BobbyO Posted May 30, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted May 30, 2012 If Bigfoot can survive Alaskan winters, then surely they should have no problem surviving in eastern Canada. Or Idaho/Montana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 If you think Ontario is not a place they could live in, then you don't know much about Ontario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) OK. But why wouldn't they be able to live in Texas? While I agree Ontario isn't the best place out of North America for them, there seems to be populations of them not only in the north, but also in the southern parts where TGBF does his research. If Bigfoot can survive Alaskan winters, then surely they should have no problem surviving in eastern Canada. For Ontario to have a zero chance, it would also mean the surrounding provinces & states to have a near zero chance. Ever see the Minnesota/Ontario trackway? You could be right, it is just my opinion on the matter. The Alaska thing seems different to me, though Alaska can have brutal winters, the climate along the coast is different, and the food supply is different. I just think the only way BF could be a real living breathing being is in remote areas of the PNW...as far as NA goes anyway. As far as Texas goes, my opinion is really not going to change. Texas, as well as anywhere not in the PNW on up, is a non starter for me, if they were there, they would have been officially documented and catalogued long long ago. Not to say that opinion couldn't change, but so far nothing has prompted me to think otherwise. I used to think otherwise, but hey, like buddy said a few post back, my opinion is worth as much as a Canadian penny. Cheers Or Idaho/Montana. I think Idaho or Montana are possible...maybe. If you think Ontario is not a place they could live in, then you don't know much about Ontario. Grew up there, have family in the north where I spent summers as a kid at the cabin and the lake. While the Canadian Shield is awesome country, I just don't see it as viable BF habitat. But hey, while I've been interested in BF for as longs I can remember, I am no wildlife biologist, nor have I ever played one on TV. I'm a geomatics dude by day and a photographer by night (literally - astrophotography is a great hobby). Prior to going into the geomatics world, I once did a degree in physical anthropology, and spent time in the same department as Vladimir Markotic with whom I discussed BF on occasion, but I am no BF expert either. I just have my own worthless opinions I have arrived at over the years, but they are not set in stone. Cheers Edited May 30, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I guess I just don't know enough about Bigfoot to know what is viable habitat, I don't even know for certain if they excist, let alone if they go through periods of inactivty etc, through out the winter, or how intelligent they are, or are not, wich would certainly effect habitat range. Although many beleive they eat deer, and other animals, as well as fish, plants etc. How far north do the deer go in Ontario? Do they hibernate? Could a Bigfoot be smart enough to create a winter stash? Of meat or plants? I dunno, so I cant really say much about their habitat range either. Of course, we talk about them a lot like they are a "dumb" animal, and if they are smarter than we think, thats a real game changer. If they excist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 They could theoretically hop a Northbound train out of Winnepeg, and take it all the way to Churchill, where they could feed on polar bears and things like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I guess I just don't know enough about Bigfoot to know what is viable habitat, I don't even know for certain if they excist, let alone if they go through periods of inactivty etc, through out the winter, or how intelligent they are, or are not, wich would certainly effect habitat range. Although many beleive they eat deer, and other animals, as well as fish, plants etc. How far north do the deer go in Ontario? Do they hibernate? Could a Bigfoot be smart enough to create a winter stash? Of meat or plants? I dunno, so I cant really say much about their habitat range either. Of course, we talk about them a lot like they are a "dumb" animal, and if they are smarter than we think, thats a real game changer. If they excist. If they were able to hibernate, that would be a game changer for sure. Also, if they do exist, I think they would have to be quite intelligent. My own pet theory, aside from the range I have accepted, is that if they do exist, it is because they have adapted over many many years to avoid us and they would have to function at night unless disturbed somehow. I suppose they would be intelligent enough to know when they are sharing their range with us, in which case I could see them being more active during the day. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) Hi Summit, Pretty hard stance you've got there. I'm going to make an assumption here, and hope you can provide add'l assumptions on your part. My assumption - you have not seen or studied a sasquatch or other undiscovered primate or hominid. With that said (please correct me if I'm wrong), could you take a few moments and list some of your assumptions on sasquatch/undiscovered primate/hominids that would lead you to your conclusions? Your statements really call into question some of the more significant research in this field, especially how we've got DNA from purported sasquatches in areas you feel strongly that they can't/don't inhabit. Thx Summit. Edited May 30, 2012 by Cotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Righto folks..........periodically I have to drag this thread back to topic. This is one of those occasions. Discussing where sasquatch "cannot" live is not anything whatsoever to do with the Ketchum report, which is the topic under discussion in this thread. Please return to the subject, but do feel free to start a new thread on this interesting topic if you so wish. This is official "moderator-me" talking, and I thank you for your attention. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 So are we now argueing whether or not a non proven entity exists in a certain place over other certain places when the entity hasnt been discovered yet? Seems kind of superfluous to agure that point when the entity obviously exists everywhere but officially exists nowhere. Your statements really call into question some of the more significant research in this field, especially how we've got DNA from purported sasquatches in areas you feel strongly that they can't/don't inhabit. Ok if the DNA is only purported and not actually sasquatch DNA what can it really prove? I think you are getting the cart ahead of the horse on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) Your statements really call into question some of the more significant research in this field, especially how we've got DNA from purported sasquatches in areas you feel strongly that they can't/don't inhabit. Now we have DNA? Funny, I thought this topic was all about waiting for some report that would finally show that there was some DNA from sasquatches, but you're saying we already have DNA form sasquatches? I think, and correct me if I am wrong, but I think that currently there is no such thing as sasquatch DNA of record. So saying that there's DNA from one area or another is another one of those "common knowledge" things which has nothing to back it up. Say it enough times and it becomes true? Who has this sasquatch DNA, and who analyzed it and determined it was sasquatch DNA? Edited May 30, 2012 by Tontar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Perhaps it would be more correct to say, "We have organic material samples submitted for DNA analysis from these areas". That would be the prepublication CP way to say it, then after publication then claims of DNA can be made. On a side note I was watching an interview with Fahrenbach last night and he noted difficulties getting DNA from hair, and in particular purported BF hair. He also noted that initial DNA analysis has been done on a number of samples, but with inconclusive results due to (if I recall correctly) the lack of understanding of what they were really looking for. Sending a sample for DNA study to any old lab won't necessarily give the best results as apparently there are issues involved with DNA extraction. I believe there was some discussion of potential issues with DNA extraction earlier in this thread in regards to the samples, and Dr. Ketchum noted she used up the earliest samples before really understanding what she had. Not being a DNA expert by any stretch, I'm not sure how to interpret all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Okay, so organic material samples, no DNA. Thanks for the revision. Having seen a lot of programs dealing with organic samples, and supposedly organic samples, I have become pretty skeptical about all the reported samples obtained, since not one has ever resulted in a conclusion that it was bigfoot or something like bigfoot, to my knowledge. What has made it worse is that there has been human hair, known animal hair, fake hair, and dyed human hair showing up as alleged bigfoot hair. So when people start talking about having bigfoot DNA from certain areas, and using that as evidence that they live in a particular area, that evidence should be called into question. If it turns out that there is no DNA from Texas, or Oklahoma, or any other place, then it's disingenuous to use as some form of leverage in favor of BF's living somewhere. So until Ketchum, or Sykes, or someone else discloses that there is in fact bigfoot DNA, and that it came from this place or that place, it's non-evidence, and non-proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 DO NOT IGNORE THIS!! I have just had to remove a post which completely ignored the advisory I posted only a matter of minutes ago. Moderators don't say stuff just for the sake of it. Please take heed of what I said, and return this thread to on-topic. The next poster who ignores this warning will be the recipient of punitive action. Don't make me do it. Many thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) Hi Summit, Pretty hard stance you've got there. I'm going to make an assumption here, and hope you can provide add'l assumptions on your part. My assumption - you have not seen or studied a sasquatch or other undiscovered primate or hominid. With that said (please correct me if I'm wrong), could you take a few moments and list some of your assumptions on sasquatch/undiscovered primate/hominids that would lead you to your conclusions? Your statements really call into question some of the more significant research in this field, especially how we've got DNA from purported sasquatches in areas you feel strongly that they can't/don't inhabit. Thx Summit. Never mind, I'll PM you instead, may not be a good idea to answer. Edited May 30, 2012 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Now we have DNA? Funny, I thought this topic was all about waiting for some report that would finally show that there was some DNA from sasquatches, but you're saying we already have DNA form sasquatches? I think, and correct me if I am wrong, but I think that currently there is no such thing as sasquatch DNA of record. So saying that there's DNA from one area or another is another one of those "common knowledge" things which has nothing to back it up. Say it enough times and it becomes true? Who has this sasquatch DNA, and who analyzed it and determined it was sasquatch DNA? I think we will give it a more appropriate name other than bigfoot or sasquatch. You'll just have to make the connection on your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts