Not because I disrespect these people, but because
1- bigfoot is a biological near impossibility
2- most "sightings" are not "sightings" at all
3- People's eyes play tricks on them


No, I know this because I have an education that taught me the biological and zoological principles that bigfoot breaks. Being a backpacker has nothing to do with not accepting these "sightings." However, yet more doubt is put on the validity of these "sightings" when one considers that at least one group of people who spend an inordinate ammount of time in the deep wilderness where bigfoot supposedly lives dont' have any posts about it on the forums I visit.

If bigfoot was real, you would figure it would be a hot topic among people who go to where he lives for days, weeks, even months at a time, and sleep under a tarp in bigfoots home range. But no posts about bigfoot. Plenty about bears, deer, even cougars. But no bigfoot. If there are so many sightings, why aren't the people who spend the most time sleeping outside in bigfoots home range posting about it? Because bigfoot is not real.



I'm going to try to explain to you one more time.

Bigfoot breaks too many biological and zoological imperatives. Therefore, he more than likely does not exist.

The fact that folks who go to where he lives for days, weeks, even months at a time, and sleep under a tarp in bigfoots home range don't seem to be posting anything about it only serves to reinforce what is already more than likely scientifically valid...that bigfoot does not exist.

all others are mistaken or fooled because bigfoot likely can not exist. The fact that lightweight and logdistance backpackers aren't talking about it only serves to counter the silly idea that there are a significant number of sightings.


The number of sightings themselves are a Catch-22.
Bigfoot is real because there are so many sightings
so many sightings, if they are taken seriously enough to conclud bigfoot is real, must indicate many bigfeet
yet you have to keep maintaining that bigfoot is rare to explain away the lack of remains or capture or evidence of any kind
then how are there so many sightings?
You still have to use the number of sightings as evidence, because you don't really have anything else.

Circular and faulty logic.

A thoughtful and open minded person has to conclude that bigfoot is numerous enough for all these people to see him, yet maintains a population at the tipping point that a bunch of people see him, but nobody can document him or capture/shoot/find remains of him. Yet more suspension of disbelief is required to accept this.

Thank you for confirming what I posted. "A thoughtful and open minded person" might just consider what a respected outdoorsperson felt brave enough to step forward and report. But not you.

I do consider what they say. And the lack of physical evidence, the rules of biology and zoology, and the well documented psychology of memory and perception lead me to conclude that they are either hoaxed, mistaken, or lying.

A thoughtfull person who understands the imperatives of biology and zoology, and understands human psychology and how the mind and eye work, concludes that the person, no matter how respected, is mistaken.

Your willingness to accept their claims as accurate despite the science and lack of physical evidence proves my point that some of you choose to weight these "sightings" with more gravity than hard science, despite the fact that the innacuracies of human perception are well understood, and the biological science that says bigfoot is extremely likely is also well understood.

And this isn't even touching the logical fallacies of bigfoot. For instance:

he works very hard to stay hidden
Yet he throws rocks and bangs sticks to warn of his presence

He is so numerous that there are hundreds of sightings
Yet he leaves no remains, fossilized or otherwise

He would have a pretty substantial caloric requirment
yet we don't find any bigfoot kills, or even bones gnawed by bigfoot

There is only one per 7000 acres (or some such nonsense)
Yet he is able to maintain a breeding sized pool

there are stories in native cultures that span the continent
Yet not a single remain ever found anywhere

He smells very bad
yet dogs have never been able to track one

Nobody has ever shot one, despite all the sightings
Yet some of you claim that they have been shot,
yet they leave no blood trail that can be followed
Or any trail that can be followed. Ever.

During times when food is scarce, bears often become nuisance and approach human settlement and have to be relocated
But not bigfoot. Even when there is drought or a lack of food that drives the bears to human civilization, bigfoot somehow remains hidden and uncaptured/shot/documented

People claim a sighting as clear as day
but their cameras only record an ambigous blur (this is because cameras don't interpret data like a human brain. they just record is without preconception)

Noises, stick banging, rocks thrown, strange noises are all very easily explained occurrances
The fact that they are lumped into "bigfoot evidence" betrays the prejudice on the part of the investigators.

And lastly, in my personal experience, nobody in the community of people who go to bigfoot land and sleep there under a tarp for days, weeks, months, etc. seem to report seeing anything unusual.
If there were so many sightings, wouldn't the people who spend the most time unprotected and unsheltered in bigfoot land see something too, and talk about it on backpackinglight, practicalbackpacking, or any of the other backpacking forums?

There's more, but I know some of you either don't understand or won't understand, or just dismiss these points, so I'll stop here for now.

Is bigfoot possible? Yes. But it is extremely, extremely, unlikely to begin with, and the lack of real physical evidence only makes this conclusion more valid.

With every day that goes by without a specimin or corpse, don't you folks get tempted to listen to reason?

C'mon now, you don't really believe that. No need to patronize me.

I've stated before, bigfoot is extremely unlikely. Extremely. He would have to break too many cardinal rules of biology and zoology. But could that happen? It is possible. About as possible as children being born mutated with super powers.

Highly unlikely, but we have to allow for the slightest possibility, despite all reason. Overwhelmingly, though, it is extremely likely that bigfoot is not real.

ok, in your opinion.

i think its unlikely to find any sasquatch, even if they exist, in massive forests. dense vegetation can cover a body, and it decomposes quickly. people arent their every day. rarely do people go their. its the perfect place for a ape to hide.

theirs 1 sasquatch per 100 square miles, (fahrenbach

thats rude. credible people see this THING upclose. you cant misidentify a 8ft ape for anything else. the pacific nw stretches all the way from remote n. california up into canada. most is covered in remote forests where people rarely go.

my god, every damn animal unknown breaks every rule according to you neo!!

sasquatch is reported in nyc, its reported in areas that are far away from civilization, not in our backyard. ive seen the massive size of canada and its forests.

snelgrove is pretty damn big and untouched. their IS an animal their and it has dna.

impossiblity? no. impossiblitys dont leave smells, footprints, sounds, videos, dna, and native american knowledge of nature. you assume it breaks the rules. what damn rules? people can care less, and dont look!! you cant cover the pacific nw in a day. it takes months, and people have no done it.

Danger! Thread/topic degradation reaching critical levels! She can't take much more Captain, she'll blow! Besides I thought neo was going backpacking anyway.

Reverse the matter/anti-matter polarity fields!

He was going, but now fears he'll encounter bigfoot. j/k

we rarely visit remote places like snelgrove, or other places where sasquatch is sited. trying to distinguish real reports from copying reports is what i do. most other creatures are different. yeti is a bear. yeren is an orangutuan. sasquatch is a living bipedal ape that knows how to hide. how can you find any bone in dense vegetation? if their were 1000's of me living the the nw forests, you wouldnt find any if you looked

You would though as they would leave remains when they died especially if they had been there for a long time. People do study other animals in the PNW and have never come across a large ape there. Wolves, bears, wolverines, mountain lions, elk and many other animals have been researched up there and absolutely nothing has been found. Do you not find that very suspicious?

snelgrove, again, never been searched. people have rarely found lion carcasses. wolverines are incredibly hard to find. if sasquatch are nocturnal, no one looks at night. its very hard to search in areas where fossils are hard to come by

Don't need fossils it is still extant (fossils are not the same as remains).
Are you saying people don't research other nocturnal animals at night? Many have been studied in the PNW. Still not evidence of bigfoot however.

umm not places like snelgrove or where sasquatch sightings are dense. sometimes they see it. sometimes not. their is not guarantee, even with a real stealth animal, that u will see it. they are spaced out by 1000's of acres, and the chance of seeing one are so small, even if it is out there

This is what I have been getting from Neogenesis' posts.

Not that a backpacker is more reliable than an outdoorsman. Many sightings are merely sticks being clapped together, a falling rock, a spooky sound.

The actual number of significant sightings is far smaller.
To cite an active outdoor community is merely a very good example, and not detracting character from any individual.

I am sure it was on the front page right here at UM, just a few weeks ago, where pilots stated they thought they were sitting on the wing of their craft - yet these are reliable and responsible people. How do we know every effect of every atmospheric condition - affects on us by pressure - the effects of every pollen on every human, etc. etc. There could well be a very valid explaination for what is more than likely a very small number of sightings. These men do not necissarily have to be hoaxers or crackpots, but it is human nature to be mistaken.
And I do not think it is rude or unreasonable to consider that a small number of significant sightings could have a human error explaination rather than one that appears to break all laws of biology and physics. It would better explain how this phenomena reaches global status as well.

What is the point of an Unexplained Mystery if one does not attempt to explain it?

Do you suggest we just shelve these little mysteries and cherish them for all time?
Why can we not strive to explain Unexplaned Mysteries, indeed, what is the point of this forum?
It would then be a Mysteries shrine, not as place for discussion would it not?



Just how many are there - one's that are really worth considering? A falling rock can be a sighting on the more zealous sites.

If there are so many eyewitnesses, why not one clear picture? Not one tranqued body? Not one place we can go and observe?

So, everyone in the world except Patterson is wrong? We all made it up, are mistaken, liars, etc. etc. but not this fellow? Considering his reputation?

Didn't Incorrigible1 give Neogenesis quite a serve because he believes Neogensis displayed this very setiment? Did you not agree with him?

incorrigible didnt serve neo anything.

im saying their are real reports that are buried with other reports that might be hoax's. sort out the real ones from fake ones. also ban hoaxing from all parks, and if footprints show up, it was from a sasquatch. if its not a bear, or a human, its an unknown animal

tell me, how many people have been to snelgrove?

Do have a better name for the place since Snelgrove does not appear on any map I can find (which is not a huge amount of maps but still)

monsterquest ring a bell?

snelgrove is enormous!! rarely do u get anyone visit their, and its a sasquatch hotspot that isnt looked in

Nope, not helpfull, what state, whats its real name as a location. In which forest etc.

meldrum and nelson went to it! get a clue. its a real place

Did I say it wasn't? I said I can't find it. How about being helpfull and posting me a link to where this place is?

I'd invite you to search out an older thread where I addressed the possibility of a 200+ pound primate existing in NA. I went as far as citing the caloric needs of every major primate out there (from zoo studies), the increased need of metabolic intake in temperate and sub arctic climates and it's effect on the range such a large animal would have to encompass, the utter lack of food sources in the temperate zones, the lack of primates' ability to store fat, the lack of primates ability to digest what ungulates can and the inverse range/food supply implications this would have, the fact that there is almost no virgin forest left in North America (including logging maps), maps of recreational land use in NA including the point that there is no place in the US more 30 linear miles or so from a paved road, the fact that even the most reclusive North American ominvores and carnivores take advantage of trash dump sites, and much more. I didn't even touch on hunter's land use, the proliferation of video and digital picture taking technology, the ability of any naturalist to photograph and film even the most reclusive animals in the world, the lack of any fossil evidence of upright primates in NA, the myth that animal carcasses are never found (I've personally dissmissed this one while being a porter for three years in the Sierras), the fact that a population of such primates would put ecological pressure on other wildlife that would be obvservable through population and migration studies, the fact that such animals would be predated by bears and wolves and more that I can't even think of right now.

The point? There is no evidence of such an animal, there is no ecological niche for such an animal and their isn't even a conjectural theory that such an animal could exist that stands up to any scrutiny.

all of this has been debunked. a primate can survive in the forests. take snelgrove. wheres the nearest city?'

read

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=416

Sorry, my Aussie slang there, giving a serve means to give a hard time. He did that. Yet you make the same assumption? It's OK for you?

That is exactly the point. How many real reports actually exist buried amongst the scary noises? Ban hoaxing from parks? That would make it a national pastime.

Heck, if footprints show up - how about following them? Would that not be a great deal more successful than analysing a print? I am sure we could lend you a tracker. Our indigenous trackers are legendary. Can just about track a fly.

Tell, me, how many people have been to Snelgrove - do tell.
Now, how many global reports are there, and what percentage relate to snelgrove? With so many reports, how can many of them verify a place nobody goes - that's a contradiction isn't it?

snelgrove-nearest city-200 miles from float plane. neo certainly hasnt been their. not many people. and i know their is something unknown their

ohhhhh, you are a game man. Capeo is a very sharp customer. I think his nick should be Encyclopedia Britannica. Never seen him post a thing he could not back very well to date......

Sorry, this is patently incorrect. My neck of the woods has the Sandhills region, where one can and does regularly encounter areas at least twice that far. Sad to say, there are no bigfoot reports. The country is full of cattle and small lakes.

Hrrmzzz.............you seem well versed on the place..................not

their is a place:snelgrove

its real

So, if nobody goes here, how does this wealth of information get out?

I believe Snelgrove is a region or city in Ontario, Canada.

I don't deny that, is this the place?

You just seem to have little knowledge of a place you are sure of the conditions of, and are sure a massive Ape presumed extinct reigns.

How do you know?

Google map cannot find anywhere called Float Plane, what state is it in.

its called snelgrove, genius. and its a remote place in canada. read bout monsterquest and it will tell you

Well it can't find that either (cept for psyche101's example). Why the name calling, are we upsetting you?

it was on monsterquest!!

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?fo...hreadid=1768131

look it up

Haven't spent much time around the Appalachians, Superstition mountains, Smokey mountains, Rocky mountains or any of the other mountain ranges, have you? That 30 miles to a road is questionable...
Capeo, you claim to have studied the roads, Now 'fess up and tell everyone that most of the mountain roads you speak of have little or no traffic a lot of the year... a lot of them aren't much more than paved trails.

Have you ever lived or hunted in the vastness of country life? Do you even have a grasp of the terrain animals are capable of surviving in? Scientific studies don't have a corner on the market on knowing everything about wildlife.
Climb out of your books and maps and stand over looking the vastness of a mountain range and tell me that a large critter couldn't exist undetected.

So, North America can't have big game... mmm... tell it too the bears, wolves, deer, elk and all the other critters...

nailed it-

Thank Ya!

I found Snelgrove lake Ontario. Not really the PNW is it.

Man, you really ought to revise your factual soucres.

good job!!

its remote, big, and sasquatch bound

Um, no, that little article didn't debunk anything I just brought up. I didn't address fall and winter caloric intake. The fact that a deer is an ungulate and can digest things no primate ever could (and deer are not a correllary at all anyway), the huge territories involved to keep such a primate alive that would force constant movement and thus force more caloric intake (or are you suggesting that bigfoot is a grazer? that would make him quite easy to find). Quite honestly it didn't address anything I brought up. It was so simply spurious that it really doesn't require a point by point refutation. It ignored everything we know about animals of such size.

He has a point - it cannot have big game without a noticable impact. Those critters make up the ecosystem. We can't have a large predator consuming Elk and the like without it impacting the population, even makayas mate Faherenbach admits several thousand must be there to maintain a minumum poulation. The ecosystem of the PNW seems rather well documented going by merely the amatuer links I posted. Such an impact would indeed be noticable.

debunk snelgrove, and the whole world while your at it. your not an outsdoorman i see. dont understand primatology?

not meldrum, fahrenbach, bourne, goodall, swindler, noll,

Not sure about you but I found that article very poorly written and falls very short in any realistic scrutiny. It seems more of a statement.