Bigfoot ....surviving remnant

[Trelane]

2 hours ago, oldrover said:

There's no way to draw direct clmparisons, but it's always surprised me no one's ever tried to use estimated numbers of mountain gorilla required to sustain a viable population as a guide. The study I read some years ago came out at around 400 gorillas to maintain a population, I'm not sure now though wherther this was restricted to one area, or if it was the minimum number for the species as a whole to survive. 

I'm not sure how well a group of 400 terribly arthritic giant primates with sever circulation problems would manage to remain undetected either. 

 

 

 

I'm inflating the numbers to account for all the alleged sightings throughout North America.

[Minimalists]

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

Given how unreliable eyewitness accounts can be I would say yes.

Well in the world of science its the lowest form of evidence that is according to Neil Degrasse Tyson....

Edited March 18, 2018 by Alien Origins
Correct a misspelling.

[+DieChecker]

14 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Your right there is no reason the creature cannot exist...I think the big problem here is that there have been no remains found and thats where a lot of the skepticism arises...I mean for a creature that stretches from coast to coast in the US and abroad its mind numbing that no remains have been found. On a side note you cannot ignore the amount of eyewitness reports from people who have claimed to have seen this thing...The UFO community unfortunately suffers from the same MO...As for me the jury is still out on this thing. I won't say it don't exist but I cannot say absolutely for sure it does.

There was a discussion a while back where a poster said that lots of sightings occurred in semi-urban areas, like parks completely enclosed by city, and that was proof that bigfoot didn't exist. I countered that the same argument could be made in reverse with sightings in the far north of Canada which had multiple witnesses and included experienced outdoorsmen. Which would prove that BF did exist. My point was that you can't just take any single sighting and use it to discount all sightings. As with something like a Muslim Terrorist (Just a convenient term, not to say Muslims are defacto terrorists.), each report should be investigated individually regarding the facts. You don't discount a report of a fanatical terrorist, just because 5, or 10, or 200, other reports turned out to not be true.

Bigfoot could be shown to be real with a single proven sighting.

However the fact is that no such proven sighting has happened yet.  Still that shouldn't allow for shoddy conclusions and assumptions by so many who say they are being logical and scientific.

[+DieChecker]

7 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Well in the world of science its the lowest form of evidence that is according to Neil Degrasse Tyson....

I'd agree. Eyewitness testimony should not be proof, but should lead any investigation into a place to start in gathering evidence.

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, Trelane said:

Given how unreliable eyewitness accounts can be I would say yes.

This is how we ended up with the World Trade Centers being blown up on 9-11. Discounting of reports based on opinions. If thousands of people believe they have seen something, then something was seen. Whether it was a hairy bipedal ape, or one of a thousand other things, would be up to the data collected investigating.

[+DieChecker]

11 hours ago, Trelane said:

The population size crucial to the alleged animal's continued existence would have to be what number? Hundreds if not thousands most likely. Regardless of dietary tendency the animal would also require significant amounts of food source to maintain one. Therefore, the activity of this population of such a huge animal would not go unnoticed by experienced hunters and trackers. As elusive as some propose, there would still be more evidence than the occasional footprint and "blobsquatch" photos/videos. Sorry, but the animal is great fantasy and unfortunately nothing more.

There has been plenty of hunters and trackers who reported seeing, hearing, or finding footprints and other "evidence" of Bigfoot, and were summarily dismissed. Generally dismissing such is the first reaction they receive. 

I read a article a while back, I think it was three, or four years ago, about a state, Minnesota, I think, that underestimated the number of bears in the state. It seems they did several representative studies of a few areas and then extrapolated the data state wide. However it seems that when they did it again the next year that the population of bears appeared to have doubled. My point being that the knowledge of the populations, even of large animals, and the food sources of those animals, are subject to great variability and are at best educated guesses.

Still, you are right in that a body should have been found by now.

[Minimalists]

Well then what is everyones take on the Patterson-Gimlin film?

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

There was a discussion a while back where a poster said that lots of sightings occurred in semi-urban areas, like parks completely enclosed by city, and that was proof that bigfoot didn't exist. I countered that the same argument could be made in reverse with sightings in the far north of Canada which had multiple witnesses and included experienced outdoorsmen. Which would prove that BF did exist. My point was that you can't just take any single sighting and use it to discount all sightings. As with something like a Muslim Terrorist (Just a convenient term, not to say Muslims are defacto terrorists.), each report should be investigated individually regarding the facts. You don't discount a report of a fanatical terrorist, just because 5, or 10, or 200, other reports turned out to not be true.

Bigfoot could be shown to be real with a single proven sighting.

However the fact is that no such proven sighting has happened yet.  Still that shouldn't allow for shoddy conclusions and assumptions by so many who say they are being logical and scientific.

I believe the argument was not that all. The argument is that BF sightings were more common near large population areas. These areas were impossible for BF to exist. It highlighted how poor people are as eyewitnesses.

The suggestion was that BF sightings were not of a real creature but there is something in humans that makes them want to suggest the existence of a large hairy creature that walks upright. It is something about human thinking that is revealed rather than the existence of some creature.

The main problem with BF is that there is nothing but stories. Not  single creature has been found dead. No bones, no skin, no scat, nothing. No dead from natural causes. No dead from fires or floods or car collisions. Nothing. The search has been going on longer than for any other imagined creature. People suggest there are credible reports because some unnamed person was an "experienced outdoors man" or they were  in law enforcement. There is nothing substantial.

The suggestion that so many groups tell such tales of hairy upright walking creatures is also without merit. Do they have skins of the creature? No. They tell tales that are very different from gentle creatures that become members of the family to malevolent creatures. I don't see people arguing for talking animals which so many of thee groups also tell. Talking animals are the norm and we all accept this blindly when watching movies but our complete belief in this does not add support to the idea that animals or toys can talk.

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

There has been plenty of hunters and trackers who reported seeing, hearing, or finding footprints and other "evidence" of Bigfoot, and were summarily dismissed. Generally dismissing such is the first reaction they receive. 

I read a article a while back, I think it was three, or four years ago, about a state, Minnesota, I think, that underestimated the number of bears in the state. It seems they did several representative studies of a few areas and then extrapolated the data state wide. However it seems that when they did it again the next year that the population of bears appeared to have doubled. My point being that the knowledge of the populations, even of large animals, and the food sources of those animals, are subject to great variability and are at best educated guesses.

Still, you are right in that a body should have been found by now.

You mean like some of the hoaxers that have videos out?

The estimation of bear population can change over time due to the method of sampling. In our area we see a tremendous number of deer as the population explodes. Has the food supply increased or changed? No. The clear result has been a loss of trophy deer, the 12 to 14 point buck which are no longer seen. It also means that deer with obvious ribs are common in summer. As we know animal populations vary.

One of the sampling techniques used for bear is a wire designed to hook fur of passing animals.  Testing can identify unique animals. Never once has any of the testing resulted in an unknown species such as BF. The hair is always identifiable. The DNA testing always reveals bear. You'd think that trail cams might reveal a BF in something other than a twisted bear position. No. Not happening.

[Myles]

On 2/9/2018 at 8:31 PM, Carnoferox said:

No fossil hominid matches the purported characteristics of Bigfoot. Trying to shoehorn fossil hominids into cryptozoology is frankly a desperate appeal for legitimacy.

To be fair, he did say "if they were real".

So with that assumption, I think a small population of big apes would be the most possible. 

 

[Gaden]

On 3/18/2018 at 0:36 AM, mysticwerewolf said:

up and down the pacific coast the Indian tribes have legends and stories about big hairy human like Creatures. Legends and stories that go back hundreds and hundreds of years so do other tribes of humans around the world. as to where, there are mines & caves all over the world especially here in the northwest some barely niches in the rock face, others fairly deep,that could protect a lone creature or family group (and I personally have been it some mines  that had the remains of a campfire just inside the entraces to them.) while I am not saying that this is an answer,  it adds something to consider If and when considering this with an open mind. Granted legends and stories are not proof but why and how would people all around the world with no contact between them, come up with the same legends and stories? (I'm not talking modern stories here)

 My belief is that if they exists we are better off not knowing about them.

 People from around the world could easily come up with 'bogey man' stories that are similar, that is not hard to believe at all. Making up stories is one of our human traits. If you accept the bigfoot stories from native Americans, then you must also accept all of the other strange animal stories as real.

 Have any of these mines and caves produced any physical evidence? 

[Gaden]

On 3/18/2018 at 3:47 AM, DieChecker said:

Except people HAVE found nesting sites, and constructions, and tools, and hair, and feces, and bones.... However if such come back as being nominally human it then can be ignored, right? 

At least people have stopped suggesting that there isn't any food for bigfoot to eat.

Point being, there is no reason Bigfoot can not be real, other then no physical remains directly related to a "bigfoot" have been scientifically tested and found to be anomalous.

 No they haven't, if they had, then we would not be having this conversation. Some people have CLAIMED to have found these items, but the evidence does not support the claims. 

[Tatetopa]

On 2/9/2018 at 5:02 PM, Piney said:

Because we lived here for damn near 50,000 years and never evolved a single chest or leg hair.....

Maybe smooth sculpted guys just get a lot more girls than hairy stinky ones.  Probably those sweat lodges just made your ancestors irresistible, sensitive, spiritual hunks.  Bigfoot died out of natural causes, lived in his parents root cellar, never went on dates. 

[mysticwerewolf]

3 hours ago, Gaden said:

 People from around the world could easily come up with 'bogey man' stories that are similar, that is not hard to believe at all. Making up stories is one of our human traits. If you accept the bigfoot stories from native Americans, then you must also accept all of the other strange animal stories as real.

 Have any of these mines and caves produced any physical evidence? 

most people would say no  to your question, I on the other hand  try to be open minded, so having heard stories about humanoid bones being found, having seen cave paintings and the remains of campfires within some of the mines I've explored would have to say I DON'T KNOW. As to acceptance I except the POSSIBILITY of a lot of things. some strange, some unique, and  some not. and I believe that more people should listen to the elders and story tellers. until very recently in our history those stories were how we learned what we learned, now that we (as a race) have learned to read and write (and type) verbal history is no longer acceptable.

[Piney]

On 3/19/2018 at 5:28 AM, Alien Origins said:

Well then what is everyones take on the Patterson-Gimlin film?

That's a fake. It's been debunked on here several times.

[Myles]

16 hours ago, Gaden said:

 No they haven't, if they had, then we would not be having this conversation. Some people have CLAIMED to have found these items, but the evidence does not support the claims. 

I tend to agree with you.   If nests really were found, we would have an abundance of hair samples.   A big furry animal sleeping in a nest of twigs and branches would have lots of hair left.

[oldrover]

11 hours ago, Piney said:

That's a fake. It's been debunked on here several times.

Piney, you could drive an iron nail through this film, burn it, and bury the ases between high and low tide marks under a full moon, while chanting, 'the backstory is implausible, the back story is implausible', but you'll never kill the bloody thing. 

[Piney]

Just now, oldrover said:

Piney, you could drive an iron nail through this film, burn it, and bury the ases between high and low tide marks under a full moon, while chanting, 'the backstory is implausible, the back story is implausible', but you'll never kill the bloody thing. 

The damn thing moves too clumsy to even live in the woods. 

[Minimalists]

11 hours ago, Piney said:

That's a fake. It's been debunked on here several times.

Thats interesting....According to some in the Bigfoot circles its the definitive proof the creature exist....

[Piney]

Just now, Alien Origins said:

Thats interesting....According to some in the Bigfoot circles its the definitive proof the creature exist....

I'm a Algonquian logger and ranch hand. Every Bigfoot video I ever saw the first thing I thought was "damn, that's thing is way to clumsy to live in the woods because we Indians spend only part time in the woods and move better than that".

Those Bigfoot circles are "armchair researchers" who never spend time in the woods.

[Vorg]

All the sightings in the world and over the past few decades or even centuries are not proof Bigfoot exist. Until one is captured, killed, found dead etc.. they are folk lore.

[oldrover]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

The damn thing moves too clumsy to even live in the woods. 

Seriously, if you think that's an awkward lump, try the back story. I'm sure you know what I mean though.

 

[Piney]

15 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Seriously, if you think that's an awkward lump, try the back story. I'm sure you know what I mean though.

 

A "meadow muffin" is the polite term.

[stereologist]

On 3/20/2018 at 2:57 AM, mysticwerewolf said:

most people would say no  to your question, I on the other hand  try to be open minded, so having heard stories about humanoid bones being found, having seen cave paintings and the remains of campfires within some of the mines I've explored would have to say I DON'T KNOW. As to acceptance I except the POSSIBILITY of a lot of things. some strange, some unique, and  some not. and I believe that more people should listen to the elders and story tellers. until very recently in our history those stories were how we learned what we learned, now that we (as a race) have learned to read and write (and type) verbal history is no longer acceptable.

Being open minded does not mean accepting every lunatic story as a possibility. Some people want to accept things as told without a thought. That is not open minded.

Open minded means being willing to examine an issue and not judging it before the facts of the issue are presented. That does not mean filters cannot be used. There is  no reason to accept a story that has no support. It can be relegated to the 'whatever' category. A story that is in the category of 'I don't know' can be relegated to the whatever bin. No reason to accept it. The story is neither acceptable or rejectable. It lacks the support a story needs.

Stories in the whatever bin do not need to be accepted. Accepting or considering them as possible usually suggests being gullible. Pretty soon people find themselves defending stories as plausible when the stories actually are so unsupported they are of little value.

[Merc14]

18 hours ago, Piney said:

I'm a Algonquian logger and ranch hand. Every Bigfoot video I ever saw the first thing I thought was "damn, that's thing is way to clumsy to live in the woods because we Indians spend only part time in the woods and move better than that".

Those Bigfoot circles are "armchair researchers" who never spend time in the woods.

LoL!  Piney, I have never thought about BF from that perspective but now that you have brought it up it makes perfect sense!   and I totally agreee with you BTW   .  If you watch teh P&G film, the supposed holy grail of BF evidence from this perspective you immediately see how implausible it is that this huge, lumbering, clod of a creature could not only survive in the wild for eons but also thrive escape all detection except for fleeting glimpses.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Merc14