Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

New study finds link between Bigfoot sightings and bear populations


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

Fascinating - I’ve been wondering about the prevalence of tools at the hardware store and alligators in the swamp.  Is the same mechanism at play here?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No!? You don't think! 🙄

Don't also forget hermits living in isolation.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MysteryMike said:

No!? You don't think! 🙄

Don't also forget hermits living in isolation.

Adding hunting season and gillie suits to the list and you have mostly all of them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MysteryMike said:

No!? You don't think! 🙄

Don't also forget hermits living in isolation.

It's called social distancing.😛

 

BF sightings could be misidentifications in some cases???? Could it be?🧐

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Trelane said:

It's called social distancing.😛

 

BF sightings could be misidentifications in some cases???? Could it be?🧐

Well, according to one poster around these parts, since there are sightings in states/areas where there are no bear, this hypothesis is falsified.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed this correlation maybe ten years ago. It's matches well other then the bigfoot reports in Ohio, and orher bear-less areas. (EDIT: I read the article... Says the same thing)

Myself, I think that homeless people also make up a big percentage of the bigfoot sightings. A homeless guy wandering a backroad, wearing all black with a blankets wrapped around him. Who runs into the bushes when a car comes along... will often appear bigger then he really is.

It's been discussed how humans are really very bad of figuring distance, and therefore the scale of things they see. Especially at night, and when driving fast on a unlighted road.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, so there's marginally more BF sightings in areas that attract bears to their food source and habitat and might attract BF too?

Hmm compelling evidence that BF is real but I'm not buying it off this report. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Wow, so there's marginally more BF sightings in areas that attract bears to their food source and habitat and might attract BF too?

Hmm compelling evidence that BF is real but I'm not buying it off this report. 

I've actually argued that in the past.

The article says bear populations continue to increase. And theyve been increasing since bigfoot first became a thing.

So the often used arguement that there's no food out there for bigfoot is BS. Otherwise how would bear populations ever increase? It's not like bears invented agriculture, or ranching, in the near past, so they can support more bears now. There's simply always been more food then there was bears to eat it.

The reason there's "no bigfoot" is because one's never been collected... dead or alive. 

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Orrrr, maybe BF feeds on bears and then wears the skin as clothes 😲. BF could be naked, like us, this would account for lack of hair samples. Oh yeah, they may also eat their own scat, we will never know. 😊....... Or care.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2024 at 12:49 AM, esoteric_toad said:

Seeing as bigfoot apparently instantly dissolves the moment they die, does not eliminate any waste, has fur that never falls out or gets removed via branches and other obstacles and typically leaves footprints but never enough to track them I can see how bears make perfect sense because they have and do all the things BF doesn't.

Evidence suggests Sasquatches live primarily in mountainous regions, as far from humanity as they can get.  They move deceptively quickly and have huge foraging range. They do leave fur and skat, but without any BF samples to compare it to on the comparison database, it is routinely falsely identified, possibly deliberately due to the threat lawsuits against the Federal Parks and Wildlife Service that may occur if the truth got out.  BFs also eat their own dead.  They are also about as hard to follow as most snipers, given that they come equipped with ghillie suits, and natural stealth, courtesy of Evolution.  They are omnivores, and likely fill a niche not dissimilar to that of bears.  They only move as lone individuals or in small family groups.  There seem to be larger groups of them in Northern Canada and remote parts of Alaska, but there are pockets in other mountain ranges of the USA and elsewhere.  BFs often also have extraordinary vocal range and hearing, being able to realistically mimic many surprising things.  They can knowingly produce and use infrasound like other large predators do.  They are also known to migrate to lowlands and wetlands at certain times of the year, when the food in their ranges becomes increasingly scarce.  While they can kill humans with comparative ease, they know that if we mass against them they will be made extinct, so they avoid killing us.  They are capable of language, simple tool use, and can reason.  They are primitive humans to all intents and purposes, but without many of the weaknesses of homo sapiens that have driven us to develop compensating technologies.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

BFs also eat their own dead. 

The fur and bones too?  Quite a theory.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Evidence suggests Sasquatches live primarily in mountainous regions, as far from humanity as they can get.  They move deceptively quickly and have huge foraging range. They do leave fur and skat, but without any BF samples to compare it to on the comparison database, it is routinely falsely identified, possibly deliberately due to the threat lawsuits against the Federal Parks and Wildlife Service that may occur if the truth got out.  BFs also eat their own dead.  They are also about as hard to follow as most snipers, given that they come equipped with ghillie suits, and natural stealth, courtesy of Evolution.  They are omnivores, and likely fill a niche not dissimilar to that of bears.  They only move as lone individuals or in small family groups.  There seem to be larger groups of them in Northern Canada and remote parts of Alaska, but there are pockets in other mountain ranges of the USA and elsewhere.  BFs often also have extraordinary vocal range and hearing, being able to realistically mimic many surprising things.  They can knowingly produce and use infrasound like other large predators do.  They are also known to migrate to lowlands and wetlands at certain times of the year, when the food in their ranges becomes increasingly scarce.  While they can kill humans with comparative ease, they know that if we mass against them they will be made extinct, so they avoid killing us.  They are capable of language, simple tool use, and can reason.  They are primitive humans to all intents and purposes, but without many of the weaknesses of homo sapiens that have driven us to develop compensating technologies.

Here's the problem with this. Biologists have been everywhere, even the remote mountain ranges so frequently referred to. They have found tiny mute frogs in the middle of jungles. They have study the flora and fauna of countless old forests in remote areas. IF a giant omnivore were mucking about it would leave evidence on the impact of the plants and animals. Now if we know what critters are in those areas, we know what they eat and how much then BF cannot be there because their impact would ADD to know values. Unless BF had the metabolism of a sloth its food requirements alone would leave evidence. Seeing as BF apparently can move like the wind and leap unimaginably far his caloric intake would be insane. 

Unless he is magical it just doesn't seem possible at all.

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes sense. I think bears and Bigfoots both prefer areas of deep nature disturbed as little as possible by humans.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2024 at 5:55 PM, Resume said:

Well, according to one poster around these parts, since there are sightings in states/areas where there are no bear, this hypothesis is falsified.

No bigfoots either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2024 at 9:37 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

The fur and bones too?  Quite a theory.

Have you seen pigs eat?  They leave nothing.  So too with BFs.  Omnivores.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Have you seen pigs eat?  They leave nothing.  So too with BFs.  Omnivores.

Are we saying BF is a pig species….🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shadowsfall said:

Are we saying BF is a pig species….🤣

NO, we are saying that they are extremely large omnivores, with prodigious appetites, like pigs, obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Have you seen pigs eat?  They leave nothing.  So too with BFs.  Omnivores.

How do you know?  Shouldn't just assume it, gorillas aren't omnivores.  When Bigfeet die in the woods how do other Bigfeet know to go and eat them so we can never find any evidence of them?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

How do you know?  Shouldn't just assume it, gorillas aren't omnivores.  When Bigfeet die in the woods how do other Bigfeet know to go and eat them so we can never find any evidence of them?  

I think there is ample evidence of BFs seen carrying dead deer, as well as eating fruit.  Sounds pretty omnivorous to me.  Plus, no deer bones left at BF nests afaik.  There is actually a LOT of lore.

Edited by Alchopwn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alchopwn said:

I think there is ample evidence of BFs seen carrying dead deer, as well as eating fruit.  Sounds pretty omnivorous to me.  Plus, no deer bones left at BF nests afaik.  

You have a much much different definition of 'ample evidence' then.  We don't even have 'ample evidence' of BF period, let alone what they carry.  "Nests"... really?  Any explanation how all this ample evidence has eluded biologists?  You were also positing migration, which severely stretches the feasibility of why there is no good evidence if they exist. 

I thought the comment by @esoteric_toad above was pretty spot on concerning how biologists discover minute frogs in jungles at least as dense as North American forests yet no one can find and provide anything from such a large creature.

6 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

There is actually a LOT of lore.

"Lore" like 'legend' is a category that includes generous portions of bs, how do you know which parts of it are true?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Liquid Gardens said:

You have a much much different definition of 'ample evidence' then.  

There are photos of BFs carrying deer.  I think some are legit.  It is very hard for expert wildlife photographers to take good shots of far less intelligent and shy animals in the wild.  They certainly aren't bears, and they're far too tall to be humans.

Just now, Liquid Gardens said:

 "Nests"... really? 

Yes, they build nests, which you'd probably call lean-tos.  It is a species signature.

Just now, Liquid Gardens said:

  Any explanation how all this ample evidence has eluded biologists? 

There are plenty of species that have eluded biologists.  Some of them weren't small, either, even this century.  It is no joke to say that BF is the "hide and seek" GOAT.  Plus when evidence presents itself, because there is no precedent, if a sample is unidentified, it is not subsequently recorded as BF evidence, despite the fact that the claim is likely valid.

Just now, Liquid Gardens said:

 You were also positing migration, which severely stretches the feasibility of why there is no good evidence if they exist. 

Except that every year there are loads of BF sightings as the BFs come down out of the mountains.  There are patterns in the data.  Far more than are reported to authorities, because nobody wants the "crazy" label that even seeing BF attaches, thanks to people like yourself.  Skepticism is fine, but ridicule is anti-scientific.

2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I thought the comment by @esoteric_toad above was pretty spot on concerning how biologists discover minute frogs in jungles at least as dense as North American forests yet no one can find and provide anything from such a large creature.

So, do you want to talk about how skeptics were handed a platypus and it took them 70 years to accept it wasn't a taxidermy hoax?  Or the discovery of the mountain gorilla in only 1902 ?  We also have extinct species "reappearing".  You seem to think that biologists have nature covered.  The fact is, there are lots of places on Earth where no human has ever gone, still, today. I think BF is extremely good at concealing itself.  Easily the equal of a modern sniper.

9 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

"Lore" like 'legend' is a category that includes generous portions of bs, how do you know which parts of it are true?

We see a lot of repeated points of testimony across these stories, and the good photos too hold notable similarities.  Unless there is a conspiracy among basketballers to wear specially crafted, anatomically specific ape suits and scare people in the woods at random, I think BFs are real.  Too many people have seen them.  Some of the stories about human BF contact let slip details in testimony that are supported in other testimony.  There has also been evidence of BF footprints where foot injuries have been tracked as they heal into scars and gradually shrink over time.  Native Americans say they are real physical creatures, not spirits, too.  

I intend to go back into the Bridgewater Triangle with my infrasound detector when the weather improves in late winter.  That is the closest place to my home where BFs have been seen regularly.  Knowing my luck I'll probably just bust another coven of meth dealing Satanists.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

It is no joke to say that BF is the "hide and seek" GOAT.

I'd say Nessie blows away BF, Loch Ness is much more finite and has been searched several times.  And plesiosaurs I don't think were known as being particularly stealthy.

22 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Plus when evidence presents itself, because there is no precedent, if a sample is unidentified, it is not subsequently recorded as BF evidence, despite the fact that the claim is likely valid.

And, what, they just stop the analysis?  Are you suggesting that people have done scientific testing on good biological samples purported to be BF, have not been able to identify it, and that was it?  Seems like BF believers would be trumpeting these unable-to-identify examples as evidence for BF, if this is actually what is happening.

22 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Far more than are reported to authorities, because nobody wants the "crazy" label that even seeing BF attaches, thanks to people like yourself.  Skepticism is fine, but ridicule is anti-scientific.

Please... I know people who believe in Bigfoot, you must recognize that you are a bit further at least into specific claims you make about it than the norm.  If you want to factor in psychological/reputational motivations such as not wanting to be seen as 'crazy' supposedly then also factor in the reputational, and monetary, motivation of being the first person to provide good evidence of Bigfoot, that would motivate people to report.  Regardless it's a bit rich to blame people who think some believers are 'crazy' for the reputation of the case for BF, why don't you blame all these 'far more' people for conveniently and inexplicably forgetting how to take a decent picture or video with the cell phone in their freakin pocket.

22 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

So, do you want to talk about how skeptics were handed a platypus and it took them 70 years to accept it wasn't a taxidermy hoax?  Or the discovery of the mountain gorilla in only 1902 ? 

First off we can drop the 'sniper', 'stealth' mentions.  A totally logical explanation for their purported stealth skills is that they don't exist.  There also seem to be lots of videos of BFs with black or dark fur, which is not great camouflage if you're 8 feet tall and a little less than a half-ton and traipsing around during the day.  

But sure, let's talk about the above.  For the platypus if you know anything about it you know how unusual it is, and fail to mention that this occurred in the 1800s which was a time when there had already been hoaxes of fake animals being assembled from various parts.  As far as gorillas I'm sure you can think of some pretty relevant technological advancements in data collection instruments in the last 120 years, as well as big changes in human encroachment...

22 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Too many people have seen them

And ghosts, and angels, etc.  Plenty of consistency there too with I'd argue far more 'sightings', so they exist?

22 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

notable similarities.

I think UFOs started to become more saucer-shaped as soon as that conception was popularized too. 

Isn't it odd and cause for skepticism that despite the explosion of cameras in the last couple decades that the best picture we have of a Sasquatch is still from the Patterson film over 50 years ago?  And it's not like even that video has the best resolution.  This is a point on which the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

22 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I intend to go back into the Bridgewater Triangle with my infrasound detector when the weather improves in late winter.  That is the closest place to my home where BFs have been seen regularly.  Knowing my luck I'll probably just bust another coven of meth dealing Satanists.

Ha, seriously have fun sounds like a cool trip!  That's cool you're doing an infrasound analysis but again keep that cell phone charged and be ready to video just in case.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.