My new theory on Bigfoots.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

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 March 13, 2012 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Q-C]

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 weve 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 March 13, 2012 by QuiteContrary

[+DieChecker]

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 March 14, 2012 by DieChecker

[DarkCreed]

LOL. I was laughing xD It looks funny.