Jump to content

Where You Think Bigfoot Does Not Exist.


kitakaze
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Sierras do run through nevada and I do have to admit that one could claim potential for habitat. I was being a bit glib earlier but the number of reports in the state are very low. :spiteful:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

I don't think it's just the Sierras that they reside in there in Nevada, but if someone's doing research in Nevada, I think they'd have much better luck in the Sierras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is the "Where does sasquatch NOT exist" thread. I think they do not exist anywhere in all likelihood but if they are a flesh and blood monster then they do NOT call nevada home. I understand you disagree but where do you think they DO NOT exist? Since, that's the point of the thread and all.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

First one would have to know if they even exist in the first place. After that, one would have to know all the places they do exist to know all the places they don't. It's not really possible to know one without the other. The only place I can absolutely guarantee that they don't exist is in the crowded area of a city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

^^^^ Nope.   Dismissing any report without thorough investigation is possibly even more of a mistake than accepting a report without a thorough investigation.  

 

MIB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One hundred per centum ^^^that.

 

This is what I mean by "the pile."  One cannot effectively get to the bottom of almost any of them, save by going into the field and collecting evidence of what the eyewitness saw.  So we have all these reports.  What are they saying?

 

There are only two ways to find out, and both are the absolute essence of scientific thought:

 

1.  Go into the field.  Find it.

2.  Wonder why so many people are saying this, of all things.  Analyze the reports.  Note the consistencies...and ask oneself why those consistencies would add up to something other than the simple thing the people say they saw.

 

Dismissing a report is the height of ignorance.  When someone says they saw something, and there is no reason to suspect they are lying or otherwise wrong...then...wait for it...there is no reason to suspect they are lying or otherwise wrong.

 

(Watch someone not understand what this means.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for probabilities, from all I can tell, you can have a pretty good predictor of the frequency of reports by overlaying a map of annual rainfall amounts. There is a good case to be made a minimum of 30" annually is the threshold.  This is not to say they don't occur with some frequency outside of those areas, but they do occur less frequently. In my necka, the annual precipitation is north of 50". Speaking of probabilities, we got 'em down here.   


rainfall-sm.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Of course I do, Norse. I just don't happen to think that there is compelling evidence to think that one of those animals is an unclassified species of large, bipedal ape that ranges across all of North America, including rural and suburban areas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but, um, they're not bigfoot, so, there, my proof.

 

The sheer incuriosity surrounding this topic says scary stuff about our species, but it also says one obvious thing:  we aren't nearly as intelligent as we like to think we are, and shut out much of the world without significant thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Of course I do, Norse. I just don't happen to think that there is compelling evidence to think that one of those animals is an unclassified species of large, bipedal ape that ranges across all of North America, including rural and suburban areas.

But since you admit that not all living animals on Earth are cataloged by science? Then logically speaking you must admit that you could be wrong?

What if Sasquatch does not range across all of north America? What if it does not frequent suburban areas? What if say their population size is similar to mountain Gorillas and they inhabit the most remote places in the PacNW and Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I could be wrong. I've been fairly careful to include that fact in my posts I believe.

 

If sasquatch exists, and does not range across all of North America, then how do you explain the volume of reports that say otherwise?

Edited by dmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...