Why can't we find and study Bigfoot?

[norseman]

20 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

 

 

The cart before the horse refers to accepting Bigfoot as a real possibility and attributing all manner of behavior, and I get that's what the forums about, discussing the possibilities. 

 I have experienced every type of Bigfoot encounter reported with the exception of a face to face encounter in my 50+ year's of kicking around the woods.

 LOL on the downgrades....remember who sent me, they are badges of honor!!! Just kidding but I do appreciate your comment. I think they should add a least popular contributor banner LOL! 

  

I don’t think that taking the subject of Bigfoot seriously before proof is found is putting the cart before the horse. I think that’s the natural progression of things. I used to think to myself why it was taking so long to find proof. And then I started watching researcher methods on TV shows and reading about it and had a “aha” moment. The goal is more foot casts and videos...... Houston we have a problem.

 

I found a trackway in deep snow with my father. What are some of your experiences?

 

There could be another angle that helps resolve the issue.

 

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-mastodon-bones-20170425-story.html

 

Nobody is looking for hominid bones 130k down in the soil in North America. This may change.

 

 

 

[Foxhill]

2 minutes ago, georgerm said:

 

I have seen a bigfoot while camping out in the forest up by Crater Lake so prepare yourself in case you run into one. This bigfoot was peeking over a log at me well past dusk. Our eyes locked, so I looked away to tell my friend. When I looked back it disappeared from view. It must have done a belly crawl out since two seconds later it vanished from view. I stayed put and did not go over to the log to see where it went.  

 

We were not hunting but cutting firewood. My theory is when hunting and carrying a rifle, bigfoot will avoid you long before you get near it.  (theory ) As you say some hunters lie about seeing bigfoot. It only takes one hunter telling the truth and we have a fact. Clayton Mack, a  Canadian Bear guide only saw two or three bigfoots during a long career.

 

Not fair changing the hunting scenario. The only shot you get is at bigfoot at dusk. Do you and peeps take the shot so you can prove bigfoot exists. Explain how you get a head and arm back to science.......................  just for fun. Any hunter out there can take a stab at this. This will also tie into the original question as to why we have no bigfoot body parts to show. By exploring this question, we may be able to hone our bigfoot stalking skills that will help get a dead bigfoot or some really great films of wary sasquatches.

 

 

 

 

 

Heck ya I get to change the scenario, its my hunt not yours LOL!

But in all seriousness you don't get to stack the deck that way, what's next do I take the shot if Bigfoots got a baby bigfoot in its arms?

 

 As far as presenting it to science, you just take it to your local Game Department, look what I killed opps sorry.

  

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Foxhill said:

.......There either is no Bigfoots or they are ninjas of the forest and will remain so forever.......

 

I think that pretty much suns it up, no? For the life of me, I cannot imagine how I've been so confused for the past half century, but I do want to thank you for straightening me out. 

[Foxhill]

59 minutes ago, norseman said:

I don’t think that taking the subject of Bigfoot seriously before proof is found is putting the cart before the horse. I think that’s the natural progression of things. I used to think to myself why it was taking so long to find proof. And then I started watching researcher methods on TV shows and reading about it and had a “aha” moment. The goal is more foot casts and videos...... Houston we have a problem.

 

I found a trackway in deep snow with my father. What are some of your experiences?

 

There could be another angle that helps resolve the issue.

 

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-mastodon-bones-20170425-story.html

 

Nobody is looking for hominid bones 130k down in the soil in North America. This may change.

 

 

 

 

Sure you can take it seriously, but when you start attributing behavior to something that you can't even film/observe on a regular basis, its really just an exercise in imaginative thinking and I don't mean that as an insult, just couldn't think of a better term.

I haven't seen anything on TV or from any researcher that couldn't be easily explained so you'll have to help me out on that one.

 

I've been stalked 4 separate times, two of the stalkers became dinner one I let go, the other ran off when I turned on it, as a rule this is a highly dangerous tactic and only to be practiced by idiots and those that like the idea of being dinner or of course professionals like me. I've heard ever sound attributed to Bigfoot, found all manner of bent trees, structures, stick figures. I have found tracks, nothing like the tracks that are cast those are obvious fakes, but double bear tracks stuff like that.

 I guess I could say I've seen Bigfoot I've seen all sorts of large furry creatures running away, but I'll stick with bear, boar, mountain lion, before I go with Bigfoot scooting around on all fours.

 

The fossil record could be revealing but I doubt it, what it will show over time is how our family tree is a bush not a tree, that's really already happening. But I think the giant upright hominid ran into the cube-square law at some point around 7-8 feet at best.    

9 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I think that pretty much suns it up, no? For the life of me, I cannot imagine how I've been so confused for the past half century, but I do want to thank you for straightening me out. 

 

I'm just here to help...….but yes mine (and my mind) is a simple world LOL!

Edited January 14, 2020 by Foxhill

[Huntster]

Just now, Foxhill said:

.......when you start attributing behavior to something that you can't even film/observe on a regular basis, its really just an exercise in imaginative thinking........

 

Of course, that logic couldn't also apply to all the behaviors we "know" about Neanderthals, Denisovans, dinosaurs, etc, right? That's "different"........

[Foxhill]

3 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Of course, that logic couldn't also apply to all the behaviors we "know" about Neanderthals, Denisovans, dinosaurs, etc, right? That's "different"........

 

It's all just guessing, I've said this since I was in my teens, T-Rex was no predator he was a giant land based vulture, who can prove me wrong?

[norseman]

12 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

 

Sure you can take it seriously, but when you start attributing behavior to something that you can't even film/observe on a regular basis, its really just an exercise in imaginative thinking and I don't mean that as an insult, just couldn't think of a better term.

I haven't seen anything on TV or from any researcher that couldn't be easily explained so you'll have to help me out on that one.

 

I've been stalked 4 separate times, two of the stalkers became dinner one I let go, the other ran off when I turned on it, as a rule this is a highly dangerous tactic and only to be practiced by idiots and those that like the idea of being dinner or of course professionals like me. I've heard ever sound attributed to Bigfoot, found all manner of bent trees, structures, stick figures. I have found tracks, nothing like the tracks that are cast those are obvious fakes, but double bear tracks stuff like that.

 I guess I could say I've seen Bigfoot I've seen all sorts of large furry creatures running away, but I'll stick with bear, boar, mountain lion, before I go with Bigfoot scooting around on all fours.

 

The fossil record could be revealing but I doubt it, what it will show over time is how our family tree is a bush not a tree, that's really already happening. But I think the giant upright hominid ran into the cube-square law at some point around 7-8 feet at best.    

 

I'm just here to help...….but yes mine (and my mind) is a simple world LOL!

So you haven’t had any encounters is what your saying? And why are they obvious fakes?

 

The point isn’t that our family tree is a Bush. The point is that something was cracking bones with rocks and eating Mastadon marrow 130,000 years ago in California. That rewrites history. And since Homo Sapiens had not left Africa yet? What was it? This isn’t pseudo science or cryptozoology. These scientists in California or not making any argument for Bigfoot.

 

But just like the Ebu Gogo/Hobbit connection? Legends and bones line up.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

 

It's all just guessing, I've said this since I was in my teens, T-Rex was no predator he was a giant land based vulture, who can prove me wrong?

Science can prove you wrong.

 

https://www.livescience.com/38182-tyrannosaur-tooth-in-hadrosaur-tail.html

[Patterson-Gimlin]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

I think that pretty much suns it up, no? For the life of me, I cannot imagine how I've been so confused for the past half century, but I do want to thank you for straightening me out. 

Lol. Great answer. I have enjoyed this thread and all the great answers. 

 

No need for me to answer. The mystery is solved. Definitely Ninja. 

[SWWASAS]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

 

 

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-mastodon-bones-20170425-story.html

 

Nobody is looking for hominid bones 130k down in the soil in North America. This may change.

 

 

 

That early date in North America brings into question the entire human record.    The only place human ancestors have been found older than that is Africa and Asia.    Nothing that ancient in Europe.    So are we to believe that we originated in Africa,  somehow got to North America,   then migrated back into Asia and finally Western Europe?    Much points to the use of boats rather than the land bridge.

 

Like Norseman said,   we should look in North American strata going back as far as 250,000 years for both humans and bigfoot.    You can bet that if there have been findings in strata older than 20,000 years,   it has not been looked at because supposedly man showed up 14,000 years ago in North America.  

[Catmandoo]

3 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Like Norseman said,   we should look in North American strata going back as far as 250,000 years for both humans and bigfoot.

 

Our terrain has been modified by many glacial lake outbursts.  Wash---rinse--repeat.  Most of our history has been washed out to sea.

[norseman]

47 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

That early date in North America brings into question the entire human record.    The only place human ancestors have been found older than that is Africa and Asia.    Nothing that ancient in Europe.    So are we to believe that we originated in Africa,  somehow got to North America,   then migrated back into Asia and finally Western Europe?    Much points to the use of boats rather than the land bridge.

 

Like Norseman said,   we should look in North American strata going back as far as 250,000 years for both humans and bigfoot.    You can bet that if there have been findings in strata older than 20,000 years,   it has not been looked at because supposedly man showed up 14,000 years ago in North America.  

?

 

It points to something other than Homo Sapien radiating out of Africa much early. Homo Erectus, etc?

[georgerm]

2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

That early date in North America brings into question the entire human record.    The only place human ancestors have been found older than that is Africa and Asia.    Nothing that ancient in Europe.    So are we to believe that we originated in Africa,  somehow got to North America,   then migrated back into Asia and finally Western Europe?    Much points to the use of boats rather than the land bridge.

 

Like Norseman said,   we should look in North American strata going back as far as 250,000 years for both humans and bigfoot.    You can bet that if there have been findings in strata older than 20,000 years,   it has not been looked at because supposedly man showed up 14,000 years ago in North America.  

 

This article seems to relate to Homo Sapiens more than bigfoot. Bigfoot may have been here when humans showed up but they were't making tools.

 

The renowned dig site, unearthed 25 years ago during a freeway expansion, yielded a wealth of remains from the shaggy, ancient beasts, including bones, tusks, and molars marred by blows from primitive tools. According to the study, it also dealt a surprise blow to the notion that humans are relatively new to the continent.

 

Recent tests of uranium decay in the bones date the entire site to 130,000 years ago    https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-mastodon-bones-20170425-story.html

[georgerm]

Bigfoot is simply a difficult animal to find and film and the question is why? My theory is their senses are so keen, and their dislike for humans is so great that avoiding humans is what they do best. They are  also not stupid and some how know that being seen by humans leads to more human intrusion into 'their forest'. The bigfoot probably sees humans in their forest as you would see an intruder in your back yard. It pisses them off that sometimes leads to bluff charges, rock throwing, and out right attacks where humans disappear. Now add the rarity factor. They might be the rarest animal in the states, yet they can maintain a breeding population. 

 

[norseman]

4 hours ago, georgerm said:

 

This article seems to relate to Homo Sapiens more than bigfoot. Bigfoot may have been here when humans showed up but they were't making tools.

 

The renowned dig site, unearthed 25 years ago during a freeway expansion, yielded a wealth of remains from the shaggy, ancient beasts, including bones, tusks, and molars marred by blows from primitive tools. According to the study, it also dealt a surprise blow to the notion that humans are relatively new to the continent.

 

Recent tests of uranium decay in the bones date the entire site to 130,000 years ago    https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-mastodon-bones-20170425-story.html

Primitive tools = Two stones acting as a hammer and anvil to break bone.

[Huntster]

6 hours ago, norseman said:

Primitive tools = Two stones acting as a hammer and anvil to break bone.

 

The admission of any hominid before the Holy Land Bridge, regardless of how primitive, is a milestone. This very find is an example: do you hear the 130K year figure touted as our arrival? You can find an entire human skeleton dating 100K years and all it would produce is a fight.