This Is Why We Can't Find A Body Here In Wa. State...

[Guest Crowlogic]

In order to commit to the idea that Bigfoot bodies can't be found because of rugged remote terrain we have to dismiss virtually every non rugged region where Bigfoot sightings are claimed. I maintain that Bigfoot bodies will never be found because Bigfoot(Sasquatch) is now extinct.

[Will]

maybe your right, or they might bury there dead

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I would go with the now extinct theory if there were not any recent sightings but they still are reported, maybe there are so very few that the chances upon coming across a dead body / remains are just too remote because the forest takes care of it's own and not too many people would know what too look for anyway ~ ?

[Guest Kerchak]

There are so many airplanes that have gone missing in Alaska, it is probably an unknown figure. This is the Land of the Lost.

This was a famous case. I'd heard about it for years. It was rumored that there was a lot of gold on the flight; Chinese payment for US assistance, or captured Japanese gold. It was false.

There was an RC-135 that went down in the Wrangell Mountains in the mid 1980's, and the Air Force really wanted to at least locate the wreckage. We had an SR-71 flying in and out of Elmendorf for days looking for it, along with other Air Force and Civil Air Patrol aircraft involved in the search. I don't think they ever located it.

Interesting Huntster. Thanks for that. Two very sizeable planes then. Even that Curtiss Helldiver from Oregon (though a small plane by comparison) is nothing to sneer at.

[Guest Kerchak]

The implication I was addressing however, was the one that Kerchak seemed to be arguing back in post #137 when he said,

Kerchak appears to be saying that if the USA were thoroughly explored/charted there wouldn't be any missing planes.

And I even mentioned Kerchak specifically.

RayG

Yes I was saying that Ray G. I have no argument that some trapper or hunter might have wandered through an area 100 years ago or whatnot but clearly not every square mile is still walked over and thoroughly explored to this day.

[Guest RayG]

...but clearly not every square mile is still walked over and thoroughly explored to this day.

Ah, that little qualifier makes a world of difference. Had you said that from the beginning, I wouldn't have disagreed.

RayG

[Guest]

Not sure how you're getting that implication as I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I specifically said "topo maps are based on exploration/charting of a particular area, and reflect the terrain of that particular area. They don't show squatch huts, farmer Brown's new barn, nor downed planes (sorry Kerchak), but they do show rivers, lakes, mountains, valleys, and other natural terrain."

I made no mention whatsoever of animals, mentioned terrain twice (underlined this time), and no matter how you slice it, terrain does not equate to wildlife. Were you confused because I didn't specifically say that topo maps DON'T show animals? I'm truly puzzled how you came to your conclusion based upon what I've written. Might it be an assumption on your part instead of an implication on mine?

RayG

Then topo maps are completely and utterly 10000000% IRRELEVANT to the discussion.

The existence of a topo map of a region in no way shape or form means that that same region is easly traversed, or that significant numbers of people go there. It is therefore ENTIRELY possible, even likely, that a large bipedal ape could live and die there without man ever being aware that it is there.

That's the point, put as plainly as possible. Despite all your verbal sohpistry, the wild areas of the US are NOT explored in the sense that it we know what animals live there and what animals don't live there.

[Guest]

Have modern maps been charted or not?

Pray tell, HOW have I been implying the maps have been explored/charted? I've already said it doesn't require tramping through every square inch on foot.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, 1,000 times yes, armies of surveyors tramping over every square inch on foot is not a requirement. I've never argued otherwise. It doesn't negate the fact that the area was still explored/charted. You just need to toss out thoughts that explored = men on foot traipsing through the bush. Did you go to the link I provided and try to find a blank spot, completely unexplored/uncharted anywhere within the USA? Let me know if you find one.

Just curious Mulder, have you ever used a topographical map to traverse an unfamiliar area?

Not sure I'm interpreting correctly what you mean by "man now knows exactly what's there and what isn't", but I don't recall ever making that claim. Like it or not, topo maps are based on exploration/charting of a particular area, and reflect the terrain of that particular area. They don't show squatch huts, farmer Brown's new barn, nor downed planes (sorry Kerchak), but they do show rivers, lakes, mountains, valleys, and other natural terrain. If you and Kerchak are trying to argue that maps don't show downed aircraft, I won't disagree, but there's no reason they should show a downed plane.

And speaking of downed planes... the implication seems to be that if the USA were thoroughly explored/charted there wouldn't be any missing planes. (if I'm understanding Kerchak's argument correctly)

Say all 100 homes in my city neighborhood have brand new rooftops installed, and the updated Google earth/maps show those brand new rooftops. They've been explored/charted, not only by the original contractors on foot, but aerially as well. If I go up to my rooftop and slide a nickle under one of the shingles, is anyone going to find it walking around on those 100 rooftops? Google earth/maps isn't going to reveal the hidden nickle either, even if updated again, so how is anyone going to stumble across the hidden nickle? Now, instead of hiding the nickle, I just toss it up on my roof. Google earth/maps is still not likely to see/find it, and unless someone walks around on each of the 100 rooftops looking intently, they likely aren't going to stumble across it either. What if all the rooftops had grass sod instead of shingles? Would anyone find the nickle even if they're looking for it? If the cable guy goes up there to run some wiring next to the chimney, is he going to notice the nickle buried in the grass?

Which proves my point entirely.

I just don't see the comparison between missing planes and bigfoot, and it has very little to do with whether an area has been explored/charted. People don't see missing planes crossing the road, walking through fields, swimming in lakes, or doing nearly any other activity bigfoot has supposedly been witnessed doing. Ah, you say bigoot is even harder to find because he's NOT static, he can move around and elude us. Yes, but that doesn't explain the stupid squatches. The ones that raid dumpsters, cross highways, interact with humans, or die stupid accidental deaths. Squatches do die, right?

Doesn't mean that they are going to die in a place that is convenient, obvious, and accessable to man. And once they die, they become "missing planes", hidden by the wilderness. And within months or so, they are nothing but scattered bones hidden away and rotting under the leaf litter.

[Huntster]

Go flying over a stretch of wilderness and you aren't going to see even 1% of the animal life that's there.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game do aerial wildlife surveys annually on caribou and moose. These are done at certain times of the year in order to maximize count efficiency. For moose, the counts are done during October/November when deciduous leaves are down, and snow on the ground maximizes the visibility of animals. With caribou, it is done during the spring calving migrations when the animals are concentrated in huge herds. Then they photograph the herd and count the animals later in the enlarged photograph. In both cases, these counts are used to extrapolate a total, estimated number of animals in a particular game management unit.

They do not do this for black bear for the obvious reason that most prime black bear habitat is dense, evergreen forest, and aerial censuses don't work.

[Huntster]

I maintain that Bigfoot bodies will never be found because Bigfoot(Sasquatch) is now extinct.

I opine that sasquatches are now extinct in much of their original range (which at one time included parts of Appalachia, parts of Florida and the Great Lakes region, parts of the Rockies in the U.S., northern California and portions of the Sierras, etc), just like most other large predatory/omnivorous animals on this continent, but I believe that they still exist in the core of their most productive and remote habitat; the coast side of British Columbia and Southeast Alaska in the Coast Range and Alexander Archipelago, and small pockets of remnant individuals or small groups in the Canadian Rockies, Washington state, Oregon, Bristol Bay, and the Canadian boreal forest east to Quebec. In these final areas, their densities are so low that the process of extinction is ongoing in most of those areas.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest]

Interesting idea.

[Guest Kerchak]

Ah, that little qualifier makes a world of difference. Had you said that from the beginning, I wouldn't have disagreed.

RayG

But I did argue against every square mile IS explored/traipsed etc. That was my whole point. Another poster claimed it "IS" blah blah. Go back and read my first post in this thread. I never argued against every mile "has been at some point in time" etc etc.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Kerchak

[Guest]

Alaska Department of Fish and Game do aerial wildlife surveys annually on caribou and moose. These are done at certain times of the year in order to maximize count efficiency. For moose, the counts are done during October/November when deciduous leaves are down, and snow on the ground maximizes the visibility of animals. With caribou, it is done during the spring calving migrations when the animals are concentrated in huge herds. Then they photograph the herd and count the animals later in the enlarged photograph. In both cases, these counts are used to extrapolate a total, estimated number of animals in a particular game management unit.

They do not do this for black bear for the obvious reason that most prime black bear habitat is dense, evergreen forest, and aerial censuses don't work.

Your point is well taken that aerial surveys only work on populations that 1) routinely spend a great deal of time in open areas, as opposed to under tree cover 2) have numbers large enough to make catching them in said open areas likely.

BF is neither of these. There have been that I know of maybe a short-handful of sightings via air as opposed to hundreds and thousands of sightings on the ground.

[Guest]

I opine that sasquatches are now extinct in much of their original range (which at one time included parts of Appalachia, parts of Florida and the Great Lakes region, parts of the Rockies in the U.S., northern California and portions of the Sierras, etc), just like most other large predatory/omnivorous animals on this continent, but I believe that they still exist in the core of their most productive and remote habitat; the coast side of British Columbia and Southeast Alaska in the Coast Range and Alexander Archipelago, and small pockets of remnant individuals or small groups in the Canadian Rockies, Washington state, Oregon, Bristol Bay, and the Canadian boreal forest east to Quebec. In these final areas, their densities are so low that the process of extinction is ongoing in most of those areas.

I wouldn't count the Appalachians out just yet, nor some of the lesser known mountainous regions of the Midwest (parts of OK, AR, and MO) and remote parts of the South.

Timberghost and the Kiamichi crew have extensive experience with encounters in their area, and BigTex is working an active area in Texas that is yeilding tracks and other sign on a regular basis.