50 replies to this topic

[Metal Head]

Don't be so quick to write off the existence of such a creature, in the last decade they have discovered 2 new species of whales. While the P-G doesn't provide absolute proof creatures of this type are more than likely highly intelligent and may hide or bury their bones to protect themselves.

[bruticus]

Sakari, on 16 July 2012 - 04:53 AM, said:

Nevermind....Exactly like keninsc said.......

Looks like a squatch kill to me.

[Metal Head]

bruticus, on 16 July 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Looks like a squatch kill to me.

Deer are also very abundant, if we are talking Sasquatchs there may be 1000 in the whole of the United States, with the MILLIONS of unexplored acres of land from swamps to forest it doesn't surprise me that we haven't found anything.

[Sakari]

Metal Head, on 16 July 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Deer are also very abundant, if we are talking Sasquatchs there may be 1000 in the whole of the United States, with the MILLIONS of unexplored acres of land from swamps to forest it doesn't surprise me that we haven't found anything.

You need to go through the Bigfoot threads on this site, so far, everything you have said has been debated ( and shown to be bad theories ) 20 times...

I would have started again here, but no need to keep repeating ourselves every 4 months......

Just the red alone is wrong.....Among other things.

Use the search function, plenty here

[DieChecker]

Sakari, on 16 July 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

You need to go through the Bigfoot threads on this site, so far, everything you have said has been debated ( and shown to be bad theories ) 20 times...

I would have started again here, but no need to keep repeating ourselves every 4 months......

Just the red alone is wrong.....Among other things.

Use the search function, plenty here

That is right, he should have said millions of Unvisited acres of wilderness.

I was in your neck of the woods a week ago Sakari. I noticed there was not much between Bandon and Coos Bay. It is about 20 miles of just a couple log roads and a few house driveways branching off Highway 101, with no where to stop (Because trust me my 4 year old girl needed to GO.). And that stretch of coast runs, what... 80 miles inland till it gets to the fairly settled areas in Douglas County? SO right there you have 20 x 80 = 1600 square miles, or roughly a million acres. Just in that tiny corner of Oregon. How much of that land is visited on foot every year? 25%, 10%?? I grew up in Douglas County just a hundred miles away so I know that every square mile of forest does not get visited by people every year. It is a physical and financial impossibility.

The point then is that we can't dismiss BF due to lack of habitat. Bones and bodies, I do believe we can use to dismiss BF.... probably.

By the By, loved the Southern Oregon coast. Daughter loved the cliffs and huge rocks in the sand.

Edited by DieChecker, 16 July 2012 - 08:41 PM.

[Super-Fly]

um, interesting.

[Sakari]

DieChecker, on 16 July 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

That is right, he should have said millions of Unvisited acres of wilderness.

I was in your neck of the woods a week ago Sakari. I noticed there was not much between Bandon and Coos Bay. It is about 20 miles of just a couple log roads and a few house driveways branching off Highway 101, with no where to stop (Because trust me my 4 year old girl needed to GO.). And that stretch of coast runs, what... 80 miles inland till it gets to the fairly settled areas in Douglas County? SO right there you have 20 x 80 = 1600 square miles, or roughly a million acres. Just in that tiny corner of Oregon. How much of that land is visited on foot every year? 25%, 10%?? I grew up in Douglas County just a hundred miles away so I know that every square mile of forest does not get visited by people every year. It is a physical and financial impossibility.

The point then is that we can't dismiss BF due to lack of habitat. Bones and bodies, I do believe we can use to dismiss BF.... probably.

By the By, loved the Southern Oregon coast. Daughter loved the cliffs and huge rocks in the sand.

Should have told me you were coming, could have gave you some nice places to see !!!....And even a Beer !

Do a google earth, and look at the logging roads and such..( the logging is kind of disgusting from a aerial view)...Use the satelite view...I think you will have a change of your opinion when you see it....People around here sure love their mushroom hunting, Elk Hunting, Deer Hunting, etc....Quite a bit is covered, including between Coos Bay and Bandon......Don't forget those weed growers either......   ( I am in Langlois, you should have stopped there for the world famous hot dogs )......



And the trucks, man they love their 4x4's  

It is pretty down here, wish there were more sun and no wind though....

Glad you enjoyed it !

Edited by Sakari, 16 July 2012 - 09:19 PM.

[orangepeaceful79]

Metal Head, on 16 July 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

Don't be so quick to write off the existence of such a creature, in the last decade they have discovered 2 new species of whales. While the P-G doesn't provide absolute proof creatures of this type are more than likely highly intelligent and may hide or bury their bones to protect themselves.

Its actually pretty easy to write off the existence of Bigfoot when you consider the fact that there is no:
-actual evidence that they are highly intelligent
-actual evidence that they bury their dead
-actual evidence that they exist at all.

Whales on the other hand, do happen to exist.  They wash up dead in places, can be observed in the wild, and in general can be documented, studied, and observed.  Also there is evidence that whales are intelligent.  When you go into the wild and take a picture of a whale - it'll even look like a whale!  Thats because whales are real.  Bigfoot on the other hand, is imaginary, or mythical if you prefer.  Which is why all the unfaked photos look like tree stumps.  Because they are tree stumps - which coincedentally are also real.  Thank you, that is all.  

[CRIPTIC CHAMELEON]

orangepeaceful79, on 17 July 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

Its actually pretty easy to write off the existence of Bigfoot when you consider the fact that there is no:
-actual evidence that they are highly intelligent
-actual evidence that they bury their dead
-actual evidence that they exist at all.

Whales on the other hand, do happen to exist.  They wash up dead in places, can be observed in the wild, and in general can be documented, studied, and observed.  Also there is evidence that whales are intelligent.  When you go into the wild and take a picture of a whale - it'll even look like a whale!  Thats because whales are real.  Bigfoot on the other hand, is imaginary, or mythical if you prefer.  Which is why all the unfaked photos look like tree stumps.  Because they are tree stumps - which coincedentally are also real.  Thank you, that is all.  

I like what you said you made a good point.

[Englishgent]

orangepeaceful79, on 17 July 2012 - 03:31 AM, said:

Its actually pretty easy to write off the existence of Bigfoot when you consider the fact that there is no:
-actual evidence that they are highly intelligent
-actual evidence that they bury their dead
-actual evidence that they exist at all.

Whales on the other hand, do happen to exist.  They wash up dead in places, can be observed in the wild, and in general can be documented, studied, and observed.  Also there is evidence that whales are intelligent.  When you go into the wild and take a picture of a whale - it'll even look like a whale! Thats because whales are real.  Bigfoot on the other hand, is imaginary, or mythical if you prefer.  Which is why all the unfaked photos look like tree stumps.  Because they are tree stumps - which coincedentally are also real.  Thank you, that is all.  

And that's more, the picture of the whale isn;t usually out of focus

[scowl]

Metal Head, on 16 July 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

While the P-G doesn't provide absolute proof creatures of this type are more than likely highly intelligent and may hide or bury their bones to protect themselves.

Could you please explain how dead Bigfoots are able to bury their own bones?

Or are you saying that Bigfoot communities (which has never been reported) keep a census and send out search parties when one of their neighbors go missing?

[scowl]

DieChecker, on 16 July 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

I was in your neck of the woods a week ago Sakari. I noticed there was not much between Bandon and Coos Bay. It is about 20 miles of just a couple log roads and a few house driveways branching off Highway 101, with no where to stop (Because trust me my 4 year old girl needed to GO.). And that stretch of coast runs, what... 80 miles inland till it gets to the fairly settled areas in Douglas County? SO right there you have 20 x 80 = 1600 square miles, or roughly a million acres. Just in that tiny corner of Oregon. How much of that land is visited on foot every year? 25%, 10%?? I grew up in Douglas County just a hundred miles away so I know that every square mile of forest does not get visited by people every year. It is a physical and financial impossibility.

Our forests also contain aliens, dinosaurs, Chupacabras, fairies, gnomes, Men in Black, Mothman, and saber-toothed tigers. Unfortunately there's no proof because the forest is just too darn big so we just have to assume they're all in there somewhere.

[DieChecker]

scowl, on 17 July 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

Our forests also contain aliens, dinosaurs, Chupacabras, fairies, gnomes, Men in Black, Mothman, and saber-toothed tigers. Unfortunately there's no proof because the forest is just too darn big so we just have to assume they're all in there somewhere.

I would agree that dinosaurs and whatnot might be out there if hundreds or thousands of people reported seeing them each year. Unfortunately people don't. Point me at one dinosaur, or saber tooth tiger report in the last 12 months?

You can assume that nothing is in the forests if you like, but you can't use the lack of open territory as a proof of anything. You would have to say that dinosaurs don't exist because we'd otherwise see them, that they need breeding populations, ect...

I am only saying that since wilderness areas Do Exist, that it cannot be used as evidence that any particular critter does not exist, and specifically bigfoot.

And that the words, "millions of acres of unexplored land" is not too far off, as a million acres is only about 20 miles by 80 miles. There are about 6 Billion acres in North America (including Central America/Mexico), and it is not too big an assumption to say that 1/6000th of it is unexplored to any great degree. (Think Canada).

Edited by DieChecker, 17 July 2012 - 08:30 PM.

[scowl]

DieChecker, on 17 July 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

I would agree that dinosaurs and whatnot might be out there if hundreds or thousands of people reported seeing them each year. Unfortunately people don't. Point me at one dinosaur, or saber tooth tiger report in the last 12 months?

Do you really think people would report a dinosaur if they saw one? They would be ridiculed in the press unlike the people who report Bigfoot who are always celebrated.

Quote

You can assume that nothing is in the forests if you like, but you can't use the lack of open territory as a proof of anything.

The problem is that this "open territory" is already fully occupied with bear and other predators. A large animal like Mr. Bigfoot would have to compete with them for food sources and he would need a lot of food to maintain that impressive 500 lbs. physique. However no one has ever reported seeing a Bigfoot ever eating anything. If you went hiking here and saw a bear during the spring or summer, you would see that half the time they're stuffing their faces with whatever food they can find. The other half of the time they're sleeping which is why you'll want to make a lot of noise whenever you're hiking. You can literally walk on top of a bear by accident here.

Quote

I am only saying that since wilderness areas Do Exist, that it cannot be used as evidence that any particular critter does not exist, and specifically bigfoot.

What you don't understand is these wilderness areas are already fully occupied with animal life which we understand very well. Their ecological systems have been extensively studied and they are constantly monitored by the BLM.

Quote

And that the words, "millions of acres of unexplored land" is not too far off, as a million acres is only about 20 miles by 80 miles. There are about 6 Billion acres in North America (including Central America/Mexico), and it is not too big an assumption to say that 1/6000th of it is unexplored to any great degree. (Think Canada).

Let me give you a lesson about this area. The forest you cited has not only been extensively explored but every section of it has had every tree in it cut down at some point. Many forests which you would think are "wilderness" have been logged to the bare earth, in some cases two or three times. The trees you see in forests now were planted 30-80 years ago with the intention of harvesting them in twenty years.

When we talk about "old growth" forests here, we're talking about the very few places in the Pacific Northwest where loggers never got around to cutting down all the trees in them. Every other square mile of the billion acres of virgin forests has been completely logged at some time. In first half of the twentieth century here the timber industry employed tens of thousands of loggers to mow every forest down to the ground with absolutely no concern about environmental consequences. There are still many areas full of dead 20 foot tall stumps -- the trees were faster to cut higher up. There is still is an extensive network of logging roads through all these areas. To say these areas are "unexplored" is ridiculous. Every square mile was examined and exploited at some point.

In the 60's they finally discovered that logging was destroying the ecology of the area and driving many species into extinction. Some even thought that might be a bad thing. That's when the concept of managed logging was established and the timber industry had to limit their logging to "clear cut" areas within forests to minimize their impact. That was the end of cheap lumber here. Areas began to look like the forests it was before we cut them down. People don't know these forests were actually replanted by the logging industry!

No forests are immune to fires. Every year we have dozens of major fires here. There is still a massive network of access roads (mostly the old logging roads) that are maintained through this "unexplored land" to establish fire breaks and allow firefighters to attack a fire anywhere from any direction. About a million acres of forest burn here every year. Firefighters regularly see all kinds of animal life instinctively fleeing the fires often filing lakes and rivers. In a hundred years of organized firefighting there has not been a single report of Bigfoot fleeing a fire.

Also note that Bigfoot is never reported by forest rangers and BLM employees who regularly patrol deep in the forests and make regular examinations of their ecological health. Absence of evidence is not evidence.

[DieChecker]

scowl, on 18 July 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

Do you really think people would report a dinosaur if they saw one? They would be ridiculed in the press unlike the people who report Bigfoot who are always celebrated.

I think bigfoot people and dinosaur people would get ridiculed. About evenly. I think people would report dinosaurs if they saw them.

Quote

The problem is that this "open territory" is already fully occupied with bear and other predators. A large animal like Mr. Bigfoot would have to compete with them for food sources and he would need a lot of food to maintain that impressive 500 lbs. physique. However no one has ever reported seeing a Bigfoot ever eating anything. If you went hiking here and saw a bear during the spring or summer, you would see that half the time they're stuffing their faces with whatever food they can find. The other half of the time they're sleeping which is why you'll want to make a lot of noise whenever you're hiking. You can literally walk on top of a bear by accident here.

There are several problems with your statement.

First, bear, cougar and wolf populations have been increasing every year for the last decade, this leads me to believe that there Must be Excess food out there, otherwise how are the gains in large predator populations being sustained?

Second, as someone who has read a large percentage of recorded (online) bigfoot stories/reports, I can say that there have been many reports of bigfoot eating many different things. Some have reported BF eating vegetation, other have reported BF eating meat. Several have even reported BF eating refuse at dumps and out of trash cans.

Quote

What you don't understand is these wilderness areas are already fully occupied with animal life which we understand very well. Their ecological systems have been extensively studied and they are constantly monitored by the BLM.

I've lived in rural Southern Oregon half of my life, so I know a bit about who wanders around the woods and what animals are there. True enough the ecological systems have been studied, but the numbers of animals that are really there are unknown. The rough population numbers are based off computer analysis that is based on topographics and geography and on supposed representitive sampling. But, as I've pointed out with articles in the past, these rough population numbers are sometimes off by as much as 50%. In a population such as bears, where there might be 25000 in the State of Oregon, how do you distinguish the 100 bigfoots from the 25000 bears? How do 100 BFs consume so much more food then 100 bears that they would show up in a population of 25000? The simplest answer is they can't be distinguished. That the 100 BFs falls way, way under the magins of error (Which in the preceeding link is like 5000 bears), so that they could easily fall under the various surveys and counts.

Second is that the forests are managed and monitored. Monitored how? How does the government monitor 28 million acres of governement forest land? On foot? That would require hundreds of thousands of people driving around constantly and hiking thousands of trails constantly. Which just does not happen. By plane? Sure, you can cover a lot of land, but if it is hard to spot elk herds from a plane, it surely is harder to spot a solitary BF.

Quote

Let me give you a lesson about this area. The forest you cited has not only been extensively explored but every section of it has had every tree in it cut down at some point. Many forests which you would think are "wilderness" have been logged to the bare earth, in some cases two or three times. The trees you see in forests now were planted 30-80 years ago with the intention of harvesting them in twenty years.

So where are you from? I lived 30 minutes from where I am talking about for 20 years. I know the hills, woods, rivers and settlement patterns of the area very well. Stating that every tree has been cut down is an example of YOUR own ignorance. You've in no way authority to lesson me.

60% of Oregon Forests are Federal lands. And on those the old growth areas are about 10% and those are not available for logging. I don't have a map of the far southern end of the Oregon Coast, but I think it would be comparable to the coast range near Florence, which can be seen here. Which clearly has hundreds of pockets of old growth forest all over the mountains of the coast range. So, I think it is you who has no idea what they are talking about.

Quote

When we talk about "old growth" forests here, we're talking about the very few places in the Pacific Northwest where loggers never got around to cutting down all the trees in them. Every other square mile of the billion acres of virgin forests has been completely logged at some time. In first half of the twentieth century here the timber industry employed tens of thousands of loggers to mow every forest down to the ground with absolutely no concern about environmental consequences. There are still many areas full of dead 20 foot tall stumps -- the trees were faster to cut higher up. There is still is an extensive network of logging roads through all these areas. To say these areas are "unexplored" is ridiculous. Every square mile was examined and exploited at some point.

Like I said, I lived there and was there in the time when a lot of that "exploitation" was happening. "Billions" of acres? "Tens of thousands" of loggers? Try nearer to a million statewide at the height of the harvesting. You are not helping your arguement with exageration and ignorant statements.

True many of those logging road still exist, and many are maintained by the government, but those that are not maintained get overgrown in like 15 to 20 years with saplings and heavy brush. And taking these roads through this "Explored" land is danagerous also. As every year we hear a news story about someone who took a side road and got stuck on a log road and that they died trying to walk out, after waiting 2 weeks for help to actively find them. That is right, even knowing what County someone dissappeared in and where they were going, it often takes more the 2 weeks to find someone who is lost. Most lost people have to find their own way out. The areas being dealt with are vast and hard to cover on foot, and many areas are neglected and have reverted to forestland from roads. Trust me, I've been turkey hunting in Douglas County the last 6 or 7 years and walked many, many log roads, and Most of the time it is easier to go under the trees then to follow the road, because the road is an overgrown Wall of foliage, and under the trees is open space.

If you go back and read my "unexplored" post you'll see I specified Northern Canada. I dare you to say the same of far northern Canada that you do of the Oregon Cascades.

Quote

In the 60's they finally discovered that logging was destroying the ecology of the area and driving many species into extinction. Some even thought that might be a bad thing. That's when the concept of managed logging was established and the timber industry had to limit their logging to "clear cut" areas within forests to minimize their impact. That was the end of cheap lumber here. Areas began to look like the forests it was before we cut them down. People don't know these forests were actually replanted by the logging industry!

Yadda, yadda, yadda....

Quote

No forests are immune to fires. Every year we have dozens of major fires here. There is still a massive network of access roads (mostly the old logging roads) that are maintained through this "unexplored land" to establish fire breaks and allow firefighters to attack a fire anywhere from any direction. About a million acres of forest burn here every year. Firefighters regularly see all kinds of animal life instinctively fleeing the fires often filing lakes and rivers. In a hundred years of organized firefighting there has not been a single report of Bigfoot fleeing a fire.

Finally you have made a Good Point. You are correct in that if BF was real, we'd see them fleeing fires also. The only mitigation being that if there are only a handful of BFs (In a particular area of Oregon) that it is statistically less likely that one will be seen, even fleeing from a fire. In my bears point above, consider that the bears outnumber the BFs by like 250 to 1, so for every 250 bears we see fleeing fires, we should see 1 BF.

Quote

Also note that Bigfoot is never reported by forest rangers and BLM employees who regularly patrol deep in the forests and make regular examinations of their ecological health. Absence of evidence is not evidence.

This also shows your ignorance of the BF phenomena. Many, many government forest workers have seen and reported BF. And not just in Oregon but nation wide.

I'd also ask how many of these rangers "regularly" patrol, and how often and how far? Is there numbers behind that, or is it pulled out of the air?

Edited by DieChecker, 18 July 2012 - 07:52 PM.