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 1
keninsc

Are we closing in on Bigfoot?

212 posts in this topic

They are large animals with apparently large brains. They need lots of food and water. They need large shelters every day. They sleep. They crap. They have to leave traces. Animals this large are not easily hidden.

Okay. So lets say that apparently that they do have large brains. I live in a remote area in North Carolina. There is SO much forest area where I live. If they have large brains, then why couldn't they be smart enough to evade detection? There is a lot of diversity among organisms and food sources here. I could go out and survive in the woods here seemingly forever if i could evade cold and disease. And squatch have fur anyways.Why do they need large shelters? They could live in trees just as easily as we can. Yes, you are in fact correct that they sleep. So lets say that they do leave traces, how many people can say that they have successfully covered every square inch of soil on the earth. there will be traces and some of these have already been found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even creatures as smart as us haven't been able to evade us. Fugitives with survival skills have tried to evade capture by living in the forests for months in the hope that authorities would give up. The first thing they learn is there isn't a lot of food out there most of the year. Second, they learn that if you don't build a fire, you're going to waste a lot of energy staying warm. Third, they learn that getting water exposes you since a lot of human activity takes place around water.

When they're captured, they're usually near starvation.

True. But in these instances, we have known the overall location of these fugitives, what they looked like, and where to look for them, none of which we concretely know of bigfoot. Also, the reason they are starving is because 1. they didnt know how to survive or didnt know the territory they were in, or 2. they didnt have the proper weapons and resources in the area in which they were hiding such as a suburban area. And as i said, here there is an abundant source of food year round if you know how to use it.

Edited by BNDGK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. But in these instances, we have known the overall location of these fugitives, what they looked like, and where to look for them, none of which we concretely know of bigfoot.

That's not the point. The point is that large-brained creatures cannot survive in the forest all year unless they hibernate or migrate during the winter.

Also, the reason they are starving is because 1. they didnt know how to survive or didnt know the territory they were in, or

If you think there is tons of food for the taking in a forest during the winter, you need to learn more about the wilderness. Bears gorge themselves and hibernate because during the winter there simply isn't any food that they can digest. This is simply the only way that Bigfoot could possibly survive.

2. they didnt have the proper weapons and resources in the area in which they were hiding such as a suburban area.

So Bigfoot builds weapons for hunting? Why haven't we found these?

And as i said, here there is an abundant source of food year round if you know how to use it.

That is completely untrue. I would invite you to come to the Northwest with a warm coat and spend a winter in one of our forests. You'll find nothing but indigestible vegetation and some roots (some poisonous, some not) to live on. You can hunt game which is not something Bigfoot would be physically good at. A lumbering bipedal nine foot creature is not about to sneak up on large animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or a sheep farm. Sheep are small and are more easily preyed upon. I have stumbled across many a skeleton on creek banks and in sheep paddocks. Sheep are easy to spot too, the wool blows around and makes quite a nasty mess.

Have you ever tried to catch a single sheep in a field? They can run circles around you if they feel threatened. I can't imagine big ol' Bigfoot chasing after one of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Domesticated animals are not too difficult to capture I would think, especially if you consider Bigfoots to be the masters of stealth that they seem to be or are alleged to be. I seriously doubt there's a great deal of chasing involved, but then that's my best guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creeks and river banks - freshwater of course and with steep banks. When drought hits and they dry up a bit animals try to get to water and often take a fall breaking a leg or something, or can get stuck in mud.

Or a sheep farm. Sheep are small and are more easily preyed upon. I have stumbled across many a skeleton on creek banks and in sheep paddocks. Sheep are easy to spot too, the wool blows around and makes quite a nasty mess.

Yeah I guess you're right. Artificial mounds or in high remote places would be out of the question. I figure if I post enough I'll accidently be right about something eventually :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Bigfoot builds weapons for hunting? Why haven't we found these?

Bigfoot and hunting weapons? What would we look for? A rock? A bow and arrow? A long spear fashioned from a perfectly straight green tree branch stripped of limbs suspended in the air by a stick structure? Bah humbug. Proof nor evidence of anything that can't be easily debunked or replicated by a hoaxer. Only a body will do, end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, until there is a body or something tangible for scientist to verify I see no end to the debate myself. I don't like the idea of having to shoot one to validate them as a species but by the same token I see nothing else that will serve as proof of existence either.

As far as tool use goes, right now all I've ever heard of is rock throwing and maybe a stick used for tree knocking.......I have to admit the tree knocking thing might have some validity based on ape studies and some aboriginal tribe studies, but other than that I've seen nothing that indicates Bigfoots use tools.

Edited by keninsc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Domesticated animals are not too difficult to capture I would think, especially if you consider Bigfoots to be the masters of stealth that they seem to be or are alleged to be. I seriously doubt there's a great deal of chasing involved, but then that's my best guess.

There was some chasing the last time I tried to bring a friends sheep in from grazing! I thought it would let me just guide him in but it got leery of me as soon as I got within twenty feet him. After about ten minutes, I was able to scare the stupid thing into moving in the direction of the barn but they sure don't come like pets if you call them. Once we got him into the barn, it was completely passive, like a different animal while we sheered him.

I can't picture a Bigfoot sneaking up to a sheep very often unless they're really sneaky. Of course I wasn't trying to be sneaky by treating it like a pet.

Also a Bigfoot would need at least a sheep every week to survive the winter if it doesn't hibernate. That's a lot of sheep!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd think a Bigfoot would be good at it and they'd most likely do this at night. I've never been good at catching sheep either and when I do catch one my buddy accusses me of doing terrible things with it. However, most farmer and herders I know of.......at least in the southeast, usually pen or barn up livestock at night, so myt guess is that's going to make it a little tougher for a Bigfoot to get them.......unless he has a set of keys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not the point. The point is that large-brained creatures cannot survive in the forest all year unless they hibernate or migrate during the winter.

If you think there is tons of food for the taking in a forest during the winter, you need to learn more about the wilderness. Bears gorge themselves and hibernate because during the winter there simply isn't any food that they can digest. This is simply the only way that Bigfoot could possibly survive.

So Bigfoot builds weapons for hunting? Why haven't we found these?

That is completely untrue. I would invite you to come to the Northwest with a warm coat and spend a winter in one of our forests. You'll find nothing but indigestible vegetation and some roots (some poisonous, some not) to live on. You can hunt game which is not something Bigfoot would be physically good at. A lumbering bipedal nine foot creature is not about to sneak up on large animals.

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.

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

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. So lets say that apparently that they do have large brains. I live in a remote area in North Carolina. There is SO much forest area where I live. If they have large brains, then why couldn't they be smart enough to evade detection? There is a lot of diversity among organisms and food sources here. I could go out and survive in the woods here seemingly forever if i could evade cold and disease. And squatch have fur anyways.Why do they need large shelters? They could live in trees just as easily as we can. Yes, you are in fact correct that they sleep. So lets say that they do leave traces, how many people can say that they have successfully covered every square inch of soil on the earth. there will be traces and some of these have already been found.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. So lets say that apparently that they do have large brains. I live in a remote area in North Carolina. There is SO much forest area where I live. If they have large brains, then why couldn't they be smart enough to evade detection?

One Bigfoot could evade detection. A hundred Bigfoots could not. Bigfoot is not just one creature roaming around America. There must be a sizeable population otherwise they would become extinct. How else can you explain so many alleged sightings?

There is a lot of diversity among organisms and food sources here. I could go out and survive in the woods here seemingly forever if i could evade cold and disease.

Only if you hunted or if you gathered and stored food from the spring and summer. If you went out into the Pacific Northwest forests (where Bigfoot is constantly reported) right now you would be near death within a month. I went on a 14 mile hike out there this weekend. Even with the moderate temperatures this season there are no food sources other than some green leaves and some mushrooms. I have a large book on edible plants and I'm constantly looking for them when I'm hiking since they're an indication that there might be wildlife nearby.

And squatch have fur anyways.Why do they need large shelters?

Hey, bears have fur too. Why do they need shelters? Because even they need protection from predators and the elements. Also don't forget that baby Bigfoots could not be nine feet tall when they are born so they also need protection when mama Bigfoot is asleep or out hunting.

They could live in trees just as easily as we can.

Who are all these people you know living in trees? Everyone I know lives on the ground because humans aren't nature's best tree climbers. Our feet don't have the medial break that lets apes grip onto branches with their feet. Take a look a alleged Bigfoot prints. How does a 500 pound creature bipedal creature with 18 inch flat feet climb trees?

Yes, you are in fact correct that they sleep. So lets say that they do leave traces, how many people can say that they have successfully covered every square inch of soil on the earth. there will be traces and some of these have already been found.

No traces have been found. That's the problem.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.