Looking for Bigfoot in Open Areas

[norseman]

6 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

That is awesome!  Even more reason why cryptozoology needs to be taken seriously.  A giant species of pine tree that was contemporary with the dinosaurs was presumed extinct for centuries despite the fact that it was located just outside of a major metropolitan area.  This proves that it is certainly possible that an unclassified species of bipedal primate can remain hidden in North America's wilderness areas.  

Im not a knower. But I’ve always fought for the possibility of its existence. And I roll my eyes when people show me Bigfoot evidence from a small park in Chicago. But a large area in the US and Canada still remains for something like this to exist. Hopefully it will remain so for future generations to enjoy.

[Wooly Booger]

1 minute ago, norseman said:

Im not a knower. But I’ve always fought for the possibility of its existence. And I roll my eyes when people show me Bigfoot evidence from a small park in Chicago. But a large area in the US and Canada still remains for something like this to exist. Hopefully it will remain so for future generations to enjoy.

I agree, and a healthy degree of skepticism is certainly necessary.  That was one of my biggest gripes with Finding Bigfoot, Moneymaker and crew saw Sasquatches behind every tree.  The preponderance of the evidence does however suggest that an unclassified species of bipedal primate inhabits the wilderness areas of North America.  If such a species exists, and the evidence suggests it probably does, than it is vital that the species is classified by science and placed on the endangered species list.  

[hiflier]

Glad to see one member out there anyway who knows how to ration their upvotes, LOL.

[BobbyO]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

Im not a knower. But I’ve always fought for the possibility of its existence. And I roll my eyes when people show me Bigfoot evidence from a small park in Chicago. But a large area in the US and Canada still remains for something like this to exist. Hopefully it will remain so for future generations to enjoy.

 

I wonder how you'd feel if you were to see one Norse, making you a knower, and then getting asked the question about them utilizing residential type areas with big populations such as areas of Cook County Il (Chicagoland) and Westmoreland County PA (East Pittsburgh Suburbs) ?

 

I think they can and do inhabit areas that would blow our minds if we legitimately knew they were in x and y area, personally.

 

How they do it, i have no idea, and i don't think they're necessarily there full time neither but there's a ridiculous number of reports from largely populated areas of North America and if you're a knower, then it changes the entire mentality about what they do and where they do it.

 

Food for thought anyway.

 

 

[John B]

4 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

I agree, and a healthy degree of skepticism is certainly necessary.  That was one of my biggest gripes with Finding Bigfoot, Moneymaker and crew saw Sasquatches behind every tree.  The preponderance of the evidence does however suggest that an unclassified species of bipedal primate inhabits the wilderness areas of North America.  If such a species exists, and the evidence suggests it probably does, than it is vital that the species is classified by science and placed on the endangered species list.  

What does not help is the media presentation or style in covering this topic. Everything is Squatch hype hype. Sometimes make the issue look like a clown show vice investigative work.

[Wooly Booger]

1 hour ago, John B said:

What does not help is the media presentation or style in covering this topic. Everything is Squatch hype hype. Sometimes make the issue look like a clown show vice investigative work.

Exactly. But unfortunately, a scientifically grounded research series about Sasquatch hunting most likely wouldn't generate much in the way of ratings. Television executives know that overly dramatized hype equals higher ratings and thus more revenue. 

 

Unfortunately, these types of programs only serve to make the majority of the public take the subject even less seriously than they already do. 

 

Luckily, that is where good quality podcasts such as Sasquatch Chronicles come in. Such programs fill a much needed niche for serious, scientifically minded enthusiasts. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[Madison5716]

2 hours ago, BobbyO said:

think they can and do inhabit areas that would blow our minds if we legitimately knew they were in x and y area, personally.

 

I was surprised to find them where we found them in July, even though we were warned. I have a friend who lives 3 miles from the location!

[Trogluddite]

On 2/4/2021 at 1:57 PM, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Pure conjecture on my part... but, they probably avoid open areas instinctively.  They are obviously very stealthy or we would have more evidence of their existence.  

 

They seem to travel across more open areas occasionally, because trackways have been found in the open before.  But, they seem to spend the majority of their time in covered areas.  

 

Those open area crossings are probably the exception to the rule.  

I've got an app for this question - out of 1,065 encounters reported in the northeast US and eastern Canada only 186 were on/near a road w/the Bigfoot either paralleling the road (58 encounters) or crossing the road (128 encounters if I can do math). Personally, I'm stunned at how small that number is, especially out east here where we're packed in like sardines.  Only 26 encounters were were on/near (w/in 25 yards of) an electric or gas cut.  I'm really stunned about that.  100 encounters were within a body of water.  

 

One caveat to these numbers (which I'm sure that people would realize when they think about it) is that if the report is too vague, you can't really get good information.  For example, I couldn't estimate the distance from water in almost 250 reports. 

 

 

On 2/7/2021 at 12:06 PM, Foxhill said:

I'd suggest to you that very few "researchers" are no more than a couple of miles from the vehicle they drove to the "remote" wilderness research site. The fact that more reports come in from very unremote sites is a pretty good indication of what your dealing with.

 

One of the nice things about Google Earth is that once you fix the likely location of an encounter you can more accurately identify how remote - or not - it was.  When making reports it seems like humans think in human terms - the distance to the next town via road.  But if you look at it from a Bigfoot perspective, the nearest population center, whether it be a town, a village, or a built up area out in the country might be a short walk away.  Out of 1065 encounters in the northeast US/eastern Canada, 720 occurred within 3 miles or less of a reasonably large cluster of humans.

[norseman]

4 hours ago, BobbyO said:

 

I wonder how you'd feel if you were to see one Norse, making you a knower, and then getting asked the question about them utilizing residential type areas with big populations such as areas of Cook County Il (Chicagoland) and Westmoreland County PA (East Pittsburgh Suburbs) ?

 

I think they can and do inhabit areas that would blow our minds if we legitimately knew they were in x and y area, personally.

 

How they do it, i have no idea, and i don't think they're necessarily there full time neither but there's a ridiculous number of reports from largely populated areas of North America and if you're a knower, then it changes the entire mentality about what they do and where they do it.

 

Food for thought anyway.

 

 

They can’t be somewhere like that full time. As a rancher that buys hay and manages pasture on 350 acres? You would be utterly amazed what a 1000 lbs cow eats in one year. And what the land looks like as a result. You can’t hardly walk 20 feet without stepping in a cow pie. You start talking about a breeding population? Plus being mostly unseen, low impact on the land, very little scat, hair, etc? 
 

Just one nocturnal critter moving through? Sure. That Cougar that was killed on the road on the east coast was from South Dakota. No one reported a cougar from point A to B. It was DNA that told them where it came from. For 1500 miles that cat had to drink and eat. It did so undetected.

 

A Bigfoot being a bipedal animal could walk from Alaska to Argentina. No problem believing that. But they don’t wear back packs full of food. It’s forced to live off the land as it goes..... It’s an 800 lbs creature. That’s a lot of groceries. The range of one Grizzly Bear (a fellow omnivore) is 600 square miles. That’s 384,000 acres.

 

These things are not hiding out in a city park for half the year. They can’t. Its impossible.

[BobbyO]

36 minutes ago, norseman said:

They can’t be somewhere like that full time. As a rancher that buys hay and manages pasture on 350 acres? You would be utterly amazed what a 1000 lbs cow eats in one year. And what the land looks like as a result. You can’t hardly walk 20 feet without stepping in a cow pie. You start talking about a breeding population? Plus being mostly unseen, low impact on the land, very little scat, hair, etc? 
 

Just one nocturnal critter moving through? Sure. That Cougar that was killed on the road on the east coast was from South Dakota. No one reported a cougar from point A to B. It was DNA that told them where it came from. For 1500 miles that cat had to drink and eat. It did so undetected.

 

A Bigfoot being a bipedal animal could walk from Alaska to Argentina. No problem believing that. But they don’t wear back packs full of food. It’s forced to live off the land as it goes..... It’s an 800 lbs creature. That’s a lot of groceries. The range of one Grizzly Bear (a fellow omnivore) is 600 square miles. That’s 384,000 acres.

 

These things are not hiding out in a city park for half the year. They can’t. Its impossible.

 

I agree.

 

I remember going out to some Cemetery outside of Chicago 10/15 years back now that had a few alleged reports from the general area, with a Guy who researched the area and was on the forums (haven't seen him on here for years now) and i had an issue with a lot of things.

 

Although all interlinked, it was just little chunks of forest, with waterways everywhere, but it just felt small to me.

 

No way can these things live in these areas full time, impossible for a healthy breeding population to do so like you say.

 

The Pittsburgh area and both Westmoreland and Allegheny Counties have 143 reports between them though, which is a considerable amount from a pretty major US Metropolis area with nearly 2.5m people in it.

 

The reports have dropped off quite a lot in the last 10 years or so from there, granted.

[Believer57]

13 hours ago, BobbyO said:

I think they can and do inhabit areas that would blow our minds if we legitimately knew they were in x and y area, personally.

This statement reminded me of reports in my local suburb area from the BFRO database. I was literally shocked to find several reports nearby my old home. I knew the streets and terrain so I could visualize the corridor of woods that came up between populated areas. It was an eye opener.

[Believer57]

12 hours ago, John B said:

What does not help is the media presentation or style in covering this topic. Everything is Squatch hype hype. Sometimes make the issue look like a clown show vice investigative work.

That's the reason a Bigfoot is called a Wood Ape in Oklahoma.

 

[BobbyO]

1 hour ago, Believer57 said:

This statement reminded me of reports in my local suburb area from the BFRO database. I was literally shocked to find several reports nearby my old home. I knew the streets and terrain so I could visualize the corridor of woods that came up between populated areas. It was an eye opener.

 

What rough area are we talking Believer if you don't mind me asking ?

[Believer57]

An inner suburb of Rochester, NY called Greece in Monroe County. It faces towards Buffalo and has other rural towns on the outside before more wilderness takes over.

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Believer57

[John B]

14 hours ago, Wooly Booger said:

Exactly. But unfortunately, a scientifically grounded research series about Sasquatch hunting most likely wouldn't generate much in the way of ratings. Television executives know that overly dramatized hype equals higher ratings and thus more revenue. 

 

Unfortunately, these types of programs only serve to make the majority of the public take the subject even less seriously than they already do. 

 

Luckily, that is where good quality podcasts such as Sasquatch Chronicles come in. Such programs fill a much needed niche for serious, scientifically minded enthusiasts. 

The main problem is what the mass media force feeds the public. Judging by the quality of the media we are all in a bubble world created by them. Unless someone drags the corpse of one onto the grounds of a state capitol real news coverage will be an issue.