211 replies to this topic

[scowl]

BNDGK, on 14 December 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

I believe that you, my friend, have never been to North Carolina in the winter. It is a commonly known fact that bears in these mountains in fact do not hibernate. The temperature during winter in Western North Carolina does not get low enough in most winters, to cause the bears here to hibernate.

Bigfoot sighting here do not decrease during the winter. Even if they did, we now have hundreds of Bigfoots invisibly migrating across America across rivers and freeways every autumn.

Quote

In the case of the weapons, i dont have an answer for you other than you can kill animals with rocks just as easy as you can with a gun or bow.

Are you serious??? Have you ever tried to kill a deer with a rock??? I know of no hunters who hunt with rocks! Do Bigfoots build slingshots?

Quote

Also, they could use traps. If you were walking in the woods and found a rock sitting on top of a stick (an old sprung trap for example) would you take any special notice??

Hell yes I would! That means that some person has left a dangerous trap to purposely injure someone. If you come across these here, most likely you are getting near someone's marijuana crop which unfortunately are common on public lands around here. The Forest Service requests that hikers report traps like this since it's likely that more dangerous traps are around.

Quote

Or if you saw a rock on the side of the trail, would you immediately think "Bigfoot?"

I've seen rocks all the time. How do these kill animals for Bigfoot again?

Quote

Also, when i mentioned the food, you are correct in that I have never been to the Northwest. I actually was only talking about where I live. I may not have been correct in talking about the northwest, but here, the winter is not bad, as i have said, and there is plenty of available food. Squirrels. rabbits, and other larger game are available year round. Also, there is an abundance of nuts, and fungi. And as 'keninsc' has said, they are alleged to be stealthy.

I've seen animals (mostly bobcat) try to hunt rabbits and squirrels and fail more often than succeed. Whenever I try to imagine a nine foot biped creature trying to grab a squirrel or dig a rabbit out of the ground, it sounds like comedy to me.

[QuiteContrary]

scowl, on 14 December 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

I've noticed that a good place for Bigfoot to hunt game would be disused farms. There are lots of them here in rural Oregon. The wildlife finds them and they become natural zoos. Animals like elk and deer roam into the land that livestock used to graze on and cohabitate peacefully. Since the fences work on most sides, they're protected from normal predators like wolves and coyotes so the populations get surprisingly large. It really looks like someone is raising exotic animals.

If Bigfoot got in there, he could stock up for the winter. Or get trampled.

I really like this idea of "Bigfoot as Accidental Rancher" and I'm not being sarcastic.
Bf would also have structures for  getting out of the elements.
Yes, for me, there are several gaping holes with this theory, but I like it nonetheless!

[orangepeaceful79]

BNDGK, on 14 December 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

Very true. however; who says that every sighting is a true sighting? But let me just say that I am not a true believer nor a true nonbeliever. I just think that there is a possibility but i cant say for sure. That is a very great point though.

Its my opinion personally that ALL bigfoot sightings fall into these categories:
1. Misidentifications of known fauna.
2. Hoaxes
3. Hallucinations.

Let me say clearly that I don't think all bigfoot sightings are lies.  A person can easily be telling the truth but simply incorrect.

My point in the previous post is that IF bigfoots were real, they can't be sighted everywhere on every damn continent yet be so elusive nobody would ever catch one.  To state otherwise is illogical.

[Jeff Albertson]

orangepeaceful79, on 14 December 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Here's the problem with the "bigfoot is so smart, he evades detection" argument.  A creature cannot simultaneously be so smart that it is able to evade capture and any sort of attempt to verify its existence but also so colossally stupid that there are "thousands" of sightings of it by ever Tom, Dick, and Harry who wanders into a forest.  you can't have it both ways.  If it is smart enough to evade detection then there should never be any sightings.  Similarly if it is dumb enough to be sighted so often, then it should be dumb enough to be caught.

Feral hogs are a good example they are smart enough to evade detection we have to use dogs to best control there population. Let there is thousands of sightings. With such  a large population we are ably to kill some we can never elimante the feral pig.  Jon Almack is a wildlife biologist Almack's study is part of the work Interagency grizzly bear committie. Jon Almack has found plenty of bear habitat and sign, but he has never found a live bear. His study on grizzly bears(Ursus arctes horribilis ) is in the Northern cascade mountains. where vegetation type and food availability, are still poorly understood. Jon Almack has to extrapolate data from other, better known grizzly bear (U. aractes horribilis ) ecosystem and apply it to the Northen Cascades.  This goes to show if a trained biologist that has no information on the ecology how hard it is to find a animal. How many bigfoot hunters have done any ecology study ?, There is a few methods that we can apply to determine if bigfoot is a real animal or to disprove his exsistence. I am not aware of to many bigfoot huners have used the Digital Search assistant, Null Hypothesis or have started a ecology study.

Here is one idea that will help Gary Alts has documented Black bears (Ursus americanus). He noticed that when U. americanus where been tracked they would back track in there own foot steps. So with understanding how animals do this and why we can apply this to field work. When observing tracks we should not follow them but best determine which way either bigfoot or the hoaxer went and go that way. Who knows we might have been closer to one of those smart elusive bigfoots.

There is hundred of story about new  discovered and rediscovered  animals and plants that show once we look what we might find. Here is one intresting find. On Augest 12, 2005 A story concerened a 400-foot tall waterfall located in the 43,000 acre Whiskeytown Natinal recreation area west of Redding Califorina. Although marked as "Whiskey falls" on ancient maps, the waterfall stood forgoten, unknown to park and "MOST" local residents, until wildlife biologist  Russ Weatherbee "discovered" it in August 2005

Edited by Jeff Albertson, 15 December 2012 - 04:28 PM.

[orangepeaceful79]

Jeff Albertson, on 15 December 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

Feral hogs are a good example they are smart enough to evade detection we have to use dogs to best control there population. Let there is thousands of sightings. With such  a large population we are ably to kill some we can never elimante the feral pig.  Jon Almack is a wildlife biologist Almack's study is part of the work Interagency grizzly bear committie. Jon Almack has found plenty of bear habitat and sign, but he has never found a live bear. His study on grizzly bears( ) is in the Northern cascade mountains. where vegetation type and food availability, are still poorly understood. Jon Almack has to extrapolate data from other, better known grizzly bear ( ) ecosystem and apply it to the Northen Cascades.  This goes to show if a trained biologist that has no information on the ecology how hard it is to find a animal. How many bigfoot hunters have done any ecology study ?, There is a few methods that we can apply to determine if bigfoot is a real animal or to disprove his exsistence. I am not aware of to many bigfoot huners have used the Digital Search assistant, Null Hypothesis or have started a ecology study.

Here is one idea that will help Gary Alts has documented Black bears (Ursus americanus). He noticed that when U. americanus where been tracked they would back track in there own foot steps. So with understanding how animals do this and why we can apply this to field work. When observing tracks we should not follow them but best determine which way either bigfoot or the hoaxer went and go that way. Who knows we might have been closer to one of those smart elusive bigfoots.

There is hundred of story about new  discovered and rediscovered  animals and plants that show once we look what we might find. Here is one intresting find. On Augest 12, 2005 A story concerened a 400-foot tall waterfall located in the 43,000 acre Whiskeytown Natinal recreation area west of Redding Califorina. Although marked as "Whiskey falls" on ancient maps, the waterfall stood forgoten, unknown to park and "MOST" local residents, until wildlife biologist  Russ Weatherbee "discovered" it in August 2005

Feral hogs = exist.  Bears = exist.  We have dead examples, examples in zoos, they've been studied.  We know what they do, where they live, what they eat, how they breed.  Even though they are rare we know TONS of real actual facts about them.

Bigfoot - no so much.  Actually not at all.  Seriously how likely is it that a giant ape/hominid has enough numbers to support a breeding population (even a small one) and does all the things  that animals are supposed to do.....eat, poop, breed, ambulate, drink, and most importantly DIE, yet leave absolutely no definitive trace of its existence accidentally EVER?  Its astronomically unlikely. The simplest explanation and the one supported thus far by the lack of evidence is that there is no such animal.  Despite the fact that I'd love the opposite to be true, I'm going to go with the simplest explanation which is also coincedentally supported by reality.

Bigfoot is a myth.

[Jeff Albertson]

orangepeaceful79, on 15 December 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Feral hogs = exist.  Bears = exist.  We have dead examples, examples in zoos, they've been studied.  We know what they do, where they live, what they eat, how they breed.  Even though they are rare we know TONS of real actual facts about them.

Bigfoot - no so much.  Actually not at all.  Seriously how likely is it that a giant ape/hominid has enough numbers to support a breeding population (even a small one) and does all the things  that animals are supposed to do.....eat, poop, breed, ambulate, drink, and most importantly DIE, yet leave absolutely no definitive trace of its existence accidentally EVER?  Its astronomically unlikely. The simplest explanation and the one supported thus far by the lack of evidence is that there is no such animal.  Despite the fact that I'd love the opposite to be true, I'm going to go with the simplest explanation which is also coincedentally supported by reality.

Bigfoot is a myth.

How are Ursus arctaes horribilkies in the cascades mountains have enough breeding population to exist only leave two tracks and one picture. There is more anadoltale evidence for bigfoot you can not claim it real but at the same time you cann't claim it not real. Grizzly bears in the cascades have not been studied finding any evidence for them by a trained wildlife biologist is anadotal evidence, one again he relays on other study to help find a animal he can't find. That once again is the method of cryptozoology to either prove or disprove the existence of a animal, which as not been done yet. How are we ever going to improve are knowledge in science with a Occam's Labotomy? Would it be time better spent trying construtive skepticism on the evidence than a Occam's labotomy?

[orangepeaceful79]

Jeff Albertson, on 15 December 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

How are Ursus arctaes horribilkies in the cascades mountains have enough breeding population to exist only leave two tracks and one picture. There is more anadoltale evidence for bigfoot you can not claim it real but at the same time you cann't claim it not real. Grizzly bears in the cascades have not been studied finding any evidence for them by a trained wildlife biologist is anadotal evidence, one again he relays on other study to help find a animal he can't find. That once again is the method of cryptozoology to either prove or disprove the existence of a animal, which as not been done yet. How are we ever going to improve are knowledge in science with a Occam's Labotomy? Would it be time better spent trying construtive skepticism on the evidence than a Occam's labotomy?

I agree that there are loads and loads of aneCdotal evidence for bigfoot.  All of which amounts to very little without something hard that science can study and categorize.   The simple fact is that animals leave evidence.  Even rare ones.  you can google "grizzly in the cascades" and come up with crystal clear photos at the least.  You can see where scientists have studied them.  They exist.  They leave behind bear poop, they make an impact on the food chain that is observable, and every so often a dead one turns up.

I LOVE the idea of Bigfoot being real.  I used to be a hardcore believer.  However until there is the same kind of evidence that every other species is vetted by, there is just no good reason to believe, for me personally.

[Jeff Albertson]

orangepeaceful79, on 15 December 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

I agree that there are loads and loads of aneCdotal evidence for bigfoot.  All of which amounts to very little without something hard that science can study and categorize.   The simple fact is that animals leave evidence.  Even rare ones.  you can google "grizzly in the cascades" and come up with crystal clear photos at the least.  You can see where scientists have studied them.  They exist.  They leave behind bear poop, they make an impact on the food chain that is observable, and every so often a dead one turns up.

I LOVE the idea of Bigfoot being real.  I used to be a hardcore believer.  However until there is the same kind of evidence that every other species is vetted by, there is just no good reason to believe, for me personally.

With bigfoot if it was proving to be a real animal there is some clear pictures but not proving to be real there is heathy skeptisim on the true nature of the pictures and movies. There is only one photo taking it was such a big avent that it made the local news. I truely beleive it will come down to better methods and following the scientific method to final prove or disprove the existence of bigfoot. All I see is bigffot hunters running around in the woods like a snipe hunt claiming did you here that has to be a bigfoot, bigfoots are known to mimice other animals voice.Showing blob squatch photo ok if that was a real bigfoot Why don't the bigfoot hunters have mutiable pictures of that same spot so that we can at least determine if there was something there? How are we ever suppose to find or disprove bigfoot let alone with techniques like that. I respect your oppion "Until there is the same kind of evidence that every other species is vetted by, there is just no good reason to believe. I agree 100% with that if I may I also beleive that there is no reason to doubt that they exist but need proof for there existence myself. That why I do like this I can remain scientific bished on the topic and look for ways to best prove or disprove the exsitence of a cryptid.

[Stardrive]

scowl, on 14 December 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Are you serious??? Have you ever tried to kill a deer with a rock??? I know of no hunters who hunt with rocks! Do Bigfoots build slingshots?

I will say this, if such a creature did exists, it would undoubtably use the resources within it's environment that would enable it to expend the least amount of calories gaining said calories.

[scowl]

Stardrive, on 15 December 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

I will say this, if such a creature did exists, it would undoubtably use the resources within it's environment that would enable it to expend the least amount of calories gaining said calories.

That's what all animals instinctively do, except for humans.

[scowl]

orangepeaceful79, on 15 December 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

I agree that there are loads and loads of aneCdotal evidence for bigfoot.  All of which amounts to very little without something hard that science can study and categorize.   The simple fact is that animals leave evidence.  Even rare ones.  you can google "grizzly in the cascades" and come up with crystal clear photos at the least.  You can see where scientists have studied them.  They exist.  They leave behind bear poop, they make an impact on the food chain that is observable, and every so often a dead one turns up.

Another thing grizzly bears have been leaving is dead people. They are often discovered still feeding on their human victims. This is what large animals sometimes do when they're hungry or threatened.

When bears have been reported in populated areas, unlike Bigfoot we've had no problems tracking them down, tranquillizing them, and hauling them away.

Bigfoot can't be compared with Grizzlies.

[Jeff Albertson]

scowl, on 15 December 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

Another thing grizzly bears have been leaving is dead people. They are often discovered still feeding on their human victims. This is what large animals sometimes do when they're hungry or threatened.

When bears have been reported in populated areas, unlike Bigfoot we've had no problems tracking them down, tranquillizing them, and hauling them away.

Bigfoot can't be compared with Grizzlies.

Try tracking a grizzly bear in the cascade mountains then see what apeans, we can't list this population as endangered because all the information in regards to the grizzly bear in the cascade mountains is anadoltale. There is no clear natural history done of this population, and trained biologists have failed to find one just one in the wild do to lack of anY Natural historyand ecology done. So how can we not compare bigfoot that that example?

Edited by Jeff Albertson, 15 December 2012 - 07:12 PM.

[scowl]

Jeff Albertson, on 15 December 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

Try tracking a grizzly bear in the cascade mountains then see what apeans,

Do you mean "happens"? Obviously you didn't look at the web page I linked. Bears that have killed people are regularly hunted down and killed.

"The bear was tracked, shot and killed."
"The bear was shot and killed by an Alaska State Trooper."
"The bear was caught in a trap set at the campground using pieces of a culvert and Kammer's tent."
"The bear was trapped and tranquilized earlier in the day by a Grizzly Bear research team."
"A neighbor shot and killed the bear."
"Later, wildlife officials killed two bears on Munson's property. "
"State wildlife officials killed the bear, which had entered the campsite the night before."
"The bear was trapped and killed, and an unrelated bear was mistakenly killed."
"The bear was shot a .5 miles (0.80 km) from the house."
"Police officer investigating the scene shot and killed the bear at the campsite."
And so on.

Quote

we can't list this population as endangered because all the information in regards to the grizzly bear in the cascade mountains is anadoltale.

Do you mean "anecdotal"? There have been many studies of Grizzly populations over the past ten years. One organization that constantly monitors the Grizzly population is the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. They regularly trap and tag Grizzlies to study them.

Quote

There is no clear natural history done of this population, and trained biologists have failed to find one just one in the wild do to lack of anY Natural historyand ecology done.

And a click on the link above will show you this statement is absolutely ridiculous.

Organizations have trapped grizzlies and even tagged them with satellite radio monitors to track their migratory patterns. A study in 1975 estimated that less than twenty grizzlies were still alive in the Washington Cascades -- yes biologists are able to estimate extremely low populations of a species. This prompted a large 200 page plan from the University of Montana and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to recover their populations. The populations are being restudied every five years and the plan is being adjusted accordingly. The population in the 2011 study showed only about a hundred bears in the Washington Cascades. Not a huge increase but it's going in the right direction.

There are not many of these animals left but researchers have no problem finding them and estimating their population. That should give you some idea of how few Bigfoots are out there if any.

[Jeff Albertson]

scowl, on 15 December 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

Do you mean "happens"? Obviously you didn't look at the web page I linked. Bears that have killed people are regularly hunted down and killed.

"The bear was tracked, shot and killed."
"The bear was shot and killed by an Alaska State Trooper."
"The bear was caught in a trap set at the campground using pieces of a culvert and Kammer's tent."
"The bear was trapped and tranquilized earlier in the day by a Grizzly Bear research team."
"A neighbor shot and killed the bear."
"Later, wildlife officials killed two bears on Munson's property. "
"State wildlife officials killed the bear, which had entered the campsite the night before."
"The bear was trapped and killed, and an unrelated bear was mistakenly killed."
"The bear was shot a .5 miles (0.80 km) from the house."
"Police officer investigating the scene shot and killed the bear at the campsite."
And so on.



Do you mean "anecdotal"? There have been many studies of Grizzly populations over the past ten years. One organization that constantly monitors the Grizzly population is the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. They regularly trap and tag Grizzlies to study them.



And a click on the link above will show you this statement is absolutely ridiculous.

Organizations have trapped grizzlies and even tagged them with satellite radio monitors to track their migratory patterns. A study in 1975 estimated that less than twenty grizzlies were still alive in the Washington Cascades -- yes biologists are able to estimate extremely low populations of a species. This prompted a large 200 page plan from the University of Montana and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to recover their populations. The populations are being restudied every five years and the plan is being adjusted accordingly. The population in the 2011 study showed only about a hundred bears in the Washington Cascades. Not a huge increase but it's going in the right direction.

There are not many of these animals left but researchers have no problem finding them and estimating their population. That should give you some idea of how few Bigfoots are out there if any.

Do a google search to best understand what I am talking about, do to fragementation and isolated population. The population of Ursus arctas horribilis in the "cascade mountaians". Logging has not stop do to insefient information as listed above. You are looking at other fragemented grizzy population and comparing known ecology and Natural history to a Popultation that Nothing is known inregards to Natural History and Ecology as stated above. So how as you state a animal so well studyed with all this information known about it Natural History, and ecology. Well can not find enough information in regards to this population of Grizzlys when wildlife biologist as stated above? Logging continues in regards to not any information to warrent the endangered species act protection that would be giving to this fragemented population. So how not only conbaring this population of Grizzly Northern Cascade mountain Grizzly population not conpared to bigfoot?

[evancj]

I think the point is; that we know that these bears are real. After all we are the ones who hunted them to the brink of extinction. We know they are still out there because we have samples of their DNA, from very recent hair snags. We also have recent photographs of one taken in 2011.

http://seattletimes....grizzly02m.html

For as rare as these bears are, and for how rarely they are reported being seen we do have real evidence they exist. Bigfoot on the other hand is seen thousands of time a year but no one has ever killed or captured one, found one dead, or managed a good photo of one.