Bigfoot ....surviving remnant

[+DieChecker]

On 4/12/2018 at 5:32 AM, Merc14 said:

So small BF is possioble but not the "10 footers"?  How about the 7-8 footers, whiich is what is reported?

One hypothesis is that fossils of large dinosaurs generated some of these dragon myths but no one really knows.  Unfortunately there are no large bipedal ape fossils spread across the globe to explain BF.

The point is you are willing to accept the one myth that aligns with your belief while simultaneously dismissing all the rests, that do not, as native myths.   Please see the definition of confirmation bias as you are providing a perfect example of it.  

What size was a Denisovan? What did a Denisovan look like? Oh, that's right... We only know what must have been a fairly large group of people by a few finger bones. Yet we know they existed, because of some finger bones found in a cave, and then later due to DNA analysis and comparison with world populations.

True... there are no Denisovans alive today, but it shows that a large population can historically have existed and not have been known until some freak find.

It would be entirely my opinion if there are small, or 8 foot, but not 10 foot, bigfoots. Myself, I simply chose to believe that a 8 foot hominid is relatively possible, while a ten foot one is a lot less so.

Quote

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Quote

In science
A distinguishing feature of scientific thinking is the search for falsifying as well as confirming evidence.[124] However, many times in the history of science, scientists have resisted new discoveries by selectively interpreting or ignoring unfavorable data.[124] Previous research has shown that the assessment of the quality of scientific studies seems to be particularly vulnerable to confirmation bias. It has been found several times that scientists rate studies that report findings consistent with their prior beliefs more favorably than studies reporting findings inconsistent with their previous beliefs.[84][125][126] However, assuming that the research question is relevant, the experimental design adequate and the data are clearly and comprehensively described, the found results should be of importance to the scientific community and should not be viewed prejudicially, regardless of whether they conform to current theoretical predictions.[126]

In the context of scientific research, confirmation biases can sustain theories or research programs in the face of inadequate or even contradictory evidence;[77][127] the field of parapsychology has been particularly affected.[128]

I'd disagree with the diagnosis of confirmation bias, as (in this instance) I am not dismissing all the rest... I am evaluating them all in the terms of known and mythic animals of North America and what those myths may reference, and why. The myths of wild men are about wild hairy men that live in the woods and are often peaceful and sometimes violent. There are hundreds, or thousands, of reports of such wild men, which we call bigfoot. 

Now as to talking animals, are there hundreds of reports of talking animals? If so, then I will consider that the myths may be correct. Are there hundreds of reports of dwarfs? I've read a few, and I actually would consider each of these on a individual basis as to if there may have been such dwarfs or not.

[Merc14]

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

What size was a Denisovan? What did a Denisovan look like? Oh, that's right... We only know what must have been a fairly large group of people by a few finger bones. Yet we know they existed, because of some finger bones found in a cave, and then later due to DNA analysis and comparison with world populations.

True... there are no Denisovans alive today, but it shows that a large population can historically have existed and not have been known until some freak find.

Interesting that we can find 41,000 year old bones of the Denisovan in a cave in the Altai mountains of Siberia but we can't find a bone of a BF anywhere in the world and they arsupposedly still wandering our woods and forests.

Quote

It would be entirely my opinion if there are small, or 8 foot, but not 10 foot, bigfoots. Myself, I simply chose to believe that a 8 foot hominid is relatively possible, while a ten foot one is a lot less so.

You can believe anything you want but don't you think it preposterous that you can't find a bit of proof, especially when examples like the above are presented?

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I'd disagree with the diagnosis of confirmation bias, as (in this instance) I am not dismissing all the rest... I am evaluating them all in the terms of known and mythic animals of North America and what those myths may reference, and why. The myths of wild men are about wild hairy men that live in the woods and are often peaceful and sometimes violent. There are hundreds, or thousands, of reports of such wild men, which we call bigfoot. 

Nah, it is simply confirmation bias.

Quote

Now as to talking animals, are there hundreds of reports of talking animals? If so, then I will consider that the myths may be correct. Are there hundreds of reports of dwarfs? I've read a few, and I actually would consider each of these on a individual basis as to if there may have been such dwarfs or not.

So now you believe in talking squirrels because the native Americans told stories about them??????????   While looking up confirmation bias, you should look up allegory too.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Merc14

[Minimalists]

Everyone thought the Komodo Dragon was a fiction but it was not....But still no animal just like humans lives forever....It would stand to reason that Bigfoot does not live forever either.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Alien Origins

[Merc14]

14 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Everyone thought the Komodo Dragon was a fiction but it was not....But still no animal just like humans lives forever....It would stand to reason that Bigfoot does not live forever either.

Yes, 1910.  Stories were told about a giant lizard that lived on some isolated  islands and when they went and looked they were immediately found, just as the stoories suggested.  Unfortunately, when we go and look for BF we find nothing, no nest, no droppingss, no hair,  nothing.   The Kimodo dragon story and the BF story are nothing alike, are they?

[Nnicolette]

On 2/9/2018 at 11:05 AM, Faustus said:

I just throw this out because, a lot of the DNA collected forensically(very carefully as to avoid contamination), and with hair morphology not matching any human on record, actually came back from the database as human.  

 

I'd love to see a hair morphology study done on a human that's been living authentically wild for 5 years, and see if the texture matches that of some of this purported Bigfoot hair.

 

I guess the question I'm asking is could Bigfoot just be remnant tribe of humans that chose to live feral due to whatever environmental pressures existed, and shifted from interaction, as many NA tribal elders describe, to concealment and avoidance?  Imagine an intelligent species of humans(like Denosivans,etc.) that evolved in a more feral or natural way, as opposed to how we evolved by civilization, farming, etc.  

Take a hog, and release it into the wild and we see an incredible transformation within 3 years.   Hyper Adaptation from enviromental pressure has occurred all over the planet at different times.  Perhaps an ancient line of human ancestors split off from early groups populating North America, and evolved in a more feral sense, and therefore is incredibly adept at remaining hidden from us in the remote wilderness.  

There are still tribes of humans in the amazon jungles, and elsewhere that are literally unfindable, and want no outside contact with man.  It's not an unsubstantiated premise, in that tribes of humans exist cut off from the outside world.  Why couldn't Bigfoot be them in North America?  There are literally million of hectors of wilderness available to hide in right here in US and Canada. 

 

 

I always thought that... they may have been smart enough to learn to avoid us and their extinction.

[Nnicolette]

13 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Yes, 1910.  Stories were told about a giant lizard that lived on some isolated  islands and when they went and looked they were immediately found, just as the stoories suggested.  Unfortunately, when we go and look for BF we find nothing, no nest, no droppingss, no hair,  nothing.   The Kimodo dragon story and the BF story are nothing alike, are they?

I imagine a Bigfoot would be quite a bit smarter than a lizard... if they really are hanging on out there.

[Merc14]

23 minutes ago, NicoletteS said:

I imagine a Bigfoot would be quite a bit smarter than a lizard... if they really are hanging on out there.

Yet they don't make tools, homes, fire, nothing, not even a nest or a hole in the ground.   No language, no works of art, no nothing.  Yes, brilliant animals. 

[Minimalists]

18 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Yes, 1910.  Stories were told about a giant lizard that lived on some isolated  islands and when they went and looked they were immediately found, just as the stoories suggested.  Unfortunately, when we go and look for BF we find nothing, no nest, no droppingss, no hair,  nothing.   The Kimodo dragon story and the BF story are nothing alike, are they?

Quote

The Kimodo dragon story and the BF story are nothing alike, are they?

Your right they are not...What I was trying to point out is that no bones or anything were ever found of the Komodo Dragon before they were discovered. I am not saying Bigfoot exist but there have been other creatures that left no trace but yet were found to exist...Of course the Komodo Dragon never had the luxury of the internet either back then or I am sure it would have garnered the same attention that Bigfoot does now.

Oddly enough the Komodo Dragon inspired the 1933 King Kong movie...how ironic is that? Douglas Burden returned from Komodo Island in 1926 with 12 preserved ones and 2 live ones...Burden was the one who coined its common name today "Komodo Dragon."

 

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, NicoletteS said:

I always thought that... they may have been smart enough to learn to avoid us and their extinction.

The Northwest is full of trail cameras.  It is very common for dedicated hunters to set up cameras at likely spots and hike back every couple of weeks to download pictures.  I have seen a few cameras while I was out, but probably missed some well places ones.  I have been shown a lot of pictures by my friends and workmates.  There are countless  elk, deer, turkeys, bears, cougars, and coyotes.  State research  placed cams have pics of wolves and wolverines, both pretty rare in Oregon.  Wolverines had been thought extinct in Oregon since before WW2.

You would not think of these creatures as intelligent, yet they have a survival awareness of their surroundings and are generally pretty wary of humans. They do get caught on camera regularly though.  My point is that cameras don't make noise or smell like humans.  They sit in a tree and have less life presence than a squirrel; no movement, no breathing, no eye blinks or tail twitches to draw they eye.

No pictures of bigfoot though. The possibilities are getting more remote that something significant has evaded discovery.   

If they avoid everyplace human activity is evident, their range is becoming increasingly small. It takes a lot of territory to support a bear. A 300 pound bear is pretty big, and yet the stories people cite are of a creature twice this size?  Think about the territory required to keep even one Bigfoot going. Add to that the extra calories needed to supply a big brain and you have a creature that needs to eat a lot of whatever it comes across.  Think about all of the disturbance they would leave behind, they could not pass unnoticed.

Consider also that  a large omnivore in their range would be a competitor to bears living there.  Bears don't like other bears living too close, how do you think they would feel about a Bigfoot eating their huckleberries or bear grass?

 

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, NicoletteS said:

I always thought that... they may have been smart enough to learn to avoid us and their extinction.

I really do wish it were so Nicolette, wild country is beautiful and mysterious. It can draw us in and occasionally creep us out.  There were noises in the dark even before we were humans and long before we had a campfire that may still echo in our genetics.  I just don't think there is enough untraversed country left  to support this creature.

Even if you start giving it extra survival traits  or supernatural abilities, we have pushed it out of our reality and into our imagination.

[Merc14]

3 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Your right they are not...What I was trying to point out is that no bones or anything were ever found of the Komodo Dragon before they were discovered. I am not saying Bigfoot exist but there have been other creatures that left no trace but yet were found to exist...Of course the Komodo Dragon never had the luxury of the internet either back then or I am sure it would have garnered the same attention that Bigfoot does now.

Maybe no bones were found because they lived on an isolated island?   That is not the case with Bigfoot who supposedly wanders 49 of the  50 states and Canada and I am sure if Komodo dragons had the same territory we'd have a whole lot of bones.

3 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Oddly enough the Komodo Dragon inspired the 1933 King Kong movie...how ironic is that? Douglas Burden returned from Komodo Island in 1926 with 12 preserved ones and 2 live ones...Burden was the one who coined its common name today "Komodo Dragon."

 

I did not know that, how cool!  Thanks!

[Minimalists]

27 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Maybe no bones were found because they lived on an isolated island?   That is not the case with Bigfoot who supposedly wanders 49 of the  50 states and Canada and I am sure if Komodo dragons had the same territory we'd have a whole lot of bones.

I did not know that, how cool!  Thanks!

Quote

Maybe no bones were found because they lived on an isolated island? 

Well thats true for sure.

Quote

I did not know that, how cool!  Thanks!

And your welcome.

[+DieChecker]

13 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Interesting that we can find 41,000 year old bones of the Denisovan in a cave in the Altai mountains of Siberia but we can't find a bone of a BF anywhere in the world and they arsupposedly still wandering our woods and forests.

Yes, a handful of finger bones. That if they weren't analysed, we wouldn't ever have known about the Denisovians. What bones/hair/poop has not been analysed which may have done the same in North America?? We can't know. Which was my point. Bones of bigfoot might have been found, and dismissed as something else without testing. 

Quote

You can believe anything you want but don't you think it preposterous that you can't find a bit of proof, especially when examples like the above are presented?

I think it would be extraordinarily easy to find quotes where I say that Bigfoot isn't real, and there isn't any proof. That said, I think making up reasons that are illogical should be addressed if only for logic's sake.

You asked if I thought a 10 foot ape was more, or less, likely then an 8 foot ape. I can't help it if you don't like that my answer didn't conform to your presupposed opinion.

Quote

So now you believe in talking squirrels because the native Americans told stories about them??????????   While looking up confirmation bias, you should look up allegory too.

Please post the current reports of talking squirrels and we'll talk about them.

[+DieChecker]

11 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Yet they don't make tools, homes, fire, nothing, not even a nest or a hole in the ground.   No language, no works of art, no nothing.  Yes, brilliant animals. 

Why would you say that?

If we assume there are no bigfoot, then you are right by default. If we do not assume anything, then your statement is illogical, since it is impossible to prove the negatives that you are proposing.

Why would bigfoot need to make tools? There are thousands of shovels/axes/knives left in the wood by campers every year. Have you ever been hiking and found stuff left way out in the BFE?

 

[+DieChecker]

9 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

The Northwest is full of trail cameras.  It is very common for dedicated hunters to set up cameras at likely spots and hike back every couple of weeks to download pictures.  I have seen a few cameras while I was out, but probably missed some well places ones.  I have been shown a lot of pictures by my friends and workmates.  There are countless  elk, deer, turkeys, bears, cougars, and coyotes.  State research  placed cams have pics of wolves and wolverines, both pretty rare in Oregon.  Wolverines had been thought extinct in Oregon since before WW2.

I'd agree to a point. Most hunters though set up in the same place year after year. Elk (almost put Elf) hunters often will all hunt the same couple dozen square miles of the Northern Coast Range because access is much easier and because that is where the elk are. The other 80% of the Coast Range down to California gets a lot less coverage.

I think I read that they had two (?) pics of wolverines, with hundreds of cameras put out, at bait locations, where wolverines were suspected to possibly still be living. They didn't put cameras just outside of Salem and expect to see wolverines.

Quote

You would not think of these creatures as intelligent, yet they have a survival awareness of their surroundings and are generally pretty wary of humans. They do get caught on camera regularly though.  My point is that cameras don't make noise or smell like humans.  They sit in a tree and have less life presence than a squirrel; no movement, no breathing, no eye blinks or tail twitches to draw they eye.

My trail camera actually makes a click and regularly I get pics of startled deer, and birds, often turning to look at the camera. Some trail cams actually make a visible flash, as well as a IR flash, which would startle animals.

Quote

No pictures of bigfoot though. The possibilities are getting more remote that something significant has evaded discovery.   

Actually, there are lots of trail cam pics that purport to be of bigfoot. It is just that most skeptics find reasons (usually calling it a hoax) why they are probably not real.

Quote

If they avoid everyplace human activity is evident, their range is becoming increasingly small. It takes a lot of territory to support a bear. A 300 pound bear is pretty big, and yet the stories people cite are of a creature twice this size?  Think about the territory required to keep even one Bigfoot going. Add to that the extra calories needed to supply a big brain and you have a creature that needs to eat a lot of whatever it comes across.  Think about all of the disturbance they would leave behind, they could not pass unnoticed.

Consider also that  a large omnivore in their range would be a competitor to bears living there.  Bears don't like other bears living too close, how do you think they would feel about a Bigfoot eating their huckleberries or bear grass?

My brother was for a long time a tree grader for a lumber company, so he'd go out into areas planned for harvest and evaluate the approximate yield. He said there were plenty of bears on the Oregon Coast Range, and often he'd run into one or two different bears within a single square mile. Bears are territorial, but if there is food, they tolerate each other.

If bigfoot eats the same food as a bear... That would be fine, considering that the bigfoot would be around one hundredth the population of that of bears. And bigfoot probably would have much larger ranges.

A lack of food isn't a valid argument for the nonexistance of bigfoot.

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I'd agree to a point. Most hunters though set up in the same place year after year. Elk (almost put Elf) hunters often will all hunt the same couple dozen square miles of the Northern Coast Range because access is much easier and because that is where the elk are. The other 80% of the Coast Range down to California gets a lot less coverage.

People hunt for bear and cougar too. You know trail cams.  They do make a noise and some flash when they take a picture.  Granted something near might be spooked by another animal triggering the camera.  There is not much to tip them off otherwise until they get snapped.

 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Actually, there are lots of trail cam pics that purport to be of bigfoot. It is just that most skeptics find reasons (usually calling it a hoax) why they are probably not real.

I have seen a few of those.  I guess I am one of those skeptics.  I haven't seen one that was both clear enough to get definition and a Bigfoot.

 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

My brother was for a long time a tree grader for a lumber company, so he'd go out into areas planned for harvest and evaluate the approximate yield. He said there were plenty of bears on the Oregon Coast Range, and often he'd run into one or two different bears within a single square mile. Bears are territorial, but if there is food, they tolerate each other.

If bigfoot eats the same food as a bear... That would be fine, considering that the bigfoot would be around one hundredth the population of that of bears. And bigfoot probably would have much larger ranges.

There are a lot of bears out there.  Your brother is right, as long as there is food, they can live on a pretty small range.Bears respond to extreme variation in food supply and weather by hibernating.in the winter when weather is fierce and food is hard to get.  There is no way to prove that there is competition for food between bears and Bigfoots if they exist.  A log torn apart for grubs might show claw marks.  Stones turned over to find grubs may not be so definitive unless you find tracks. I can't rule them out categorically. But how do they adapt?  Bigger ranges mean more calories expended in travel.  Maybe they get a jump on bears and take a little from each territory as they travel.  Very large ranges can also make it difficult to find a mate. Do they hibernate or forage through the winter?   A population that gets too small and dispersed has a hard time maintaining breeding numbers.  Maybe it is not a good analogy, but jaguars are having problems for that reason, not enough contiguous habitat, they get isolated in pockets.

I would like to believe they are out there, but it seems less and less likely.  Consider your own forest experience.  How many people did you run across in 1998 and how many in 2018? People are scouring all of the easy places to get.  Even passed locked gates, you can hike in a few miles and find somebody there before you.  A lot of the areas where people claimed to sight Bigfoot 100-150 years ago are now roadside turnouts. All the easy places to get to now were once isolated. They are lower elevation and where most of the food is.  As you get higher and more rugged you can be isolated, but is it not a lot more difficult to find  food?

DieChecker, here is my 1% doubt.  I spent a couple of weeks one summer as a fire watch on a logging landing a long ways back over gravel and dirt roads. I was too stupid or unaware to see anything.  Yet one of the log truck drivers said he saw one cross the road.  Most of those guys had a .22 in the cab on the off chance to shoot dinner. They know deer, elk, grouse,cougar, and bear well enough.   I remember him pretty well. his name was Harold.  We knew he was kind of a drunk so didn't think much of the story.  He did get himself  on  TV though, a lot of people believed him.  One of the other watchmen said he had heard noises.  I think they were just trying to spook a 22 year old green horn.

Then a decade ago, I heard a story from a Hot Shot fire crewman that had been fighting a fire on Mt. Shasta.  Bigfoot stumbled on him in the woods with his pants down.  The guy, who was the son of a friend of mine, jumped up dressed, revved up his chain saw and started yelling. Whatever it was took off.  He didn't get a good luck but swears it wasn't a bear. He ran back from the line to camp and told his story.  The fire boss took him off the fire and sent him home. I guess stories like that don't help a crew concentrating on a fireline.  He is a good man I've known  since he was a kid.  I don't figure he made the story up, but even he wasn't sure what he saw.  I wish I could believe, bu the evidence is just too thin.

[+DieChecker]

Quote

People hunt for bear and cougar too. You know trail cams.  They do make a noise and some flash when they take a picture.  Granted something near might be spooked by another animal triggering the camera.  There is not much to tip them off otherwise until they get snapped.

I have seen a few of those.  I guess I am one of those skeptics.  I haven't seen one that was both clear enough to get definition and a Bigfoot.

Yeah. I do agree, and have before, if BF was real, we'd expect to have seen trail cam pics that are pretty good by now, and not just blurry fingers, or a brown furry lump that is out of focus.

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

There are a lot of bears out there.  Your brother is right, as long as there is food, they can live on a pretty small range.Bears respond to extreme variation in food supply and weather by hibernating.in the winter when weather is fierce and food is hard to get.  There is no way to prove that there is competition for food between bears and Bigfoots if they exist.  A log torn apart for grubs might show claw marks.  Stones turned over to find grubs may not be so definitive unless you find tracks. I can't rule them out categorically. But how do they adapt?  Bigger ranges mean more calories expended in travel.  Maybe they get a jump on bears and take a little from each territory as they travel.  Very large ranges can also make it difficult to find a mate. Do they hibernate or forage through the winter?   A population that gets too small and dispersed has a hard time maintaining breeding numbers.  Maybe it is not a good analogy, but jaguars are having problems for that reason, not enough contiguous habitat, they get isolated in pockets.

I would like to believe they are out there, but it seems less and less likely.  Consider your own forest experience.  How many people did you run across in 1998 and how many in 2018? People are scouring all of the easy places to get.  Even passed locked gates, you can hike in a few miles and find somebody there before you.  A lot of the areas where people claimed to sight Bigfoot 100-150 years ago are now roadside turnouts. All the easy places to get to now were once isolated. They are lower elevation and where most of the food is.  As you get higher and more rugged you can be isolated, but is it not a lot more difficult to find  food?

I generally hold out almost no chance of BF being real, but I do feel that people being just outright ignorant in some statements isn't a good reason to doubt. Plus it is fun to be somewhat of a BF (online) expert (or at least claim to be).

I'd agree with the jaguar analogy. Jaguars sometime even get into Texas and New Mexico, if I am remembering right. Places they generally wouldn't have much to gain by going. I like to think BF does that also, where they will wander in toward human habitations, and into areas, like Kansas, where they otherwise wouldn't find anything they usually would want.

My thing with everywhere having had humans come through is that, say you go up a 3 year old logging road... Could not bigfoot be sitting there on that road for four weeks solid, and have no human ever come by? Why should we suppose that when a human does go up that (overgrown?) logging road that bigfoot will only just then be there on the road? I don't believe that every acre of woodland has people coming through every weekend. 

Quote

DieChecker, here is my 1% doubt.  I spent a couple of weeks one summer as a fire watch on a logging landing a long ways back over gravel and dirt roads. I was too stupid or unaware to see anything.  Yet one of the log truck drivers said he saw one cross the road.  Most of those guys had a .22 in the cab on the off chance to shoot dinner. They know deer, elk, grouse,cougar, and bear well enough.   I remember him pretty well. his name was Harold.  We knew he was kind of a drunk so didn't think much of the story.  He did get himself  on  TV though, a lot of people believed him.  One of the other watchmen said he had heard noises.  I think they were just trying to spook a 22 year old green horn.

Then a decade ago, I heard a story from a Hot Shot fire crewman that had been fighting a fire on Mt. Shasta.  Bigfoot stumbled on him in the woods with his pants down.  The guy, who was the son of a friend of mine, jumped up dressed, revved up his chain saw and started yelling. Whatever it was took off.  He didn't get a good luck but swears it wasn't a bear. He ran back from the line to camp and told his story.  The fire boss took him off the fire and sent him home. I guess stories like that don't help a crew concentrating on a fireline.  He is a good man I've known  since he was a kid.  I don't figure he made the story up, but even he wasn't sure what he saw.  I wish I could believe, bu the evidence is just too thin.

Those are some interesting stories. I've read other UM members who have said they have seen BF themselves. I agree that some of these people may have been drunk, or seeing things, or being hoaxed... But it does seem interesting that reports come in from even seasoned observers like firefighters, hunters and park rangers.

[Merc14]

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Yes, a handful of finger bones. That if they weren't analysed, we wouldn't ever have known about the Denisovians. What bones/hair/poop has not been analysed which may have done the same in North America?? We can't know. Which was my point. Bones of bigfoot might have been found, and dismissed as something else without testing. 

SO in the last 200 years every BF bone has been overlooked but some finger bones in a remote cave in the remotest Siberia were found  and analyzed.  Yaeah, that sounds logical.  How about this, you are torturing logic to an unbelievable degree to accept your BF myth and it has become laughable Diechecker.  I am surprised at you since I know you  are an intelligent guy but I could use your arguments to justify the Tooth Fairy existing since maybe her bones were found and dismissed as a bird.  Absolutely the same weight to both arguments

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think it would be extraordinarily easy to find quotes where I say that Bigfoot isn't real, and there isn't any proof. That said, I think making up reasons that are illogical should be addressed if only for logic's sake.

You asked if I thought a 10 foot ape was more, or less, likely then an 8 foot ape. I can't help it if you don't like that my answer didn't conform to your presupposed opinion.

My presupposed opinion is BF doesn't exist so his size is irrelevant, no?

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Please post the current reports of talking squirrels and we'll talk about them.

So all the other stories the tribes created were about imaginary creatures EXCEPT the hairy man stories, is that your argument?  Please explain.

9 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Why would you say that?

If we assume there are no bigfoot, then you are right by default. If we do not assume anything, then your statement is illogical, since it is impossible to prove the negatives that you are proposing.

Why would bigfoot need to make tools? There are thousands of shovels/axes/knives left in the wood by campers every year. Have you ever been hiking and found stuff left way out in the BFE?

I thought you said BF hasn't been found because he lives in the remotest of forests where man has never been so how the F could he find discarded handtools?  

[Tatetopa]

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I generally hold out almost no chance of BF being real, but I do feel that people being just outright ignorant in some statements isn't a good reason to doubt. Plus it is fun to be somewhat of a BF (online) expert (or at least claim to be).

It was a good post.  I can't shoot down all possibilities and say with 100% certainty that Bigfoot does not exist. 

I have mentioned bears a couple of times, here is my train of thought.  Bears are fairly large omnivores with a degree of intelligence that might be something of an analogy for Bigfoot ranges and food supplies.  I can't prove that, its just an assumption.

200 years ago, bears were everywhere in the Pacific Northwest as were cougars, wolves, and wolverines to some extent.  As people pushed into the area with settlements and roads, it did affect the wildlife. Wolves were eradicated as a threat to livestock.  They were not only predators but had a large range, made larger by their social structure.  Their territories had to feed half dozen individuals give or take. Cougars were also livestock predators but more surreptitious. They were solo predictors good at hiding.  They were hunted with dogs in times past.  Bears got hunted for various reasons but also found some opportunities for food around human settlements.  The number of all of these creatures is reduced and their ranges decreased.

If Bigfoot lived in this environment . as a very rare individual, he still had to make a living.  Either solitary or in groups he had to find shelter and food.  From comparing the number of sightings of Bigfoot over time with the number of bear sightings  we might assume that Bigfoot is either very rare or very shy or both.  As ranges get stressed and territories get compressed, if a creature wants to avoid human contact it gets driven furthest and squeezed the most.  If Bigfoot roamed our woods 200 years ago, I would sadly conclude there is much less chance that he is surviving today. I suppose you can keep a glimmer of hope alive until as Joni Mitchell said we "Pave Paradise and put up a parking lot."

If I am being ignorant  please educate me.  I don't want to die stupid.

[+DieChecker]

On 4/15/2018 at 11:44 AM, Tatetopa said:

It was a good post.  I can't shoot down all possibilities and say with 100% certainty that Bigfoot does not exist. 

I have mentioned bears a couple of times, here is my train of thought.  Bears are fairly large omnivores with a degree of intelligence that might be something of an analogy for Bigfoot ranges and food supplies.  I can't prove that, its just an assumption.

200 years ago, bears were everywhere in the Pacific Northwest as were cougars, wolves, and wolverines to some extent.  As people pushed into the area with settlements and roads, it did affect the wildlife. Wolves were eradicated as a threat to livestock.  They were not only predators but had a large range, made larger by their social structure.  Their territories had to feed half dozen individuals give or take. Cougars were also livestock predators but more surreptitious. They were solo predictors good at hiding.  They were hunted with dogs in times past.  Bears got hunted for various reasons but also found some opportunities for food around human settlements.  The number of all of these creatures is reduced and their ranges decreased.

If Bigfoot lived in this environment . as a very rare individual, he still had to make a living.  Either solitary or in groups he had to find shelter and food.  From comparing the number of sightings of Bigfoot over time with the number of bear sightings  we might assume that Bigfoot is either very rare or very shy or both.  As ranges get stressed and territories get compressed, if a creature wants to avoid human contact it gets driven furthest and squeezed the most.  If Bigfoot roamed our woods 200 years ago, I would sadly conclude there is much less chance that he is surviving today. I suppose you can keep a glimmer of hope alive until as Joni Mitchell said we "Pave Paradise and put up a parking lot."

If I am being ignorant  please educate me.  I don't want to die stupid.

I think everything you say is fair to say. If we assume bigfoot is real, it would have to be on the edge of extinction, and also very shy of humans. Again, assuming bigfoot is real, it would be the most logical reasoning that they learned to avoid humans, as humans are (historically) super hostile to anything weird. People say there is no records, but 95% of settlers in the West were illiterate, I believe. And 90% of them lived on small holds that were days, or at least hours away from "civilization", such as it was. Lots of bigfoot could have been shot and no one ever heard about it.

[+DieChecker]

On 4/15/2018 at 6:27 AM, Merc14 said:

SO in the last 200 years every BF bone has been overlooked but some finger bones in a remote cave in the remotest Siberia were found  and analyzed.  Yaeah, that sounds logical.  How about this, you are torturing logic to an unbelievable degree to accept your BF myth and it has become laughable Diechecker.  I am surprised at you since I know you  are an intelligent guy but I could use your arguments to justify the Tooth Fairy existing since maybe her bones were found and dismissed as a bird.  Absolutely the same weight to both arguments

I understand this is your discussion style Merc, so no hard feelings, but I've posted over and over, practically in every post, that I don't believe in Bigfoot. I'm attacking the logic being displayed. And the problem with your discussion is you are attempting to prove a negative, while I am attempting to prove possible doubt. On that basis alone, you already failed. I have to agree with your conclusions, but your argument is not valid.

Unlike a tooth fairy, hominids have been proven to exist. Show me proof of any fairy and I'll discuss the tooth fairy as possibly being real. Show me pictures from hundreds of sources of supposed fairies and we'll talk possibilities. Show me thousands(?) of eyewitness reports of any fairy at all, and we'll discuss the subject. Bigfoot has hundreds, if not thousands, of sightings/reports and many bad photos, and prehistoric hominid species it could have descended from... Things the talking rabbits, flying deer, and tooth fairy do not have.

Quote

My presupposed opinion is BF doesn't exist so his size is irrelevant, no?

So all the other stories the tribes created were about imaginary creatures EXCEPT the hairy man stories, is that your argument?  Please explain.

No, my argument is bigfoot has lots of reports/sightings, logical descent from known species, and even bad photos? Do any of the other mythic creatures have that? If so, then we can talk about them.

Quote

I thought you said BF hasn't been found because he lives in the remotest of forests where man has never been so how the F could he find discarded handtools?  

I don't know about you, but I grew up in southern Oregon and walked many, many logged sites. I found all kinds of things, including axes, knives and shovels. Tools aren't hard to find if you just look around. Even then, if bigfoot needed a tool all it has to do is walk up on a remote cabin and look around. 

[Myles]

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I don't know about you, but I grew up in southern Oregon and walked many, many logged sites. I found all kinds of things, including axes, knives and shovels. Tools aren't hard to find if you just look around. Even then, if bigfoot needed a tool all it has to do is walk up on a remote cabin and look around. 

I understand that you don't believe in bigfoot, but mostly like to argue for the reasons why it could possibly exist.  It's all fun stuff.

 

One of my biggest reasons against the existence is curiosity.  Like most animals, it would be found checking out human shelters and areas.   Rummaging through trash and dumpsters quite often.  

[RoofGardener]

I just popped in because I found the title of this thread intriguing. 

"Bigfoot surviving remnant" ? The mind boggles. What would the remnant be ? A BigToenail ? A BigBunion ? 

[Merc14]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I understand this is your discussion style Merc, so no hard feelings, but I've posted over and over, practically in every post, that I don't believe in Bigfoot. I'm attacking the logic being displayed. And the problem with your discussion is you are attempting to prove a negative, while I am attempting to prove possible doubt. On that basis alone, you already failed. I have to agree with your conclusions, but your argument is not valid.

Unlike a tooth fairy, hominids have been proven to exist. Show me proof of any fairy and I'll discuss the tooth fairy as possibly being real. Show me pictures from hundreds of sources of supposed fairies and we'll talk possibilities. Show me thousands(?) of eyewitness reports of any fairy at all, and we'll discuss the subject. Bigfoot has hundreds, if not thousands, of sightings/reports and many bad photos, and prehistoric hominid species it could have descended from... Things the talking rabbits, flying deer, and tooth fairy do not have.

I am not trying to prove anything, I am merely looking at the evidence, or lack thereof and coming to the conclusion that BF is a myth.  You, on the other hand, use whatever "evidence" you can dig up, such as Native American allegories, people seeing things in the woods, footprints, to justify a belief it may really exist.   The fallacy with your statement is that there are not hundreds of sightings of a BF, nor are there any bad photios of a BF and there is certainly no prehistoric species that match BF physically.   What you really have are hundreds of sightings of something, likely bears, in the woods being confused for BF, bad photos of everything from bushes and old trees to, once again, bears being called a BF by confused people, and finally a totured reach to match gigantopithecus to BF in order to further enforce the myth.  

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

No, my argument is bigfoot has lots of reports/sightings, logical descent from known species, and even bad photos? Do any of the other mythic creatures have that? If so, then we can talk about them.

As I said above, no he doesn't, just like ET doesn't have hundreds of sightings of his flying saucer.

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I don't know about you, but I grew up in southern Oregon and walked many, many logged sites. I found all kinds of things, including axes, knives and shovels. Tools aren't hard to find if you just look around. Even then, if bigfoot needed a tool all it has to do is walk up on a remote cabin and look around. 

Doesn't matter where you grew up, it is irrelevant.   What is relevant is that it has been 50 years since teh P&G film and no one, not a single person, has produced any evidence of BF.  BF isn't hidden in a remote cave in the remotest part of Siberia, he is wandering the forests of North America, forests that have been explored for a century and I know we will be going back to your argument that BF is hidden in some deep woods, far from any possible human contact but you can't use that because you negate yourself by your constant hand waving about about "hundreds, if not thousands, of sightings".  Which is it, BF is hidden hidden away in the deepest darkest forests far from human contact or he is seen "hundreds, if not thousand, of times" by people driving down the road?  Can't have both so which is false?

[Nnicolette]

On 4/14/2018 at 11:30 PM, Tatetopa said:

People hunt for bear and cougar too. You know trail cams.  They do make a noise and some flash when they take a picture.  Granted something near might be spooked by another animal triggering the camera.  There is not much to tip them off otherwise until they get snapped.

 

I have seen a few of those.  I guess I am one of those skeptics.  I haven't seen one that was both clear enough to get definition and a Bigfoot.

 

There are a lot of bears out there.  Your brother is right, as long as there is food, they can live on a pretty small range.Bears respond to extreme variation in food supply and weather by hibernating.in the winter when weather is fierce and food is hard to get.  There is no way to prove that there is competition for food between bears and Bigfoots if they exist.  A log torn apart for grubs might show claw marks.  Stones turned over to find grubs may not be so definitive unless you find tracks. I can't rule them out categorically. But how do they adapt?  Bigger ranges mean more calories expended in travel.  Maybe they get a jump on bears and take a little from each territory as they travel.  Very large ranges can also make it difficult to find a mate. Do they hibernate or forage through the winter?   A population that gets too small and dispersed has a hard time maintaining breeding numbers.  Maybe it is not a good analogy, but jaguars are having problems for that reason, not enough contiguous habitat, they get isolated in pockets.

I would like to believe they are out there, but it seems less and less likely.  Consider your own forest experience.  How many people did you run across in 1998 and how many in 2018? People are scouring all of the easy places to get.  Even passed locked gates, you can hike in a few miles and find somebody there before you.  A lot of the areas where people claimed to sight Bigfoot 100-150 years ago are now roadside turnouts. All the easy places to get to now were once isolated. They are lower elevation and where most of the food is.  As you get higher and more rugged you can be isolated, but is it not a lot more difficult to find  food?

DieChecker, here is my 1% doubt.  I spent a couple of weeks one summer as a fire watch on a logging landing a long ways back over gravel and dirt roads. I was too stupid or unaware to see anything.  Yet one of the log truck drivers said he saw one cross the road.  Most of those guys had a .22 in the cab on the off chance to shoot dinner. They know deer, elk, grouse,cougar, and bear well enough.   I remember him pretty well. his name was Harold.  We knew he was kind of a drunk so didn't think much of the story.  He did get himself  on  TV though, a lot of people believed him.  One of the other watchmen said he had heard noises.  I think they were just trying to spook a 22 year old green horn.

Then a decade ago, I heard a story from a Hot Shot fire crewman that had been fighting a fire on Mt. Shasta.  Bigfoot stumbled on him in the woods with his pants down.  The guy, who was the son of a friend of mine, jumped up dressed, revved up his chain saw and started yelling. Whatever it was took off.  He didn't get a good luck but swears it wasn't a bear. He ran back from the line to camp and told his story.  The fire boss took him off the fire and sent him home. I guess stories like that don't help a crew concentrating on a fireline.  He is a good man I've known  since he was a kid.  I don't figure he made the story up, but even he wasn't sure what he saw.  I wish I could believe, bu the evidence is just too thin.

I am from the woods of northern California. Where I grew up you have to drive for several hours down a river road to find any signs of civilization. That' why I find it laughable when people say there aren' wild uncharted lands left... I mean there's literally nobody out there...

Did I mention it' known as being Bigfoot country? The town has monuments of him as the natives have spoken of his existence for as long as they have been here... try telling them there never were any.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Nnicolette