Active Proponents Do You Really Think Bigfoot Is Practically Everywhere?

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I base my conclusion more on logic than mere assumption. If what you said was true. It would be logical to think they would have been taken out by hunters, drivers etc. Since they remain elusive and unproven. My explanation is much more plausible. Certainly, it is not the best one . The best one is better explained in my signature.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Just a big mystery.  No bones.  Thousands and thousands, but not one bone.

 

I'm talking about chimpanzees.

 

 

Found three teeth identified as chimpanzee teeth, but oddly they can't say how they are related to modern chimpanzees.  These were found in arid conditions.  Which may not have been arid for the past 500,000 years.

 

Does no one else think it odd that no chimpanzee bones have ever been found?  With no fossil record, they must have been lab created.  Or spontaneously spawned.  What's wrong with science that they can't provide fossil proof of a species I am absolutely confident - exists?

Well not so fast.  Gorilla corpses are found as are bear, deer and just about everything else that lives and has bones.  A lot of misinformation has been generated on behalf of bigfoot as a means to explain away the lack of remains.  There are some who will say things like they've never found a bear carcass in the woods.  Yet recently BF researcher Kelly Shaw talks of a stench that turned out to be a dead bear.

[Redbone]

So bigfoot is everywhere these days north, south, east and west.  

Not in Hawaii and rare in North Dakota, but that has already been discussed

 

Do you really think it can be that widespread and yet that un proven?  

It seems it will always remain unproven to you without a body, so...yes?

 

As a skeptic you know where I stand so go ahead make your case.  

...and the argument goes on and on, yet nothing (in my opinion) but a body will ever sway you. Why would proponents want to engage again?

 

But it'l be refreshing if conspiracies what not can be dispensed with.

say what?

In my opinion, this is just another thread to call out those not wise enough to agree with you so they can once again be mocked publicly.

Not refreshing at all...

Edited April 2, 2016 by Redbone

[Guest Crowlogic]

^Turnabout is fair play and a proponent made a thread demanding proof from skeptics.  Well I'm going easy, this thread is about reasoning to accept the reported range which is as stated by others paradoxical.

[TritonTr196]

I think there is quite a few of them out there, but no where near as large a number as some people throws out. I think in some places out west and the pnw where they have extreme cold weather during parts of the year they migrate and people will see the same ones in different locations and just assume there is more than there is when it's just the same ones on their route. Down south I don't think they migrate at all because long it gets cold here it's nothing they or any other outside animal couldn't handle. So I think the numbers are more accurate in the southern warmer states than the northwest colder winter states. I don't personally think they are thousands of them out and about. Multiple thousands of them would mean there would be plenty of offspring over the hundreds of years and enough yearly offspring to where the forests would be over ran with them. One reason they stay hid and hard to find is their low numbers... It just wouldn't be possible to stay hid so well with thousands and thousands of them running around and I don't care how much so called unexplored huge areas we have to look...

[ShadowBorn]

I think there is quite a few of them out there, but no where near as large a number as some people throws out. I think in some places out west and the pnw where they have extreme cold weather during parts of the year they migrate and people will see the same ones in different locations and just assume there is more than there is when it's just the same ones on their route. Down south I don't think they migrate at all because long it gets cold here it's nothing they or any other outside animal couldn't handle. So I think the numbers are more accurate in the southern warmer states than the northwest colder winter states. I don't personally think they are thousands of them out and about. Multiple thousands of them would mean there would be plenty of offspring over the hundreds of years and enough yearly offspring to where the forests would be over ran with them. One reason they stay hid and hard to find is their low numbers... It just wouldn't be possible to stay hid so well with thousands and thousands of them running around and I don't care how much so called unexplored huge areas we have to look...

Wow! Triton thats a great answers and I have been thinking along the same lines , just did not know how to write it. But seeing the same creature in the same place in different date times does or can make it look like they have large numbers. I wonder how they figure into wondering grizzly in their numbers and terrotorry covered by them?.

Edited April 2, 2016 by ShadowBorn

[norseman]

In a word? No.

[ShadowBorn]

^^^ So what is your suggestion who has never seen one more then once Is Norseman?^^^^

[norseman]

Come again?

[southernyahoo]

To the OP, no,  but well enough dispersed across the country to exist in small groups in appropriate habitat.

[norseman]

I think like the three main north south trails in the US? Would be big enough areas for something to migrate along. And Canada is a giant wilderness with 10 percent of the US population. Along with the Alaskan pan handle.

(Apalachian, CDT and PCT trails)

Small nomadic family groups or individuals that migrate around following seasons are plausible.

I dont see where large numbers could remain hidden for long. A very large Ape man's caloric intake alone is going to start showing up on radar if there are too many of them. Plus hair, scat, winter kill, I mean at some point its a numbers game. Somebody is going to stumble upon something tangible.

Same goes for a low density population but it could take a lot longer.

Edited April 4, 2016 by norseman

[JDL]

There is only one threat that could wipe out bigfoot as a species.  Disease.

 

Contentions that they are being forced into extinction by habitat loss are not based on either evidence or logic.

 

A spotted owl lives in a very specific habitat niche.  Damage that niche, you damage the species.

 

Bigfoot, however, are immensely adaptable.  They've been reported in every major terrain, and reported to take advantage of a wide range of food sources.  They can also apply intelligence to adapt to changes as neceessary.

 

Other, less intelligent species, both predator and prey, that are adaptive are bounding back and spreading into areas where they had once been hunted out.

 

I found, but have not been able to locate since, an oral history from a Southeastern Native American tribe that stated that bigfoot had once been numerous, but that when smallpox and other European diseases were introduced back in the 1500's the bigfoot population was hit even harder than the Native American population.  So hard that for generations the surviving Native Americans believed that the bigfoot had completely died out.

 

If this were the case, it might take centuries for their population to rebuild.  It could also result in isolated regional pockets, which could account well for the regional variations in both physical size and behavior.

 

It may be that they are just now, under the same conditions that allow other adaptive species to thrive, once again achieving larger populations.

 

If so, this will work against them, as internal population pressure drives them to expand into more areas, and inevitably into more frequent contact with humans.

 

I believe that there are more of them than most people think, and that their numbers are expanding at an accelerating pace decade by decade.

 

I also believe that they can and will go anywhere they want. 

 

I also believe that they will need to occupy more and more habitat as their population expands.

 

They're not being threatened into extinction, they being threatened by their own success and population expansion.

 

Because this is what will likely result in their "discovery".

[JKH]

Definitely more than most people think, JDL. I don't know if your theory of expansion is quite accurate, but it could be. Certainly our last few decades have us greatly expanding into their territories.

Here's a recent episode in which Coonbo answers an intelligent question from a listener and discusses these ideas with similar conclusions. They also discuss the disease bottleneck theory in connection with Natives, don't know if you've seen it. This begins about 22 minutes in.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4QHIXVsxWIg

[ShadowBorn]

I think like the three main north south trails in the US? Would be big enough areas for something to migrate along. And Canada is a giant wilderness with 10 percent of the US population. Along with the Alaskan pan handle.

(Apalachian, CDT and PCT trails)

Small nomadic family groups or individuals that migrate around following seasons are plausible.

I dont see where large numbers could remain hidden for long. A very large Ape man's caloric intake alone is going to start showing up on radar if there are too many of them. Plus hair, scat, winter kill, I mean at some point its a numbers game. Somebody is going to stumble upon something tangible.

Same goes for a low density population but it could take a lot longer.

Well now at least you are getting it. There cannot be that many of them or there be more sign of them. Does not mean to stop searching, and what I mean by a print is that the print is just the beginning. But that print is not the end of what you are looking for but the start that does not end.

[JDL]

Definitely more than most people think, JDL. I don't know if your theory of expansion is quite accurate, but it could be. Certainly our last few decades have us greatly expanding into their territories.

Here's a recent episode in which Coonbo answers an intelligent question from a listener and discusses these ideas with similar conclusions. They also discuss the disease bottleneck theory in connection with Natives, don't know if you've seen it. This begins about 22 minutes in.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4QHIXVsxWIg

 

 

Listening to this now.  I agree with what they've said so far with regard to their direct observations.