54 replies to this topic

[QuiteContrary]

keninsc, on 11 March 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

Yeah, it seems they pop up everywhere except where people are actually looking for them.

I recall one guy claiming he encountered one in a dumpster. Wonder if it was a "Squatchy" dumpster?

Hmmm. Is it possible to fashion a deadfall trap out of a dumpster?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Neognosis, on 06 March 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

No bigfoot has ever been documented running or taking 15 foot strides.




The nose and mouth of bigfoot have never been documented as having any kind of morphology at all.



The wide shoulders of bigfoot have never been documented.



There has never been any evidence that bigfoot has hands or fingers.





Bears so have a well documented and repeatedly observed stench which is well known and accepted as true to wildlife biologists who manage bear populations, or study bears.

The stench of bigfoot has never been documented.



So, to sum up, the hands, fingers, eyes, nose, shoulders, and stench of bigfoot have never, ever, not one single time, been documented, nor has any evidence whatsoever, not one single piece, been collected that supports the existence of those things either.



We know that bears have a stench and a snout-like nose and claws and narrow shoulders for one reason... they are real, and as such, can be documented, repeatedly observed and those observations documented, and evidence for these things has been, continues to be, and will be, collected and further documented.

Negnosis, I am sure none of the above were "documented" to meet your stringent requirements,
otherwise we'd be agreeing that BF exists

Forgot to mention the ear piercing scream.
But I am sure you will say that is misidentification of a sound.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Rafterman, on 06 March 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

Amazing that the video is so clear and non-shaky.

Funny how bigfoot videos are neither.

You do raise a very good point, Rafterman. But.... (notice there is always a 'but')


1) If all ppl reporting to see a BF were really looking at a bear going bipedal,
why can't they produce one of these pics/vids as well...? looks pretty simple to me.
so guess what,,, these folks reporting to see bigfoot clearly are NOT seeing a bear (in general)

2) So if I can walk down the street and see a dog, I ought to be able to walk down the street and see a BF?
Please! different species behave quite differently. Bears are not really afraid of people, they do not really try to avoid ppl all that much, and in fact are known to attack ppl on occasion.

bigfoots are not bears. if the bigfoot thing is to get out of town just as soon as a person comes within a mile, then that is what they do. trying to blueprint the bigfoot to other animals - even other great apes, and conclude things about bigfoot is not a reliable thing to do, IMO

[QuiteContrary]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 12 March 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

You do raise a very good point, Rafterman. But.... (notice there is always a 'but')


1) If all ppl reporting to see a BF were really looking at a bear going bipedal,
why can't they produce one of these pics/vids as well...? looks pretty simple to me.
so guess what,,, these folks reporting to see bigfoot clearly are NOT seeing a bear (in general)

2) So if I can walk down the street and see a dog, I ought to be able to walk down the street and see a BF?
Please! different species behave quite differently. Bears are not really afraid of people, they do not really try to avoid ppl all that much, and in fact are known to attack ppl on occasion.

bigfoots are not bears. if the bigfoot thing is to get out of town just as soon as a person comes within a mile, then that is what they do. trying to blueprint the bigfoot to other animals - even other great apes, and conclude things about bigfoot is not a reliable thing to do, IMO

--Since all or most bigfoot images are too blurry to see a bigfoot couldn't they be too blurry to also see that it is a bear in the photo?

--But "the bigfoot thing is to get out of town just as soon as a person comes within a mile" that's just it. People are encountering bigfoot all the time, everywhere. Luring them in, "communicating" with them, almost running them over. They don't seem to me to fear encountering humans.

--As far as bears not being afraid of people, I am no expert on bears but, people see body, full face views of bigfoot. When I lived in bear country I'd be lucky to catch a 10" patch of furry butt as it took off. But that is just my experience.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 12 March 2012 - 07:57 PM.

[DieChecker]

bulveye, on 06 March 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

Hi,

Someone might have already thought of this, but I just thought that there might be an unknown species of bear living in the USA. They look almost identical to normal bears and that is why no one suspects anything. The major difference is that they can stand up and walk about on their hind legs for long periods of time. This is why people think they have seen a bigfoot, but in fact they have seen a walking bear.

If not an unknown species of bear then a small group that have learnt to walk. It is possible as small groups of animals sometimes learn a new trait that only the group they are in know about. Like certain apes using sticks to get insects out of holes.

I came to this same idea some time ago. If no bigfoot bones are found, then there is no bigfoot. But, if bear bones are found, maybe bigfoot is a bear. A fully bipedal bear would probably show up due to muscular and skeletal changes that would be required. But a long legged bear might go practically unremarked. Especially if it was not a different species, but perhaps a recessive genetic birth defect.

Also there are were the family of short faced bears, which had much longer legs then modern bears. Long legs + short face = bigfoot?

Quote

Arctodus (Greek, "bear tooth") — known as the short-faced bear or bulldog bear — is an extinct genus of bear endemic to North America during the Pleistocene ~3.0 Ma.—11,000 years ago, existing for approximately three million years. Arctodus simus may have once been Earth's largest mammalian, terrestrial carnivore. It was the most common of early North American bears, being most abundant in California.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

QuiteContrary, on 12 March 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

--Since all or most bigfoot images are too blurry to see a bigfoot couldn't they be too blurry to also see that it is a bear in the photo?

Do you have to make this so difficult lol!
I suppose if it is too blurry you cannot identify it. my point was if all vids are of a bear it would be just a question of time before one of them is clear. but that is not the case, I guess.

and what do you do with vids of a big, blurry animal image taken in an area  of north america where no bears exist?

QuiteContrary said:

--But "the bigfoot thing is to get out of town just as soon as a person comes within a mile" that's just it. People are encountering bigfoot all the time, everywhere. Luring them in, "communicating" with them, almost running them over. They don't seem to me to fear encountering humans.

ppl do "encounter" BFs, yes, but not closely very often. and the encounter never seems to last more than a few fleeting seconds, as the creature darts off into the woods.

QuiteContrary said:

--As far as bears not being afraid of people, I am no expert on bears but, people see body, full face views of bigfoot. When I lived in bear country I'd be lucky to catch a 10" patch of furry butt as it took off. But that is just my experience.

Bears can get quite forward and if a bear is determined to rummage through your garbage or trash bin, you ain't going to scare him off - at least not with your mere presence.

that does not seem to be the case with BF. ppl see one, but not for very long

PS: I just of this aspect. One may get the impression that BF sightings are more common because those sightings really get attention. what excitement is there to a "bear sighting"?

I think in reality, bear sightings are far far more common than BFs, no?

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps, 13 March 2012 - 05:40 PM.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

DieChecker, on 12 March 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

I came to this same idea some time ago. If no bigfoot bones are found, then there is no bigfoot. But, if bear bones are found, maybe bigfoot is a bear. A fully bipedal bear would probably show up due to muscular and skeletal changes that would be required. But a long legged bear might go practically unremarked. Especially if it was not a different species, but perhaps a recessive genetic birth defect.

Also there are were the family of short faced bears, which had much longer legs then modern bears. Long legs + short face = bigfoot?

I'd love to do a thread just on "bones"

the other day in a related thread thread I posted how a camera trap set up at a watering hole in Florida to catch a pic of a chimpanzee, actually caught a red wolf on film.

the red wolf is very very rare. yet if you go into the woods/glades, I wonder if you will ever find any bones of this species.

ditto for snow leopard. very rare species.

PS: I wonder just how many species of animals there are in any given wooded area. thousands, perhaps?

if you take a stroll through those woods just how many animal remains do you suspect you will see... two?

what happened to the thousands?

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps, 13 March 2012 - 05:42 PM.

[QuiteContrary]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 13 March 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

Do you have to make this so difficult lol!
I suppose if it is too blurry you cannot identify it. my point was if all vids are of a bear it would be just a question of time before one of them is clear. but that is not the case, I guess.

and what do you do with vids of a big, blurry animal image taken in an area  of north america where no bears exist?



ppl do "encounter" BFs, yes, but not closely very often. and the encounter never seems to last more than a few fleeting seconds, as the creature darts off into the woods.



Bears can get quite forward and if a bear is determined to rummage through your garbage or trash bin, you ain't going to scare him off - at least not with your mere presence.

that does not seem to be the case with BF. ppl see one, but not for very long

PS: I just of this aspect. One may get the impression that BF sightings are more common because those sightings really get attention. what excitement is there to a "bear sighting"?

I think in reality, bear sightings are far far more common than BFs, no?

Yes, I agree we’ve had more bear sightings. And I believe even brown bear prefer to take off when approached by or when they catch the scent of a person, unless you have like a mama and cubs.
And yes, black bear can be very determined to get in your trash or a dumpster or car or birdfeeder. In fact where we lived this happened all the time. Yet, when out in the woods with these same bears they would take off. These were thick woods full of thickets and brambles. It was very hard to get a clear view of the bear unless the landscape opened up.

But that is the thing, bears are real. They are large, visible, physical, moving, well documented creatures. They manage to be seen by people, photographed, filmed, tracked, baited, tagged and collared for studies, and have human friends who rub their bellies on national television, and hunters shoot them and make a rug for the fireplace, even though most of them might try to avoid us.

Yet, bigfoot, even if shy of humans as you stated, somehow avoids the above. Yet footers can comment on reports that do not include actually seeing the creature or any evidence, as “I have no doubt this person encountered a sasquatch”.

And as far as blurry photos not taken in bear country? I don't know? Stumps, people, bushes, intentional fakes, etc

Hey, I wish they were real too. Although I may never camp again. lol. But it just doesn't make any sense to me, no matter how many bigfoot reports are out there, that's all.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 13 March 2012 - 08:24 PM.

[DieChecker]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 13 March 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

I'd love to do a thread just on "bones"

One thing about bones is that it is rare for a critter, especially a big one like a bear, cougar, deer or even a coyote, to die and the bones to be preserved in the the anatomically correct location. Usually the larger bones get moved around or broken, or carried off, leaving a random scatter of a few large bones and a bunch of the little ones. I've done mock archeological digs as a kid on deer skeletons that I found in the woods behind my parents place and usually the only way I could tell what the bones belonged to was when I found a shoulder blade or a lower jaw, the rest (To a kid anyway) are just random bones. The skulls and longer leg bones were almost always missing.

Probably them bone gnawing porcupines again.  

Edited by DieChecker, 14 March 2012 - 12:45 AM.

[DarkCreed]

LOL. I was laughing xD It looks funny.