Guest DWA Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) ^^^That pretty much. The way scientists think about things is to go, why is this being seen there? Which is how scientists found out that things aren't always found where they're most at home, mainly because there are reasons that might not be the best place to be absolutely forever, which is why, you know, animals *migrate*, among other things. That the ruby-throated hummingbird's migration takes it across the Gulf of Mexico does not make that "habitat." (This is, BTW, how scientists figured out that yeti "habitat" isn't up there in the rock and snow where the tracks have been found.) Edited September 14, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) Water! No water no life. Deserts...nearly without water. Life there? Very specialized....higher primates/humans.........the very essence of generalists. Man you weigh 800 pounds and you're covered in dark fur. The desert isn't going to be kind to you. The desert isn't kind to any living thing. There's a couple of reasons why we don't get a lot of bigfoot reports from the desert. First it's not there period. Second in the minds of most people bigfoot is an ape. People associate apes with jungles. If one is predisposed to creating a sighting put it in a location that accommodates apes and the way most people think an ape belongs. The only person I'd believe a report of a desert bigfoot sighting is Justin Whatshisname and that ex police guy with the freezer. So you saw bigfoot in Death Valley did ya now? Well of course you did.....next. Edited September 14, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted September 15, 2015 Moderator Share Posted September 15, 2015 With regards to the desert and Nevada: although it appears uninhabitable, as long as the numbers are not extreme there are springs and such. Anyone who has been to Mouse's Tank in the Valley of Fire state park knows what I am talking about. I was amazed to see a map of the area that showed where all the springs were, which is to say quite a few more than appears at first blush. Further, there were extensive Anazazi ruins that were destroyed by the rising waters of the Hoover Dam. Now something else to keep in mind: all reports of BF suggests that it is covered with hair. The ones I saw were. Humans are hairless and part of what makes us different from other creatures is how we sweat, which is to say a lot more than other land mammals. So one should keep in mind that whatever model we have for water consumption is likely to overestimate what a creature, even one that big, might need. If humans can be trained to survive without technological backup in that environment (and they can) then it should not be really all that surprising to find that BF has got it sorted out too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 There is an extreme unwillingness on the part of bigfoot skeptics to dope out what any scientist knows he must: how could this be happening? Ma Nature shows us, over and over, that we don't answer - or ask - that question when it comes to some topics. As I've already pointed out, the animals that cheerfully live in desert conditions are legion. They have it figured out and some are bigger and (maybe, now) "dumber" than sasquatch. To just say "this isn't possible because nothing we know about does it" ignores the lessons Ma Nature continues to teach us, over and over and over again. Anyone care to post their favourite 'water tight' report as a response? Impossible at this stage of the game. I think you know that. I think that comment is inherently manipulative and disingenuous. 'water tight' would be de facto proof of existence which has not been accepted yet. MIB The continued insistence upon absolute, even to those disinclined to THINK harrumph, proof from people who've not a shard of evidence for their contention continues to amuse and is the major reason I am just not talking to most of them anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 Anyone care to post their favourite 'water tight' report as a response? Impossible at this stage of the game. I think you know that. I think that comment is inherently manipulative and disingenuous. 'water tight' would be de facto proof of existence which has not been accepted yet. MIB Not sure what you are reading into my post MIB. There is good reason why I placed the phrase water-tight in inverted commas. I was merely asking for examples of reports which are in complete contrast to the farcical one Kit posted earlier. To suggest that a sighting report could be used as definitive proof is of course impossible, no matter what the circumstances or the reliability of the witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Water! No water no life. Deserts...nearly without water. Life there? Very specialized....higher primates/humans.........the very essence of generalists. Man you weigh 800 pounds and you're covered in dark fur. The desert isn't going to be kind to you. The desert isn't kind to any living thing. Seems like these fellers didn't get the memo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_elephant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 They aren't in all probability *living* there. But passing through on the way from one larder to another? There's no reason to doubt it. Nor that they are picking up both food and water on the way through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Good lord. Why are so many people so invested in sasquatches in nevada? Not only do they have to exist but they have to exist everywhere? Everywhere and yet no hair, scat, bones, dens? The larger the claimed range, the larger the population has to be, the more likely that SOME piece of tangible evidence should have shown up by now. The demand for ubiquitousquatch is a problem for believers. I small population of relic animals in a pocket of wilderness not leaving evidence is a lot more likely than a population large enough to range over the entire continent. Internal consistency of one's argument should demand one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Nope. The problem for unbelievers is their lack of acquaintance with the evidence. What people are upset about is people saying of sightings that those sightings...well...didn't happen because...well...welll COULDNTHAVETHATSIT! No. It's not. It's the investment of denialists in denial that the proponents have the big problem with. All anyone actually thinking about this needs to say about desert sightings is: OK, you tell *me* what they saw, and a guess is not sufficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Good lord. Why are so many people so invested in sasquatches in nevada? Not only do they have to exist but they have to exist everywhere? Everywhere and yet no hair, scat, bones, dens? The larger the claimed range, the larger the population has to be, the more likely that SOME piece of tangible evidence should have shown up by now. The demand for ubiquitousquatch is a problem for believers. I small population of relic animals in a pocket of wilderness not leaving evidence is a lot more likely than a population large enough to range over the entire continent. Internal consistency of one's argument should demand one or the other. Not really. If they are rare, elusive and MIGRATE along the mountainous regions of the US? That would make them even harder to pin down than if they were akin to something like a mountain gorilla, having a small constant range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Good lord. Why are so many people so invested in sasquatches in nevada? Not only do they have to exist but they have to exist everywhere? Everywhere and yet no hair, scat, bones, dens? The larger the claimed range, the larger the population has to be, the more likely that SOME piece of tangible evidence should have shown up by now. The demand for ubiquitousquatch is a problem for believers. I small population of relic animals in a pocket of wilderness not leaving evidence is a lot more likely than a population large enough to range over the entire continent. Internal consistency of one's argument should demand one or the other. Not really. If they are rare, elusive and MIGRATE along the mountainous regions of the US? That would make them even harder to pin down than if they were akin to something like a mountain gorilla, having a small constant range. How do you figure this? Migratory routes of their expected prey animals are well known to scientists, heck the guys at squatchers lounge podcast use maps of these routes when they are planning their research trips. If they migrate and do not follow the routes used by their prey animals that would be anomolous, no? Migratory routes are monitored by biologists/scientists regularly cameras, helicopters, the whole bit. So again, one would expect one of those peole/cameras might have spotted something.... If you are positing that they wouldn't follow prey but would instead follow plant ripening up and down elevations that might be a different matter. Let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Monitored? LOL...... Do you know how they counted Cougars in my neck of the woods a few years ago? They fly around in a helo and came back and reported there were only five breeding pairs in our area. We houndsman laughed in their faces. I don't put much stock in what most Biologists say concerning game numbers. And generally there seems to be politics behind it. Incidentally we lost our Cougar season for hunts up here, and none of us are laughing anymore. Concerning migration? I think an animal like this could transcend local wildlife migrations. We are talking about something on two legs that could be eating Salmon in July on the coast and be hunting Elk in the fall in the northern Rockies. Or picking berries, plants whatever. If your hypothesis is right? I've haven't found the honey hole yet in all my years of travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 What allows us to track most other stuff: for being unpredictable...they're pretty predictable. The eyewitness reports (to say nothing of the tracks in snow, no less) give much reason to believe that getting one of these to track will be a bitch, never mind tracking it. 24/7 scientific involvement will quickly bring us to: Whatever it is, this is real, and we will keep going until we know what it is. The latter part of that thought may take a whole lot longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 Monitored? LOL...... Do you know how they counted Cougars in my neck of the woods a few years ago? They fly around in a helo and came back and reported there were only five breeding pairs in our area. We houndsman laughed in their faces. I don't put much stock in what most Biologists say concerning game numbers. And generally there seems to be politics behind it. Incidentally we lost our Cougar season for hunts up here, and none of us are laughing anymore. Concerning migration? I think an animal like this could transcend local wildlife migrations. We are talking about something on two legs that could be eating Salmon in July on the coast and be hunting Elk in the fall in the northern Rockies. Or picking berries, plants whatever. If your hypothesis is right? I've haven't found the honey hole yet in all my years of travel. The Houndsmen at least could show them Cougar pelts, and tracks of cougars, to counter their survey. The current Sasquatch survey however, stands at ZERO. Got anything to counter that, all ye Houndsmen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 NAWAC could very readily counter any such assertions for the Ouachitas; and the mainstreamers not really knowing anything about it...their opinion simply would be worth nothing. That's all. It's not how much Joe from Missouri knows. It's how much the people *who know* know. Such it will ever be at the frontiers of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts