Bigfoot/Sasquatch Fact or Fiction?

reply to post by SLAYER69


lol, I think the original in your OP was way more convincing..
That one was not only camera shy but also, why did the camera stop?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
For what it's worth

Cow

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c9b9390e40d.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by backinblack


LOL

I know I posted it as

"For what it's worth"

I thought it was funny myself....

reply to post by Versa


STAR!

Thanks now another "supposed" Bigfoot film can be put to rest. Now back to the serious search.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Why waste my time with that nugget of a vid.?

Originally posted by pajoly
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

If you objectively study the facts, instead of having knee-jerk reactions, then the conclusion is clear: they exist. Without an exception every person I have EVER met that says "no" turns out to know very little. The most they generally know is a vague recollection of the Patterson film. They certainly do not know of the latest (2009) studies of the film using modern tools, the latest in biomechanics, the experts in special effects and costumes, etc. Their conclusions are clear: it's real. They don't know anything of the 20 years of work by Dr. Jeff Meldrum, who almost single-handedly has taken this topic from the fringe to close to have mainstream acceptibility by at ........
..

Yes, they exist very clearly are most who believe accept the likelihood that australopithicus did not die out after all, but moved to very remote areas in small populations. Just like it is now commonly accepted than neaderthal man existed side by side with homo sapiens (a concept considered scientific heresy just a few years ago). These are real animals, not goofy magic shape-shifters or other way out fantasies.

Couldnt have said it better myself. And I have had the same experience with people that say these beings arent real, they know very little.

I think the main reason bigfoots are so elusive is because they are not just animals like bears, they are intelligent and sentient. They probably have a level of understanding about their place in the world and why they should stay away from humans. I also think they are supremely adapted to living in the wilderness with great auditory and olfactory senses, so they can detect humans a long way away and steer clear of them.

That they're intelligent goes without question, so far as I'm concerned.

In my, admittedly brief, encounter...that was the one impression that stuck with me. Intelligence. Not sure I could quantify it, but it's there.

From my brief encounter i would say they are elusive for two reasons.

intelligence and athletic ability.

I looked into the eyes of the Bigfoot i saw. "He" had something in those eyes. awareness? Also, when it wanted to go, it was gone. I have visited the Grizzly park in west Yellowstone. The grizzlies are literally 15 feet away playing in water.. They are very quick, powerful animals, but have nothing on what I saw the Bigfoot do. And the bigfoot is much smaller.


This is where I saw the www.youtube.com....

reply to post by FarArcher


Why is Giganopithecus a theory? Its' skeleton has been found and is currently at the museum of man in San Diego. Bigfoot, or a species of bigfoot has existed. It's a fact.

Anything is possible..scientists have never disproved them as far as i know..But i would think if bigfoot existed than why haven't we found him by now or at least his fossil evidence..Is it because we have miles upon miles of unexplored wilderness ..Seems like every year were finding animals we thought to to be extinct but have now been proven alive. I would definitely like to believe that they exist but I'm just not sure..

reply to post by LadySkadi


Hey now.


Be nice

I've alway said that too many people have seen "something" for there to be "nothing" out there.

I'm kind of confused and disappointed that I missed this thread somehow. Slayer had created another thread a few months ago where we go into the physiological aspects of Sasquatch/Bigfoot.

In that thread, I posted that I saw a VERY large bipedal creature break cover out in the Kaibab (South Kaibab) and run away from my position up a steep, rocky incline (1400 position) as if it was a soft track for sprinters. I will say that briefly, in my shocked situation I did see the white fleshy part of the bottom of its feet. That was an amazing sight.
To this day I wonder why they have become so elusive in their nature. Did early Native Americans try to hunt them, and now as their "culture" teach their progeny to avoid Homo sapiens sapiens at all costs?

I sometimes wonder....cheers.

After EDIT...Just realized it is the same thread. Is it Friday yet?

reply to post by Kratos40

Kratos, I've thought about that same question, and even read some of the older historical accounts to get an idea of why they are so elusive at times, territorial at times, and curious at other times.

We, Homo Sapiens, are the most violent, destructive species on the planet. We don't like things that cause us fear, uncertainty, or apprehension.

We don't like those unlike us. Period. And we carry that prejudice to extremes. Thus wars to the point of extermination if possible, near-extermination where prevented.

I look around, and I don't see any Ansazi. I don't see any Clovis.

In major US cities today, we can see neighborhoods divided by streets. One group dare not cross into the territory of another group. And a few streets down, yet another group will not welcome either of the others. And folks are killed over this territorial divide.

Mostly young folks, but nonetheless, we have examples even today.

I'd say that these bipedals - be what they may - in days past were hunted to near extinction. They may be strong, they may be powerful, fast, and large, but it's likely their elusiveness and isolation from Homo Sapiens was developed as a self-preservation method.

So many stories of contact or observation have been told over the centuries, that it's difficult to separate accurate stories from BS stories. But it does appear that these creatures communicate with each other quite well, and while it may not be the King's English, they manage to get by.

While the vast bulk of hunters/hikers/campers all describe their shock and thus inaction - even when armed - there are indications that they can be killed, and have been, if several stories from shocked and stunned "survivors" can be believed.

I know that a 200-pound wild hog HAS been brought down by three shots from a Gamo pellet gun, but incidents such as that are as rare as relaxed jihadists.

Logic dictates that an 800-pound creature is going to require some serious foot-pounds of energy to bring down, so shooting one with a .243 or 30-30 deer rifle is not a good bet, so it's likely that those hunters that didn't fire did the prudent thing.

While only one at a time seems to be seen, that doesn't mean diddly squat. I have a suspicion that they exist in small groups, and if you see one, there may be a couple others nearby, thus the noises from all points of the compass.

It appears from the rock-throwing that they are territorial. They also thrash around, scream, and charge to drive off intruders - acts that have scared the pookey out of a number of folks. I too, note that those who've been scared by one up close declare they never want to see another.

In the fossil record, we seen that the Neanderthal's buried their dead, and even with flowers. They have found old Neanderthals with bad wounds and broken bones which had healed, indicating they had been taken care of by others. Even elderly Neanderthals without teeth lived to a ripe old age, and there's speculation as to whether his food was partially chewed for him or just how that was accomplished.

Other reports indicate they are blazingly fast - irregardless of their size. They are able to ambush deer according to eyewitness reports. They can climb like a cat with an extra climbing gear, also according to eyewitness reports.

Why would large, powerful creatures avoid humans?

Likely a lesson hard-learned and passed down through the generations.

Originally posted by Beast Of Gevaudan
reply to post by PixelDuster

 

Exactly.

I bet if some of the members of this thread got together on an expedition like this with the funding and resources they’re asking for we’d have some answers. I often find myself questioning the passion of “researchers” who are given the opportunity to investigate these things because they give up too easily in my opinion. They lack the patience and dedication to get results.

The crew over at BFRO do this. But you don't have to go their way and pay. You can ask us on ATS to form a group. I live in the western United States of America. I would suggest you supply your own survival gear and expertise and supply imaging hardware. Cameras, video, audio and what not.

Your lucky that cow didnt trash your camera, they love to rub on trees and such. As far as bigfoot when I see one I'll promptly shut my mouth.

Originally posted by smallblockchevy
Your lucky that cow didnt trash your camera, they love to rub on trees and such. As far as bigfoot when I see one I'll promptly shut my mouth.

I really dont think most people would believe their own eyes if they saw one.

In an earlier post I said that they were elusive for two reasons, athletic ability and intelligence. I would like to add camouflage also. i cant believe I didnt add that before. Duh.

The one i saw was grey. i have never heard of a report of a sighting involving a grey BF. It was late fall that year, when its grey almost every day here in upstate NY. Is it possible their hair changes color seasonly, like a hare? Maybe it was almost to white?


I understand why some would be skeptical. I was before my sighting.

In southern ohio where i hunt there are a pretty substantial number of pigs locally. I havent seen one of those in the wild yet either. The pigs are mostly nocturnal and feed at night , bed up in the thickest brush in the day. But if you have been anywhere remotely close to them you'll smell them before you see them , that i can tell you. maybe bigfoot is nocturnal also and the chance sightings are just like pigs if you bump them up in the day they will blow out like a skalded cat, perhaps alot of the local bigfoot sighting down here are related to the pigs habits, hide in the day hunt at nite. just a thought

The Ontario MNR estimates 140,000 black bear in the province . For 10 years i worked as wildlife control in Northwestern Ontario . In that time i shot and killed over 300 black bear and disposed of the carcass . That meant driving to a very remote area on a logging road and dumping the carcass from the back of the truck . Go back in one week and there is very little left , a few tufts of hair and a very few scattered bones . In two weeks there was nothing to find . All of the other critters eat very well . If anyone is waiting to find a big foot carcass , skeleton or a few bones , just about zero possibility .

On the other hand the British Columbia MNR did a study several years ago on grizzly bears to define what a sustainable population is and what a sustainable huntable population is . Hiding out in remote small areas in small groups won't do when it comes to breeding because the bloodline will be too close and they'd be finished in a couple of generations . They must roam far and wide to breed and forage . Grizz grow big but the average adult size is 650 pounds .

It was found that throughout British Columbia a minimum sustainable breeding population for grizz with no denegration of the gene pool is 3,000 animals with the minimum sustainable huntable population being 8,000 animals . A 650 pound grizz requires a minimum of 6,000 calories per day and even being an omnivore that's very hard to aquire which is why the salmon run is so important for adding weight to take it through the leaner times .

All of British Columbia requires a minimum of 3,000 animal so from Washington State to California it stands to reason that another 3,000 animals would be required for a total of 6,000. Bigfoot are bigger than 650 pounds but they'd still need the minimum breeding population , probably close to what grizz require . 6,000 animals .

A 650 pound grizz may go close to 7 feet standing on the hind legs . Bigfoot are reported from mostly 7 to 8 feet and maybe 800 pounds . A herbivore will never forage the calories required and an omnivore of that size would probably require 8,000 calories per day . Only the very largest grizz can do that but they couldn't do it without stacking significant weight upon the salmon run and it's absolutely necessary .

With a minimum bigfoot breeding population of 3,000 animals they should be seen as often as grizz and they must be seen on the salmon rivers where there are lots of humans , but they aren't . An omvivore has a significent advantage over a herbivore but 8,000 calories per day is the far outer realm of possibility . They are biological creatures and there is no getting around the supply of food required .

Grizz @ 650 pounds forage an average of 15 miles per day to aquire 6,000 calories . Stands to reason that an 800 pound bigfoot would forage 20 miles per day to aquire 8,000 calories . The distance is an obviously average as a grizz may forage far less than 15 miles one and and far more than 15 miles the next . Now with bigfoot and a minimum sustainable breeding population of 6,000 from California to northern British Columbia times the foraging distance the total population would be foraging , 6,000 x 20 , 120,000 miles per day and yet very , very few are ever seen . There is no getting around the caloric burn per day and the replacement required .

Lot of intelligent people claim they could hit the bush , forage and do well . Very unlikely , that's why the indians lived it tribes . Easy for a human to burn 4,000 calories per day in rough remote country foraging but very difficult to gather more than 2,500 calories , so you're not so slowly starving to death .

Folks talk of the remoteness of the big country of the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia for an animal to get lost in but we're not looking for an animal because we need that sustainable breeding population to produce that animal . The Pacific Northwest and British Columbia is very heavily networked with logging roads and clear cuts as far as the eye can see across huge valleys and up mountain sides where the timber has been logged off . Not that difficult to find a grizz and it shouldn't be that difficult to find a bigfoot , but no one does except for the odd anecdotal report .

They need the food , they need to travel and forage for the food and they need a sustainable breeding population , and we can't find one . There is no way around biology .

A smaller animal , 650 pound grizz , requiring less food will require a sustainable breeding population of 6,000 animals from the north of British Columbia to California according to the British Columbia MNR so lets just say that a larger animal by 200 pounds would require the same population of 6,000 over the same area . Sounds like a big number but it isn't . I don't know if this is exactly right as i haven't measured a map but i'll call 3,000 miles from the British Columbia/Alaska border to the most southernly bush of California . Lets say from the Pacific coast to 300 miles inland . We now have 900,000 square miles divided by 6,000 bigfoot which comes out to 1 bigfoot per 150 square miles , so 6,000 bigfoot is in fact very few , but we should be seeing them with regularity because they have to forage .

They can't be compared to the herbivore mountain gorillas of Africa , because of habitat and available food supply . They don't have to forage like a large bipedal mammal of the Pacific Northwest so they don't expend thousands of calories foraging that must be replaced and what they expend can easily be replaced with low caloric plant foods .

While i'd like the believe and hope that some day bigfoot is proven true , science and biology are against them . Worse are bigfoot sightings to the east coast and down to Texas where the carrying capacity of the land will in no way in size , area and food supply support a sustainable breeding population so i absolutely discount those stories . Forests in the east of 100 miles by 100 miles won't support anywhere close to a sustainable breeding population and if they were magic creatures that require no breeding , they are still 800 pounds and still forage to 20 miles per day and still require 8,000 calories so 5 animals created by magic would eat the available forage off in a matter of weeks at the most . Then we get reports from Texas , Arizona and New Mexico scrub brush country but those reports come in from folks who have no concept of the requirements of sustained life .

Please , no one who has witnessed something take this post as a slight but i'll required more than 1 or 100 anecdotal stories , and even that will never do . For the reasons i stated above , you'll have better odds of winning a 240 million dollar powerball lottery than ever finding a carcass , skeleton or bones as nothing will be there long after death . Slightly out of focus pictures and videos are met with the same raised eyebrow as UFO pics and videos . Tracks , no way , way too many hoaxers and i watched some program with a hoaxer making rubber , bendable toes and feet and carving dermal ridges with a magnifying glass and a scalpel . That leaves a body , live or dead .

Originally posted by Bluesquid

Originally posted by smallblockchevy
Your lucky that cow didnt trash your camera, they love to rub on trees and such. As far as bigfoot when I see one I'll promptly shut my mouth.

I really dont think most people would believe their own eyes if they saw one.

In an earlier post I said that they were elusive for two reasons, athletic ability and intelligence. I would like to add camouflage also. i cant believe I didnt add that before. Duh.

The one i saw was grey. i have never heard of a report of a sighting involving a grey BF. It was late fall that year, when its grey almost every day here in upstate NY. Is it possible their hair changes color seasonly, like a hare? Maybe it was almost to white?

Since they are from a similar lineage, that the greying of their hair follicles means they are of advanced age.


I understand why some would be skeptical. I was before my sighting.