It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bigfoot: It Simply Doesn't Make Sense

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Very old bones (thousands or millions of years old) are hard to find because while bones last longer than soft tissue, they do biodegrade and will only be preserved for very long times under unusual circumstances. Thus, a paucity of very old human bones cannot be used to explain a lack of bigfoot bones, because if big foots do exist, their should be several skeletons spread about that are not hundreds or thousands of years old.




posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I had this lightning bolt hit me the other day - just out of the blue, so to speak...

And it made too much sense not to share....maybe it was actually a revelation and not just an 'ideation?'

See what others think - that will show what it was...

The commercials on TV about 'how big is your footprint?' Something about the impression (negatively affecting) we each (as individual members of the one race, mankind) make upon the planet...I'm sure most everyone has seen them?

Well, it occurred to me that, as a whole - all of us human beings - we are making a MONSTROUSLY huge footprint on the environment.

Mankind's pollution (secondary to greed and impatience, et al) is BIG foot...

Somehow manifesting as it does -we hide from the truth even as a group!


What do you guys think?



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Bigfoot as a physical manifistation of humanities darker effect on the enviroment? Interesting. Mother Earths way of trying to tell us to back off. I like it, don't think it's true, but I like it.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Webmonkey336
Considering how big, strong, and tough this creature is said to be, isn't it possible that no one has ever been able to kill it? This creature definately counts as big game. Most hunters aren't walking through the woods with the equipment to down something the equivalent of a polar bear. Most hunters are carrying smaller, lighter weapons intended for deer and such which just don't cut it. Also this creature is apparently intelligent. It surely has the intelligence to take cover when it hears a loud boom and sees the bark shatter off of a near-by tree. Encounters are so random that the chances of a skilled, heavily armed hunter running across a lone, mentally retarded sasquatch are quite slim.


lol@mentally retarded sasquatch, that is hilarious. I'm sure ten bullets and bigfoot will be small foot.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I still find it hard to believe in big foot given that, to my knowledge, no remains have ever been found. I know someone had a previous post where they stated that skeletal remains had been found. I'd like to see a link to your sources. That'd be awesome.

But anway, I find it POSSIBLE that a creature such as big foot could live in remote areas of the northwestern US and Canada, but until I see physical evidence, I choose to remain skeptical.



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I'd love to believe that the classical bigfoot exists but I see no reason to. So what does that mean to all those people who have claimed to have seen it? I hate to say it, but I think they are either dillusional or liars, that's just the way I feel. Sorry to offend anyone on here...



posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Bigfoots have breasts.

They MUST be God if they have breasts...Mother Nature doesn't shave - but who cares? A mother never unloves her children (even if she's not had a good example to learn mothering from) and so we must love Mama Bigfoot.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dogs of War
I am so frustrated that no one has shot, captured or found a Bigfoot after all these years. That makes no sense to me. The entire world is probably on the lookout for these creatures by now, and yet nothing.

How do you guys (that believe) keep your beliefs alive?

By the way, I don't know if any of you are in the St. Louis area but 97.1 had a guest on the Dave Glover Show on Tuesday who said he spent Labor Day weekend looking for Bigfoot with his friend in Missouri at an undisclosed location. He claimed to have heard two of them talking and then his friend said he saw 3. But of course no one has proof as usual.


your argument simply doesnt make sense with me.... let me point out the errors in your reasoning

1) the entire world is NOT on the lookout for these things...the large majority of the worlds people live clustered together in cities or villiages away from the wild.

2) of the people who do spend any time at all in the wildnerness, looking for bigfoot probably isnt on their list of priorities seeing as most people are either working (logging industry), camping, etc...

3) of those people listed above, another tiny percentage only believes in bigfoot and has enough free time and motivation to search for one.

4) of that tiny percentage, only another small percent will have guns or a camera , not to mention having it ready in the their hands to use.

5) wilderness covers the large majority of the earth (look at the view from wayyy high up...all you see is wilderness, cities barely register).



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by zephyrs
I still find it hard to believe in big foot given that, to my knowledge, no remains have ever been found. I know someone had a previous post where they stated that skeletal remains had been found. I'd like to see a link to your sources. That'd be awesome.

But anway, I find it POSSIBLE that a creature such as big foot could live in remote areas of the northwestern US and Canada, but until I see physical evidence, I choose to remain skeptical.


Your point? Remains of ANYTHING, especially a predator, are difficult to find, unless you know exactly where to look. How long has it been since YOU found the skeleton of a bear, or a coyote in the wild?

Besides, a good enough explanation for this would be that they bury their dead. They are supposed to be intelligent, and very well might bury their dead for reasons of not attracting scavengers, or perhaps out of some vague sense of a religion.

How long has it been, since YOU'VE been in the wild anyway? Not just your backyard, but in the deep forest of Oregon or some other such place?

We build our own environments and we prefer them to nature. Bigfoot uses this fact to his advantage, especially after nightfall.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Perhaps Bigfoot are more intelligent than Humans - and the ones we run across are mentaly disabled.

Maybe they are incredibly thoughtful philosophers who have no need or desire for confrontation with our species.

I, for one, have no specific opinion on Bigfoot except for the few credible witnesses I have spoken to.

I believe the above poster was correct - there is really not much money going into cryptozoology period - and the few times serious investors have gotten involved they have gotten burned - as the expeditions have burned through funds with no results.

One day I may be in a position to financially fund an endeavor to look for Bigfoot - and I guarantee we would use a much more sophisticated technological strategy than I have ever heard proposed in the media.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dogs of War
I am so frustrated that no one has shot, captured or found a Bigfoot after all these years. That makes no sense to me. The entire world is probably on the lookout for these creatures by now, and yet nothing.

How do you guys (that believe) keep your beliefs alive?

By the way, I don't know if any of you are in the St. Louis area but 97.1 had a guest on the Dave Glover Show on Tuesday who said he spent Labor Day weekend looking for Bigfoot with his friend in Missouri at an undisclosed location. He claimed to have heard two of them talking and then his friend said he saw 3. But of course no one has proof as usual.


Read this book and it will open your eyes.

Link here

This was written by a legitimate, nonbiased scientist. Trust me, you will really enjoy this book if you wabt a very technical, sciency view on Bigfoot.

Mod Note: Made link shorter.

[edit on 31-1-2007 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Reptilian_Queen,

Wow - that does seem like a most excellent book.

I will definately add it to my research/reading list.

Thanks!



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voidmaster

..Your point? Remains of ANYTHING, especially a predator, are difficult to find, unless you know exactly where to look. How long has it been since YOU found the skeleton of a bear, or a coyote in the wild?
...
How long has it been, since YOU'VE been in the wild anyway? Not just your backyard, but in the deep forest of Oregon or some other such place?...


I find remains several times per year. Deer are common, of course. Bear and mountain lion less so, but still not rare or unusual.

How long has it been since I was out in the wild? Last Sunday, actually. Weeks at a time every summer.

Ever notice that the people that spend the most time in the mountains and forests -- geologists, foresters, biologists, surveyors, etc -- rarely report a bigfoot sighting? The vast majority come from weekend visitors and picnickers who actually have little experience with forest sights and sounds.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I think the most possible reason why bigfoots could exist is do to the amount of undeveloped land still in North America. I mean the gap between Notrthern California and southern British Columbia has massive mountain ranges with a low human presence. It is estimated that the population of bigfoots are anywhere between 3000 - 4000 (last time I heard) Even in other parts of North America it would be very easy to hide a small population like that, especialy since they don't seem to travel in packs.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Do they have to be female breasts to qualify for deity? I'm getting some tittys as I grow older and heavier. Not much, but where do you draw the line?

BTW, as far as your earlier post about pollution being the result of greed and ignorance; isn't much pollution simply the result of people keeping warm, traveling, etc.. Manufacturing has to exist for us to have computers! Making a profit isn't necessarily evil or anti-environment. You must have made a profit at some point if you're on your own computer!

Why do we always equate commerce with evil? It's totally hypocritical. Al Gore has made $100 million from his global-warming hoax, lives in huge houses, and travels in private jets, thereby proving he doesn't believe his own theory.

BTW, Bigfoot will turn out to be a hoax, but I wish it were real.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Well i don't about a hoax, there are a lot of eye witnesses for a lot of years, a president for one,....

And don't forget they just found 125,000 gorillas in the congo they had no idea existed. This in and of it self tells me we don't know everything.

The no proof thing is a toughie and hard to get around. The are big, easier to see, they smell bad, easier to sniff and detect, and they make a lot of noise, easier to hear, but no hair, dung or anything physical. Except footprints which quite frankly anyone can make.

Still though, it would be cool if they were out there.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Wow annonymous dug deep to bring this post back to life lol. I wonder what the interest of this originaly 3 paged post is? Can ya' give me an idea? I like understanding trivial things like old post reserection.
THanks,
Vance



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
I spoke to an old time boar hunter in East Texas who hunted with hounds. He told me that he'd had an encounter with something Bigfoot like near the Big Thicket area in the late'70's. He told me he hadn't believed all the stories until he saw it himself and more importantly to him his hounds would refuse to track the animal, whining, wimpering and shaking with fear. These aren't wimpy, sissy urban canines but large tough wild boar-chasing hounds. I've read reports of dogs behaving in this manner when they scent a Bigfoot. I want the hard scientific types to explain what kind of creature can make a tough boar hound fearful. By the way, the old hunter told me the hounds had tree'd black bears and cougars, so the cryptid that is out there is definitely real enough to the dogs.

I know this is an old post, but this sort of claim has always struck me as dubious. When you want to track an animal, or even a human, the obvious procedure is to employ dogs. But then we hear stories like this, and I suppose that bigfoot is the only critter on earth that dogs in general simply refuse to track. That's convenient.

There is nothing intrinsic to a scent that can possibly scare a dog. If the dog associates the scent with danger, then that is one thing, but this can only be a product of experience. Dogs are not born with some "bigfoot scent that may be smelled sometime in the future = danger" instinct.

It is well-known that dogs will track critters that could easily kill them, including big cats and bears. What possible danger greater than death could a bigfoot pose to a dog?

The next time there is a reported sighting, or especially, footprints, someone needs to trot out some dogs; scent hounds, sight hounds, and a few dozen mutts just for good measure. Dogs love new and interesting scents. There is no established precedent that I'm aware of for dogs being afraid of an unfamiliar animal scent. If that was the case, you could never get a dog to track anything, because all scents are new to a dog at some point in time.

There are only two possible reasons for a dog to fear a bigfoot scent the first time it smells such a thing, (1) all dogs are preprogrammed from birth to fear the scent of a bigfoot or (2) the bigfoot scent carries/transmits information capable of communicating the concept of danger specifically to a dog's brain. Both of those reasons are laughable at best.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by MaximRecoil]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
People argue the fact that new species are discovered every year...I don't buy that. Finding a new species of tree frog in the Amazon, for example, doesn't compare with the fantastical discovery of an extremely large, powerful, man/ape creature living in our backyards. It seems the serious bigfoot researchers today are hobbists who take a few days vacation from their real jobs, hike around the woods, maybe place some trail cameras or they just research eye witness accounts and investigate 'evidence' by someone else's chance encounter. Footprint and eye witness sightings mean nothing. We really do need a body...living or dead. Video or picture evidence is not evidence. We need some eccentric millionaire type to fund a serious expedition. Trail camera the crap out of known 'hotspots'. Use any pictures not for proof, but for study purposes. Pattern them so that one can be captured. Bait them using a bigfoot costume. A rare creature would certainly get a closer look if it thought it saw another one of it's kind.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join