Bigfoot Is Nearly Everywhere Is An Untenable Pretense

[guyzonthropus]

But perhaps the seeming conflict of population total numbers vs population density patterns observed in other top predators lay in interpretaion of what the data implies... it could serve as evidence that these beings are more sentient than those they are being grouped with in terms of predicted population density/distribution. Any creature will as a population with abundant resourses, and suitible habitat expand its numbers, presence and distribution endlessly(just look at us!) Especially so, should the species posess a knack for cognitive behavior....meaning...maybe those models that demand numbers too small at that level .of the food chain doesn't apply to the species in question...we ourselves transitioned from the standard population model found in "nature", perhaps they have as well

[Guest]

Well they probably have a lower degree of dependance on large ungulates than does a cougar, but it's still a pretty important diet item I think.

[southernyahoo]

But perhaps the seeming conflict of population total numbers vs population density patterns observed in other top predators lay in interpretaion of what the data implies... it could serve as evidence that these beings are more sentient than those they are being grouped with in terms of predicted population density/distribution. Any creature will as a population with abundant resourses, and suitible habitat expand its numbers, presence and distribution endlessly(just look at us!) Especially so, should the species posess a knack for cognitive behavior....meaning...maybe those models that demand numbers too small at that level .of the food chain doesn't apply to the species in question...we ourselves transitioned from the standard population model found in "nature", perhaps they have as well

 

Yes, the sentient/ cognitive factor could very well skew the population prediction IMO.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

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

 

those aren't cougar tracks, those are teenagers making cougar tracks with a piece of carved wood. Unless there is absolute proof that those are cougars, they are a hoax.

[Guest]

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.

 

I agree, what, though, do the facts indicate? People were reporting these creatures from the earliest point in our nation’s history when technology didn’t exist from which to spread rumors or tales. There was no concept of manufacturing and there were no mass production of books, newspapers, telephones or radios and televisions and yet, crude individual local reports did exist.

 

What the facts indicate is not one of earliest accounts whether in folk lore, old newspaper accounts or the earliest written books ever described spotting anyone using computers, telephones or radios and televisions yet, somehow all of these people spread all over 3 million miles of this great country seem to be observing bigfoots and suddenly it becomes unbelievable fable.  

 

Those who believe Bigfoots cannot or do not exist do so simply because one cannot satisfactorily explain how that is possible and that is just creatively directed.    

Edited May 26, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest Crowlogic]

t.

 

What the facts indicate is not one of earliest accounts whether in folk lore, old newspaper accounts or the earliest written books ever described spotting anyone using computers, telephones or radios and televisions yet, somehow all of these people spread all over 3 million miles of this great country seem to be observing bigfoots and suddenly it becomes unbelievable fable.  

 

 

It becomes a fable when a something like bigfoot explodes in the awarness of a nation's population to spread into nearly any and all environments and locations and yet a true confirmation of the beast is forever missing.  It's pretty simple is it not?  If one were looking for Santa Clause one could fall back on the stories and songs devoted to Santa Clause.  There are songs and stories of Santa as well as consistent descriptions of him.  Therefore Santa must exist as a real entity.

[Guest DWA]

If one is not getting the diff between Santa Claus no "e" and sasquatch, one might want to spend less time posting here and more time reading about this, and thinking about what one has read.

 

(The many descriptions of Santa Claus would have cops looking for numerous perps, not one.)

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

It becomes a fable when a something like bigfoot explodes in the awarness of a nation's population to spread into nearly any and all environments and locations and yet a true confirmation of the beast is forever missing.  It's pretty simple is it not?  If one were looking for Santa Clause one could fall back on the stories and songs devoted to Santa Clause.  There are songs and stories of Santa as well as consistent descriptions of him.  Therefore Santa must exist as a real entity.

 

The only people who should be worried/concerned/critical of Big Foot becoming a fable or remaining a folktale are people who believe that BF exists.

 

People who do not believe that BF exists would not be concerned at all.

[Guest DWA]

OK, back to the OP:  

Bigfoot Is Nearly Everywhere Is An Untenable Pretense.

 

DUH.

 

And we've been *five pages* talking about this...???

[Guest]

It becomes a fable when a something like bigfoot explodes in the awarness of a nation's population to spread into nearly any and all environments and locations and yet a true confirmation of the beast is forever missing.  It's pretty simple is it not?  If one were looking for Santa Clause one could fall back on the stories and songs devoted to Santa Clause.  There are songs and stories of Santa as well as consistent descriptions of him.  Therefore Santa must exist as a real entity.

 

 

I understand your point, but you chose the wrong example to make it. This is not about Santa Claus it’s about Bigfoot so let’s stay on focus.  I think most of us fancy ourselves pretty intelligent, but there's absolutely no verification of this beyond our own decision to declare ourselves smart enough for this forum board, so lets leave simplicity out of the discussion and turn our attention back to the topic of Bigfoot being an indefensible pretense in your mind.

 

It becomes a question of reasonableness. Your thread makes the claim about Bigfoot being nearly everywhere and that it is an untenable pretense but then again you cannot prove Bigfoot does not exist simply because it appears indefensible in your opinion.

 

Beyond the lack of demonstrable evidence to stake your claim, you have not shown anyone that you are a credible source worthy of being referenced or that you continue canvassing every single individual (about 300 million citizens) in this country of about 3 million miles of land mass for current or old data that would substantiate your claim.  To witness, I called my neighbor down the street and they don't know you and you didn't ask them about whether or not they believe Bigfoot is nearly everywhere, or whether Bigfoot is an untenable pretense either but I'll keep checking around.    

 

You have not produced any clear and convincing evidence that you and you alone have any direct monopoly on all knowledge concerning Bigfoot either. Unless you demonstrate and convince everyone  as the clearinghouse keeper of knowledge for everything Bigfoot and sole arbiter of that knowledge you will determine what is or isn’t Bigfoot proof or what is or isn’t defensible then I say that is an outrageous claim to make. FWIW

Edited May 26, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[indiefoot]

Has anyone over the age of 10 or so ever reported an encounter with a supposedly real Santa Clause?

[Guest Crowlogic]

I understand your point, but you chose the wrong example to make it. This is not about Santa Claus it’s about Bigfoot so let’s stay on focus.  I think most of us fancy ourselves pretty intelligent, but there's absolutely no verification of this beyond our own decision to declare ourselves smart enough for this forum board, so lets leave simplicity out of the discussion and turn our attention back to the topic of Bigfoot being an indefensible pretense in your mind.

 

It becomes a question of reasonableness. Your thread makes the claim about Bigfoot being nearly everywhere and that it is an untenable pretense but then again you cannot prove Bigfoot does not exist simply because it appears indefensible in your opinion.

 

Beyond the lack of demonstrable evidence to stake your claim, you have not shown anyone that you are a credible source worthy of being referenced or that you continue canvassing every single individual (about 300 million citizens) in this country of about 3 million miles of land mass for current or old data that would substantiate your claim.  To witness, I called my neighbor down the street and they don't know you and you didn't ask them about whether or not they believe Bigfoot is nearly everywhere, or whether Bigfoot is an untenable pretense either but I'll keep checking around.    

 

You have not produced any clear and convincing evidence that you and you alone have any direct monopoly on all knowledge concerning Bigfoot either. Unless you demonstrate and convince everyone  as the clearinghouse keeper of knowledge for everything Bigfoot and sole arbiter of that knowledge you will determine what is or isn’t Bigfoot proof or what is or isn’t defensible then I say that is an outrageous claim to make. FWIW

The telling point of my argument is that bigfoot has gone from being an inhibitor of certain remote regions to one that is practically invading suburbia nation wide.  In my region bears are becoming a problem in the suburbs and they are getting hit by cars and wrecking trash cans all the time now.  Yes it was getting reported that bears were encroaching on the burbs and sure enough there was soon more proof of it than anyone cared to have.  Bigfoot has followed a similar pattern except there is nothing to actually back up the claims except reports.  Reports begin to ring hollow after a certain point which is why they are hardly worth the effort to sift through.  But a dead bigfoot run over at a dumpster is the kind of thing that happens in reality to animals in highly trafficked areas.  People get run over by cars so why not bigfoot?  What special dispensation precludes this from happening?  After all bigfoot is quoted as a nearly 50 state inhabitant.   I'll even give the proponent their due and say bigfoot is smart, stealthy, crafty and knows the ropes of avoiding human kind.  But no animal is perfect in any of that 100% of the time in each and every place it resides.  As a result the some old absence of proof as when it was tucked away in the hinter land does not add up.  

Has anyone over the age of 10 or so ever reported an encounter with a supposedly real Santa Clause?

Nobody has which shows that folklore and descriptions even cohesive descriptions repeatable put down on canvass with ink and paint are no guarantee of reality.

OK, back to the OP:  

Bigfoot Is Nearly Everywhere Is An Untenable Pretense.

 

DUH.

 

And we've been *five pages* talking about this...???

Yup we've been at it for five whole pages and bigfoot has yet to be brought in to confirm that there is anything to the expanded geography.  We'll do five more and the situation won't have changed.

 

So let's hear some solid reasons how nationwide bigfoot can be so off the radar where it really counts as in solid proof.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Doc Holliday]

whoa, wait a minute......... you all are saying that santa is not real ?!?      noooooo!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

^^^

Good post and thank you Crow, I certainly cannot answer the Bigfoot phenomena either. It is what propels so much debate and continues to reign high among one of the greatest mysteries and as a topic worthy of much spirited discussion.

[BigTreeWalker]

Why would anyone over 10 report a Santa sighting when they're standing at every door of the mall at Christmas time? ;-)

Crow, you asked two questions.

First, People get run over by cars so why not bigfoot?

People get run over by cars because they are oblivious to their surroundings or they are too trusting of others. The first thing they teach you in any safety class is that accidents are preventable. How is this possible? By always being aware of your surroundings.

Second, What special dispensation precludes this from happening? Easy, bigfoot are more aware of their surroundings and they don't trust anyone.

And they do make mistakes, just different ones. Otherwise there wouldn't be any sightings.

Argue all you want but this is just as good of way to look at it as any.