Bigfoot Is Nearly Everywhere Is An Untenable Pretense

[1980squatch]

There are plenty of credible accounts of BF taking shelter in abandoned, derelict, partially constructed or unoccupied buildings, and possibly using them long-term.

 

Do you have any links on hand?  I have heard of this behavior as well but mostly from suspect habbers, would be interested in reading other reports.

[Guest Crowlogic]

All those animals quoted for using human structures are very well known animals, easily see, easily found and more than a little too common.  Folks can imagine bigfoot doing certain things but they are imagining them, not drawing from fact.  In some ways the more imagining people do the more it exposes a certain fantasy mindset prevalent in the bigfoot community.

 

Once again once upon a time when  bigfoot came onto the modern scene it was sensibly off the beaten path.  Does anyone really appreciate how inane it's become with bigfoot in everybody's backyard?  If it was leading to a capture and actual discovery of one then sure let the good times roll.  But it doesn't and claiming that it's always been there is a false reasoning.  It's a false reasoning because in 1957 bigfoot reports were not coming out of Ohio, Oklahoma, Georgia and New Jersey.  It didn't begin in earnest until Ray Wallace and Roger Patterson made headlines in the PNW.  Why didn't the PGF happen in Ohio or Alabama.  The creatures were there all along right?  Why didn't right after the PGF didn't somebody in Ohio grab a camera and make another one?  Why?  because it took nearly a decade for the bigfoot myth to actually ingrain itself deep enough for folks to suspend enough disbelief and have their own bigfoot.

 

I was a kid growing up in Monmouth County NJ and trust me nobody ever approached anything like bigfoot in campfire stories.  It wasn't part of the local mythology.  But now there are squatchers in the Pine Barrens and take it from one whose been there a population of even a few dozen bigfoot couldn't stay there unobserved or un fired upon.  The only thing was the Jersey devil which has nothing to do with bigfoot at all.  

 

But there is one curiously present animal that wasn't around in the PGF days and that was the coyote.  Today it has made it to all the places that people claim bigfoot the be in.  Now they hear things in the night they never heard before so it must be bigfoot.  No it's the coyotes they are the true intruders here not the bipedal myth.

[Guest insanity42]

In the beginning of the modern bigfoot era the creature was said to inhabit the PNW.  It made a certain amount of sense as the region is suitable for such a beast in many ways.  However the idea of the animal was so enticing that an entire social subculture grew up around it and in the space of a decade or two bigfoot was nearly everywhere in the lower 48 states.  

 

In order to subscribe to this belief one needs to put the number of specimens at a much higher level which puts them into the tens of thousands up from the several hundred during the PGF era.  Today there are bigfoot clubs and organizations all over the map and they all share three things in common.  Bigfoot, special dispensation as to why bigfoot can exist virtually in secret most of the time and a total lack of actual proof backing up the believer's positions.

 

It is often said that if you perpetrate misinformation enough times it acquires a ring of truth albeit a counter-fit ring of truth.   Eventually perhaps the entire issue will go full circle and bigfoot will again become what the Native Americans first considered it to be.  A kind of spirit guardian of the forest.  And yes Virginia the FNP considered it to be a spirit being and not a flesh and blood organism.  That it evolved into a flesh and blood entity has more to do with western man's thought processes which are far less accepting of spirit entities.

 

In any event the beat goes on and the game gets ever more detailed in ever more ways except where it counts.

What basis is there for the proposition that the larger a species range is, the larger its population must be as well?

  

If anything, it would make sense that Sasquatch have increased in population. Simply because their "presumed" food supply, mainly deer, have greatly increased in number over the past 100 years. Not to mention, a wide ranging, stable and controlled habitat. It would also make sense they would live in most areas of the country, that supported their food source and provided adequate cover.

 

I agree with Wags comment in there's never been a well organized and sustained search effort for these creatures.

 

Imagine that we have a breeding population of 100,000 creatures. Given the vast habitat that's available, of roughly 110,000,000 acres, this would result in one adult Sasquatch per every 1,100 acres. You can also do an average of roughly 2000 creatures per state, not discounting Hawaii, which has no reported sightings. Once you consider how few of them, there could be, per every acre of wilderness, then you get an idea of the challenge in finding one.

 

A few years ago, I read an article about the difficulty of finding downed aircraft, in a national forest, especially mountainous terrain. I can't remember the numbers so please forgive any inaccuracy, but something like only one out of five, downed, private aircraft, are ever found. Most especially if the pilot does not file a flight plan. If we can't find a downed airplane, with modern technology at our disposal; how difficult is it to find a constantly moving animal that's trying to remain hidden?

 

The popularity and interest in Sasquatch has grown exponentially. As has been mentioned, there are dozens and dozens of Sasquatch groups and research teams. Sounds like a lot but, again, compare the quantity of interested individuals, to the quantity of purported Sasquatch and available wilderness habitat. How many people are consistently looking for Sasquatch full time? Are there 1,000, a 100, 50, 25....etc?

 

All of the people interested in Sasquatch do not equate to people actually looking for Sasquatch. Unless a creature decides to make an appearance on one of the many Bigfoot TV shows, it's unlikely we'll find one in the near future.

 

The increased public interest and subsequent awareness of Sasquatch, over the past 20 years, is only a factor of the media. The efforts to find this creature have also increased but not to the point that it makes any significant difference. It's much like buying two lottery tickets, instead of one, it helps, but statistically, it makes no difference.

Many good points there and good questions as well.

While people will claim there are numerous people out looking, are there any good figures for that number and the amount hours spent looking?

How much time does it take to adequately search a square kilometer of forested wilderness?

Despite how well we think a team may be at finding their quarry, things do get miss.

Here is a recent story about a family that went missing in May of 2014 in Alaska. At the time of the disappearance, as massive search was conducted using dogs, airplanes, and helicopters that covered a wide area and involved 20 agencies.

The search operation was described as one of the largest in decades.

What is suspected to be their remains was found this March of 2015, a half mile from their home and about 15 yards off the trail.

http://news.yahoo.com/alaska-police-probe-human-remains-tied-missing-family-071438031.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/us/alaska-remains-found/

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/missing-in-america/update-missing-america-family-four-kenai-alaska-n183476

While it is an unfortuante outcome, it does show that even an organized search effort can miss their target.

[JDL]

Funny how easy it is to pick up books locally in just about any state that have newspaper accounts of hairy man encounters going back to the time they were first settled.  Find these all the time.

 

The PNW was, though, where bigfoot first captured the public's awareness, first in '59 with the widespread publication of track finds, then again in '67 with the Patterson video.

 

The PNW isn't the origin of bigfoot, but it is the origin of modern bigfoot coverage.  So the phenomenon you postulate is a function of media coverage, rather than origin of the species itself.

 

People have been encountering them for centuries all around the country, and the Native Americans all over the country describe them in their history.  Thing is, all of the history and reports were mostly local.  Accounts simply didn't spread very far.

 

When the BFRO was founded, it provided a means for people everywhere to report their experiences, and so, suddenly, bigfoot were everywhere.  Again, it wasn't because they abruptly appeared all around the country, it was simply that people all around the country finally had a means to file reports.

 

But to disprove the premise of the OP, all one needs to do is examine Native American reports of bigfoot around the country.  This neatly eliminates the influence of modern media from the map.

[Guest insanity42]

Concerning pre-1960s reports, here is a newsaper from April 14, 1881 in Iron County, Missouri, that contains what could be an encounter with a Sasquatch.

The article begins in the lower left corner and continues to the upper middle. The description is unclothed, hairy being with a human-like face.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84024283/1881-04-14/ed-1/seq-5/

The newspaper is belongs to the Library of Congress Chronicling America collection which is digitizing their collection of historic American newspapers.

The same story is on the BFRO's site, http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=416.

[beerhunter]

Funny how easy it is to pick up books locally in just about any state that have newspaper accounts of hairy man encounters going back to the time they were first settled.  Find these all the time.

 

The PNW was, though, where bigfoot first captured the public's awareness, first in '59 with the widespread publication of track finds, then again in '67 with the Patterson video.

 

The PNW isn't the origin of bigfoot, but it is the origin of modern bigfoot coverage.  So the phenomenon you postulate is a function of media coverage, rather than origin of the species itself.

 

People have been encountering them for centuries all around the country, and the Native Americans all over the country describe them in their history.  Thing is, all of the history and reports were mostly local.  Accounts simply didn't spread very far.

 

When the BFRO was founded, it provided a means for people everywhere to report their experiences, and so, suddenly, bigfoot were everywhere.  Again, it wasn't because they abruptly appeared all around the country, it was simply that people all around the country finally had a means to file reports.

 

But to disprove the premise of the OP, all one needs to do is examine Native American reports of bigfoot around the country.  This neatly eliminates the influence of modern media from the map.

 

Great post, however, the OP will ignore it as I doubt he understands how regional encounters went nationwide following the invention of the internet.

[Guest DWA]

That, pretty much.

 

Modern media are continuing to report something that's been going on, apparently, as long as humans have been here.  The myopia denial cherrypicking and My Experience Above All Others continue to amaze.  I cannot conceive of myself or anyone I know behaving like that.  I really do wonder what it is (no I don't), and I'm not surprised that no bigfoot skeptic can give me a straight answer.

 

As J. Robert Allley puts it so well:  legends don't jump cultures well.  When something is doing it this seamlessly, it's not a legend, it's real.  Common sense, actually.

What basis is there for the proposition that the larger a species range is, the larger its population must be as well?

 

Actually, in the case of top trophic level predators, the reverse applies.  Individual range, huge.  Species population:  small.
  

Many good points there and good questions as well.
While people will claim there are numerous people out looking, are there any good figures for that number and the amount hours spent looking?
How much time does it take to adequately search a square kilometer of forested wilderness?

 

Not really any good points or good questions; like most everything else this has been beaten to death.  Bipto, who used to post here until he got tired of the nonsense, is with the organization doing the most purely scientific and boots-on-ground effort in terms of both expertise and time.  He says:  essentially, no one is looking.  He is right.

Despite how well we think a team may be at finding their quarry, things do get miss.
Here is a recent story about a family that went missing in May of 2014 in Alaska. At the time of the disappearance, as massive search was conducted using dogs, airplanes, and helicopters that covered a wide area and involved 20 agencies.
The search operation was described as one of the largest in decades.
What is suspected to be their remains was found this March of 2015, a half mile from their home and about 15 yards off the trail.
http://news.yahoo.com/alaska-police-probe-human-remains-tied-missing-family-071438031.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/us/alaska-remains-found/
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/missing-in-america/update-missing-america-family-four-kenai-alaska-n183476

While it is an unfortuante outcome, it does show that even an organized search effort can miss their target.

 

Nothing even remotely close to that search has ever been done for sasquatch.  Oh wait:  Patterson and Gimlin, and they got a movie of one, and would have had a body had their own rules of engagement not prohibited it.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

All those animals quoted for using human structures are very well known animals, easily see, easily found and more than a little too common.  Folks can imagine bigfoot doing certain things but they are imagining them, not drawing from fact.  In some ways the more imagining people do the more it exposes a certain fantasy mindset prevalent in the bigfoot community.

 

Once again once upon a time when  bigfoot came onto the modern scene it was sensibly off the beaten path.  Does anyone really appreciate how inane it's become with bigfoot in everybody's backyard?  If it was leading to a capture and actual discovery of one then sure let the good times roll.  But it doesn't and claiming that it's always been there is a false reasoning.  It's a false reasoning because in 1957 bigfoot reports were not coming out of Ohio, Oklahoma, Georgia and New Jersey.  It didn't begin in earnest until Ray Wallace and Roger Patterson made headlines in the PNW.  Why didn't the PGF happen in Ohio or Alabama.  The creatures were there all along right?  Why didn't right after the PGF didn't somebody in Ohio grab a camera and make another one?  Why?  because it took nearly a decade for the bigfoot myth to actually ingrain itself deep enough for folks to suspend enough disbelief and have their own bigfoot.

 

I was a kid growing up in Monmouth County NJ and trust me nobody ever approached anything like bigfoot in campfire stories.  It wasn't part of the local mythology.  But now there are squatchers in the Pine Barrens and take it from one whose been there a population of even a few dozen bigfoot couldn't stay there unobserved or un fired upon.  The only thing was the Jersey devil which has nothing to do with bigfoot at all.  

 

But there is one curiously present animal that wasn't around in the PGF days and that was the coyote.  Today it has made it to all the places that people claim bigfoot the be in.  Now they hear things in the night they never heard before so it must be bigfoot.  No it's the coyotes they are the true intruders here not the bipedal myth.

 

As long as one's reading comprehension is enough to distinguish between factual statements and ponderings there is no harm at all. In fact, these brainstorming sessions might open up the BF research field more. See, that's what real scientists do and that's how science progresses at the research and development level: exchange of ideas and thoughts from which hypotheses and studies are derived.

 

Coyotes....Here's a Baltimore Sun article about coyotes in Maryland: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/aegis/ph-ag-coyote-sighting-1203-20141204-story.html Per the article: coyotes have been seen in Maryland for the 25 years, but this hunter with 24 years of hunting in Maryland had never seen one until last year. Based on Crowlogic's argument that if a creature has been reported in an area for 25 years this hunter should have seen more of them and had been seeing them for the last 24 years. Moreover, if coyotes really do exist in Maryland, there would be more photos, more "straight ahead science" that coyotes exist in Maryland, not "blobcoyots" photos.

[Guest DWA]

I think bigfoot skeptics must be engaged in a deliberate reality-denial exercise.  (I've never seen a coyote in MD either, but I know they're here.)

 

One keeps saying it but Crow somehow never sees it:  there are thousands of people whose experience of life seems more, well, believable than Crow's who disagree with Crow.

Edited May 22, 2015 by DWA

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I think bigfoot skeptics must be engaged in a deliberate reality-denial exercise.  (I've never seen a coyote in MD either, but I know they're here.)

 

One keeps saying it but Crow somehow never sees it:  there are thousands of people whose experience of life seems more, well, believable who disagree with Crow.

 

Well, I never saw a coyote in MD either, so all these reports of coyotes are most definitely false...

[JDL]

Heck, just the other night at dusk I heard an entire chorus of them in Connecticut.  There are plenty of cougar sightings around here too.

[Guest DWA]

Don't get me started on cougars.  Any biologist who wants to tell me where they can't be needs to show me that every one wandering around has a biologist keeping tabs on it.  Count on this:  the cougar is at least one animal that, right now, has a much bigger range then generally acknowledged.

[JDL]

They keep finding cougar tracks on one of the golf courses in a fairly heavily developed area of Cincinnati.

[Guest insanity42]

According to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the population density of cougars in the western US are;

• Utah 0.30 - 0.50 / 100 km²
• Idaho 0.77 - 1.04 / 100 km²

Take an inverse to show the area per animal, in Utah it averages 250 km² per cougar and in Idaho it averages 110 km² per cougar.

If Sasquatch follows allometric scaling like any other animal, and if it was a top predator, the population density would be less.

They would be encountered less often than a cougar.

[norseman]

A lot less.,,