Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Columbo

Multiple bigfoot creatures in Patterson film.

54 posts in this topic

I beleive Russell Brand might be at least 1/4 bigfoot...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beleive Russell Brand might be at least 1/4 bigfoot...

...and 3/4's bigprat!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have never found a dead body in the wild for the same reason you never find the dead body of any animal in the wild, it does not last long!

Nevermind....Exactly like keninsc said.......

WolfCreekRd.elk_.1.jpg

Dead-Elk-Retouched.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If-you-dont-have-sense-of-humor.jpg

That is also a " funny "....Sometimes, especially on certain topics, people like to have a little fun.....No harm in it if used as humor, and not insults.

Welcome to UM by the way.... :tu:

That image is amazing... LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be so quick to write off the existence of such a creature, in the last decade they have discovered 2 new species of whales. While the P-G doesn't provide absolute proof creatures of this type are more than likely highly intelligent and may hide or bury their bones to protect themselves.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevermind....Exactly like keninsc said.......

WolfCreekRd.elk_.1.jpg

Dead-Elk-Retouched.jpg

Looks like a squatch kill to me.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a squatch kill to me.

Deer are also very abundant, if we are talking Sasquatchs there may be 1000 in the whole of the United States, with the MILLIONS of unexplored acres of land from swamps to forest it doesn't surprise me that we haven't found anything.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deer are also very abundant, if we are talking Sasquatchs there may be 1000 in the whole of the United States, with the MILLIONS of unexplored acres of land from swamps to forest it doesn't surprise me that we haven't found anything.

You need to go through the Bigfoot threads on this site, so far, everything you have said has been debated ( and shown to be bad theories ) 20 times...

I would have started again here, but no need to keep repeating ourselves every 4 months......

Just the red alone is wrong.....Among other things.

Use the search function, plenty here :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You need to go through the Bigfoot threads on this site, so far, everything you have said has been debated ( and shown to be bad theories ) 20 times...

I would have started again here, but no need to keep repeating ourselves every 4 months......

Just the red alone is wrong.....Among other things.

Use the search function, plenty here :)

That is right, he should have said millions of Unvisited acres of wilderness.

I was in your neck of the woods a week ago Sakari. I noticed there was not much between Bandon and Coos Bay. It is about 20 miles of just a couple log roads and a few house driveways branching off Highway 101, with no where to stop (Because trust me my 4 year old girl needed to GO.). And that stretch of coast runs, what... 80 miles inland till it gets to the fairly settled areas in Douglas County? SO right there you have 20 x 80 = 1600 square miles, or roughly a million acres. Just in that tiny corner of Oregon. How much of that land is visited on foot every year? 25%, 10%?? I grew up in Douglas County just a hundred miles away so I know that every square mile of forest does not get visited by people every year. It is a physical and financial impossibility.

The point then is that we can't dismiss BF due to lack of habitat. Bones and bodies, I do believe we can use to dismiss BF.... probably.

By the By, loved the Southern Oregon coast. Daughter loved the cliffs and huge rocks in the sand.

Edited by DieChecker
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um, interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That is right, he should have said millions of Unvisited acres of wilderness.

I was in your neck of the woods a week ago Sakari. I noticed there was not much between Bandon and Coos Bay. It is about 20 miles of just a couple log roads and a few house driveways branching off Highway 101, with no where to stop (Because trust me my 4 year old girl needed to GO.). And that stretch of coast runs, what... 80 miles inland till it gets to the fairly settled areas in Douglas County? SO right there you have 20 x 80 = 1600 square miles, or roughly a million acres. Just in that tiny corner of Oregon. How much of that land is visited on foot every year? 25%, 10%?? I grew up in Douglas County just a hundred miles away so I know that every square mile of forest does not get visited by people every year. It is a physical and financial impossibility.

The point then is that we can't dismiss BF due to lack of habitat. Bones and bodies, I do believe we can use to dismiss BF.... probably.

By the By, loved the Southern Oregon coast. Daughter loved the cliffs and huge rocks in the sand.

Should have told me you were coming, could have gave you some nice places to see !!!....And even a Beer !

Do a google earth, and look at the logging roads and such..( the logging is kind of disgusting from a aerial view)...Use the satelite view...I think you will have a change of your opinion when you see it....People around here sure love their mushroom hunting, Elk Hunting, Deer Hunting, etc....Quite a bit is covered, including between Coos Bay and Bandon......Don't forget those weed growers either...... :gun: ( I am in Langlois, you should have stopped there for the world famous hot dogs )......

And the trucks, man they love their 4x4's :)

It is pretty down here, wish there were more sun and no wind though....

Glad you enjoyed it !

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be so quick to write off the existence of such a creature, in the last decade they have discovered 2 new species of whales. While the P-G doesn't provide absolute proof creatures of this type are more than likely highly intelligent and may hide or bury their bones to protect themselves.

Its actually pretty easy to write off the existence of Bigfoot when you consider the fact that there is no:

-actual evidence that they are highly intelligent

-actual evidence that they bury their dead

-actual evidence that they exist at all.

Whales on the other hand, do happen to exist. They wash up dead in places, can be observed in the wild, and in general can be documented, studied, and observed. Also there is evidence that whales are intelligent. When you go into the wild and take a picture of a whale - it'll even look like a whale! Thats because whales are real. Bigfoot on the other hand, is imaginary, or mythical if you prefer. Which is why all the unfaked photos look like tree stumps. Because they are tree stumps - which coincedentally are also real. Thank you, that is all. :)

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its actually pretty easy to write off the existence of Bigfoot when you consider the fact that there is no:

-actual evidence that they are highly intelligent

-actual evidence that they bury their dead

-actual evidence that they exist at all.

Whales on the other hand, do happen to exist. They wash up dead in places, can be observed in the wild, and in general can be documented, studied, and observed. Also there is evidence that whales are intelligent. When you go into the wild and take a picture of a whale - it'll even look like a whale! Thats because whales are real. Bigfoot on the other hand, is imaginary, or mythical if you prefer. Which is why all the unfaked photos look like tree stumps. Because they are tree stumps - which coincedentally are also real. Thank you, that is all. :)

I like what you said you made a good point. :tu:
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its actually pretty easy to write off the existence of Bigfoot when you consider the fact that there is no:

-actual evidence that they are highly intelligent

-actual evidence that they bury their dead

-actual evidence that they exist at all.

Whales on the other hand, do happen to exist. They wash up dead in places, can be observed in the wild, and in general can be documented, studied, and observed. Also there is evidence that whales are intelligent. When you go into the wild and take a picture of a whale - it'll even look like a whale! Thats because whales are real. Bigfoot on the other hand, is imaginary, or mythical if you prefer. Which is why all the unfaked photos look like tree stumps. Because they are tree stumps - which coincedentally are also real. Thank you, that is all. :)

And that's more, the picture of the whale isn;t usually out of focus :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the P-G doesn't provide absolute proof creatures of this type are more than likely highly intelligent and may hide or bury their bones to protect themselves.

Could you please explain how dead Bigfoots are able to bury their own bones?

Or are you saying that Bigfoot communities (which has never been reported) keep a census and send out search parties when one of their neighbors go missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in your neck of the woods a week ago Sakari. I noticed there was not much between Bandon and Coos Bay. It is about 20 miles of just a couple log roads and a few house driveways branching off Highway 101, with no where to stop (Because trust me my 4 year old girl needed to GO.). And that stretch of coast runs, what... 80 miles inland till it gets to the fairly settled areas in Douglas County? SO right there you have 20 x 80 = 1600 square miles, or roughly a million acres. Just in that tiny corner of Oregon. How much of that land is visited on foot every year? 25%, 10%?? I grew up in Douglas County just a hundred miles away so I know that every square mile of forest does not get visited by people every year. It is a physical and financial impossibility.

Our forests also contain aliens, dinosaurs, Chupacabras, fairies, gnomes, Men in Black, Mothman, and saber-toothed tigers. Unfortunately there's no proof because the forest is just too darn big so we just have to assume they're all in there somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Our forests also contain aliens, dinosaurs, Chupacabras, fairies, gnomes, Men in Black, Mothman, and saber-toothed tigers. Unfortunately there's no proof because the forest is just too darn big so we just have to assume they're all in there somewhere.

I would agree that dinosaurs and whatnot might be out there if hundreds or thousands of people reported seeing them each year. Unfortunately people don't. Point me at one dinosaur, or saber tooth tiger report in the last 12 months?

You can assume that nothing is in the forests if you like, but you can't use the lack of open territory as a proof of anything. You would have to say that dinosaurs don't exist because we'd otherwise see them, that they need breeding populations, ect...

I am only saying that since wilderness areas Do Exist, that it cannot be used as evidence that any particular critter does not exist, and specifically bigfoot.

And that the words, "millions of acres of unexplored land" is not too far off, as a million acres is only about 20 miles by 80 miles. There are about 6 Billion acres in North America (including Central America/Mexico), and it is not too big an assumption to say that 1/6000th of it is unexplored to any great degree. (Think Canada).

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that dinosaurs and whatnot might be out there if hundreds or thousands of people reported seeing them each year. Unfortunately people don't. Point me at one dinosaur, or saber tooth tiger report in the last 12 months?

Do you really think people would report a dinosaur if they saw one? They would be ridiculed in the press unlike the people who report Bigfoot who are always celebrated.

You can assume that nothing is in the forests if you like, but you can't use the lack of open territory as a proof of anything.

The problem is that this "open territory" is already fully occupied with bear and other predators. A large animal like Mr. Bigfoot would have to compete with them for food sources and he would need a lot of food to maintain that impressive 500 lbs. physique. However no one has ever reported seeing a Bigfoot ever eating anything. If you went hiking here and saw a bear during the spring or summer, you would see that half the time they're stuffing their faces with whatever food they can find. The other half of the time they're sleeping which is why you'll want to make a lot of noise whenever you're hiking. You can literally walk on top of a bear by accident here.

I am only saying that since wilderness areas Do Exist, that it cannot be used as evidence that any particular critter does not exist, and specifically bigfoot.

What you don't understand is these wilderness areas are already fully occupied with animal life which we understand very well. Their ecological systems have been extensively studied and they are constantly monitored by the BLM.

And that the words, "millions of acres of unexplored land" is not too far off, as a million acres is only about 20 miles by 80 miles. There are about 6 Billion acres in North America (including Central America/Mexico), and it is not too big an assumption to say that 1/6000th of it is unexplored to any great degree. (Think Canada).

Let me give you a lesson about this area. The forest you cited has not only been extensively explored but every section of it has had every tree in it cut down at some point. Many forests which you would think are "wilderness" have been logged to the bare earth, in some cases two or three times. The trees you see in forests now were planted 30-80 years ago with the intention of harvesting them in twenty years.

When we talk about "old growth" forests here, we're talking about the very few places in the Pacific Northwest where loggers never got around to cutting down all the trees in them. Every other square mile of the billion acres of virgin forests has been completely logged at some time. In first half of the twentieth century here the timber industry employed tens of thousands of loggers to mow every forest down to the ground with absolutely no concern about environmental consequences. There are still many areas full of dead 20 foot tall stumps -- the trees were faster to cut higher up. There is still is an extensive network of logging roads through all these areas. To say these areas are "unexplored" is ridiculous. Every square mile was examined and exploited at some point.

In the 60's they finally discovered that logging was destroying the ecology of the area and driving many species into extinction. Some even thought that might be a bad thing. That's when the concept of managed logging was established and the timber industry had to limit their logging to "clear cut" areas within forests to minimize their impact. That was the end of cheap lumber here. Areas began to look like the forests it was before we cut them down. People don't know these forests were actually replanted by the logging industry!

No forests are immune to fires. Every year we have dozens of major fires here. There is still a massive network of access roads (mostly the old logging roads) that are maintained through this "unexplored land" to establish fire breaks and allow firefighters to attack a fire anywhere from any direction. About a million acres of forest burn here every year. Firefighters regularly see all kinds of animal life instinctively fleeing the fires often filing lakes and rivers. In a hundred years of organized firefighting there has not been a single report of Bigfoot fleeing a fire.

Also note that Bigfoot is never reported by forest rangers and BLM employees who regularly patrol deep in the forests and make regular examinations of their ecological health. Absence of evidence is not evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do you really think people would report a dinosaur if they saw one? They would be ridiculed in the press unlike the people who report Bigfoot who are always celebrated.

I think bigfoot people and dinosaur people would get ridiculed. About evenly. I think people would report dinosaurs if they saw them.

The problem is that this "open territory" is already fully occupied with bear and other predators. A large animal like Mr. Bigfoot would have to compete with them for food sources and he would need a lot of food to maintain that impressive 500 lbs. physique. However no one has ever reported seeing a Bigfoot ever eating anything. If you went hiking here and saw a bear during the spring or summer, you would see that half the time they're stuffing their faces with whatever food they can find. The other half of the time they're sleeping which is why you'll want to make a lot of noise whenever you're hiking. You can literally walk on top of a bear by accident here.

There are several problems with your statement.

First, bear, cougar and wolf populations have been increasing every year for the last decade, this leads me to believe that there Must be Excess food out there, otherwise how are the gains in large predator populations being sustained?

Second, as someone who has read a large percentage of recorded (online) bigfoot stories/reports, I can say that there have been many reports of bigfoot eating many different things. Some have reported BF eating vegetation, other have reported BF eating meat. Several have even reported BF eating refuse at dumps and out of trash cans.

What you don't understand is these wilderness areas are already fully occupied with animal life which we understand very well. Their ecological systems have been extensively studied and they are constantly monitored by the BLM.

I've lived in rural Southern Oregon half of my life, so I know a bit about who wanders around the woods and what animals are there. True enough the ecological systems have been studied, but the numbers of animals that are really there are unknown. The rough population numbers are based off computer analysis that is based on topographics and geography and on supposed representitive sampling. But, as I've pointed out with articles in the past, these rough population numbers are sometimes off by as much as 50%. In a population such as bears, where there might be 25000 in the State of Oregon, how do you distinguish the 100 bigfoots from the 25000 bears? How do 100 BFs consume so much more food then 100 bears that they would show up in a population of 25000? The simplest answer is they can't be distinguished. That the 100 BFs falls way, way under the magins of error (Which in the preceeding link is like 5000 bears), so that they could easily fall under the various surveys and counts.

Second is that the forests are managed and monitored. Monitored how? How does the government monitor 28 million acres of governement forest land? On foot? That would require hundreds of thousands of people driving around constantly and hiking thousands of trails constantly. Which just does not happen. By plane? Sure, you can cover a lot of land, but if it is hard to spot elk herds from a plane, it surely is harder to spot a solitary BF.

Let me give you a lesson about this area. The forest you cited has not only been extensively explored but every section of it has had every tree in it cut down at some point. Many forests which you would think are "wilderness" have been logged to the bare earth, in some cases two or three times. The trees you see in forests now were planted 30-80 years ago with the intention of harvesting them in twenty years.

So where are you from? I lived 30 minutes from where I am talking about for 20 years. I know the hills, woods, rivers and settlement patterns of the area very well. Stating that every tree has been cut down is an example of YOUR own ignorance. You've in no way authority to lesson me.

60% of Oregon Forests are Federal lands. And on those the old growth areas are about 10% and those are not available for logging. I don't have a map of the far southern end of the Oregon Coast, but I think it would be comparable to the coast range near Florence, which can be seen here. Which clearly has hundreds of pockets of old growth forest all over the mountains of the coast range. So, I think it is you who has no idea what they are talking about.

When we talk about "old growth" forests here, we're talking about the very few places in the Pacific Northwest where loggers never got around to cutting down all the trees in them. Every other square mile of the billion acres of virgin forests has been completely logged at some time. In first half of the twentieth century here the timber industry employed tens of thousands of loggers to mow every forest down to the ground with absolutely no concern about environmental consequences. There are still many areas full of dead 20 foot tall stumps -- the trees were faster to cut higher up. There is still is an extensive network of logging roads through all these areas. To say these areas are "unexplored" is ridiculous. Every square mile was examined and exploited at some point.

Like I said, I lived there and was there in the time when a lot of that "exploitation" was happening. "Billions" of acres? "Tens of thousands" of loggers? Try nearer to a million statewide at the height of the harvesting. You are not helping your arguement with exageration and ignorant statements.

True many of those logging road still exist, and many are maintained by the government, but those that are not maintained get overgrown in like 15 to 20 years with saplings and heavy brush. And taking these roads through this "Explored" land is danagerous also. As every year we hear a news story about someone who took a side road and got stuck on a log road and that they died trying to walk out, after waiting 2 weeks for help to actively find them. That is right, even knowing what County someone dissappeared in and where they were going, it often takes more the 2 weeks to find someone who is lost. Most lost people have to find their own way out. The areas being dealt with are vast and hard to cover on foot, and many areas are neglected and have reverted to forestland from roads. Trust me, I've been turkey hunting in Douglas County the last 6 or 7 years and walked many, many log roads, and Most of the time it is easier to go under the trees then to follow the road, because the road is an overgrown Wall of foliage, and under the trees is open space.

If you go back and read my "unexplored" post you'll see I specified Northern Canada. I dare you to say the same of far northern Canada that you do of the Oregon Cascades.

In the 60's they finally discovered that logging was destroying the ecology of the area and driving many species into extinction. Some even thought that might be a bad thing. That's when the concept of managed logging was established and the timber industry had to limit their logging to "clear cut" areas within forests to minimize their impact. That was the end of cheap lumber here. Areas began to look like the forests it was before we cut them down. People don't know these forests were actually replanted by the logging industry!

Yadda, yadda, yadda....

No forests are immune to fires. Every year we have dozens of major fires here. There is still a massive network of access roads (mostly the old logging roads) that are maintained through this "unexplored land" to establish fire breaks and allow firefighters to attack a fire anywhere from any direction. About a million acres of forest burn here every year. Firefighters regularly see all kinds of animal life instinctively fleeing the fires often filing lakes and rivers. In a hundred years of organized firefighting there has not been a single report of Bigfoot fleeing a fire.

Finally you have made a Good Point. You are correct in that if BF was real, we'd see them fleeing fires also. The only mitigation being that if there are only a handful of BFs (In a particular area of Oregon) that it is statistically less likely that one will be seen, even fleeing from a fire. In my bears point above, consider that the bears outnumber the BFs by like 250 to 1, so for every 250 bears we see fleeing fires, we should see 1 BF.

Also note that Bigfoot is never reported by forest rangers and BLM employees who regularly patrol deep in the forests and make regular examinations of their ecological health. Absence of evidence is not evidence.

This also shows your ignorance of the BF phenomena. Many, many government forest workers have seen and reported BF. And not just in Oregon but nation wide.

I'd also ask how many of these rangers "regularly" patrol, and how often and how far? Is there numbers behind that, or is it pulled out of the air?

Edited by DieChecker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case rages on I see, It is interesting to read all the back and forth both sides pose very good points

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's mental exercise. :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, bear, cougar and wolf populations have been increasing every year for the last decade, this leads me to believe that there Must be Excess food out there, otherwise how are the gains in large predator populations being sustained?

So then... why aren't Bigfoot populations increasing? We should be seeing more and more of them yet we haven't found any evidence of them or even been able to get a decent photo of one after decades of study.

Second, as someone who has read a large percentage of recorded (online) bigfoot stories/reports, I can say that there have been many reports of bigfoot eating many different things. Some have reported BF eating vegetation, other have reported BF eating meat. Several have even reported BF eating refuse at dumps and out of trash cans.

By all means point me to these reports of Bigfoot grazing and hunting! So do they only feed when people don't have cameras to take pictures of them to prove they exist? If you want to take a photo of a bear, that is the easiest (and safest) time to. They can't run while they're eating.

I've lived in rural Southern Oregon half of my life, so I know a bit about who wanders around the woods and what animals are there. True enough the ecological systems have been studied, but the numbers of animals that are really there are unknown.

Hmmm, you just said "bear, cougar and wolf populations have been increasing every year for the last decade", then you say that these things are "unknown". I'd say that most of the people who live in rural Southern Oregon don't have a damn clue about what's in their woods other than what they've seen through their windshields so I can't say that would qualify anyone as an expert.

The rough population numbers are based off computer analysis that is based on topographics and geography and on supposed representitive sampling. But, as I've pointed out with articles in the past, these rough population numbers are sometimes off by as much as 50%.

If we have no way of knowing correct population numbers, how did we determine that previous numbers were wrong?

In a population such as bears, where there might be 25000 in the State of Oregon, how do you distinguish the 100 bigfoots from the 25000 bears?

We both grew up in Southern Oregon so we both know what a bear looks like, right? Well after decades of hiking and hunting and camping and climbing mountains I've seen dozens of bears but I still haven't seen a Bigfoot. From what I've read, Bigfoot is eight feet tall, walks upright all the time with a human stride, and looks more like an ape than a bear. That is how I would distinguish the theoretical Bigfoots from the real bears.

How do 100 BFs consume so much more food than 100 bears that they would show up in a population of 25000?

You completely misunderstood the point. Bears are territorial. By the time winter approaches even bears are competing directly with each other for dwindling food resources. Many bears starve to death. When you hear of bears wandering into suburbs and eating out of trash cans, those are bear that have been pushed out their natural habitat by other bears.

Add Bigfoot or any similar animal to this competition. When a theoretical Bigfoot is eating and a real bear approaches, who ends up with the food? I'd put my money on the bear. That means the Bigfoot starves to death. What else around here competes with the bear for food and survives?

Why do you think bears are so successful in the Pacific Northwest? They've adapted perfectly to the variable amounts of food sources that are found here during the seasons. They are at the top of the food chain for these sources. Bigfoot as described could not compete for food or survive a winter here.

Second is that the forests are managed and monitored. Monitored how? How does the government monitor 28 million acres of governement forest land? On foot? That would require hundreds of thousands of people driving around constantly and hiking thousands of trails constantly. Which just does not happen. By plane? Sure, you can cover a lot of land, but if it is hard to spot elk herds from a plane, it surely is harder to spot a solitary BF.

The BLM along with the Forestry Service and several other government agencies don't patrol every acre every year but decade after decade all the areas have been studied, managed and monitored. Your community of one hundred theoretical Bigfoots would have to keep a lookout for BLM employees and constantly move to stay undiscovered.

Obviously 100 Bigfoots that have been spread over millions of acres is not a species that's going to survive for very long.

So where are you from? I lived 30 minutes from where I am talking about for 20 years. I know the hills, woods, rivers and settlement patterns of the area very well. Stating that every tree has been cut down is an example of YOUR own ignorance. You've in no way authority to lesson me.

I've lived in Oregon all my life. Dude, only 10% of the forest we have left is old growth. What do you think happened to the other 90%? It was logged or burned for farm land. They taught this in high school. Why do you think there are only 25,000 bear left our state? Because we've isolated, surrounded and destroyed their habitat. That's also why we see so many bear -- we are invading and pushing them out of their habitats.

Also the "million" loggers you claimed isn't nearly correct. At the peak of our lumber industry it employed about 400,000 people in Oregon but almost all of them worked in mills, kilns, in shipping, lumber yards, and other parts of the industry. The number of men out in the forests cutting down trees was around 50,000. In fact at the peak of the lumber industry Oregon only had a little over million people living in the entire state so I can't imagine where you got that crazy number from.

60% of Oregon Forests are Federal lands. And on those the old growth areas are about 10% and those are not available for logging. I don't have a map of the far southern end of the Oregon Coast, but I think it would be comparable to the coast range near Florence, which can be seen here. Which clearly has hundreds of pockets of old growth forest all over the mountains of the coast range. So, I think it is you who has no idea what they are talking about.

Yes, that is my point. Only 10% of the forests weren't mowed down to the ground. The other 90% were mowed down to the ground. Your Bigfoot would have had to survive the destruction of 90% of its habitat like the bear did. We'll never know how many species we drove into extinction because we never even bothered to discover them before they died off.

This also shows your ignorance of the BF phenomena. Many, many government forest workers have seen and reported BF. And not just in Oregon but nation wide.

And that is why the Forestry Service recognizes Bigfoot as an actual species. Oh wait, they don't. Maybe these "many many" forestry workers didn't really see Bigfoot. I'd like to talk to them. I know employees in the Forestry Service and none of them have seen Bigfoot or know anyone who has. They've had plenty of frightening encounters with bears however. If Bigfoot exists, I hope he has more luck avoiding bears than these guys have had!

I'd also ask how many of these rangers "regularly" patrol, and how often and how far? Is there numbers behind that, or is it pulled out of the air?

I'd like to ask how many of these rangers do you believe would be necessary to conclusively prove that Bigfoot exists because if I gave you any number you would say "Not enough! Need more!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So then... why aren't Bigfoot populations increasing? We should be seeing more and more of them yet we haven't found any evidence of them or even been able to get a decent photo of one after decades of study.

Hard to say. Could be genetic bottlenecking has basically made them extinct and they just don't know it yet.

The populations of most European countrys and several US States have decreased, why are they not continuing to grow? New York for example lost like 3 or 4 Representatives to Congress based on population loss in the last Census. If BF is intellegent, perhaps they understand they can't grow their population quickly. (Shrug)

By all means point me to these reports of Bigfoot grazing and hunting! So do they only feed when people don't have cameras to take pictures of them to prove they exist? If you want to take a photo of a bear, that is the easiest (and safest) time to. They can't run while they're eating.

I'll work on it. It is not the work of a single lunch break.

Hmmm, you just said "bear, cougar and wolf populations have been increasing every year for the last decade", then you say that these things are "unknown". I'd say that most of the people who live in rural Southern Oregon don't have a damn clue about what's in their woods other than what they've seen through their windshields so I can't say that would qualify anyone as an expert.

Fair enough... Government estimates of bear cougar and wolf population have been increasing...

A logical arguement, but then who is right? If the government is right about how many animals there are. And if the animals are increasing, then there must be food. If the government is wrong, then you're saying their biologists are wrong, and again they would miss bigfoot.

If we have no way of knowing correct population numbers, how did we determine that previous numbers were wrong?

They found they were wrong through new sampling. And I would agree that the new samples could be wrong too. They could be overestimating, or still underestimating the numbers. But usually they are close within say 10%. A 10% that is measured in the thousands when BF would be measures in the 100s.

We both grew up in Southern Oregon so we both know what a bear looks like, right? Well after decades of hiking and hunting and camping and climbing mountains I've seen dozens of bears but I still haven't seen a Bigfoot. From what I've read, Bigfoot is eight feet tall, walks upright all the time with a human stride, and looks more like an ape than a bear. That is how I would distinguish the theoretical Bigfoots from the real bears.

BF would be on the order of 500 times more rare then a bear, so it would not be unnatural for you to be outside hiking every day of your life and still not see one... statistically. You would not miss BF if you saw one, but you also would not be believed, even if you had a blurry pic or video of a distant blobsquatch.

You completely misunderstood the point. Bears are territorial. By the time winter approaches even bears are competing directly with each other for dwindling food resources. Many bears starve to death. When you hear of bears wandering into suburbs and eating out of trash cans, those are bear that have been pushed out their natural habitat by other bears.

BF sightings would suggest that BF is Not Territorial, and can move to where food would be available.Bears don't cover the wilderness like a checkerboard, they have space between their territories and occupy a tiny piece of it at any one time.

Bears that wander into towns and interact with man are rarely there because they were pushed out. They usually were starving. Otherwise they would never approach the stinking homes and properties of men. If I am wrong please post some link to show that bears are displacing bears.

Add Bigfoot or any similar animal to this competition. When a theoretical Bigfoot is eating and a real bear approaches, who ends up with the food? I'd put my money on the bear. That means the Bigfoot starves to death. What else around here competes with the bear for food and survives?

What else competes? Cougars, Wolves (in the NE corner), Wolverines, Wild Dogs, Wild Hogs, Coyotes, Bobcats.... The bears don't Yogi Bear around and steal All the food. There is plenty, otherwise we'd see more starving bears come into town.

Bigfoot would probably give over its food to the bear and leave. They probably would have a very acute survival instinct where they would take off.

Why do you think bears are so successful in the Pacific Northwest? They've adapted perfectly to the variable amounts of food sources that are found here during the seasons. They are at the top of the food chain for these sources. Bigfoot as described could not compete for food or survive a winter here.

That is simply your opinon, as you have no real idea what BF would eat, how much, and how cold adaptive it is. Polar bears look slim even in winter, but they don't freeze to death. You suggest that bears have adapted, but then suggest that BF could not.

The BLM along with the Forestry Service and several other government agencies don't patrol every acre every year but decade after decade all the areas have been studied, managed and monitored. Your community of one hundred theoretical Bigfoots would have to keep a lookout for BLM employees and constantly move to stay undiscovered.

Obviously 100 Bigfoots that have been spread over millions of acres is not a species that's going to survive for very long.

True enough. It is unexplained how the BFs could interact when scattered so thinly. It is a major problem in defending BF possibly existance. Some suggest they leave trail signs as communications and then have a rendezvous every couple years.

Wasn't it you that said humans normally make a lot of noise to let the bears know they are there. Wouldn't that also scare off BF?

I've lived in Oregon all my life. Dude, only 10% of the forest we have left is old growth. What do you think happened to the other 90%? It was logged or burned for farm land. They taught this in high school. Why do you think there are only 25,000 bear left our state? Because we've isolated, surrounded and destroyed their habitat. That's also why we see so many bear -- we are invading and pushing them out of their habitats.

Maybe you've been drinking the Portland Liberal coolaid. Where did you go to high school?

According to the State of Oregon, there is nearly the same amount of forest land now, as in 1850.

How much forest land is there in Oregon?

About 28 million of Oregon’s 61 million-acre land base is forest land, according to the Oregon Department of Forestry. While other parts of the country have experienced extensive forest land loss to development, Oregon retains about 92 percent of the forest cover that was present in 1850, according to the Oregon Department of Forestry.

25,000 bears is very respectable. That is nearly 5% of the whole North American bear Population (400,000 to 475000 - estimated), including Canada.

Also the "million" loggers you claimed isn't nearly correct. At the peak of our lumber industry it employed about 400,000 people in Oregon but almost all of them worked in mills, kilns, in shipping, lumber yards, and other parts of the industry. The number of men out in the forests cutting down trees was around 50,000. In fact at the peak of the lumber industry Oregon only had a little over million people living in the entire state so I can't imagine where you got that crazy number from.

Fine, the million loggers were exaggeration. Point to you. :tu:

Yes, that is my point. Only 10% of the forests weren't mowed down to the ground. The other 90% were mowed down to the ground. Your Bigfoot would have had to survive the destruction of 90% of its habitat like the bear did. We'll never know how many species we drove into extinction because we never even bothered to discover them before they died off.

Perhaps when you said "All trees" had been mowed down you were... also exagerating?

That 90% of habitat did not get mowed all at once. As you yourself said, some of these stands are decades old and on their third replanting. What is the percentage of time the forests are mowed down, versus when they are forest land again. I'd guess that they replant and the trees get to forest height in like 10 years?? Then the forest matures for what... another 20 years before being havested. And this is only on the Corporate owned lands. Federal owned lands are MUCH harder to get logging permits for now. Even individual landowners don't harvest their lands as much as there used to be. Thus, I'm thinking that what once was harvested will again be old growth in some more decades. That much more then that 10% will be untouched for the future.

And then you also say there were species there that dies out before even being discovered?? Sure, you're probably talking about owls, hawks, voles, squirrels and such, but you probably see my point.

And that is why the Forestry Service recognizes Bigfoot as an actual species. Oh wait, they don't. Maybe these "many many" forestry workers didn't really see Bigfoot. I'd like to talk to them. I know employees in the Forestry Service and none of them have seen Bigfoot or know anyone who has. They've had plenty of frightening encounters with bears however. If Bigfoot exists, I hope he has more luck avoiding bears than these guys have had!

I'll look to see if I can find any reports and link them here. I know I've read several.

The Forest Service does not Not-recognize Bigfoot because of territory limitations. The Forest Service does not recognize BF because there has never been bones or a body or a living creature found. That, the bones and body, are the limiters on BF, not territory or food, or communications, or weather, or human habitation, or population numbers. Just bones and a body.

I'd like to ask how many of these rangers do you believe would be necessary to conclusively prove that Bigfoot exists because if I gave you any number you would say "Not enough! Need more!"

Wait! ? Did you mean "conclusively prove", or "conclusively disprove"?

If I talked to maybe several dozen and expressed my ideas and all repeated over and over that it was impossible, then sure I'd concede.

I actually concede already. Go back to just about any BF thread and I will admit openly that BF very probably does not exisit. I am just tired of people who "think" they know what they are talking about who throw out generalities and call them facts, when in fact they are expressing only their opinion, and the facts themselves can point in dozens of directions.

Look at what I posted and tell me that what I posted is clearly wrong. (Other then the millions of loggers. :innocent: )

Genetic bottlenecking is a fact and explains many extinction occurances of endangered species. Animal populations have expanded according to the various government agencies, the same who performed the various studies. These sampling studies are sometimes wrong. Even then BF could disappear into the mathmatical error. BF would be 500 times rarer then a bear, given a minimum population. Bears don't live everywhere in the wilderness and don't eat all the food. Forestland in Oregon is increasing. Old timber lands are increasing. All these are facts.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its actually pretty easy to write off the existence of Bigfoot when you consider the fact that there is no:

-actual evidence that they are highly intelligent

-actual evidence that they bury their dead

-actual evidence that they exist at all.

Whales on the other hand, do happen to exist. They wash up dead in places, can be observed in the wild, and in general can be documented, studied, and observed. Also there is evidence that whales are intelligent. When you go into the wild and take a picture of a whale - it'll even look like a whale! Thats because whales are real. Bigfoot on the other hand, is imaginary, or mythical if you prefer. Which is why all the unfaked photos look like tree stumps. Because they are tree stumps - which coincedentally are also real. Thank you, that is all. :)

OK! First off I am not disputing that BF's are real or not? Personally I don't know? You don't either! But I would say I lean towards it being unlikely. But you can't compare BF's to a whale? Thats not what the persone was comparing the situation too! They said two NEW species had been discovered! Just like if two NEW species of Ape were to be discovered? Isn't that what BigFoot is supposed to be? if it exists? Just saying that your arguement doesn't really compare apples to apples...Just sayin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.