It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Is Bigfoot going extinct?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:17 PM
Could this be a reason why we have not found a body or Bigfoot its self. In the past there have more sightings of Bigfoot and different types of ape men. With the advancing of human civilization the creature could be losing its habitat. We should of already found a skeleton, or something else that can prove Bigfoot is real. Not another large foot print. What do you guys think of Bigfoot and creatures the like of going extinct.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:24 PM
An old Chinese proverb says:
The smartest animal alive is the one who has not been found by man.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:25 PM
I just think were dealing with an extremely smart hominid type creature.

These dudes are experts of staying away from what's bothering 'em.

I mean they do exist! Even President Teddy Roosevelt wrote about them in his hunting memoirs

and the native Americans (and other countries natives) have their history.

This is just one weird creature!

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

I have a feeling there will be much more to come from big foot in the near future...

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:06 PM
reply to post by XXXN3O

You may be onto something!
I'd rather have a leader who teaches the people to live off the land, communicate over long distances without electronics (tree knocking), respect nature, & how to stay out of sight from the All Seeing Eye.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 07:35 AM
I don't see much evidence for bigfoot. Almost all of the evidence is of poor quality such as grainy images. Maybe better cameras are making it less likely that bad evidence is tossed into the public arena.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:15 AM
Here's my take on it... If BigFoot is out there — I say "IF" as a believer — then there's a whole population of them. Here we go...

It has to be a big population for them to have survived so long. If they were a small population, the chromosomes would pool through inbreeding, right, and they would've died out millennia ago — they wouldn't exist as a species, as the obviously have for many centuries.

I think we're coexisting with several "intelligent" species on this planet. Earth is not only our home, but it's the home of BigFoot and the UFO "Aliens," as well as a few others.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 5/24/2010 by Doc Velocity]

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:36 AM
Lol @ Afterthought

Well the closest relative to the Bigfoot, if it exists, is the long extinct Gigantopithecus as far as we can theorize with lack of physical evidence. Skeletons have been found in Asia of this species, it's very possible that they also migrated to North America through the Bering land bridge.
A theory why we haven't found any skeletons of the modern day species yet may be because they actually bury their deceased ones. But indeed, they are loosing their habitat, it becomes more apparent from reports that they cannot completely avoid man-made areas, including streets and remote towns, many sightings are indeed from people driving past a Bigfoot on a land-street., make sure to check out their googleearth plugin where all sightings are shown on the map.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel

It is possible Sasquatch buries their dead, which would explain why no body has been found. This ritual is very old, and Neanderthal Man also buried their dead.

Sasquatch is a migratory species, and there are still vast swaths of untouched land they could live in. I think most people keep forgetting how large Canada and Alaska alone are. We are talking needle in haystack sizes of land here.

They would only need a few thousand individuals to thrive as a species. There are many creatures alive now that number in less than one thousand. Not the best situation to be in, but they still survive.

I would love for a live Sasquatch to get caught, but will always be weary when someone states they have a body of a Bigfoot now.

Just my three cents (inflation)

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 08:51 PM
It's an interesting idea to think of bigfoot to be out in some remote area, but that is not where the reports come from. They come from places that often downright crowded. As you point out a species requires some minimal number to be genetically robust.

One of the simple sampling techniques done in some areas is to place a barbed wire in the woods. These wires can stretch for some distance. A passing bear rubs against the wire and leaves some fur behind. This can be used to determine how many individual bears are living in a given area. No unknown species have ever been detected with this technique although many bears have been counted and other animals have left material behind. Makes me wonder why not once a unknown species has been detected in North America.

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:02 PM
wouldn't it more logical to first prove they exist before there's any assumptions that they're going extinct?

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:34 PM
reply to post by kidflash2008

I was just thinking the same thing.
Perhaps they bury their dead to try and prevent humans from bothering them.
Its an interesting idea for sure.


[edit on 25-5-2010 by FoxMulder91]

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by thumper76

Many already believe they exist.
Perhaps from seeing one themself. Hearing a story from a close relative, finding evidence or by studying up on the Bigfoot and believing they exist.


[edit on 25-5-2010 by FoxMulder91]

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:38 PM
reply to post by stereologist

Bigfoot perhaps would avoid the barbwire or if they do rub up against it they could remove their hair that gets caught on it.


posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by FoxMulder91

Getting around gets a little slow if you have to continuously collect trace evidence. Seems more likely that all of this bizarre behavior attributed to bigfoot is just a means of supporting a fantasy. The more people learn about research the odder the behavior has to be given to bigfoot.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by stereologist

Thats not an unreasonable position to take, Stereologist.

Though, as far as I am aware there is evidence of sorts from an expidition in Canada where a people at a remote fishing cabin had a history of being harrassed by some creature. The findings were the results of tests conducted by (what were claimed to be) reputable scientists. Initial results showed an unknown type of creature, close to being human but with enough differences to not be human, though primate/hominid. The pre-conclusion seemed to be that science could support the probability of this creature. Don't know what happened as to final conclusions though.

The same problem exists in Australia with the Yowie. Nothing physically to indicate the creature exists. I tend to keep an open mind because of all the reported sightings from what appear to be otherwise normal rational people, without any obvious agenda. Though I find that some of the self styled researchers and experts don't do the cause any favours. Saddly the subject lends itself well to hoaxes, self promotion and new age (IMO fantasy) type researchers.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by Cogito, Ergo Sum]

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

I vaguely remember a discussion on that test quite a while back. I recall something about the test being inconclusive, but the samples kept being sent out until someone reported something. I'll have to look it up and report back once I get back up to snuff on that incident.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:08 PM
To maintain a nonmonogamous population with enough genetic diversity you have to keep inbreeding to 1% or less per year. So 50 is the magic number. If they mate for life you'd need about 250 breeding pairs.

I tend to think if there was a sustainable population of bigfoot, at least 50 in each pocket, that there would have been some credible discovery.

Does that make sense? In areas where there are sightings there is a significant population, so why nothing credible?

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:28 PM
The Sentineleise tribe near india:

lacks the skill to make fire,
doesn’t wear clothes,
hunts and gathers,
lacks agriculture,
builds simple huts,
lacks the vocabulary to describe a number greater than 2.

And the Yanomamo Indians of Venezuela:

don’t bury their dead,
don’t make metal,
haven’t invented the wheel,
possess a numerical system of 1,2, and more than 2.

Now both are much more advanced than Homo erectus and neanderthals.

Now there is strong evidence that some Neanderthals buried their dead with flowers and jewelery, cared for their sick and mastered fire.

Now if bigfoot is more primitive than Neanderthals he wouldn't bury his dead. Neanderthals stood between 60-65 inches. 5ft-5.5ft. Not these 8 ft tall bigfoot we see. We arem't even dealing with anything in the human evoloutionary chain. It's something entirely different.

Perhaps something in the evoloutionary chain of Gigantopithecus blackii which was an ape that grew 10 ft tall and up to a 1200 pounds.

But throughout history you don't see evolved primates with the size of the supposed bigfoot. I think the asian variety which are much more apelike may be akin to that species while the american versions are more likely hoaxes.

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:50 PM
reply to post by DrJay1975

A big question and what we need to do is find a body. Some type of evidence better then a foot print.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in