Bigfoot. Is it possible they exist?

I agree Mr. Dredd,

Interesting article
http://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...ilderness-area-state-national-forest/6861737/

Here's the paragraph discussing where the pictures I posted were taken.

"Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, Idaho
The "River of No Return" in this pristine wilderness in central Idaho refers to the Salmon River, a famous whitewater rafting destination known for its powerful current. The name is just as well, given the truly rugged nature of this 2.3-million acre wilderness, the second largest in the lower 48 after Death Valley. Apart from a few airstrips, there are only a handful of service roads and 1.5 million acres without any trails at all. The Salmon River cuts a gorge deeper than the Grand Canyon in places, and the mountains are steep and nearly impassable, making them the perfect habitat for threatened species like gray wolves, mountain lions and wolverines. And if you want more solitude, "The Frank" is contiguous with another million acres of roadless Forest Service land, and separated from the 1.3-million acre Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness by a single dirt road."
 
JosephDredd said:
There was one camp setup that blew my mind as an example of how impenetrable the entire area was. Camp A was within sight of Camp B -- each camp could see the other camp's lights at night -- but there was no road to connect them. You had to travel for three hours to get to the other camp.
Click to expand...

Crazy.. And it sounds kind of spooky.
 
JosephDredd said:
lol at making Jgarner prove he's seen squirrels in person.

I have a huge respect, awe and even fear for how vast and unknowable true wilderness is. I worked briefly in the Northern Alberta oilfields and it was muskeg for hundreds of miles around (muskeg is basically a cold swamp). There was no firm ground whatsover: the oil industry had to install giant rubber pads then cover them with wood pallets and dirt in order to make roads and plateaus to put buildings on. And then they had to continuously replenish the dirt on top of these things because they were all slowly sinking into the muskeg.

There were constant warnings not to wander through the muskeg because you would likely sink to your death in muck. I have no idea how 600lbs bears and 1200lbs moose were able to traverse them freely.

There was one camp setup that blew my mind as an example of how impenetrable the entire area was. Camp A was within sight of Camp B -- each camp could see the other camp's lights at night -- but there was no road to connect them. You had to travel for three hours to get to the other camp.
Click to expand...

Lol at that deflective exaggeration; as if anyone is asking him anything of the sort. You know what wouldn't be unreasonable? For people to ask jgarner to support, with evidence, the claim he's constantly made ITT - which is that every inch of the US wilderness has been foot explored. "Where's the foot trail maps that cover every single nook and cranny of the US wilderness?" lol. Notice that nobody has pressed him to do so. The information about how vast and difficult to traverse the wilderness is, is sufficient enough for everyone else (not approaching the information defensively) to understand that humans simply don't keep tabs on this land to any extent that would render these creatures being there impossible.
 
We should also discuss the historic context of wilderness in North America.
Central Park in NYC was rural farm land until 1857.
Lewis and Clark explored central and western US in 1805.
I live one county north of NYC. Many of the houses were built during the 50s as vacation homes.
I would figure you roll back the clock by 100 years the wild spaces in North America would likely double.
What is that? 2 to 3 generations for an animal with a 70 life span. So as pointed out earlier, even if habitat is diminishing, there is still the possibility of residual populations.
 
RoadKing Custom said:
middlefork1.jpg


Stoddard_Sunbeam_900p_v2-L.jpg


Call it "unfrequented" or "unexplored" or "explored"... this is one Wilderness Area in one state. There is simply to much ground to cover to understand what really goes on out there.
Click to expand...

There is more forested area in Georgia than any other state. People often think of Washington as having the most forest.

The other thing that I found interesting is that Hawaii does not have any reported sightings of a big hairy man. Culturally, big hairy manlike creatures may be universal in each culture's folklore, like ghosts. Why don't we hear of any sightings in the Aloha State? Are there not any hoaxers there? Are there not any attention seeking individuals?

I lean towards the existence, but a body needs to be produced.
 
As a purely scientific perspective, Hawaii is geographiclying isolated.

Plus they're accustomed to seeing large hairy creatures. Have you seen Hawaiian women?
 
MusclesMarinara said:
As a purely scientific perspective, Hawaii is geographiclying isolated.

Plus they're accustomed to seeing large hairy creatures. Have you seen Hawaiian women?
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. Obviously, Hawaii is isolated. The supports that there is some phenomenon occurring elsewhere. Sure, I would not expect Hawaii to have a Sasquatch population. My previous posting may not have been worded in the best way. However, if there are hoaxers here in the continental USA, you would think that there would be some hoaxers in Hawaii as well.
 
BoogerDawson said:
There is more forested area in Georgia than any other state. People often think of Washington as having the most forest.

The other thing that I found interesting is that Hawaii does not have any reported sightings of a big hairy man. Culturally, big hairy manlike creatures may be universal in each culture's folklore, like ghosts. Why don't we hear of any sightings in the Aloha State? Are there not any hoaxers there? Are there not any attention seeking individuals?

I lean towards the existence, but a body needs to be produced.
Click to expand...


IIRC, Hawaii has folklore and some supposed recent sightings of small bigfoot-esque/weird hominid things about 4ft tall. I think they're called Menehune or similar. Seems to be more folkloric than 'recent'. But it seems island and island nations have a history of mini-monsters rather than 7-8ft tall bigfoot type things. Indonesia (Flores hobbit people, Orang Pendek), Fiji islands I believe have some kind of dwarf/gnome-esque thing as well.
 
RoadKing Custom said:
Have you ever been in a wilderness area? Or a national forest? Or any forest areas? If so, where? Which ones?
Click to expand...


I've hiked the entire Appalachian Trail in two separate attempts (didn't have time to do it all at once). I've spent time in the Okefenokee. I've spend a few weeks out in Sequoia National Forest. I spent several days in Rogue River National Forest. I've also spent a month in Flathead National Forest. Mostly camping and hiking. Those are the big ones I've spent substantial time in. I regularly go hunting and fishing in woods in Georgia. I've also spent a lot of time out in different wildernesses for military training. I've never seen anything that couldn't be explained by species we already know about. I've never seen anything remotely "new".


And as I've said, you don't need to set foot on each and every square foot to understand there's nothing hiding out there. If it's so realistic that other species are hiding in the woods, when is the last time biologists have found a completely new species in North America? One that they never knew existed before. With all this unchecked wilderness, it has to happen pretty often. Oh wait.....
 
The untracked wilderness brigade is still at it huh?

I've spent time in the boundary waters ( 4 weeks ) , the Adirondacks , hiked across the " hundred mile wilderness " in northern Maine , Rocky Mountain National park , Medicine bow in Wyoming , I've probably spent a hundred nights over the last 20 years in eastern national forest . I appreciate the hell out of the wilderness . The bottom line is that anyone of relevance , anyone with an opinion that matters is well aware of the dimensions of the area in question and still according to our most educated minds guesses , surmise that ain't nothing there. The area/s in question ÷ the number of eyes that have been there ÷ the amount of time we've been keeping records × evidence compiled = jack shit . I'm quite sure you could find a building lot that would perc on the North pole......that doesn't make Santa clause any closer to being real. That's the crux of what this thread has devolved into . Lay people generally dont make better predictions than experts , and that's exactly what you guys are doing here.

" A 400 pound animal COULD live in the great white north".........well no shit . Talk about a non sequitur .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Al Gorithm said:
I've spent time in the boundary waters ( 4 weeks ) , the Adirondacks , hiked across the " hundred mile wilderness " in northern Maine , Rocky Mountain National park , Medicine bow in Wyoming , I've probably spent a hundred nights over the last 20 years in eastern national forest . I appreciate the hell out of the wilderness . The bottom line is that anyone of relevance , anyone with an opinion that matters is well aware of the dimensions of the area in question and still according to our most educated minds guesses , surmise that ain't nothing there. The area/s in question ÷ the number of eyes that have been there ÷ the amount of time we've been keeping records × evidence compiled = jack shit . I'm quite sure you could find a building lot that would perc on the North pole......that doesn't make Santa clause any closer to being real. That's the crux of what this thread has devolved into . Lay people generally dont make better predictions than experts , and that's exactly what you guys are doing here.
Click to expand...

You put "eyes that have been there" in your equation as if you've never heard that there has been eyewitness accounts. "Records" as if they've not been spoken/written about for centuries. "Evidence" as if there's never been a footprint found or cast made of it. What you mean is that there's no physical evidence that proves it's existence beyond a doubt....well no shit. If there were, there'd be no need to be having this conversation.

Al Gorithm said:
A 400 pound animal COULD live in the great white north
Click to expand...

Thanks. +1 for the Wilderness Brigade.
 
Last edited:
You guys win.
**throws up hands**

We know exactly what's going on in every square foot, on every day of the week, in the 30% of the U.S. land mass which is wilderness areas and or forests.

Proud card carrying member of the untracked wilderness brigade.
 
RoadKing Custom said:
I know. You can blame the "we now what happens on every inch of this planet platoon".
(wink, wink, nudge nudge).
Click to expand...
I see what people like jgarner are trying to say...he's just wrong. He's probably exactly correct that there is no bigfoot, but not because there isn't enough land in the world to hide previously unknown large animals in remote areas. If "Bigfoot" doesn't exist anywhere in North America, that doesn't mean that something like it doesn't exist in say the Ural Mountains of Russia...or deep inside the heart of the brazilian rainforest. There are FOR SURE probably thousands of large structures around the world nobody in the world today knows about or has ever seen...and those are giant manmade constructions that simply exist outside the area where current populations reside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,137
Messages
58,343,076
Members
176,008
Latest member
tatamere

Share this page

Back
Top