Jump to content

Where You Think Bigfoot Does Not Exist.


kitakaze
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Engaged Member
BFF Donor

 

 

2.Hoaxers,liars,misidentifications ,wishful thinking.

 

 

Just curious, how would you break down the percentage of each?

 

 

Thank you for asking. Just a rough guess. Hoaxers 55%, Liars 15%, misidentifications  15%,10 % wishful thinking. .  I left out the power of imagination. from my earlier post. 5 %

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'll find, typically, those who think the probabilities for Sasquatch are low in the particular location where evidence might indicate otherwise  are those spending their lives OUTSIDE of where the concentration of sightings and other evidence are being reported.  This is only human nature to believe the reality in front of ourselves is the one that matters most.  Those in northern NA climates will tell me I can't imagine a winter in Ontario. They would be correct, because my time in Ontario was confined to a very nice two weeks in June about 30 years ago.  Have I wintered in Northern climates in other places, and spent considerable time outside in those places? Yup, but I can truly say I only know those places, or think I know them just a little bit better than someone who has never been there.

 

Take Mr. Branco as a very good example of this.  One of his areas of investigation Is just south, not too many miles from where I reside, but it is as different to the members of my urban/suburban neighborhood as the other side of the moon. I've spent my time there too, enough to know I have no hope of ever really knowing that place and people very well in the short time I have left to live. I would have to immerse myself in it to the extent that Branco has to even come close. That is why I tend to listen to those who would know better than I would, because, you know, that is the smarter approach to life in general.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion it's pretty well impossible for bf to exist in snow country.  The odd reported tack line is probably hoaxed.  BF, single or in groups, would leave a heck of a lot of tracks between snowfalls.  Here in Ontario there is no such thing as bigfoot.  Ask any real outdoorsman.

 

t.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd never ask "any" outdoorsman and take his answer for a money assessment.  For one thing, he probably doesn't want to talk about his sighting(s) to anyone.

 

There's no reason to think that it is either impossible or even improbable for this animal to exist in snow country...and some of the most compelling trackways (it should be added:  not just sasquatch, but yeti as well) are in snow, with no way possible a human using technology we know about could have made them.  And no correspondence with anything categorized by science.  A sun bear ain't a polar bear; a red brocket ain't a caribou...and a sasquatch ain't an orangutan.  it is gonna have adaptations to a cold environment we don't see in known apes (although there most certainly are several species of snow-country monkey).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can anybody state bigfoot (or any animal for that matter) doesn't live in a certain place. Sure you might think they don't live in a certain place but nobody can state it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin

 

 

 

2.Hoaxers,liars,misidentifications ,wishful thinking.

 

 

Just curious, how would you break down the percentage of each?

 

 

Thank you for asking. Just a rough guess. Hoaxers 55%, Liars 15%, misidentifications  15%,10 % wishful thinking. .  I left out the power of imagination. from my earlier post. 5 %

 

Follow-up:

 

Of the hoaxes, what would be the percentage between the party reporting the incident did the hoaxing (i.e. video, vocal recordings, tracks, etc.) and the reporting party being the victim of a hoax (i.e. they thought it real but was in fact initiated by other humans)?

 

I do appreciate your answers!

 

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion it's pretty well impossible for bf to exist in snow country.  The odd reported tack line is probably hoaxed.  BF, single or in groups, would leave a heck of a lot of tracks between snowfalls.  Here in Ontario there is no such thing as bigfoot.  Ask any real outdoorsman.

 

t.

I disagree that we should just dismiss all trackways as a hoax, especially snow trackways because they are mucher harder to hoax. And the deeper the snow? The more the odds of a hoax go down.

With that said, as a hunter I do agree with you that we should be seeing more tracks in winter. Do they migrate? Do they store food and hunker down in a lair? Do they hibernate?

What happens? Its a important question for us proponents.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest JiggyPotamus

There are no magic boundaries which sasquatch must adhere to. A bigfoot can, physically speaking, go anywhere within North America. Bigfoot, like any other animal, is going to instinctually prefer a certain habitat; one in which all of their survival needs are met. There have been instances in which a specific animal species was discovered some distance away from their preferred, or normal, habitat. Bear populations are much more dense in certain parts of North America, yet bears have been found in Texas. That is perhaps not the best example, but I think it makes my point. So despite the fact that the vast majority of the bear population exists in specific geographic regions, this does not mean the bears are restricted to those regions. Virtually any area, as long as the bear can survive there, is an adequate habitat.

 

But sasquatch are much more intelligent and thus able to adapt more easily to any given habitat. Another factor is something I have postulated in the past, which is that the intelligence of a sasquatch allows them to override certain instincts if they so choose. So while instinct tends to keep most animals within a certain habitat, or governs whether they decide to go here or there, I believe that sasquatch are much more likely to make a conscious decision about such migrations, and that they are much more capable when it comes to adapting to new environments, again due to their intelligence.

 

Anyway, to answer your questions directly, a lack of a large number of sightings in one region or area can be explained by more than "sasquatch don't exist there." The human population is the largest factor in my opinion, given that if there is nobody around to witness a sasquatch, sightings will be low. Then there is terrain. Some terrian is much more suitable for seeing another animal, while other terrain makes it nearly impossible to visually witness another animal. Couple that with the intelligence of sasquatch, which seems to drive them to behave cautiously whenever they detect a human presence, and it becomes possible for a localized population of sasquatch to exist in an area while sightings remain low. So why does there seem to be so many sightings in specific areas? I believe this is due to a combination of two things- first, the sasquatch population density is larger when compared with most other regions, and the human presence in the region is large. When you couple a large bigfoot population density, and a large human presence, these are the areas which will seem like "hotspots."

 

The only thing limiting the possibility of sasquatch surviving in a specific area is that area's supply of food, water, and concealment. Obviously most sasquatch would have an aversion to living in the desert, because it is a wide open expanse of terrain, which would run counter to the sasquatch instinct of remaining in cover. Yet I believe that because individual sasquatch behavior will vary more than less intelligent species, there likely are or have been sasquatch who have chosen to utilize such environments. Just look at humans, the most intelligent animals. Our intelligence is what has allowed our species to thrive in virtually every environment on earth. Sasquatch possess this same ability to thrive by using their intelligence to adapt to a new environment. And while sasquatch prefer cover, like the numerous other animals who prefer to remain hidden for various reasons. Lions will use the natural cover in desert regions, usually the topography of the terrain, to ambush their prey. Most lions would probably prefer grasslands or other areas which offer more readily-available cover, yet they can still survive in certain desert regions, although perhaps there are fewer of them utilizing such areas.Some do it to ambush prey more easily, while others do it to keep from being found and eaten by predators. I think part of the reason the sasquatch population remains hidden has to do with being a predator, while it is also partly because of their view towards humans. Perhaps they view humans as predators.

 

I never really answered your questions directly did I? I do not believe there any states without sasquatch. However, I believe that there are some states with a bigfoot population that is incredibly small. This is due to the fact that surviving in some of these states is much more difficult, although still possible. Also, the sasquatch may simply use certain less-habitable areas as highways, which they use to move to another part of the country. It would depend on just how active emigration and immigration happens to be for these animals. Obviously there are a large number of sightings in parts of North America that are separated by vast distances, expanses which cover many different habitat types. Therefore at some point there had to be sasquatch who migrated from one area to another. It would likely be pretty easy for sasquatch to move from coast to coast undetected, granted that they avoided populated areas. Although some sightings could be due to such migratory travel. Perhaps the migration from a single area throughout the rest of North America occurred long before large towns and cities started springing up in places other than the east coast. Perhaps this means that the sasquatch populations on opposite sides of the continent are descended from ancestors who migrated there many centuries ago, without much mixing with the sasquatch population on the opposite coast of North America. It is all speculation really, but I do know that there exist pathways by which animals could move from coast to coast and still remain in forested land the entire time, thus never having to go into the open.

 

So I do not believe there is any discrepancy at all, to answer your second question. And to reiterate my answer to your first question, there are no areas in which bigfoot are lacking. I find your question similar to asking "in which areas did the ancient Native Americans in North America not exist?" It is not really a great question, mainly because "existing" in an area is just about walking there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

Hello All,

 

Sorry, GOTTA go off topic here:

 

There are no magic boundaries which sasquatch must adhere to. A bigfoot can, physically speaking, go anywhere within North America.......It is not really a great question, mainly because "existing" in an area is just about walking there.

 

What is not to love about this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can anybody state bigfoot (or any animal for that matter) doesn't live in a certain place. Sure you might think they don't live in a certain place but nobody can state it.

I will state that there are wild no bison in Nevada. Come on folks....let's get serious here of course we can place limits. Heck, environment, water sources, food sources give good indications as to why types of animals will inhabit a particular area. For goodness sakes, this is how we end up with people claiming portalsquathces....

Edited by Bodhi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How can anybody state bigfoot (or any animal for that matter) doesn't live in a certain place. Sure you might think they don't live in a certain place but nobody can state it.

I will state that there are wild no bison in Nevada. Come on folks....let's get serious here of course we can place limits. Heck, environment, water sources, food sources give good indications as to why types of animals will inhabit a particular area. For goodness sakes, this is how we end up with people claiming portalsquathces....

 

 

Wind your neck in mate. You know what I meant of course there are limits and your reply is disingenuous.

 

And I don't believe in portalsquatches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Steering Committee
BFF Donor

Bohdi, Nevada is not somewhere I would put high on a list of bigfoot habitats, but I don't see why one couldn't live there in spots like these.

 

 

vegaspks.JPG

 

 

skiarea.JPG

 

 

Humboldt-ForestNF-Panorama.jpg

 

 

Maybe you need to step outside that casino and look around a bit.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sésquac
BFF Donor

Hello Bodhi,,

Google the Carson Range. Beautiful high country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...