Active Proponents Do You Really Think Bigfoot Is Practically Everywhere?

[FarArcher]

Back on topic, yes, I think with all the reported sightings almost everywhere except the Great Plains, there must be a significant number in existence.

 

Around 70,000 years ago, there was a supervolcanic eruption in Indonesia known as the Toba Event, and some scientists who have examined the data believe that this resulted in a massive global cooling event that lasted some ten years, killing many plants and animals, which in turn reduced the human population to fewer than 20,000 humans.  And they were spread out fairly thinly, as conditions would likely not support many in one location.

 

There were other studies of the human genome that point to a genetic bottleneck at the time of the Toba Event, but can't discern yet whether there is a direct cause-and-effect to the two separate indicators.

 

Population sizes are frequently limited by availability of food, water, security from predators, and capacity to range within whatever size territory an entity would require.

 

I must suggest these things are masters of camouflage.  Masters.

[Guest DWA]

I don't think they need to be.  They are aided and abetted all that is necessary by our ignorance; our doctrinaire denial; and our general inattentiveness.

[BobbyO]

The questions get more ridiculous by the day it seems, and this is after a month vacation on a beach for me.

Just under 2 Billion acres of forested land in North America, yet these things are being described as being "practically everywhere" by a skeptic who up until a few years back (in the grand scheme of things) thought they existed anyway.

Dear oh dear.

[JKH]

There was a similar thread last year, it's unclear why the op wouldn't continue that one. It's just plain trolling, can't see why anyone would take it seriously.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/51302-bigfoot-is-nearly-everywhere-is-an-untenable-pretense/

[ShadowBorn]

I'd say that a good number of people claiming to have seen bigfoot are indeed straight out liars.  Liars lie for any number of reasons.  A few folks simply think they saw bigfoot and a few for lack of a better explanation say they saw Bigfoot.  Understand I am not about to call anyone a liar but the counterpoint to the person saying they have undoubtedly seen bigfoot is easy enough to produce.  All you have to do is listen to any proven hoaxer as the hoax was being developed and you have your answer.  Every hoaxer lies with a straight face and will insist up down and sideways that they are telling the truth.  Because the bigfoot paradigm is so laced with liars, hoaxers, hucksters and funsters it's all guilty until proven innocent.  When Life Magazine photographed Ray Wallace's work site with the hundreds of tracks all over he stood tall and told them with a straight face indeed there's this big something walking around up there.  The bigfoot paradigm simply cried wolf one too many times and the telling thing is so far it is all just the stuff of make believe.  People get into things for any number of reasons, and sometimes it is to gain membership in a club.  You can event witness this in watching Finding Bigfoot where they anoint a person that's had a sighting they like into the club.  No matter how you slice it everything anyone has ever seen or done regarding the existence of this thing has provided nothing that confirms it's reality.

Crow

Do you remember writing  this off that thread that JKH  posted. This is a bold statement, all though I agree with you on the hoaxing part, I cannot agree with you that what witnesses have seen are wrong to what they have seen. Which is a living flesh and blood breathing entity that has some how survived  and lives in the wild of our National Forest through out North America. Although Hoaxers try to copy them there are distinct differences that cannot be copied. It is up to you to prove to your self these distinct differences that have been reported. This distinct difference is the difference between a hoax and the real deal. 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Good quote.

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

 

Where is the difference?  We have hoaxers producing fake bigfoot which leave no real bigfoot in the wake of the hoax and we have said to be genuine bigfoot encounters that leave behind the same wake of no real bigfoot.  The bottom line is no real bigfoot in the equation after the hoax has been outed and after the said to be genuine reportage has been made.

[ShadowBorn]

You are a smart person and you have attacked these differences on many occasions and it is the one thing that puts hoaxers on the curb. It is the difference between them and us, yet gives them freedom to roam freely.

 

Of course there will be no Bigfoot after a hoax, since the hoax was done by a person, so how can there be a Bigfoot. This is impossible for such a feat to take place, since Humans can be tracked. It is only when you have an encounter that the hoax is no longer a hoax but a real event. This event cannot be changed from a person sight and is embedded with in a person mind. You cannot change this or call this a hoax to a person who has sighted them and have some how transform them on how they now see the world. But it is more major then this in the difference of a hoax and the real deal and this needs to be experience. This difference is to controversial and needs to be discovered on a persons own merit. But it will change how we think about our selves and the world we live in and what we do not know. 

[JDL]

 

 

 

Where is the difference?  We have hoaxers producing fake bigfoot which leave no real bigfoot in the wake of the hoax and we have said to be genuine bigfoot encounters that leave behind the same wake of no real bigfoot.  The bottom line is no real bigfoot in the equation after the hoax has been outed and after the said to be genuine reportage has been made.

 

 

If there is such a thing as a government shill, Crow, on this forum, I am convinced that you are not one.  I perceive the government to be more competent.

[guyzonthropus]

Dang! Plussed JDL!

[Guest Crowlogic]

The questions get more ridiculous by the day it seems, and this is after a month vacation on a beach for me.

Just under 2 Billion acres of forested land in North America, yet these things are being described as being "practically everywhere" by a skeptic who up until a few years back (in the grand scheme of things) thought they existed anyway.

Dear oh dear.

Excuse me Bobby O.  This skeptic, you know the one who started this thread, does not think Bigfoot is practically everywhere.  This skeptic maintains that bigfoot isn't anywhere because it does not exist.  

 

Now then if you understand that I'll add I started this thread in the hopes of perhaps adding some sobriety to perhaps lessen the speed with which bigfootism is  spiraling down the rabbit hole.   In all honesty if the habitat question was to move the conversation  into a more rational perspective sort of the perspective it had in the middle of the 20th century it might get taken a bit more seriously these days.  But if it were to move back to that mid 20th century perspective a whole lot of people would be left out of the game would they not?  I really wanted to see if the bigfoot community could actually police it's own paradigms in a way that might return it to some type of credibility.

 

However this is unlikely to happen.  Oddly enough I was unable to dis way a cohort from shelling out a couple of Ben Franklin's  because they got the bug to go squatchin down the Pine Barrens.  It's raining here today I do hope they're getting their money's worth.  So sure bigfoot is practically everywhere and in big numbers.  Let the good times roll.

[ShadowBorn]

 

This skeptic, you know the one who started this thread, does not think Bigfoot is practically everywhere.  This skeptic maintains that bigfoot isn't anywhere because it does not exist.

Crow

I agree with you that they are not every where at the same time, How can they if there are not that many of them. For if there were we be seeing alot more of them and all the time. But instead they are being seen at odd times and in different years, so that does not sound like a large populating animal. Just look at us and how we are populating the world and this goes with the rest of the animal species. So no they cannot just be every where ,but some fof them can. Those same can be migrating through or passing like what apes do, where they cover large territory. Except their territry is the US or North America, and if only there could be a way to prove this theory? I guess one way would be it's prints and match them with others through out North America , after all how could those be faked . Oh ! I know how the Bigfoot conventions and the replica's , but then people could be honest too. Right ! and you could be looking at the real thing.

 

You can retrieve fresh reports and start from there and check out the evidence your self . This is the way that it should be done , so that the judge ment is done by your own mind and you come to your own conclusion. This way that their move ment is determined by your own discision rather then what we are trying to tell you. It is the only way to know the truth, which is on your own merit.

[FarArcher]

Crow, I agree that there's a lot of showmanship, personal profits, fraud, misrepresentations, exaggerations, mistaken identifications, and some ludicrous claims that beg credulity.

 

Absolutely.

 

And this wasn't present in the mid 20th Century.  Even though folks may have had clear run-ins with these things, at that time, we didn't have a flow of information like we see today.  In 1950 and for 30 more years, there were three television networks.  No computers.  No internet.  You wanted to know something - you went to the library and looked it up.

 

Now we have - maybe the same percentage - of folks who were not looking for these things and had a close encounter - face to face.  But now they can find out more about what they saw.  Then we have others who are honest folks with an interest - and they want to look for these things - and that's OK.  That's good.  Honest folks doing honest searching.

 

But you're right.  There are some folks who are frauds, showmen, and outright liars.  Then there are others who are the same ones that when hunting shoot at a noise.  They see a bush move, and they see a BF because that's what they wanted to see.

 

I do agree that there's a load of manure out among the flowers.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

 

This skeptic, you know the one who started this thread, does not think Bigfoot is practically everywhere.  This skeptic maintains that bigfoot isn't anywhere because it does not exist.

Crow

I agree with you that they are not every where at the same time, How can they if there are not that many of them. For if there were we be seeing alot more of them and all the time. But instead they are being seen at odd times and in different years, so that does not sound like a large populating animal. Just look at us and how we are populating the world and this goes with the rest of the animal species. So no they cannot just be every where ,but some fof them can. Those same can be migrating through or passing like what apes do, where they cover large territory. Except their territry is the US or North America, and if only there could be a way to prove this theory? I guess one way would be it's prints and match them with others through out North America , after all how could those be faked . Oh ! I know how the Bigfoot conventions and the replica's , but then people could be honest too. Right ! and you could be looking at the real thing.

 

You can retrieve fresh reports and start from there and check out the evidence your self . This is the way that it should be done , so that the judge ment is done by your own mind and you come to your own conclusion. This way that their move ment is determined by your own discision rather then what we are trying to tell you. It is the only way to know the truth, which is on your own merit.

 

The distribution is huge, the population is small.

The math is that the density is population divided by distribution, so not huge density wise.

 

Misidentification and hoaxing and wishful thinking are huge counts and the distribution is huge so we have huge density people, HUGE!

 

The media circus would have huge and so is not interested in not huge.

 

And that is why the media is full of misidentification, hoaxes and wishful thinking.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[JDL]

Even once they are recognized we will not be able to get an accurate population count.

 

And people will report them everywhere.  They'll be a lot more places than we thought and a lot fewer places than people will report.