Why No Troublemaking Adolescent Squatch?

[Guest StankApe]

Well said Tontar. A Consensus is not an agreement of fact, it's just an agreement of belief. The preponderance of the evidence as of right now leans towards no bigfoot. But boy do I wish they would find some better evidence soon.... (I think we all would, most skeptics want Bigfoot to be real , they just have come to the opinion that it is unlikely, or requires more evidence for them to buy into it all) But as you said, the longer we have no hard evidence, the more the entire issue starts to become less and less likely.

[Guest Tontar]

""Why would a sasquatch develop habits of hiding only form one other creature, humans? ""

"You're joking right ??"

No, I'm not joking. Do you have a reasonable answer? Consider that people rarely if ever see sasquatch, and so rarely if ever have a reason fro hiding from them. Behaviors generally have a reason behind them. Look at penguins. They've been around for a long time in paces where people can't normally get to them back in the primordial days, and so they have little fear of humans. You can walk right up to penguins and knock the crap out of them. Year to year. Easy hunting. Same goes for a LOT of other animals that have developed in areas devoid of ancient human occupation. Even in areas of ancient human occupation, animals are not that fantastic at evading humans. Particularly big animals. Particularly big animals that are believed to be apex creatures, as opposed to prey animals. Why would bigfoot, arguably far bigger than humans, and arguably NOT on the human menu, need to run and hide better than smaller animals, animals that have been on the human plate since the days of tool discovery?

To support an argument that an animal of any kind, in his case a bigfoot species, would develop a strong enough aversion to humans that they can virtually never be photographed, never be caught, never be found dead or alive, never documented in ANY scientifically or even reasonably supportable manner, you have to have just cause. A reason that such an animal would, and then could, develop such a unique ability that is far beyond what any other comparable animal has ever been able to demonstrate. I'm not arguing that they don't exist. It's just that it makes no sense that they would, or could, develop such abilities for evading detection in our own country, or any country for that matter.

""If they live in impassable terrain, terrain where humans never go, then why develop an instinct for avoiding us.""

"Would the fact they they do actually live in areas such as impassable terrain where Humans never go be a clue in the first place, maybe ??"

Not really. That might be your guess, but what is it based on? Some ancient history where humans drove them into near extinction, hunted them, hounded them, hurt them, and so they, as uncultured, uncivilized feral beasts, developed a species wide fear of humans, pushing to the furthest, most extreme areas of the wilderness to hide from us? Sounds like sci-fi to me. There is no historical record to support such a fantastic story, while there are plenty of historical records to support similar acts against other animals, and people, who never managed to adopt such a stealthy solution to the problem. People have hunted animals into extinction, yet on the way those species never developed such stealth as you think bigfoots somehow did.

Animals live where the living is best for them. Where they can find food, shelter if necessary, fewer predators, and so on. rational reasons for an animal to avoid humans would be to avoid competition for resources, or to avoid predation by humans. Those things just don't add up to bigfoots developing some supernatural avoidance capability. There's not enough there to drive such an evolutionary adaptation. And also, you can't really say with any degree of proof that what you suggest is true. You suggest that they live beyond human detection, and that is proof that they avoid humans. That's circular thinking to support an unsupportable claim. How do you know they live in impassable terrain? Because they don't live in passable terrain? How do you know they don't live in passable terrain? Because we don't see them? maybe they do live here, within our smaller towns and villages, but we just don't "see" them. We can suggest and suppose what we want, but the burden of proof still exists. We can't just say we believe in something and have it really be true.

""That's an idea that is also not supported by other natural examples. Why would sasquatch have some upper hand on who to avoid, when other animals come into contact, fatal contact, with humans every day? ""

"A different, higher level of intelligence to Deer, Bear etc ??"

Oh, like chimps and gorillas? They haven't figured out how to hide form us very well, not the poachers that have eaten them for eons. Not the poachers that hunt them for profit. Not the scientists that hang out in their groups studying them on a daily basis. Think they may be smarter? How about as smart as humans? Humans have wipe out other humans ever since we started out. Not many humans have hidden very successfully from detection. Know of any human tribes hiding out in the US these days? Nope. Bring up the story of Ishi, the last member of his tribe that walked out of the woods into the modern world. Nice story, but his tribe was not a mystery tribe. They did not hide well. They were shot. He ran away for a while, but staving had to come out to survive. The story of Ishi is a cool one because it allows us to believe in the big mysteries of the world, where a secret tribe of indians could live for so long undetected. Ut that's not how the real story goes. Ishi was not even known to be a full member of his tribe. His "tribe" was a collection of different groups banding together, raiding, hiding, foraging, and so on. They were not a mystery, and they were considered pests like a lot of indians were, and were not all the successful at living under the radar. They dwindled away, existing more as opportunistic scavengers towards the end, and they were no real secret. That Ishi had survived the last assault on them was the only real surprise.

So how smart do you want to make the image of bigfoot? Smart as cougar? Smart as wolves? Smart as chimps and gorillas? Smart as humans? Or smarter tan everything else, capable of disappearing into the background and hiding successfully forever? Do we want to even consider "alien" levels of intelligence? If they're so smart, why do they stink so bad, wear no clothes, and make no fire? People got smart, and realized that the wild world sucked, and got themselves out of it. Cold is cold. Hard rocks and ice are not pleasant. If they were that smart, why wouldn't they look to make a better lie for themselves, versus pushing further into a harsher way of life? Again, it makes no sense, as there is not the natural pressure on them to avoid humans like that. And no historical record to support it either.

""Prey animals come into contact with us all the time, and we kill them. Wouldn't you think nature would endow them with better avoidance skills for their own survival? ""

"Prey Animals ?? No, not at all, that's why we catch them then eat them. That's called the Food Chain."

According to your logic, bigfoot learned to avoid us at all costs. Why? If ANY animal would need to learn to avoid us, it would be the ones we eat, or compete for food with. We don't eat bigfoots. So no go there. We don't compete for food with bigfoots, so no go there either. For an animal to develop a strong avoidance to another animal (humans), there needs to be a compelling reason to do so. You have not presented one. I have presented reasons why other animals would need to develop that aversion to humans, but have not. So why would you propose bigfoots have some quirky, unnatural ability and some quirky unnatural aversion? If you don't think that survival, as in avoidance of predation (being caught and eaten) is not a sufficient reason for developing an aversion to another species, then please explain what WOULD be a good reason for developing an unnatural aversion to another species. That's a reasonable question.

""Won't deer ever get wise about the hairless pink creatures with the bang sticks? Heck, I can't even teach the local deer to stop eating our decorative species trees! They don't seem to wise up on an individual basis, much less a species wide basis!""

"I doubt it, comparing their intelligence level to ours then suggesting that one day they would/could " wise up " to Humans is ridiculous.."

What is ridiculous is not examining the reasons animals develop behaviors in the natural world. What is ridiculous is attributing unnaturally occurring behavior, without sufficient natural pressure to do so, in a creature that has not been determined to even exist.

""Go up the food chain, bears, mountain lions, coyotes, wolves. Wolves get shot by ranchers, why would their species not learn avoidance? They are experts at adaptation, why not learn to avoid humans, to hide from them?""

"Overall, they do don't they. I mean, like you said earlier in reference to Sasquatches, in general they live in impassable terrain where Humans rarely or can't travel. That in itself is a form of defence & avoidance, wouldn't you say ??"

No. That's just imagination at work. We really don't KNOW that they live in impassable terrain. We might imagine that, but we do not know that. The bottom line is that we do not know that they even exist outside of people's imaginations. They are as of yet undocumented, unverified entities. We know virtually nothing about them because we don't even know if they exist in reality. And so, attributing to them habitats, eating habits, saying that they hunt or forage, or steal from trash cans, or give live birth of lay eggs in nests in the ground is all simply speculation because nobody has been able to prove they even exist. We don't know where they live, or even IF they live yet.

""The reality is that there are no other species that have evolved or developed specific hiding from human behavior.""

"Oh yes there is. Whether you choose to believe they exist or not is entirely up to you however. Unfortunately no one has come up with a great deal of evidence of their existence so far other than a Film from 44 Years back, but that just goes to show how **** well they're capable of hiding, make no mistake about that."

Prove it! Very simple, prove it. You believe what you see in that film is a real bigfoot. That is a belief. It is not evidence of authenticity. If Roger perpetrated a hoax 44 years ago, then that blows your proof of avoidance out of the water, right? You base your belief in bigfoot on that film. There are endless examples of people hoaxing other people, successfully, and people buying into those hoaxes heart and soul, and even rejecting the idea it was a hoax when the perp comes clean in the end.

The fact that only one bigfoot has ever been filmed, never once before, and never once afterwards, does not lend weight to the argument that they are really good at hiding. It lends more weight to the idea that there was only one ever capable of being filmed, as well as to the reason why there was only ever one capable of being filmed. The more time passes without another credible film, or some form of physical evidence (film is not physical evidence), the less likely what Patterson filmed was the real deal. That's just simple reasoning. There's no way that the world could support the existence of a single example of a very complex, highly evolved animal. It would have to have come from some where, and would leave a trace that was more credible than footprints in the sand. With all the footprints that show up all over the world, certainly there must be something making them, and if it is real, it should be able to be documented. Until then, footprints are no better than crop circles.

[Guest Tontar]

Well said Tontar. A Consensus is not an agreement of fact, it's just an agreement of belief. The preponderance of the evidence as of right now leans towards no bigfoot. But boy do I wish they would find some better evidence soon.... (I think we all would, most skeptics want Bigfoot to be real , they just have come to the opinion that it is unlikely, or requires more evidence for them to buy into it all) But as you said, the longer we have no hard evidence, the more the entire issue starts to become less and less likely.

Thanks. The preponderance of evidence does point to no bigfoot. That's what I typically say, although you say it way better and with fewer words. :-) And while what you say is spot on about hoping for more evidence, hoping for a real discovery, it's hard to ignore the lack of it. I'm just not built from a faith based set of blocks. I can't just believe for the sake of believing, even if what I want to believe in is more attractive than the reality against it. It has to make sense. I have not found the world to be cartoonish, where magical things happen that don't apply to some sort of structure or rules. Nature is like that, it responds to pressures, it slips up, it makes mistakes, i has failures, it has all sorts of incredible things that are wondrous and all, but they still happen in space and time and following certain rules. Too much of the arguments in support of bigfoot conflict with reason, and don't coincide with reason. If bigfoot exists, there should be at least one, just one, that can be acquired, documented, to provide proof, solid evidence. I hope one shows up some time, but until one does, I think they exist in the mists just outside reality...

[Guest]

My take on this is that through hundreds of thousand of years of evolution these critters have learn how to avoid us. Not just we homo sapiens, but likely homo erectus too. Juveniles that don't follow the rules aren't just punished harshly by their parents, rather they end up dead and don't reproduce. Eons of this behavior and eventually it gets into the DNA. Watch the Mike Greene thermal footage or review Bart Curtino's thermal sighting. These guys hide...at NIGHT. These are very paranoid creatures. There are no defectors because they were bred out a long time ago.

I think the ones we see are bold males, and they let us see them for whatever reason, some sort of bigfoot "manhood" test (so to speak). Or perhaps just something they do for thrills and entertainment. Some of them have to be rebellious of their cultural ways and even their genetic programming. Why do young human men ride motorcycles 150 miles per hour, or jump out of planes...it's the thrills, the adrenaline rush. Maybe BF get the same rush.

Then there are the ones we see by accident, the hunter spots one by surprise because he was being stealthy. The quiet hiker that crosses paths with one. We sometimes share the same spaces with them and even with their genetic avoidance behavior we do cross paths once in a while. Look at Patterson and Gimlin, they were on horseback in the middle of no where and likely making little to no niose and they spooked a female.

Then occasionally we cross into their territory and they get us out by passive tactics; screams, yells, throwing rocks. Rarely do they confront us. They don't fight us, because in the long run they will lose. I doubt they think about it, but instinctively they flee instead of fight. Sure 1 on 1 they can easily dispatch a human, but they dare not confront our tribe.

[Guest]

Your lame PBS wildlife show analogies don't cut it!

While i probably should take at least a little offense at this, I guess my shoulders are broad enough to let it slide.

I get your overall point, while recognizing it probably could have been said in a friendlier way.....

Anyway, I've tried to point out examples, but I do admit that I tend to ramble sometimes while writing. My head gets ahead of my fingers, and sometimes I dont use the best analogies or examples to get my point across.

My attributing horrific human acts, to instinctual or animal behavior is not so far fetched though.

Why do we do so many of what would be considered "normal" things, throughout the course of a day ?

Why do men in a room puff out their chests and act differently when a pretty woman walks in?

Why when in the woods for extended periods of time- do we start to feel an older more fundamental "knowledge" creeping into our minds?

Why do we act out (albeit in different ways) territorial displays, sexual courting rituals, and all the little things that just "come naturally" to us?

Do you honestly believe that it was all learned from our parents, or that we picked it all up from environmental exposure to that specific behavior?

So if we're going to attribute at least part of the "normal" behaviors to an instinctual animal self, then it only makes sense that a portion of the "bad" comes from the same place. I guess it depends on what portion or how much of it you want to attribute to that origin.

Much of what makes up the "abnormal" behaviors of your exmaples (the Dahmer's of the world) can and normally is attributed to that individual having a brain that is not "wired" the same way as so called "normal" folks. Also my suggesting that these horrible acts (some of them) have root in an instinctual animal behavior- is not suggested as an excuse, or to justify it. I made it very clear above that what I believe makes us "human" is our ability to rise above that sometimes stubborn programming, and to defy the more animalistic laws of nature by our actions. It is not only our speech and ability to reason that defines us- it is also the choices that we make that set us apart.

I personally believe there is much about who we are, and what we do, and how we do it- that is pre-programmed into our brains.

I'm no psychologist, and certainly not a learned and respected scholar on the subject, but again it only makes sense that portions of both normal and abnormal behavior would fall into that category.

How and why our brains work they way they do is still a mystery to even the most advanced levels of science today. While in a medical sense, we've made leaps and bounds as to what's possible - doing surgery, treating traumatic brain injuries, etc- we still are only in the beginning stages of understanding how this utterly amazing organ works.

The point I guess I've forgotten to make twice now.....

As far as Bigfoot goes, I am a believer- but my belief is in an animal, that while it may share certain characteristics of "humanity"- as do the other large anthropoids, it is not as "near human" as many seem so certain of. While DNA testing may ultimately prove me wrong, it would be in a technical sense, and until a type specimen is obtained- we could never know about their cranial capacity, or whether its proportionately large like us, or similarly small- like the other large anthropoid relatives we have.

I believe that we're dealing with an animal that followed a similar "brain path" as the other large anthropoids- and having done so, while they may from time to time exhibit behaviors that seem oddly close to human- it does not make them "men".

They (from the little that's been observed) show limited capacity for using tools, have not mastered fire, do not build permanent structures for dwelling, and would apparently seem to live the life of a nomadic primate- moving from place to place, following what food sources we believe them to have a taste for.

And yet, some would suppose the adolescents have a desire to observe some sort of "Bigfoot Rumspringa" where they need to "sow their wild oats" and go around running amok and causing havoc...!

I'm sorry to say it, but much of that thought process comes from our wanting to attribute human qualities to everything in our lives. We do it with our pets, and why not Sasquatch too?

I mean we've all seen Harry and the Henderson's right?

We all want Bigfoot to be a big lovable teddy bear of a creature, but the reality of it is probably far from that. Again- this is just my opinion, and in my mind its based more on common sense and logical thinking- than some of the emotion driven fantasy I've read over the years.

Why is it a stretch to assume that like many other wild animals- the adolescents grow both physically and mentally very quickly- to a point where they're able to fend for themselves.. but find themselves lacking the brain capacity (like the other large anthropoids) to see the "larger world" for what it really is?

Why must we attribute a human childhood experience to a creature that more probably resembles the behavior of the other large anthropoids, while admittedly having an apparent knack for stealth and elusiveness that the other's lack...?

I'm sorry, but several of the other's who've mentioned our propensity to romanticize things are spot on.

The vast majority of sighting encounters, and what limited (believable) observation thats been gathered and reported, would suggest a far less romantic picture of their existence. It's the story of a creature that out of necessity, spends most of its time scouting for food, and apparently preparing crude shelters in which it spends time, before moving on.

The young/adolescents would have to quickly learn how to care for themselves, and even with some familial attention- would differ substantially from the "soft" childhood/adolescence experienced by most of humankind.

I just dont see much time for "high-jinks" and fun adventures for little "Harry" - even though its fun to imagine it that way, or to want to believe it so...

I hope that clears up where I'm coming from....

Art

[Guest StankApe]

John T, the truth of the matter is that animals do lots of things not specific to feeding that we could constitute as evil. Just because the facts presented might have been shown on a nature show shouldn't be a reason to dismiss it (in fact it's just more evidence that it is so) Lions DO attack Hyenas and don't eat them. They don't like them. Dolphins WILL gang rape intruding males and will also torture and kill interlopers, Orca's will kill great white sharks and only eat their livers....

Human's have done lots of horrific things, no doubts there, but due to our advanced culture and belief systems and our primitive aggression combined. Not because of some innate EVIL in humans as a species. We are no more innately evil than an ant or a black mamba. If lions evolved a culture and a belief system and the technology to follow through with it, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see them declare a holocaust on hyenas the world over....

[Guest vilnoori]

No, I will not invite anyone to document "my" parent-child group. It is a pristine and private location, and because of the circumstance the group is used to people being there at very predictable times. When I come, at unpredictable times, I get lucky. I've never seen a sasquatch but I can, like most wildlife biologists, read from the footprints and the signs what is going on. There is more than just footprints going on at that spot too. I have always held that the most information about these creatures will be had by habituation studies. Sounds like maybe a body or two have already been presented to science, and I am no kill anyway. I want to leave them in peace where they are. I don't go there very often, either. There are loads of likely areas around here where the BFRO or anyone else is free to operate in the way they like to, I will stick with my own low tech methods. I am so far pretty amazed at the results.

Also about the brain, I think that earlier forms of humans to some extent already showed the brain expansion after birth that happens. Homo erectus probably had nearly as big a brain as us, and Neanderthals actually had bigger brains than we do. The things I have read about in terms of behaviour makes me think this creature is on par with Asian non-tool using H. erectus. I am hoping the genetics studies will bear this theory out. Fingers crossed.

Edited October 26, 2011 by vilnoori

[Guest StankApe]

hmmm, this isn't a personal attack, but why does EVERY SINGLE PERSON who claims habitation say this? It's suspicious, it makes me think that the emperor has no clothes.... Seriously, what do you want us to think? Seems like the situation would be best served by getting some young eager , primatology grad students up there to at least take a look at it...

[southernyahoo]

We all want Bigfoot to be a big lovable teddy bear of a creature, but the reality of it is probably far from that. Again- this is just my opinion, and in my mind its based more on common sense and logical thinking- than some of the emotion driven fantasy I've read over the years.

Art , you've just made a huge argument that humans are still savage in some ways, thus we are not so different from animals, but why wouldn't you recognize the flipside, that animals despite their instincts can show restraint and compassion? I submit that there is not a better creature to be anthropomorphic about than bigfoot, a bipedal great ape whom is reported to speak, despite it's savage appearance. I'm sure there are hundreds of encounters reported in one on one scenarios where such a powerfull creature would have no trouble killing a human yet there are so few reported occurences. I'm sure bigfoot lives by natures rules which are quite harsh, but all things considered, if bigfoot exists, it's big brain is responsible and keeps him out of deep trouble with us, except for getting shot at occasionally.

Edited October 26, 2011 by southernyahoo

[Guest tirademan]

Seems like the situation would be best served by getting some young eager , primatology grad students up there to at least take a look at it...

I've said that very thing to Dr. John Bindernagel. Screw the professors, go after the grad students. But where are they?

It's a tough science. If you're willing to spend years in the field with not much in terms of publishable evidence, then it's for you!

There are many reports of small creatures. As I've said before, what I saw was about 4.5' tall and I almost hit it going 55mph. No way it was a human in a suit.

Anyway, here's one to get your brain twisting. I like this one as it has a lot of detail of behavior...and it's from Florida.

tirademan

[Guest]

John T, the truth of the matter is that animals do lots of things not specific to feeding that we could constitute as evil. Just because the facts presented might have been shown on a nature show shouldn't be a reason to dismiss it (in fact it's just more evidence that it is so) Lions DO attack Hyenas and don't eat them. They don't like them. Dolphins WILL gang rape intruding males and will also torture and kill interlopers, Orca's will kill great white sharks and only eat their livers....

Human's have done lots of horrific things, no doubts there, but due to our advanced culture and belief systems and our primitive aggression combined. Not because of some innate EVIL in humans as a species. We are no more innately evil than an ant or a black mamba. If lions evolved a culture and a belief system and the technology to follow through with it, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see them declare a holocaust on hyenas the world over....

It's always been a Yin-Yang thing! Again I ask for the Mother Theresa animal analogy. Please don't tell me about a momma dog who raised a kitten. I want to hear about the animals that dedicate their lives to improving the lot of others.

When lions develop sufficient technology they will eradicate the world of hyenas...........Really? And if wolverines developed enough technology, would they provide free CAT scans to all wolverines regardless of ability to pay?

For what it is worth the "Facts" presented here, by you, are factual only in that they occur from time to time. This in no way legitimizes your interpretation of those facts as factual or correct interpretations. I didn't say that there was innate evil in humans, but that animals don't commit evil deeds as does man. I also have asked for evidence of altruistic, humanitarian, deeds committed by animals.............so far nobody has come forward with any. I think the reason why is animals don't do either with any degree of regularity. That alone should point to a significant difference between mankind and animals.

[Bonehead74]

Animals are not moral agents. Humans are. Philosophically speaking, of course.

And let's not drag up the old "humans are animals" semantic argument. Everyone knows what I mean.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Bonehead74

[Guest Jodie]

Good and evil is simply a human construct and it has to be taught, it's not innate in us either. It goes back to Maslow's hierarchy of need which can apply to animals as well as humans. It's a matter of priorities, and I would imagine bigfoot's priorities are at the base of the pyramid.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Jodie

[BobbyO]

""Why would a sasquatch develop habits of hiding only form one other creature, humans? ""

"You're joking right ??"

No, I'm not joking. Do you have a reasonable answer? Consider that people rarely if ever see sasquatch, and so rarely if ever have a reason fro hiding from them. Behaviors generally have a reason behind them. Look at penguins. They've been around for a long time in paces where people can't normally get to them back in the primordial days, and so they have little fear of humans. You can walk right up to penguins and knock the crap out of them. Year to year. Easy hunting. Same goes for a LOT of other animals that have developed in areas devoid of ancient human occupation. Even in areas of ancient human occupation, animals are not that fantastic at evading humans. Particularly big animals. Particularly big animals that are believed to be apex creatures, as opposed to prey animals. Why would bigfoot, arguably far bigger than humans, and arguably NOT on the human menu, need to run and hide better than smaller animals, animals that have been on the human plate since the days of tool discovery?

To support an argument that an animal of any kind, in his case a bigfoot species, would develop a strong enough aversion to humans that they can virtually never be photographed, never be caught, never be found dead or alive, never documented in ANY scientifically or even reasonably supportable manner, you have to have just cause. A reason that such an animal would, and then could, develop such a unique ability that is far beyond what any other comparable animal has ever been able to demonstrate. I'm not arguing that they don't exist. It's just that it makes no sense that they would, or could, develop such abilities for evading detection in our own country, or any country for that matter.

Yeah i do, because around 200 million Animals are killed by Hunters each Year in the US alone. I think that would be enough of a reason for a Sasquatch to develop habits of hiding, like all Animals have, because if they don't the Pink Monkey's will probably kill you.

""If they live in impassable terrain, terrain where humans never go, then why develop an instinct for avoiding us.""

"Would the fact they they do actually live in areas such as impassable terrain where Humans never go be a clue in the first place, maybe ??"

Not really. That might be your guess, but what is it based on? Some ancient history where humans drove them into near extinction, hunted them, hounded them, hurt them, and so they, as uncultured, uncivilized feral beasts, developed a species wide fear of humans, pushing to the furthest, most extreme areas of the wilderness to hide from us? Sounds like sci-fi to me. There is no historical record to support such a fantastic story, while there are plenty of historical records to support similar acts against other animals, and people, who never managed to adopt such a stealthy solution to the problem. People have hunted animals into extinction, yet on the way those species never developed such stealth as you think bigfoots somehow did.

Animals live where the living is best for them. Where they can find food, shelter if necessary, fewer predators, and so on. rational reasons for an animal to avoid humans would be to avoid competition for resources, or to avoid predation by humans. Those things just don't add up to bigfoots developing some supernatural avoidance capability. There's not enough there to drive such an evolutionary adaptation. And also, you can't really say with any degree of proof that what you suggest is true. You suggest that they live beyond human detection, and that is proof that they avoid humans. That's circular thinking to support an unsupportable claim. How do you know they live in impassable terrain? Because they don't live in passable terrain? How do you know they don't live in passable terrain? Because we don't see them? maybe they do live here, within our smaller towns and villages, but we just don't "see" them. We can suggest and suppose what we want, but the burden of proof still exists. We can't just say we believe in something and have it really be true.

""That's an idea that is also not supported by other natural examples. Why would sasquatch have some upper hand on who to avoid, when other animals come into contact, fatal contact, with humans every day? ""

Tontar, you seem intelligent enough, so there is no need to be have such a " I know best attitude & that's it. " as that doesn't do you any favours, it just makes you look like dozen of others that have been & gone on this Forum. You asked everyone in general why the have developed an instinct in avoiding us & i answered with a reasonable theory so please don't turn around & then tell me that there's no degree of proof in what i say as like i said, you asked a question & i gave a reasonable reply that neither of us have any proof one way or another that it isn't true & false, one way or the other..

"A different, higher level of intelligence to Deer, Bear etc ??"

Oh, like chimps and gorillas? They haven't figured out how to hide form us very well, not the poachers that have eaten them for eons.

Really ?? You might want to refer to the History Books then Tontar, you'll find there that Gorilla's were thought to have diverged from a common Ancestor 7 Million Years ago, yet they were only " discovered " in the 20th Century..You do the Math.

Not the poachers that hunt them for profit. Not the scientists that hang out in their groups studying them on a daily basis. Think they may be smarter? How about as smart as humans? Humans have wipe out other humans ever since we started out. Not many humans have hidden very successfully from detection. Know of any human tribes hiding out in the US these days? Nope. Bring up the story of Ishi, the last member of his tribe that walked out of the woods into the modern world. Nice story, but his tribe was not a mystery tribe. They did not hide well. They were shot. He ran away for a while, but staving had to come out to survive. The story of Ishi is a cool one because it allows us to believe in the big mysteries of the world, where a secret tribe of indians could live for so long undetected. Ut that's not how the real story goes. Ishi was not even known to be a full member of his tribe. His "tribe" was a collection of different groups banding together, raiding, hiding, foraging, and so on. They were not a mystery, and they were considered pests like a lot of indians were, and were not all the successful at living under the radar. They dwindled away, existing more as opportunistic scavengers towards the end, and they were no real secret. That Ishi had survived the last assault on them was the only real surprise.

So how smart do you want to make the image of bigfoot? Smart as cougar? Smart as wolves? Smart as chimps and gorillas? Smart as humans? Or smarter tan everything else, capable of disappearing into the background and hiding successfully forever? Do we want to even consider "alien" levels of intelligence? If they're so smart, why do they stink so bad, wear no clothes, and make no fire? People got smart, and realized that the wild world sucked, and got themselves out of it. Cold is cold. Hard rocks and ice are not pleasant. If they were that smart, why wouldn't they look to make a better lie for themselves, versus pushing further into a harsher way of life? Again, it makes no sense, as there is not the natural pressure on them to avoid humans like that. And no historical record to support it either.

""Prey animals come into contact with us all the time, and we kill them. Wouldn't you think nature would endow them with better avoidance skills for their own survival? ""

"Prey Animals ?? No, not at all, that's why we catch them then eat them. That's called the Food Chain."

According to your logic, bigfoot learned to avoid us at all costs. Why? If ANY animal would need to learn to avoid us, it would be the ones we eat, or compete for food with. We don't eat bigfoots. So no go there. We don't compete for food with bigfoots, so no go there either. For an animal to develop a strong avoidance to another animal (humans), there needs to be a compelling reason to do so. You have not presented one. I have presented reasons why other animals would need to develop that aversion to humans, but have not. So why would you propose bigfoots have some quirky, unnatural ability and some quirky unnatural aversion? If you don't think that survival, as in avoidance of predation (being caught and eaten) is not a sufficient reason for developing an aversion to another species, then please explain what WOULD be a good reason for developing an unnatural aversion to another species. That's a reasonable question.

You seem to have got yourself in a pickle Tontar - Bigfoot learned to avoid us at all costs >> The ones we eat need to avoid us >> We don't eat Bigfoots. Is that not self explanatory ??

""Won't deer ever get wise about the hairless pink creatures with the bang sticks? Heck, I can't even teach the local deer to stop eating our decorative species trees! They don't seem to wise up on an individual basis, much less a species wide basis!""

"I doubt it, comparing their intelligence level to ours then suggesting that one day they would/could " wise up " to Humans is ridiculous.."

What is ridiculous is not examining the reasons animals develop behaviors in the natural world. What is ridiculous is attributing unnaturally occurring behavior, without sufficient natural pressure to do so, in a creature that has not been determined to even exist.

Yeah, so is comparing Deers intelligence levels to ours, then suggesting that one day they would/could wise up to Huamns, it's more laughable to ridiculous actually the more i think about it.

""Go up the food chain, bears, mountain lions, coyotes, wolves. Wolves get shot by ranchers, why would their species not learn avoidance? They are experts at adaptation, why not learn to avoid humans, to hide from them?""

"Overall, they do don't they. I mean, like you said earlier in reference to Sasquatches, in general they live in impassable terrain where Humans rarely or can't travel. That in itself is a form of defence & avoidance, wouldn't you say ??"

No. That's just imagination at work. We really don't KNOW that they live in impassable terrain. We might imagine that, but we do not know that. The bottom line is that we do not know that they even exist outside of people's imaginations.

Do yourself a favour Tontar & stop referring to everyone as " we ". You clearly have no idea that BF's do exist & you are clearly not open to the fact that they do, but don't think everyone thinks, or knows in your case, the same as you..You may even get a different perspective on how you view the answers to your questions of you did which could benefit your understanding of this Subject

They are as of yet undocumented, unverified entities. We know virtually nothing about them because we don't even know if they exist in reality. And so, attributing to them habitats, eating habits, saying that they hunt or forage, or steal from trash cans, or give live birth of lay eggs in nests in the ground is all simply speculation because nobody has been able to prove they even exist. We don't know where they live, or even IF they live yet.

See above..

""The reality is that there are no other species that have evolved or developed specific hiding from human behavior.""

"Oh yes there is. Whether you choose to believe they exist or not is entirely up to you however. Unfortunately no one has come up with a great deal of evidence of their existence so far other than a Film from 44 Years back, but that just goes to show how **** well they're capable of hiding, make no mistake about that."

Prove it! Very simple, prove it.

Good one Tontar, because i can do that living in Thailand real easy, yeah..No logistical or financial problems with doing that, no

You believe what you see in that film is a real bigfoot. That is a belief.

Who are you to tell me what i believe in a Film ?? Who do you think you are ?? You have no idea if i believe " that Film " is or isn't a BF & the reason why you have no idea, is because i don't really no one way or the other myself even though i do lean to it being real..

It is not evidence of authenticity. If Roger perpetrated a hoax 44 years ago, then that blows your proof of avoidance out of the water, right?

Stop being so silly Tontar, get a grip of yourself.

You base your belief in bigfoot on that film.

Again, you're actually making me a little angry now to be honest.

There are endless examples of people hoaxing other people, successfully, and people buying into those hoaxes heart and soul, and even rejecting the idea it was a hoax when the perp comes clean in the end.

The fact that only one bigfoot has ever been filmed, never once before, and never once afterwards, does not lend weight to the argument that they are really good at hiding.

Of course it doesn't no, it much more favours the possibility that there are populations of them in Downtown Mall's on Saturday afternoons Shopping specifically in Nordstroms, yeah, you're right..

It lends more weight to the idea that there was only one ever capable of being filmed, as well as to the reason why there was only ever one capable of being filmed. The more time passes without another credible film, or some form of physical evidence (film is not physical evidence), the less likely what Patterson filmed was the real deal. That's just simple reasoning. There's no way that the world could support the existence of a single example of a very complex, highly evolved animal. It would have to have come from some where, and would leave a trace that was more credible than footprints in the sand. With all the footprints that show up all over the world, certainly there must be something making them, and if it is real, it should be able to be documented. Until then, footprints are no better than crop circles.

1 ) Please work out how to use the quoting feature as that took me far longer to reply than if you would have used it & i'm sure it wasn't easy to read for those reading it too..

2 ) I have no problem with Skeptics, i completely understand the vast majority of their issues with this subject as i have them myself, but i do have a problem with absolute " know it all's " & they way you came across in that exchange Tontar was quite shockingly " know it all " in my opinion.

But, it takes all sorts to make a World i guess..

[Guest vilnoori]

hmmm, this isn't a personal attack, but why does EVERY SINGLE PERSON who claims habitation say this? It's suspicious, it makes me think that the emperor has no clothes.... Seriously, what do you want us to think? Seems like the situation would be best served by getting some young eager , primatology grad students up there to at least take a look at it...

Sure, but when you have a habituation, it is personal and there is trust involved. Here I potentially (note that I am not 100% convinced, I want to see something much more tangible of course) may have a mom and child living in this beautiful, protected creek valley not far away, at least part of the year, and I don't want to mess with that. I am an amateur like everyone else, and this is probably the best thing of this sort I will ever have. Someone else can sacrifice their special situation. I won't, no matter how much the skeptics squall about it. Tough beans. If the Ketchum report comes out and is a big success, they will get what they want. I certainly am willing to wait a few years and see if something will pan out that way. As far as I am concerned, if it was so easy for me, an amateur 40 something lady going on walks with eyes open, to find a potential habituation site, then, if these things are real, some eager young grad students can go find their own. All it takes is reading the accounts to get a general picture of what you are searching for, and finding a likely location then going in with eyes and ears open. You test, and retest. You gain trust and you don't blow it. Maybe women are better at this than men, especially for the long term. Just a hunch.