Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

how did ` bigfoot ` escape the first white settlers ?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   
hi this is a thought that occured to me - while , of all things i was looking up some data on WWII naval engagements - a wierd leap of logic i know - but i was looking at engagements where due to superiour maximum range , better fire control , radar etc - one site had been able to engage the enemy WITHOUT recieving a single shot in return

but back to bigfoot

here is the question - without being racist in any way , it is assumed that big foot managed to managed to evade the native american hunters for thousands of years during which time thier weapons technology and effective range remained pretty static - simply because there was no pressing need to develope longer range weapons than the bows and spars they had

now my assertion - is that faced with such a constant threat - the bigfoot would learn a sutible " safe distance " at wich it did not need to fear an indian hunting party - and would only need to flee if they advanced

now when the white hunters appeared they ` suddenly ` had firearms - with a far superiour range - and to put it bluntly most were total asshats - who typically operated on the see it , shoot it mentality

so it begs the question - how did bigfoot " suddenly " gain the a priori knowledge to increase its avoidance range of white hunters ????

typical responses i expect are ` bigfoot is exceptionally inteligent ` - well my rebittall to that is so is man - and native humans all over the world got a rude awakening the first time they faced firearms

and before you say ` bigfoot is smarter than humans - then why isnt bigfoot the dominan species on the planet ?? - humans are the dpominant species because of our inteligence , bipedal ` form factor ` and opossable thumbs

some people claim big foot posesses all those traits too - so why are we dominant - if it is smarter ?????????

damm - i am ` debating ` myself


please discuss




posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


It's simple. Bigfoot doesn't exist. He was never in Northern America. That is how he managed to escape the Native Americans - by not existing. You are jumping to conclusions, arguing hypotheses piled upon hypotheses.

If you believe Bigfoot ran away and hid, they must have had a lot of warning, as they'd have to dig up all the dead bigfeet, immaculately cover up any evidence they left behind (scat piles, etc.), any bones that showed their teeth marks, any stone implements, everything they touched.

He would have also had to dig up all the fossils that give away his lineage, as we haven't found them.

So, unless Bigfoot had access to heavy machinery, and was given a few years' notice of the arrival of homo sapiens, he doesn't exist.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Perhaps this is the reason why bigfoot is so elusive. Maybe there were thousands of bigfeet roaming the US back in the day. When the settlers with firearms turned up they might have virtually wiped them all out, causing the remaining few to run to the dense forests where they would be difficult to find. It wouldn't be the first time mankind has hunted a species to near extinction, and sadly it probably won't be the last.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


It's simple. Bigfoot doesn't exist.



I beg to differ

Bigfoot Exists



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I don't think Bigfoot "sees" skin color or weapons. I think Bigfoot "smells" humans no matter what culture they are from. So for this reason, white men would have smelt a lot stronger and different than the indigenous folk (but stil human), so the Bigfeet would have smelt them coming from a mile away and ran for the hills so to speak...just an opinion



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   
If they ain't looking for him, they ain't gonna find him.
Besides even back then there wasn't enough people to spot him him lurking in the woods was there?
The native Americans were too busy trying to survive in my opinion.
It's like here in London , they say "your never more than 6 feet away from a rat" but I've only ever seen a couple over the years (in the wild at least). One was huge though, like the size of a midsize dog, ( I ain't lying either).
The rats and Bigfoot have learned to keep their heads down.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


He would have also had to dig up all the fossils that give away his lineage, as we haven't found them.


Oh Dave, please...if we based our thinking on your comments than we must conclude that Australopithecus afarensis never existed anywhere else in the world except one tiny pocket of Africa?



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by WatchNLearn
 


If that's what the evidence suggests, then yes. Welcome to science. Rational thinking isn't easy, isn't as much fun as believing what you want to as "fact", but it's the only way to be accurate.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by DataWraith
 


That's a bit naive. That logic would allow ANYTHING to exist:

1. Because you can't see it, it exists
2. I can see it, so it exists

come on - really?



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I would think "Bigfoot" have been using the same methods as the Borneo Rhino, the Javan Rhino, the Tamaraw, the ivory-billed woodpecker, the Siamese crocodile, the woolly flying squirrel and so on and so forth. By keeping low numbers.

It's no secret that the Native American culture is full of Bigfoot legend - and we even got "sasquatch" because of Native American accounts and stories. So we know Bigfoot isn't a "pale face" creation of the imagination.

The first "alleged Bigfoot report" was on January 7, 1811. (A source) Yes, this is a good 200 years or so after colonisation - but keep the explanation of a small population in mind. Perhaps there simply was not a single "white man"/Bigfoot encounter until the 19th century. Impossible, you say? As I illustrated earlier countless animals are able to evade humans for decades (and in some cases centuries). In fact scientists are still discovering new species of fauna and flora on a regular basis.

Let's take some more practical examples. The National Kruger Park covers 18,989 square km (7,332 sq mi). There are 2,000+ African lions in the park - representing one of the biggest populations in the world. (A source) Yet, you are considered extremely lucky if you get to see one of these lions! On average there are about 10-20 confirmed sightings a day. (+/- 5,500 sightings a year.) Which is not a lot, seeing that the KNP gets about 1,400,000 visitors a year. And frankly the KNP is possibly one of the safest places on the planet for any lion. They have no reason to hide from humans. Yet. The statistics show they're pretty elusive.

The same can be said about the Knysna Elephant. (Elusive elephants which may be roaming the Knysna forest.) It's pretty damn hard to miss an elephant. Yet the debate is still going on whether (natural) elephants survive in the Knysna forest...

I spend at least 3 months a year in the Bushveld. And after years in the African Bushveld I'm yet to see a living Honey Badger (Ratel) - even though I've seen evidence (tracks/hive destruction) of their existence.

In conclusion - animals have been eluding humans for years. Back when we were galloping around on horses playing Cowboys and Indians. And they're still doing it today with our super-duper-high-tech-equipment.
Heck, just the other day we saw that a 100,000 gorillas have been evading us without even keeping low numbers.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Gemwolf
 


Change "Krueger National Park" to "Illinois" and that hypothesis seems rather silly.

The US is a populated country, full of scientists. It has no scientific record of any native primates, except human beings. No scat, no fossils, no hair, no anything. In KNP there is lion poop, fossilised lions, hair, carcasses, etc. lying around. Seeing is not the only way to know something is there. Indeed, on a scientific level, seeing is not even evidence, but enough to get people looking for actual evidence.

I'll believe Bigfoot lives in the US when we get actual DNA evidence. And when we ask them how they managed to hide their fossils.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Fair enough.

Bigfoot and Native Americans have a respect for eachother. If you look into some of the native folklore there is plenty of respect in the story's they tell.


I can't for the life of me remember any story where they hunted a Bigfoot all the story's I've ever heard talk about repecting it's space.

I believe that Bigfoot is smarter than most wild animals in the woods and having said that even a Cougar or a Beer will most of the time avoid humans " Native or White settlers" ETC.

They have a natural ability to know danger not to mention what they may have learned watching us or what tthey may have learned from their elders.

Bigfoot 9
Humans 0




posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


I notice you're posting from Germany...have you ever been to Illinois? I have...it's not nearly so urban as you seem to think...Illinois isn't all Chicago and surrounding suburbs. There are rather large tracts of, if not wild land, certainly land that has a somewhat sparse population...

As for the rest of North America, well to say there's vast areas that are indeed wild would be something of an understatement...

No, a small population of large anthropomorphic creatures would have little or no problem hiding from noisy, smelly, and really clumsy humans.

There have been samples of scat, and hair, that when tested have denied conventional explanation. Not to say there isn't one...just that one hasn't been put forth...



[edit on 8/13/2008 by seagull]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Yup, I've been to Illinois. I'm not German, fyi


I'm merely talking about the proximity of wildlife to people - comparing the US to Africa is pretty inaccurate. I said Illinois for the exact reasons you're stating - it does have vast areas of wilderness, but even that isn't enough to hide a group of large primates from the people who have lived there for centuries.

I understand your points entirely, I just think that you've underestimated the human ability to understand our environment. The amount of people who have spent immense amount of time in the US wilderness is massive. Absolutely staggering. There would have been something more concrete by now. There are no pre-human hominids in north or south america. And there have never been. Where did it come from? What did it evolve from? Did it cross the land-bridge between Asia and the US? If so, why haven't any of the indigenous peoples of Asia and Russia captured and exposed the Bigfoot before? Also, how on earth could a massive primate live in such cold climates, considering primates usually live in warm areas, not travelling much, and being highly, highly visible?

It just doesn't make sense. It's like me saying there are chimps living in the bottom of the sea.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


I think you missed my point. In short my points was
1.) knowing something exists for a fact and failing to find evidence that it's true.
2.) thinking something doesn't exist and finding the opposite to be true (see list of "species thought to be extinct" and "new species discovered").



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by DataWraith
 


That's a bit naive. That logic would allow ANYTHING to exist:

1. Because you can't see it, it exists
2. I can see it, so it exists

come on - really?


You obviously missed the point of my post.
There were less people looking for and in the area of 'bigfoot' when he appeared back in ye olde days. and no technology to assist in the hunt other than eyes and ears.
Therefore no reports . only stories (if any) past down from generation to generation.
And to say that it's naive is a bit silly isn't it.
Just because something hasn't been seen doesn't mean to say that it doesn't exist.
It is like the saying " if a tree falls in a forest and there is no-one around to hear it , does it make a sound"?.
Of course it makes a sound, but no-one notices.
There is a lot in the world we haven't seen yet, we're still finding lots of creatures that haven't been classified yet. SO my point is made,.Naive indeed.Tsk.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Oh, I'm not saying that everyone who's seen Sasquatch actually has...

I've seen the Bigguy myself, but I'm darned if I can prove it...lot's of smoke, but nothing in the way of concrete proof. I've spent a good portion of my life out in the woods, and I've come to understand that the woods can play tricks on you...but I also have come to understand that there are things out there that humanity in its arrogance(?) has deemed imagination.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
It seems some folks on this thread are somewhat ignorant as to how detecting animals works. Animals simply don't just appear in a cloud of God. They come from somewhere. They leave traces. If Bigfoot first evolved in the US, there would be masses of other primates present throughout the US, either living, or in fossil records (as Bigfoot didn't suddenly evolve from a Sequoia or a Rattlesnake). Neither have been found. If Bigfoot moved over the land bridge from Asia (as another primate did - humans), then there would be evidence of Bigfoot's lineage in Asia (either living or fossil). There isn't. So, what all the "bigfoot is here!" folks are suggesting is that Bigfoot is some sort of Jedi creature, that instantly appeared without having evolved from anything, that never leaves any traces of its presence (unlike every single other primate in existence), and that disappears when it dies, leaving no trace of its body.

If you want to believe that, fine. Just don't berate me for using logic instead of wishful thinking.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
When big game hunters from Europe came back from Africa, more than a few years ago. they came back with stories of a man like beast in the forest that would scream and beat it's chest.
People thought they were nuts, something like that just can't exist in todays world.
Till they brought back a Mountain Gorilla and gave everyone the finger.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 



You make valid points & good representation... If everything was based on science alone, many things may have been missed throughout the centuries.

Sort of still on topic...

I'm interested in what your perception/thoughts would be on the 'Missing Link' saga which seems to have been debated for ever.


missing link
Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search



missing link
1. A hypothetical primate once thought necessary to explain a perceived evolutionary gap between apes and humans.

2. Any sought-after or valuable intermediary figure or position.






top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join