Bigfoot. Is it possible they exist?

[Deleted member 409801]

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.

Fair enough, though it seems that we are playing a bit of semantic whack-a-mole here. Lots of things are" possible" , Hitler COULD'VE retired to southern Florida and died in 2010. That's not how I took ( maybe erroneously )the OP though. I took it ,and the pro big foot contingent seems to be taking it the same way , and that's " is it likely possible" .

The discovery of a SUB species of gorilla on the dark continent a 100 years ago has nothing to do with a NEW species in a state containing 30 million people in a fist world country in 2015. It didn't take them 300 years to dial in on them a century ago with far more modest means , why would it take 300 in this case? You already mentioned " wanting" to believe it and that speaks volumes. Is that how research is typically approached?

 

[Deleted member 409801]

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.



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...

I can't disagree that something/someone could hide in say Idaho if they were so inclined. Sure one....two things could do so IF they were like you say " self aware" . I just don't see it on a continuous basis ( i.e. hundreds of years) , everyone screws up every once in a while.

Maybe I'm a bit of a pessimist, but generally the thing that makes the most sense is the true one. Anyway , my apologies for probably making what should be a light hearted debate maybe a bit serious....cheers!

 

[DoomPatrol]

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.

You're right. All those stories and everyone was just unlucky. Those damn sasquatch are so elusive. You can see them, but only barely! You can track their prints, but never find their homes because they disappear.

I'll bet that Sasquatch live in the United State's version of Hogwarts. Whenever stupid humans get close, we just get off track and lose them. I'm sorry, I'm an idiot and you're right. Sasquatch is probably real because people say so. So are aliens, loch ness, fairies, the chupacabre, and every other thing people claim to have seen.


Sasquatch: The magic species of North America.

 

[MusclesMarinara]

Fair enough, though it seems that we are playing a bit of semantic whack-a-mole here. Lots of things are" possible" , Hitler COULD'VE retired to southern Florida and died in 2010. That's not how I took ( maybe erroneously )the OP though. I took it ,and the pro big foot contingent seems to be taking it the same way , and that's " is it likely possible" .

The discovery of a SUB species of gorilla on the dark continent a 100 years ago has nothing to do with a NEW species in a state containing 30 million people in a fist world country in 2015. It didn't take them 300 years to dial in on them a century ago with far more modest means , why would it take 300 in this case? You already mentioned " wanting" to believe it and that speaks volumes. Is that how research is typically approached?

You have made a number of non-sequitur points such as Hitler and a 300 year time frame.
I will defend the scientific approach as I was asked to present a scenario in which a bigfoot might exist and I presented a plausible, albeit remote, set of conditions that would support the existence of such a creature.

I ask you to approach the task with attempting to solve the problem by creating the space in which a sasquatch can dwell. This is the heart of research. Making that which is unreasonable, reasonable.

 

[Mr Jay]

You're right. All those stories and everyone was just unlucky. Those damn sasquatch are so elusive. You can see them, but only barely! You can track their prints, but never find their homes because they disappear.

I'll bet that Sasquatch live in the United State's version of Hogwarts. Whenever stupid humans get close, we just get off track and lose them. I'm sorry, I'm an idiot and you're right. Sasquatch is probably real because people say so. So are aliens, loch ness, fairies, the chupacabre, and every other thing people claim to have seen.


Sasquatch: The magic species of North America.

Hey I never said he existed, just pointing out your flawed strategy of using Native Americans, Frontiersman and Huntsman as reasons to why the Sasquatch doesn't exist:

"The existence of Bigfoot is taken for granted throughout Native North America, and so are his powerful psychic abilities. I can't count the number of times that I have heard elder Indian people say that Bigfoot knows when humans are searching for him and that he chooses when and to whom to make an appearance, and that his psychic powers account for his ability to elude the white man's efforts to capture him or hunt him down. In Indian culture, the entire natural world -- the animals, the plants, the rivers, the stars -- is seen as a family. And Bigfoot is seen as one of our close relatives, the "great elder brother"1"

http://web.ncf.ca/bz050/HomePage.bfna.html

Also, there are old frontiersman/hunter tales of people killing a "Sasquatch". I also don't understand why you keep saying that there would be bones or pelts or something of a Bigfoot if they were real and killed by a hunter. Do you honestly think that every hunter/frontiersman work can be accounted for or tracked? Do you see a couple of old pelts/bones and go "Ahhh, I know where these pelts/bones came from. They came from Joe Blow when he was hunting in Jasper, Alberta in 1728"

There are far crazier relics/antiques/remains of people who were known to exist, but have never been found.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

You have made a number of non-sequitur points such as Hitler and a 300 year time frame.
I will defend the scientific approach as I was asked to present a scenario in which a bigfoot might exist and I presented a plausible, albeit remote, set of conditions that would support the existence of such a creature.

I ask you to approach the task with attempting to solve the problem by creating the space in which a sasquatch can dwell. This is the heart of research. Making that which is unreasonable, reasonable.

That's the problem , I dont think its possible for something that would need 3-5000 calories a day to exist in modern day north America without detection. The only way for me to create that space is to suspend logic and reason.

I'm not one to say much is " impossible" though, so I guess ill concede that .

 

[DoomPatrol]

Hey I never said he existed, just pointing out your flawed strategy of using Native Americans, Frontiersman and Huntsman as reasons to why the Sasquatch doesn't exist:

"The existence of Bigfoot is taken for granted throughout Native North America, and so are his powerful psychic abilities. I can't count the number of times that I have heard elder Indian people say that Bigfoot knows when humans are searching for him and that he chooses when and to whom to make an appearance, and that his psychic powers account for his ability to elude the white man's efforts to capture him or hunt him down. In Indian culture, the entire natural world -- the animals, the plants, the rivers, the stars -- is seen as a family. And Bigfoot is seen as one of our close relatives, the "great elder brother"1"

http://web.ncf.ca/bz050/HomePage.bfna.html

Also, there are old frontiersman/hunter tales of people killing a "Sasquatch". I also don't understand why you keep saying that there would be bones or pelts or something of a Bigfoot if they were real and killed by a hunter. Do you honestly think that every hunter/frontiersman work can be accounted for or tracked? Do you see a couple of old pelts/bones and go "Ahhh, I know where these pelts/bones came from. They came from Joe Blow when he was hunting in Jasper, Alberta in 1728"

There are far crazier relics/antiques/remains of people who were known to exist, but have never been found.

If someone had the only known remains of an animal, do you honestly think they would destroy them or throw it away? Fuck no. So my guess is that Sasquatch must work for Dumbledore as exchange workers to the US Hogwarts. It's the only way to explain the sightings without finding any DNA! Apparently these things don't die, shed, shit, piss, nest, birth, or leave any traces. So they must be hidden in the US Hogwarts shield from muggles.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

That's the problem , I dont think its possible for something that would need 3-5000 calories a day to exist in modern day north America without detection , day in and day out foe hundreds of years. The only way for me to create that space is to suspend logic and reason.

I'm not one to say much is " impossible" though, so I guess ill concede that .

 

[Deleted member 429137]

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.

This isn't quite the same. Gorillas were only unknown to the western world. If you would have walked up to a Congolese tribesman and asked him to show you the squat, powerful hairy men that you've only heard about he could have taken you right to them. From the coelacanth to the Vietnamese deer, the people who regularly ate them definitely knew they existed. It was only science that was unaware.

As far as I know there isn't a single person on the planet who can show you a bigfoot.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

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.



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...

Mountain lions intrigue me because, in Northern Alberta, they're basically like Batman.They deliberately stay out of sight and you only ever see a foot or a tail as it disappears into the wilderness. A phrase commonly heard to describe them is, "If you see a mountain lion it's because it's attacking you."

So even a creature with that kind of reputation for stealth and subterfuge is spotted all the time.

 

[Mr Jay]

If someone had the only known remains of an animal, do you honestly think they would destroy them or throw it away? Fuck no. So my guess is that Sasquatch must work for Dumbledore as exchange workers to the US Hogwarts. It's the only way to explain the sightings without finding any DNA! Apparently these things don't die, shed, shit, piss, nest, birth, or leave any traces. So they must be hidden in the US Hogwarts shield from muggles.

Man, you are reaching. There are tons of species who are being discovered, from bugs, microorganisms, plants, small mammals, etc. that all die, shed, piss, nest, birth, shit, and they are still being discovered.

Do you think if an undiscovered animal shit in the woods 200 years ago that Scientists could just comb through through the dirt, find unknown DNA of it's shit and be like "EUREKA! I just discovered the existence of an animal we didn't know existed!" And even if they could, do you think they are doing that for every square inch of forested land in the world?

Tell me, how many old animal pelts, bones, etc. from hunters that were collected/traded/sold/destroyed, etc. have existed, been logged, and DNA tested? What naive world do you live in where people just have DNA recordings for all of their shit.

Again, I'm not arguing the existence of Sasquatch, I'm just disagreeing with the naive foundation of your argument which is that "oh if the bones/pelt from an extremely rare animal aren't around, today, then it must not exist". Again, are you ignoring the fact that there are relics/antiques/ even human remains of people that we knew existed, but were never actually found? And they were KNOWN to exist. Tasking people with finding the remains of an "animal" that is legendary for being elusive is just flatout stupid.

If you want to argue that Sasquatch doesn't exist, stick with an argument that makes you seem at least reasonable.

 

[RoadKing Custom]

I can't disagree that something/someone could hide in say Idaho if they were so inclined. Sure one....two things could do so IF they were like you say " self aware" . I just don't see it on a continuous basis ( i.e. hundreds of years) , everyone screws up every once in a while.

Maybe I'm a bit of a pessimist, but generally the thing that makes the most sense is the true one. Anyway , my apologies for probably making what should be a light hearted debate maybe a bit serious....cheers!

You're good man, I appreciate and enjoy the conversation!

I've been here a long time, and I'm old enough to value opinions that vary greatly.

 

[Mr Jay]

Mountain lions intrigue me because, in Northern Alberta, they're basically like Batman.They deliberately stay out of sight and you only ever see a foot or a tail as it disappears into the wilderness. A phrase commonly heard to describe them is, "If you see a mountain lion it's because it's attacking you."

So even a creature with that kind of reputation for stealth and subterfuge is spotted all the time.

Canada's a huge place with a lot of uncharted territory:

"As recently as 1916, the Geological Survey of Canada estimated that Canada still contained over 900,000 square miles (almost one and a half million square kilometres) of unexplored territory that appeared as blank spots on the map. Despite nearly 75 years of field work that involved sending explorers to canoe down rivers and map as much territory as possible, an aggregate area nearly the size of India remained virtually unexplored.

Technology got the better of us. By the 1920s the Geological Survey began to rely on aerial surveys conducted with airplanes. With the newly invented planes (and later helicopters), surveyors were able to fly over remote stretches of northern Canada taking aerial photographs that could then be used to finish the process of mapping the country. Today, we have progressed to satellites.

But viewing the ground from high above in airplanes, helicopters or satellites is not exploration. As far as actual boots-on-the-ground exploration goes Canada still contains plenty of territory that has no record of any person (living or dead) exploring it."

Again, not saying the Sasquatch exists, there just seems to be a lot of naive people in this thread who think that we have explored every inch of this planet.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

Canada's a huge place with a lot of uncharted territory:

"As recently as 1916, the Geological Survey of Canada estimated that Canada still contained over 900,000 square miles (almost one and a half million square kilometres) of unexplored territory that appeared as blank spots on the map. Despite nearly 75 years of field work that involved sending explorers to canoe down rivers and map as much territory as possible, an aggregate area nearly the size of India remained virtually unexplored.

Technology got the better of us. By the 1920s the Geological Survey began to rely on aerial surveys conducted with airplanes. With the newly invented planes (and later helicopters), surveyors were able to fly over remote stretches of northern Canada taking aerial photographs that could then be used to finish the process of mapping the country. Today, we have progressed to satellites.

But viewing the ground from high above in airplanes, helicopters or satellites is not exploration. As far as actual boots-on-the-ground exploration goes Canada still contains plenty of territory that has no record of any person (living or dead) exploring it."

Again, not saying the Sasquatch exists, there just seems to be a lot of naive people in this thread who think that we have explored every inch of this Earth.

Lol , you sure make a compelling case that you don't believe! You condescendingly shoot down his every point. How about this, since you told him to keep his argument reasonable, why dont you share your logical arguments concerning the non existence........since you dont believe and all. Bottom line is there are lots of boots on the ground in official and non official capacity. They never get old, infirm , unlucky? They never no never happen by some yokel on treestrand with an inclination to get rich and famous, never set off a trail cam, never get a pack mountain lion dogs on their ass? Never no never?

 

[Deleted member 409801]

You're good man, I appreciate and enjoy the conversation!

I've been here a long time, and I'm old enough to value opinions that vary greatly.

Likewise, always enjoy your 2 cents. Happy new year hombre!

 

[andnowweknow]

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

What a silly argument. Because we find dino bones, bigfoot doesn't exist. The logic used in this thread is utter shit.

 

[Deleted member 409801]

What a silly argument. Because we find dino bones, bigfoot doesn't exist. The logic used in this thread is utter shit.

What's your logic homie? Anecdotes is all you've got......zero solid evidence. I don't think you have much ground to be invoking logic here. Your " side " is the faith based side, logic leads people to a different conclusion than the one you've reached.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Canada's a huge place with a lot of uncharted territory:

"As recently as 1916, the Geological Survey of Canada estimated that Canada still contained over 900,000 square miles (almost one and a half million square kilometres) of unexplored territory that appeared as blank spots on the map. Despite nearly 75 years of field work that involved sending explorers to canoe down rivers and map as much territory as possible, an aggregate area nearly the size of India remained virtually unexplored.

Technology got the better of us. By the 1920s the Geological Survey began to rely on aerial surveys conducted with airplanes. With the newly invented planes (and later helicopters), surveyors were able to fly over remote stretches of northern Canada taking aerial photographs that could then be used to finish the process of mapping the country. Today, we have progressed to satellites.

But viewing the ground from high above in airplanes, helicopters or satellites is not exploration. As far as actual boots-on-the-ground exploration goes Canada still contains plenty of territory that has no record of any person (living or dead) exploring it."

Again, not saying the Sasquatch exists, there just seems to be a lot of naive people in this thread who think that we have explored every inch of this planet.

People also recently discovered a beaver dam so big it defies all logic in Northern Alberta... and they found it using Google Earth. No one had actually been there. (A beaver dam so big that it's visible to satellites. WTF nature?)

But the quote you're responding to wasn't regarding the exploration of Alberta making sasquatch unlikely, but how even an animal that's known to have all the elusive qualities of the theoretical bigfoot is still seen all the time.

 

[andnowweknow]

What's your logic homie? Anecdotes is all you've got......zero solid evidence. I don't think you have much ground to be invoking logic here.

I don't think it exists so I'm not really sure why I would need to present anything to the contrary. The fact there are dinosaurs bones doesn't eliminated a sasquatch, that's shit reasoning. The idea that "we would have found it already" makes zero sense as well considering how much uninhabitated and unexplored (in depth, on the ground) land there is in the continental united states let alone other parts of the world.

Here's a large animal that was thought to have been extinct long ago, but because it existed very remotely it wasn't rediscovered until the last few years.

A Stone-Age Horse Still Roams a Tibetan Plateau
By MARLISE SIMONS
Published: November 12, 1995
PARIS, Nov. 10— Deep in Tibet, in a high and icy valley, the explorers came upon the first of the enigmatic creatures. They saw one, and then three of them grazing in the open forest. Soon, to their astonishment, a whole herd of the unusual horses appeared.

"They looked completely archaic, like the horses in prehistoric cave paintings," said Michel Peissel, a French ethnologist and the expedition leader. "We thought it was just a freak, then we saw they were all alike."

A team of French and British explorers, who have just returned here from a six-week expedition in Tibet, say they believe that they found an ancient breed of horse previously unknown to scientists.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/world/a-stone-age-horse-still-roams-a-tibetan-plateau.html

 

[Mr Jay]

Lol , you sure make a compelling case that you don't believe! You condescendingly shoot down his every point. How about this, since you told him to keep his argument reasonable, why dont you share your logical arguments concerning the non existence........since you dont believe and all. Bottom line is there are lots of boots on the ground in official and non official capacity. They never get old, infirm , unlucky? They never no never happen by some yokel on treestrand with an inclination to get rich and famous, never set off a trail cam, never get a pack mountain lion dogs on their ass? Never no never?

I didn't condescendingly shoot down any of JosephDredd's points. If you are referring to jgarner, then maybe you should read jgarner's responses? I don't seem to call anyone "retarded", etc. like he did. I find it odd that you are getting upset for me pointing out his flaws.

The logical arguments for Sasquatch's non-existence have already been covered. Why would I waste my time parroting what tons of people have already done in this thread? I would rather spend my time, pointing out how the condescending guy acting like he's the smartest person in the room has some flaws in his arguments.

In regards to your "boots on the ground" comment. Did you know the population of Canada is 35.16 million and that about 80% of that Canadian population lives in urban areas, which is about about 28.13 million? This leaves about 7 million people to live in the rest of the country, which is 9.985 km2. Now considering that a fair chunk of Canada literally has never been trekked by human's before. Don't you think there may be a chance that a 200+ pound mammal could still be undiscovered?

Better yet, how about you go into the uncharted Canadian territory and see how long you can live without finding anyone. I bet you could live quite the peaceful life if you knew what you were doing.