Jump to content

Where You Think Bigfoot Does Not Exist.


kitakaze
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi Dmaker!  Long time no see.

 

In between ripping peoples heads off, that is :)

 

Yep, I think that dang thread has been pinned up top the entire time you have been gone!  But I'm with Hiflier, more likely a 7ft forager. Wait, did you just bait that comment in there to get Hifier and I to derail the thread?  Well played.

Edited by 1980squatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

I share BobbyO's skepticism of the OP's motives for asking the question.  I'll even go so far as to question the OP's **integrity** regarding the question.   Looks like Lucy is putting up another football to yank away from Charlie Brown.   Oh well ...

 

Honestly, anyone who could ask this question or consider seriously that there's nowhere to hide is pretty uneducated regarding what cover is needed and what cover is available.   In absolute terms, there are no US states or Canadian provinces I'd rule out entirely other than Hawaii.  Step away from the stereotypes.  Spend some time on the ground ... drive through them, hike, hunt, fish, go birding.  Get out there.  Learn.

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, 1980squatch, long time.  Naw, wasn't baiting. I was just replying to hiflilers seeming curiosity around me describing bigfoot as predatory. Surely, if such animal existed, then any discussion of potential habitat should not be derailed by taking into consideration things like diet, etc. No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

Hello 1980Squatch,

Yeah, I moved off topic a bit but since Maine on that map only shows one sighting (it could be more in just one spot?) coming up with a reason for such a dearth of sightings for a forested, or even a now semi-forested state like Maine, leaves little in the way of an answer to kitakaze's query. The deer population is robust, the available water sources are numerous and there's still some wild habitat. Injecting a bit of tongue-in-cheek kind of drove the point home about the lack of activity.

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rhode Island, North and South Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Nebraska, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and most of Wyoming and Montana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

Hello All,

Southern California although there are mountain lions (Catamounts? Pumas?) and then perhaps.......Maine? ;)

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ChasingRabbits

 

I think if you want the topic to stay within North America you should specify contiguous North America and excluding islands like Catalina, Nantucket, New Brunswick, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Dominican Republic/Haiti, Greenland, and so forth.

 

Anyhow,  I don't think BF would live in the large North American islands.

Don't forget Prince Edward Island, Canada. That has to be one of the most ridiculous sources of bigfoot reports ( and video ) ever, imo. The place is tiny, and is pretty much one huge golf course with a few farms and towns woven in. It's beautiful there, and I like vacationing there, but habitat for an unclassified, 9ft predatory ape? Hardly.

 

 

I've always wanted to go to PEI because I read all of the Anne of Green Gables books.

 

Made a boo-hoo with New Brunswick---I should have written New Foundland.

 

Anyhow, unless there is a bridge, I think it's unlikely BF would go to islands. I don't know if they can swim, much less great distances like the 450+ miles between Cuba and Florida

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Steering Committee
BFF Donor

 

I think if you want the topic to stay within North America you should specify contiguous North America and excluding islands like Catalina, Nantucket, New Brunswick, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Dominican Republic/Haiti, Greenland, and so forth.

 

Anyhow,  I don't think BF would live in the large North American islands.

Don't forget Prince Edward Island, Canada. That has to be one of the most ridiculous sources of bigfoot reports ( and video ) ever, imo. The place is tiny, and is pretty much one huge golf course with a few farms and towns woven in. It's beautiful there, and I like vacationing there, but habitat for an unclassified, 9ft predatory ape? Hardly.

 

Well, well, look what the squatch dragged in. Good to see you back Dmaker.

 

Apparently bigfoot lives in some folks backyards. They say they are there so why should I doubt them?

 

Seriously though, if bigfoot exists, I couldn't pin-point an exact area but it would be somewhere remote with plenty of cover, that could be somewhere in the Rocky mountains, Appalachians or the deep south bayous and river bottoms or a combination thereof.

 

As for the other reported sightings, that's why I say most bigfoot evidence is crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have a clarifying question.

 

Why does a sighting necessarily equate to 'living there'?  (As indicated by the OP's map).

 

That's a HUGE assumption and one I'm not willing to make.

 

We know many animals that migrate and range to find new habitat.  It doesn't mean they 'live there'.

 

That said, I think that most of them would live in states that have large tracts of forested terrain, minimally interrupted by large metro areas.


Edit - I think the thread title is misleading as if bigfoot does indeed exist, it would exist everywhere, not just in certain states (hence my 'living there' statement).

 

To suggest anything exists in one area, but not another is not logical as it would exist everywhere.

 

Also - welcome back dmaker!  Been a while!  I hope this message finds you in good health and spirits!


Double edit - I don't think BF would be living under bridges in Chicago or in homeless camps in San Antonio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point Cotter, and agree.  Bipeadilism is great for covering distance, I'm pretty sure the one I saw was just moving through.  Dmaker, I was mostly kidding on the derail comment, welcome and I hope you stick around!  That map does seem to be well crafted, has like 3300 data points so I'm guessing the analyst just listed certain class As?  Daylight maybe??  Maine has about a half dozen class As, not sure why the map just has one...

Edited by 1980squatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The premise demonstrates a fundamental lack of appreciation for how scientific research works. Until you rule out the possibility a phenomenon can't exist at all (and boy are we a long way from that point) you don't discount it occurring anywhere. Do you gauge probabilities as you do that? Obviously you do. Screening signal from noise is a basic scientific skill. Most of the posted mischief around here (this OP included) comes directly from a failure to do that. If I thought Kit had a genuine interest in discerning one from the other (trust us now...he most decidedly does not) I would be inclined to take this on. I should live so long though.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Until you rule out the possibility a phenomenon can't exist at all (and boy are we a long way from that point) you don't discount it occurring anywhere" 

 

WSA, do you apply that same philosophy to bigfoot reports that include the paranormal as well? Or do you only screen signal from noise when it comes to location? I suspect not. Where is that scientific line in the sand drawn when you are ruling out a possibility? 

 

Central Park? Too urban.

 

Dimension hoping?  Too paranormal.

 

Something like that? A list of acceptable prunings would be interesting to compare to the reports database and see how many reports reflect those elements.  But then, that would lead to tough questions like how can you casually dismiss X number of reports? I thought only scofftics did that?  Right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

Dang, can't edit my post.   What I was going to add was this:

 

1: I think anywhere on dry land that a human can get lost and require search and rescue to find them, there's sufficient and suitable habitat for a bigfoot to survive.

 

2: Even Hawaii ... depends on what you believe about paranormal.  I'm neither on nor off that bandwagon, I'm still investigating rather than letting my possibly incorrect assumptions mislead me.  If you spend the time to study the reports, talk to people, and get your feet on the ground rather than doing all your "investigation" from your chair in front of your computer, you will find a pretty solid trail of stuff that doesn't make sense but, auto-scoff aside, is not logically easy to just dismiss.  Put it this way: I'm a science guy.  The "stuff" makes me uncomfortable, but dismissing it without real investigation offends me as a scientist .. I have a reputation for integrity and impartiality to maintain which can only be done by following evidence, even evidence I don't really like.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...