Bigfoot. Is it possible they exist?

[MARTIAN]

ok...it's possible there are multiple species, large species, we don't know about. I think everyone would agree that there are probably hundreds if not thousands of smaller species in the pacific northwest that nobody has ever recorded.

None of this speaks to the validity of bigfoot or anything like it...but the argument it can't exist because we would have found it is dumb.

Not sure about there "probably" being thousands of undiscovered species in NA. Possible but certainly wouldn't say probable, unless we're talking different variations of known species. Insects, birds or even small rodents for example. Scientists speculate a population of at least 10,000 sasquatch would have to exist in the PNW for sustainable breeding to become feasible. While the vastness of NA's forests are being severely understated by Jgarner, you have to see the absurdity of it all. With a seemingly thriving mammal population spanning two developed countries (albeit large ones) these 'apes' have evaded not only capture but any proof of their existence for over half a century all the while being actively pursued.

 

[andnowweknow]

Not sure about there "probably" being thousands of undiscovered species in NA. Possible but certainly wouldn't say probable, unless we're talking different variations of known species. Insects, birds or even small rodents for example. Scientists speculate a population of at least 10,000 sasquatch would have to exist in the PNW for sustainable breeding to become feasible. While the vastness of NA's forests are being severely understated by Jgarner, you have to see the absurdity of it all. With a seemingly thriving mammal population spanning two developed countries (albeit large ones) these 'apes' have evaded not only capture but any proof of their existence for over half a century all the while being actively pursued.

I don't think Bigfoot is real. I was also referring to variations on certain species as you suggested, not completely foreign animals. There are likely totally unknown species as well, though I would doubt thousands. My point was simply in regards to the logic jgarner was using.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

Life isn't always a simple as yes/ no answers... But if reduced to these two choices I would have to answer 'no' as biased by the lack of hard mainstream evidence.
Claiming fossil record is a bit of a stretch as bigfoot can not clearly defined as either of the two species that I am familiar with the association. (those being gigantopithecus and homo heidelbergensis)

Regarding your last statement, there is plenty of room for speculation in the world. Religions with divine figureheads are based on speculation, much as there is speculation that there is life on other planets. If you mentioned you believe in either of these it would not likely be scoffed at. Would you believe there are yet to be discovered forms of life in the ocean? how about on land, anywhere?

With all due respect, invoking religion into the discussion will do nothing to help your case , at least as far as I'm concerned. They are both in the realm of the super natural from where I'm sitting


The oceans....sure , we cannot penetrate the greatest depth with any regularity and the size ( what....80% of the planet) makes it much more feasible. Maybe a few sasquatch live central park too , you only need a few feet of brambles to remain hidden!

Like I said , hiding an individual or even a couple of them for a time is not the problem. Its the hiding bear sized species for hundreds of years without one single definitive slip up that defies logic. Come on muscles, you know it , you said as much . The burden of proof lie on the claim-ee.......not the negative. You cant really prove they aren't in central park either

 

[Deleted member 409801]

With all due respect, invoking religion into the discussion will do nothing to help your case , at least as far as I'm concerned. They are both in the realm of the super natural from where I'm sitting


The oceans....sure , we cannot penetrate the greatest depth with any regularity and the size ( what....80% of the planet) makes it much more feasible. Maybe a few sasquatch live central park too , you only need a few feet of brambles to remain hidden!

Like I said , hiding an individual or even a couple of them for a time is not the problem. Its the hiding bear sized species for hundreds of years without one single definitive slip up that defies logic. Come on muscles, you know it , you said as much . The burden of proof lie on the claim-ee.......not the negative. You cant really prove they aren't in central park either.

 

[andnowweknow]

No it's not. What planet do you live on where large species are roaming our woods with us never seeing them? In fact, when is the last time a new large 200+ lb species has been discovered in North America.... I'll wait.

Because if it's possible, then we'd have found some. You guys are ridiculous.

it's a fact that worldwide new species of plants and animals are found every single day. And your question is stupid from a logic standpoint. Why would we be any more likely to discover new large animals in areas that REMAIN uninhabited and rarely if ever explored as they always have been? The same areas where we would be likely to find new species are still the least explored.

 

[MusclesMarinara]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla
Here's a very large land animal that took quite a bit of time to find it's way into western science. Of which there are only 620 mountain gorillas in the wild.. So the argument of a breeding population is a little bunk.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

I'm not to bright.. Help me understand what you mean here?

Reading your post and can see we'll likely have no common ground here, so ill just ask you a question.

Why are there no wild natives left in the vas unexplored US? Surely they had the desire and the knowledge to remain elusive. They went extinct over a hundred years ago despite superior numbers and presumably a superior intellect.

 

[DoomPatrol]

it's a fact that worldwide new species of plants and animals are found every single day. And your question is stupid from a logic standpoint. Why would we be any more likely to discover new large animals in areas that REMAIN uninhabited and rarely if ever explored as they always have been? The same areas where we would be likely to find new species are still the least explored.

When is the last time we found a new 200+lb land dwelling species, especially in North America? Sure we find new plants, bugs, and birds or new subspecies, but to claim that we find completely new species from out of nowhere, especially in 1st world developed nations, is absurd. We find things that are small now. Or we find things that are closely related to another previously known species in the area. We don't find monster apes hiding in areas where none have been known to exist for hundreds of years.

We've known all the large species in North America for a long time. Sorry dude, but it's not reasonable to think they are hiding in our woods.

 

[DoomPatrol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla
Here's a very large land animal that took quite a bit of time to find it's way into western science. Of which there are only 620 mountain gorillas in the wild.. So the argument of a breeding population is a little bunk.

That's not even closely similar to wild apes in North America. You're talking about a gorilla species that was found in the 1800s in the CONGO. Not in 2015 United States.

 

[MARTIAN]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla
Here's a very large land animal that took quite a bit of time to find it's way into western science. Of which there are only 620 mountain gorillas in the wild.. So the argument of a breeding population is a little bunk.

You linked a wiki page on gorillas but you're referencing mountain gorillas to debunk the breeding population claim. That's like claiming a Alaskan bigfoot is any different than a Californian bigfoot. Same animal really. The article you posted also claims around 6000 have died due to the ebola virus in recent decades.

 

[MusclesMarinara]

With all due respect, invoking religion into the discussion will do nothing to help your case , at least as far as I'm concerned. They are both in the realm of the super natural from where I'm sitting


The oceans....sure , we cannot penetrate the greatest depth with any regularity and the size ( what....80% of the planet) makes it much more feasible. Maybe a few sasquatch live central park too , you only need a few feet of brambles to remain hidden!

Like I said , hiding an individual or even a couple of them for a time is not the problem. Its the hiding bear sized species for hundreds of years without one single definitive slip up that defies logic. Come on muscles, you know it , you said as much . The burden of proof lie on the claim-ee.......not the negative. You cant really prove they aren't in central park either

I work in a research community, so I have to deal in fact and evidence. But it is first and foremost a research community. That in itself means we do not know everything there is to know.
The thread title states "Bigfoot; Is it possible they exist?" For me that is an offer to present a plausible scenario.

Here is my case plainly spelled as based on my other posts including information from other posters.

The gorilla was largely unknown to the western world until the 1920, less than 100 years ago. One could argue there are portions of North America that are more remote and less densely populated than equivalent areas of primate habitat in Africa. I am neither an expert on North American nor African population distributions to speak intelligently on the subject. But perhaps this is an indication that there are vast areas that have not been thoroughly categorized by mainstream science? From what I have heard, there are many indigenous peoples of North America that have Bigfoot stories that are part of their culture.
Regarding the total number of bigfoots out there; perhaps their numbers are shrinking towards extinction? In your own words you have admitted you could hide a small number for a long period of time.

 

[MusclesMarinara]

That's not even closely similar to wild apes in North America. You're talking about a gorilla species that was found in the 1800s in the CONGO. Not in 2015 United States.

You have a tendency to cherry pick snippets to make your point.

It was brought up over and over that it is impossible to hide any large land animal from antiquity to modern time. I believe the gorilla was a suitable answer to that point. I allow the article to speak for itself regarding the dates you have manipulated for your point.

 

[DoomPatrol]

You have a tendency to cherry pick snippets to make your point.

It was brought up over and over that it is impossible to hide any large land animal from antiquity to modern time. I believe the gorilla was a suitable answer to that point. I allow the article to speak for itself regarding the dates you have manipulated for your point.

It wasn't hidden. That particular subspecies in the region was hidden. They already knew gorillas existed in close proximity. That doesn't apply the North America. There are no known species anywhere related to a Bigfoot in North America. No Native Americans ever got one. No frontiersmen got one. No hunter got one. No camper found one. Nobody has gotten one. Gorillas on the other hand, exist and have proof everywhere regardless of how elusive they are.

And no, the Congo is not more accessible than the forest of the United States. You guys are really stretching reality.

 

[MusclesMarinara]

You should read the scientific studies portion again. The species was first described in 1847. the subspecies were described shortly after.

 

[Mr Jay]

It wasn't hidden. That particular subspecies in the region was hidden. They already knew gorillas existed in close proximity. That doesn't apply the North America. There are no known species anywhere related to a Bigfoot in North America. No Native Americans ever got one. No frontiersmen got one. No hunter got one. No camper found one. Nobody has gotten one. Gorillas on the other hand, exist and have proof everywhere regardless of how elusive they are.

And no, the Congo is not more accessible than the forest of the United States. You guys are really stretching reality.

I don't understand why you keep mentioning that Native Americans never found a Bigfoot which supports your reasoning that Bigfoot doesn't exist. I'm in no way defending that Bigfoot does in fact exist, but a lot of the physical descriptions/lores/myths/legends came from Native Americans themselves. Native Americans strongly believed there was the existence of Sasquatch. They report seeing tracks, finding very large footprints and pretty much every tribe has a similar description of a Sasquatch and all have stories about the Sasquatch. Guess what, they couldn't find them either but they very strongly believed it existed and they actually respected the Sasquatch and kinda revered him. Could the Sasquatch be the Native American equivalent to a Dragon in China? For sure. But a lot of these Native Americans, Frontiersmen, and Hunters you describe all mention stories and share beliefs that the Sasquatch does exist.

 

[MARTIAN]

And lol at the moutain gorilla being discovered 100 years ago. It was the first time a white man ever made a record of it. I wouldn't imagine too many white dudes were traversing the dense mountain rainforest of the Congo before the 20th century. Assuming the locals were unaware of their existence is pretty far out, and no offense to our Congolese posters but I highly doubt they were in any position to contribute to the scientific journals of Europe and North America

 

[I Am Legion]

I say no. We find dinosaur bones from millions of years ago for Christ sake/

 

[DoomPatrol]

I don't understand why you keep mentioning that Native Americans never found a Bigfoot which supports your reasoning that Bigfoot doesn't exist. I'm in no way defending that Bigfoot does in fact exist, but a lot of the physical descriptions/lores/myths/legends came from Native Americans themselves. Native Americans strongly believed there was the existence of Sasquatch. They report seeing tracks, finding very large footprints and pretty much every tribe has a similar description of a Sasquatch and all have stories about the Sasquatch. Guess what, they couldn't find them either but they very strongly believed it existed and they actually respected the Sasquatch and kinda revered him. Could the Sasquatch be the Native American equivalent to a Dragon in China? For sure. But a lot of these Native Americans, Frontiersmen, and Hunters you describe all mention stories and share beliefs that the Sasquatch does exist.

All that time and no physical evidence? No hides. No skulls. No kills from brave warriors. Nothing. Just because they had supernatural stories doesn't mean they actually existed. They also believed in spirits, which clearly don't exist. If they had killed one, no way anyone would have destroyed the remains or bones. That's an incredible find, white, black, tan, purple.

Sorry I don't eat crap, stop sticking it in my face.

 

[Mr Jay]

All that time and no physical evidence? No hides. No skulls. No kills from brave warriors. Nothing. Just because they had supernatural stories doesn't mean they actually existed. They also believed in spirits, which clearly don't exist. If they had killed one, no way anyone would have destroyed the remains or bones. That's an incredible find, white, black, tan, purple.

Sorry I don't eat crap, stop sticking it in my face.

It's hard to kill something when they also say they couldn't find a Sasquatch, but only traces of it.

But sure, keep using your "Native Americans, Frontiersmen and Hunters haven't found one" argument, even though they are the ones who started this whole Sasquatch thing.

"They don't exist, guys! just ask the Native Americans, Frontiersmen and Hunters who all have stories swearing of their existence and notorious elusiveness!"

Great angle you have here, you're killing it.

 

[RoadKing Custom]

Reading your post and can see we'll likely have no common ground here, so ill just ask you a question.

I bet you and I would likely have lots of common ground.. I don't believe Bigfoot exists, but I do believe an animal could go undetected in U.S. wilderness areas.

Similar to how naturally schools of fish go to the deepest areas of water as water levels decline, I can see large land animals naturally moving to the deepest and most dense areas of the wilderness they're in.

Why are there no wild natives left in the vas unexplored US? Surely they had the desire and the knowledge to remain elusive. They went extinct over a hundred years ago despite superior numbers and presumably a superior intellect.

I don't know why if Bigfoot exists, why we haven't found one yet? I also don't know why wild natives with superior numbers and presumably superior intellect, became extinct.

The extent of my knowledge about wild natives in the U.S. only comes from reading Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, so it's obviously lacking..

I did see an article recently that mentioned an explorer who found wild native tribes in New Guinea as recently as 2006 I think...

All I'm saying is, I think it's possible for a very large land mammal, with the ability to be a tiny bit self aware, could elude capture in the vast areas of wilderness in the U.S.

How many people are actually, and seriously, searching for Bigfoot in the U.S.? How many of them have any remote idea of what to look for? 150 to 200? Most of the people out looking for Bigfoot get lost looking for their car in the mall parking lot, or they can't find the way back to their seat at the football stadium...