere"...nobody says they've seen them in the middle of the ocean, or in mid-air, for instance. And as far as "nowhere", tell that to a witness. Edited May 1, 2015 by chelefoot Removed quote of previous post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 (edited) If they exist they have to be somewhere. However having them exist in the number of places that they are reported to exist is bordering on fantasy. No matter how good anything is at stealth a widely placed population existing under a wide variety of places and possibilities makes accidents and discovery far more probable. Witness testimony has a certain shelf life and then the lack of proof begins to seriously erode mere reportage. Edited May 1, 2015 by Crowlogic Removed quote of previous post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedSallis Posted April 30, 2015 Author Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) . So your logic is that if they are supposedly seen in places where you think they cannot be (though since we don't yet know what BF is, I have no idea how one could know where they "could" or "couldn't" exist), that somehow also invalidates all the times they are seen in places you think they 'could' be? Edited May 1, 2015 by chelefoot Removed quote of previous post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) If bigfoot exists it is most likely a primate of medium intelligence. I don't subscribe to the notion that they are magical inter dimensional . This puts it as being a rare animal that shuns human contact. In order to shun human contact it needs to be in the more remote regions where humans seldom go. That it inhabits most of the lower 48 states is more the function of the growth of popular mythology. Everything that has them east of the Mississippi is bordering wishful thinking if one chooses to believe in it at all. Edited May 1, 2015 by Crowlogic Removed quote of previous post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 So there are no remote places east of the Mississippi? Ha ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) Not every state has remote spaces. New Jersey does not, Rode Island does not, Connecticut and Massachusetts do not. Yet bigfoot gets reported there. So please how does bigfoot get to be in these places with little or no wilderness, escapes from ever being captured or run over and remains elusive. In the PNW sure anything can hide but the Northeast has a high population density and I'll bank on those reports being mis ID or outright fabrication. Edited May 1, 2015 by Crowlogic Removed quote of previous post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Hide, in plain sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedSallis Posted April 30, 2015 Author Share Posted April 30, 2015 Not every state has remote spaces. New Jersey does not, Rode Island does not, Connecticut and Massachusetts do not. Yet bigfoot gets reported there. So please how does bigfoot get to be in these places with little or no wilderness, escapes from ever being captured or run over and remains elusive. In the PNW sure anything can hide but the Northeast has a high population density and I'll bank on those reports being mis ID or outright fabrication. For the sake of argument, let me just concede that BF more than likely does not exist in the regions you listed. OK. Does that somehow mean that it doesn't exist in any of the other regions in the country that I assume you feel are more logical? It seems like you are using the argument that some of these places are unlikely to eliminate the possibility of the animal existing ANYWHERE, and that doesn't make sense to me. For the record, I do feel this is a physical, not supernatural, being we are discussing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Not every state has remote spaces. New Jersey does not, Rode Island does not, Connecticut and Massachusetts do not. Yet bigfoot gets reported there. So please how does bigfoot get to be in these places with little or no wilderness, escapes from ever being captured or run over and remains elusive. New Jersey certainly does! The Pine Barrens, also known as the Pinelands or simply the Pines, is a heavily forested area of coastal plains stretching across more than seven counties of southern New Jersey. Despite its proximity to Philadelphia and New York City, and the fact that the Garden State Parkway and Atlantic City Expressway run through it, the Pine Barrens remains largely rural and undisturbed. The Pine Barrens territory helps recharge the 17 trillion gallon Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer containing some of the purest water in the United States. As a result of all these factors, in 1978 Congress passed legislation to designate 1.1 million acres (4,500 km²) of the Pine Barrens as the Pinelands National Reserve (the nation's first National Reserve) to preserve its ecology. A decade later, it was designated by the United Nations as an International Biosphere Reserve. Development in the Pinelands National Reserve is strictly controlled by an independent state/federal agency, the New Jersey Pinelands Commission. And Massachusetts: Forestry The Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) coordinates and supports projects within its three departments that collectively manage over 500,000 acres of forest land across the state to independently evaluate these lands for the highest standards of sustainable forest management. EEA also supports the highest standards for forest management on the state's more than two million acres of private forest land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) ^ I grew up an hour from the Pine Barrens. The Barrens are not devoid of people or industry. They are not as huge as people think. If you set down dead in the middle you could walk out in any direction and reach high density civilization in a little over a day. You could also encounter the Pineies as the local residents are called. For the sake of argument, let me just concede that BF more than likely does not exist in the regions you listed. OK. Does that somehow mean that it doesn't exist in any of the other regions in the country that I assume you feel are more logical? It seems like you are using the argument that some of these places are unlikely to eliminate the possibility of the animal existing ANYWHERE, and that doesn't make sense to me. For the record, I do feel this is a physical, not supernatural, being we are discussing here. It means it does not exist in the areas I quoted and as far as I'm concerned does not exist even in the absolute best areas where it could. I say there is a 99.95% probability that bigfoot does not exist. I wouldn't stake my life on it that it does and that is a 100% certainty. Edited May 1, 2015 by Crowlogic Removed quote of previous post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCBFr Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 One thing that frustrates me about the Bigfoot community (or I should say a small faction of it) is the folks who make the unwarranted leap from believing in the existence of the animal to professing to know all about it, what it really is, how it behaves, etc. I'm not trying to rile anyone or point fingers, but honestly, you have people writing books and doing publicity saying that they know this creature is mostly human, likes to give gifts, has special powers, etc, etc, and it all seems more than a bit presumptuous to me. I want to say, "well, you may THINK this is true and you are perfectly welcome to say that, but you cannot KNOW it is true because there is precious little at all known about this creature at this point." There is not even a single specimen in capivity or on a forensic lab to glean any real evidence from; all else is total speculation. And that is fine, but just SAY it is speculation, not fact. Again, I strongly believe this creature exists. Thousands of witnesses are not ALL misidentifying, hoaxing or lying. They just...aren't. But beyond that, I have no clue what is going on, for certain. And really, neither does anyone else. We're all just guessing; educated guesses, to be sure in some cases, but guesses nonetheless. I think it's important to be able to dwell in the uncertainty before you leap to conclusions. That way your mind is kept open and isn't stuck defending positions you were 'sure' about, when and if the real truth comes out. I am guessing the more common leap is what the heck was that to that could only be a BF and I want to learn more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Disagree with the analysis, I'm afraid. There are not "everywhere"...nobody says they've seen them in the middle of the ocean, or in mid-air, for instance. And as far as "nowhere", tell that to a witness. Of course you know I was not speaking of air and water, but the forests of darkness. As for witnesses. Misidentifications , fabrications, wishful thinking and the wonderful world of imagination explains that aspect of it. I want them to exist. I love the idea of it. That does not change the simple fact that they donot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts