Bigfoot Is Nearly Everywhere Is An Untenable Pretense

[beerhunter]

Crow doesn't take into consideration the newspaper reports from around the country pre-PG times. Many news stories go back into the 1800's. I wonder if that had anything to do with the subject spreading out of the PNW  - no it just doesn't seem crow-logical at all.

 

[Sunflower]

To me, this is just another angle to try to dissuade the facts, and that is, there are bipedal hairy guys running around in the woods and other areas.  Haven't we been in this thread before but just with a different title???

[WSA]

Big Foot (coyotes for that matter) signed a 200 year rental lease, so if they break that lease they will have to pay the remainder of the rent and they won't get the security deposit back.

I think they need to look into a lease assignment though, or just a sub-let arrangement.

 

Do we not see idiotic premises like this too often around here?   For those who ponder these kinds of "101" questions, they might as well put a banner below their posts alerting all that they slept through H.S. biology classes, regularly. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but enough already.  Get some basic book larnin' and lots more in this world might shift into focus.  

[norseman]

I agree with the OP in that the larger the range of the creature and the greater the population the more likely that we should find evidence for it.

A small population living in a remote rugged mountain range is much more apt to escape detection.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I agree with the OP in that the larger the range of the creature and the greater the population the more likely that we should find evidence for it.

A small population living in a remote rugged mountain range is much more apt to escape detection.

 

Finding evidence would depend on people actually looking for it and/or do something about it once they find it. As a small child, I lived near a creek, where you could dig to for and find arrowheads. Some kids used to actively dig for and collect them. Other kids (me included) knew the arrowheads were there but didn't collect them. So it's possible that people who live in these Big Foot areas know they are there, probably have seen them, but as long at the BF don't bother them, they don't tell anyone there's a BF living next door.

[WSA]

"Finding evidence of it", sort of like we are finding, have been finding, and apparently will continue to find?

 

I swear that if I'm around when BF is confirmed beyond all doubt, and if this forum is still extant as well, my post on that point will only say, "Duh!"

[norseman]

But you have groups actively searching for these animals in every state, many of which are highly populated. So that means everyone should be seeing them just not Bigfoot groups. Think tens of millions of sightings here.....

I'm firmly in the low numbers limited habitat camp.

Its not that something like a Bigfoot cannot use their legs to travel from the east coast to west coast. Its that in many areas they cannot travel without being noticed. Or hunt or forage or anything else.

"Finding evidence of it", sort of like we are finding, have been finding, and apparently will continue to find?

 

I swear that if I'm around when BF is confirmed beyond all doubt, and if this forum is still extant as well, my post on that point will only say, "Duh!"

Evidence as in something tangible and not trace evidence.

Millions of animals are going to leave behind SOMETHING that will be found easily. Hundreds to low thousands is much harder.

A Denisovian finger bone would be great!

[southernyahoo]

There was a time when I had thought that if bigfoot existed, it was probably mostly if not entirely in the PNW. After I had my interest rekindled later in life, I became familiar with reports from other parts of the country, both contemporary and in old news paper reports. 

 

Once I decided to see if I could find evidence or have some sort of encounter in the field with others who'd had their own encounters, I found substance pretty quickly. It was'nt hard evidence, but very intriguing.

 

Bf is entrenched in literature that suggests the current dispersal of reports is unchanged from 100's of years ago.

 

This legend stemming from sightings and encounters was written about by Jonathan Swift in 1726, and I'm relatively certain it perpetuates itself through real evidence and true encounters that predate the PGF demonstrably.

 

http://www.appalachianhistory.net/2010/07/yeahoh-yahoo-or-bigfoot.html

[Faenor]

Don't forget the yeren, yowie, yeti, and orang pendek. Ape men are global

[Guest DWA]

"Finding evidence of it", sort of like we are finding, have been finding, and apparently will continue to find?

 

I swear that if I'm around when BF is confirmed beyond all doubt, and if this forum is still extant as well, my post on that point will only say, "Duh!"

I'm going to go on a solar physics site, act like I have never heard of the sun, and see, after a few weeks, how much I read like some people here.  Experiment.

 

But you have groups actively searching for these animals in every state, many of which are highly populated. So that means everyone should be seeing them just not Bigfoot groups. Think tens of millions of sightings here.....

 

The groups are...let us just say "varied" in terms of their competence and understanding, and number I am sure many whose "research" is staking out UFO landing sites.  The ones that have the foggiest are weekenders; that won't confirm the presence of coyote.

I'm firmly in the low numbers limited habitat camp.

 

Actually, I'd say BFRO reports alone indicate probably the most numerous species of ape.  If it's an ape; and if there isn't more than one species.

Its not that something like a Bigfoot cannot use their legs to travel from the east coast to west coast. Its that in many areas they cannot travel without being noticed. Or hunt or forage or anything else.

 

They're being noticed.  By people most of whom just *know* they did not see that and will spend years and decades denying it; just *know* that had to be a guy in a hoodie...a huge guy...in a hoodie and matching pants gloves booties face mask etc.; just *know* they'll never breathe this to a soul, let alone a fellow soul in the biology department at State U; just *know* that now is the time to get off pot smoking; ...or report anonymously, or to one or two other people who never tell anyone else.

Evidence as in something tangible and not trace evidence.

 

People have found that evidence.  More than a few of them.  "Trace evidence," by the way, *means* tangible evidence.

Millions of animals are going to leave behind SOMETHING that will be found easily. Hundreds to low thousands is much harder.

 

'Found' is Step One; it usually never gets much past the beginning of Step Two.

A Denisovian finger bone would be great!

 

And unrecognizable as anything of interest to all but a few of the planetary population.

 

Business as usual isn't getting this done.

Don't forget the yeren, yowie, yeti, and orang pendek. Ape men are global

Somebody is starting to come around.

I think it is more untenable to postulate that an adaptable, intelligent, and stealthy primate would confine itself to just one area.  The natural tendency of a species is to populate any habitat that can support it.  This is true of cougars, coyotes, deer.  Why would it not be true for bigfoot?

 

Oh, it would.  One thing overlooked by many is *how much easier it is* for an animal like this to do precisely that.

No logic flaw.  Go back and read the OP.  Go back and learn where the tracks and photos were first made public.  Then you will know where and when the modern bigfoot era began.  As for it being a nearly universal member of the fauna of North America the major logic flaw lies in the universal failure it's proponents to furnish proof of it's existence.

So your theory is:  bigfoot tend to congregate around the people looking for them.  Contradicted by evidence, but send it with a SASE and we'll get back to you.

Do we not see idiotic premises like this too often around here?   For those who ponder these kinds of "101" questions, they might as well put a banner below their posts alerting all that they slept through H.S. biology classes, regularly. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but enough already.  Get some basic book larnin' and lots more in this world might shift into focus.  

NTFK.

 

No, sorry, translation not allowed on the BFF.

Isn't part of the answer in the question? Bigfoot as a PNW phenomenon is a modern thing: prior to that there were stories of creatures right across north and south America. None of those caught a fire like bigfoot so it just appears that there is something contrived when in fact the bigfoot furore is the product of pre existing phenomenon plus media interest.

Ecologically there is no obvious reason why bigfoot could not occur in dense woodland right across the continent. Whether it does or not who knows, but it is perfectly feasible.

Even when I was a kid the "PNW only" just didn't quite make sense.  Why?  Why *only* there when there are so many places (PA OH MD VA WV for just a few) that are in ecological terms so much better?  (Never mind the way serious underestimate of available habitat in those places.)  A large generalist omnivorous primate, which the evidence could not make more plain that this is, is going to have in all probability a greater population than bears, in more places too.  After all:  it doesn't exist, right?  Who's hunting them?  Who's Animal Controlling them?

[Yuchi1]

IMO, one of the fatal flaws of the OP is the apparent disregard for contextual filtering.

 

I.E., the descriptions found in FNP legend & lore have to be couched in their understanding, at that point in time, and how it is manifested in said descriptions.

 

In other words, people (as a group) tend to explain/describe new findings within the existing paradigm of the current thinking.

 

With apologies to Da Vinci, the evolution of science and scientific thinking is prima facie evidence of such contextual application, prerequisite to a more complete understanding.

[Guest Stan Norton]

Kitikaze used some dodgy map of sasquatch report locations on another thread. Problem was, the map scale had each sighting as a town-sized blob, giving the skewed impression (very convenient) that sasquatch is reported everywhere. Scale the map properly and you may have something useful but it will become apparent that sightings are vanishingly rare and geographically widespread.

[JKH]

 

A large generalist omnivorous primate, which the evidence could not make more plain that this is, is going to have in all probability a greater population than bears, in more places too.  After all:  it doesn't exist, right?  Who's hunting them?  Who's Animal Controlling them?

 

This is an accurate statement, IMO. Study of the BFRO reports (along with sat maps) alone indicates as much. They don't have to be rare and hidden away in the Rockies to elude our mostly clueless populace.

Edited May 19, 2015 by JKH

[WSA]

Most of us around here who actually read AND think about what is found in the sighting database have a short-list of common elements that explain much of the OP's confusion on this point. What some consider to be BF exceptionalism, others know to be just basic biologic realities.

[Guest DWA]

 

This is an accurate statement, IMO. Study of the BFRO reports (along with sat maps) alone indicates as much. They don't have to be rare and hidden away in the Rockies to elude our mostly clueless populace.

 

 

"Clueless" is lovingly and tenderly used I hope.  But it's really rather accurate.

 

If the bigfoot skeptic opinions are coming from people who relentlessly troll, I mean, tend to frequent sites like this, imagine what people who don't touch the topic but at all think about it.  Answer is, not much if at all.  Most North Americans' knowledge of the nature at their doorsteps let alone back there in the woods is rather, well, I didn't say abysmal I really didn't.

 

Against repeated pointers from those of us engaged in how to think about this, well, bigfoot skepticism is proving intellectual Kevlar.  Trust me on this:  people, and that is most people, not coming into contact with how to think of nature much if at all just aren't noticing stuff.  Or thinking about it.  My off the cuff estimate is that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of North Americans have directly passed - or parked or walked right over - what most of us here would recognize as compelling evidence without a breeze stirring betwixt their ears, bless their hearts.

 

If wildlife biologists suddenly having the light go on give population estimates for sasquatch that exceed those for bears...I have heard many, and I do mean many, a more amazing thing in my life and time.

Edited May 19, 2015 by DWA