I don't know if Bigfoot or the Abominable Snowman exist or not. I don't know if there is a monster or monsters in Loch Ness (and Lake Champlain and Lake Okanogan, and others) or not. I do know that you cannot prove a negative proposition, and I'm familiar with the old saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." As to the possibility of Bigfoot, let's analyze it a bit.
People complain that no bodies or even bones are ever found. I've been hiking in wilderness areas all of my life, literally from Alaska to Tierra Del Fuego, on tundra and glacier, in forests and jungles and deserts, and I rarely see even a dead deer or even antlers, for scavengers are amazingly effective. I have seen one fresh road kill bear, and only two, maybe three live cougars, but never a dead one or its bones. A Bigfoot or ABSM would presumably be rare and intelligent and elusive, so the absence of bones is, indeed, not evidence of the absence of Bigfoot.
The Pacific Northwest eco system is a fairly rich one, especially the temperate coastal rain forests, and I have seen and heard evidence of numerous black bear in, for example, the Marble Mountains of northwest California. If Bigfoot is a primate and, like some primates, omnivorous (as are bears) such a creature could survive there.
But these creatures are reported in Texas, across the South in the US, and along the US East Coast. Forests are fairly extensive in these areas, but they are much broken up by roads, farms, cities, and towns. The problem is that if Bigfoot is a physical animal there has to be a breeding community large enough to provide some genetic diversity and prevent the accumulation of recessive traits, and dense enough to permit potential mates to find one another. The same applies to lake monsters.
So it would seem that at least some of the reports, at least those in more populous regions, are probably mistaken identity cases, hoaxes, hallucinations, or reports of something other than a physical animal subsisting off our eco system. Perhaps, if they exist at all, they are (as has been suggested) creatures from some deep subterranean realm, or from ufos, or from some sort of parallel universe, or perhaps they are paranormal entities. So the mystery continues. William B Stoecker

There are fossils of many animals through the fossil record. But none of bigfoot younger than a million years. How do you explain that?



I agree. It's one of the principles of biology that makes bigfoot extremely unlikely. Also, if the creature ranges as far as the witness reports say, the likelyhood of no bodies or shotings or capturings becomes more hard to accept.



i'm with you there.


And now you've lost me and I'm rolling my eyes, although respectfully.

for the love of god stop obessesing on big hairy monkey.

Sorry 'bout that. I release my mental control over you, and relinquish my command that you must read this thread.

Last night's Monster Quest program was about the skunk ape. No great shakes, but by far the most interesting segment revolved around staking down a roadkill deer carcass, to prevent scavengers from making off with it, and setting up a time lapse camera. Amazingly, over the course of one week, the carcass vanished and even the skeleton became half its original height off the ground. I found this to be extremely revealing in helping to explain the lack of recovered bones/bodies of a possible bigfoot creature.

I don't know if there is a monster or monsters in Loch Ness (and Lake Champlain and Lake Okanogan, and others) or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i also don't know if these monsters exist or not. but i can tell you that they are neither mammal nor reptile. since both of these creatures need to breath air. thus they must surface on a normal basis.

Well William, if you've never found a skeleton or a carcass in all youre wilderness travels then you must not have a very good eye. I know I've brought this up before, I was porter for three years in california and am still a climber that has been all over "bigfoot" country in cali, oregon and washington. I have found many bones and skulls of bears, mountain lion, deer, elk, marmot, bats, ravens, golden eagle, friggin' everything. I found a bighorn skull at Mountaineers Camp on Mt Whitney, a bighorn being probably the rarest animal in California. You can probably still see it at the vistor center at Whitney Portal (I haven't been there in seven years now). I found the carcass of pine martin about a hundred miles south of where they are supposed to even live. I've seen more bear than I can count and have had mountain lions follow me on weeklong backcountry hikes (which is scary by the way). And there are thousands of people that spend far more time than me in the back country. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence the whole "scavengers eat everything" or "you never find bones or carcasses" line of reasoning just doesn't hold up to my experience.

I agree. People who claim that the lack of fossilized evidence indicates a lack of the species are mistaken. Most people do not understand what it takes to make a fossil. Fossils are not easily made in nature, inspite of the fact that every living thing eventually dies. Fossilization takes a combination of events happening in unison that I think is much more rare than people believe. It is not inconceivable that entire species are lost with little or no fossilized evidence. With respect to the unclassified N.A. ape - how many people are actually out looking for fossils of this species? Also, making statements on when the last Giganto died based on the uncovered fossil evidence is irresponsible - sorry Neognosis. The bottom line is that the fossil record is incomplete at best and more likely minuscule.

I also disagree with Capeo on the dead animal remains issue. I've rarely come across rotting carcasses or even bones of dead animals. Have never seen a bear carcass nor have I met anyone who has. Animals don't seem to die convieniently on game trails or hiking trails in my experience.

While agree the fossil record is far from perfect when gigantopithecus died out isn't meaningles to any bigfoot discussion. It's so often a strawman. It was an ape not a biped hominid. It's closest living relative is an orangutan. It could not have evolved into a "bigfoot" in 300,000 years.

As for bones and carcasses you can disagree all you want. I'm just telling you my experience in the backcountry. I had a pretty extensive skull collection at my cabin in Bishop when I lived there. All collected in areas where I climbed or hiked in the Sierras and most not far from areas that 4x4 tracks and relatively short hikes could get you to. When we were looking for new bouldering areas we were always off trail for the most part but I usually took my truck as far as I could.

As for bones and carcasses you can disagree all you want. I'm just telling you my experience in the backcountry. I had a pretty extensive skull collection at my cabin in Bishop when I lived there. All collected in areas where I climbed or hiked in the Sierras and most not far from areas that 4x4 tracks and relatively short hikes could get you to. When we were looking for new bouldering areas we were always off trail for the most part but I usually took my truck as far as I could.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


then it seems that you should be playing the lotto.

No, not really. I don't know how this myth got started really. Both bear and mountain lion hunters concentrate on areas of high winter elk kill carcass density. It's common. Here:

http://www.desertusa.com/magjan98/abbighor...n_bighorn1.html

It mentions how often southern penninsula bighorn are found dead around water holes by hikers and researchers.

Every hiker should know when they smell or see a carcass in bear or mountain lion country they should turn back and give it a wide berth. Such advice is common in guide books.

It mentions how often southern penninsula bighorn are found dead around water holes by hikers and researchers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


lambs that have been abandoned by mom because they are sick.

i hope they never find it. even if its real.

or u know what. i Hope they find it, so i dont have to see this bs topics about something that i have NO intrest for. seurisly i dont get why most of you care so much for this gorilla type of animal its not like its a dragon Right DC???

Interesting. See, anytime I post in one of several backpacking forums, or come across a backpacker on a non-backpacking forum, they never have any bigfoot sightings. Why don't these particular folks who spend weeks or even months walking through bigfoot country ever see them? Does bigfoot perhaps have an aversion to nylon, the fabric most backpacks are made of or something?



I have though. Last year alone while hiking we came across a dear skull, a canine scapula, and in the spring I found a long bone that seemed to be from the leg of probably a deer.

yes, fossilization is rare. But there should have been SOMETHING from an aminal claimed to have ranged across the entire country at one point. But NOTHING? From an animal that is still reproducing and making bodies today? Seems pretty inconceivable to me.

Oh, wait, wait, I just remembered. We saw an entire deer carcas (smelled it WAY before we saw it, though) on the trail to Devil's Hole in Niagara falls. It seemed to have fallen off an embankment.

You're perfectly free to not post here, chump.

Edit: Or rather you're free to not text-message here, chump.

Bravo as I was thinking the same thing. I spend a good deal of time looking for sheds (antlers) every winter and have come across many different bones and carcasses.