Questions For Bigfoot Researchers

I've debated a skeptic on another forum and he has raised some legitimate questions and statements that need to be answered or countered by bigfoot investigators.

Question:

There have been bigfoot sightings reported in every State of the US accept for Hawaii. If the creature has such a wide range why has it been able to elude humanity for so long? Why hasn't one been hit by a car or shot by a hunter? Why hasn't a body been found?

This is a very good question and I'd like to see the investigators response to this.

Statement:

Most evidence for bigfoot comes in the form of eye witness accounts which are the weakest form of evidence in a court of law and science. Also studies have shown that people often remember things differently from how they actually occured. Is it not possible that all bigfoot reports are comprised of hoaxes, susceptibility to folklore/pop culture and the misidentification of known animals as a result?

Another legitimate issue here. What is the investigators response? For myself, I believe that some of the sightings may be misidentifications, but have a hard time believing that park rangers who have given testimony have misidentified animals that they have encountered innumerable times. What is your opinion about the assertion that eye witnesses are poor observers?

I am torn on the subject of bigfoot. The fact that more physical evidence has not been recovered gives me reason not to believe. However the number of credible witnesses and corraborating stories leads me to belief that there is something to the phenomenon. What do you think?

I haven't made a solid decision if I really think bigfoot exists or not, but I wouldn't be suprised if he did. Alot of the questions you ask can be found on the FAQs on the BFRO site here: BFRO site Either way it's fun reading about sightings and stuff.

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
I've debated a skeptic on another forum and he has raised some legitimate questions and statements that need to be answered or countered by bigfoot investigators.

Question:

There have been bigfoot sightings reported in every State of the US accept for Hawaii. If the creature has such a wide range why has it been able to elude humanity for so long? Why hasn't one been hit by a car or shot by a hunter? Why hasn't a body been found?

This is a very good question and I'd like to see the investigators response to this.

Statement:

Most evidence for bigfoot comes in the form of eye witness accounts which are the weakest form of evidence in a court of law and science. Also studies have shown that people often remember things differently from how they actually occured. Is it not possible that all bigfoot reports are comprised of hoaxes, susceptibility to folklore/pop culture and the misidentification of known animals as a result?

Another legitimate issue here. What is the investigators response? For myself, I believe that some of the sightings may be misidentifications, but have a hard time believing that park rangers who have given testimony have misidentified animals that they have encountered innumerable times. What is your opinion about the assertion that eye witnesses are poor observers?

I am torn on the subject of bigfoot. The fact that more physical evidence has not been recovered gives me reason not to believe. However the number of credible witnesses and corraborating stories leads me to belief th
at there is something to the phenomenon. What do you think?

Apparently, many hunters have had them in the sights of their guns over the years, but found they couldn't shoot because the animal looked far too human in their scopes. I did read a wierd report of a guy shooting at one somehwere recently. His hunting buddy found what was left of him a few minutes later. Cause of death? Well, officially it wasn't a 'sasquatch', that's for sure...
I've also heard of many drivers seeing them on various stretches of remote highways. But this creature seems to have a really exceptional amount of intelligence and rarely gets too near a moving vehicle. But also I have read reports of car collisions involving drivers trying to avoid a Sasquatch on a road - but not too many.

Eye witness reports are enough to put you in prison in a court of law - so I'd have to say there's nothing wrong with that kind of evidence as long as the witness seems credible. Then of course there are hair samples of unknown origin, footprint casts with dermal ridges that are easily observable under a microscope. Also, we have recording of the calls, along with one or two very good videos (Patterson, footage, the Freeman footage amonst a few others...). To be honest, all the evidence points to a large hominid living in various remaote areas of north america.

J.

Anybody else want to reply to this?

I'll take a whack at it...

Question #1: It's a wide range, but not necessarily a large population, add to that a rather high level of intelligence, and hey presto, a hard to find creature...assuming of course, he exists at all.

There have been stories circulating for years, if not decades, of hunters or trappers encountering Sasquatch and shooting it, or shooting at it. The two stories that come to mind are the Ape Canyon story from up in my neck of the woods in the Pacific Northwest, south of Yakima, near Mt. Adams: A group of miners/trappers shot at a Bigfoot, apparently wounding it, it escaped them...later that night a band of Bigfeet (Bigfoots?) attacked the groups cabin for several hours. Hence the name of the canyon.

The second story I heard many years ago whilst I was a younker: It was a railroad crew in British Columbia, I think, shot and wounded a young Bigfoot, and captured it. It apparently caused quite the ruckus for a time. It was named "Jacko", I think. I may be misremembering this one, like I said, I heard this story a long time ago.

I've been in the area around Ape Canyon on a couple of occasions over the years and there are places there that are flat out spooky, in fact, damn scary. You know that feeling you get on the back of your neck when you just know someones watching? Well someone, or something, was watching and didn't much care for me and my friends intrusion. Never did see anything or hear anything, just felt it...spooky.

As for a body...nature's clean up crews take care of that, scattered bones and hair hidden in the grass and under bushes...mighty hard to spot even when you know what and where to look. Use murder victims hidden in out of the way spots...even when the searchers know where to look, it can take days to find anything, if they even do. Not knowing where to look, or what to look for would add several orders of difficulty to the search...

Eyewitness accounts are only as reliable as the witness. Trained professionals, or experianced hunters and guides, etc... who come forward to relate a sighting, I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to. Again, it depends upon the witness.

Personally, I've seen some strange stuff out in the deep woods, and felt even stranger things...a 8' tall primate mightn't be all that strange. Color me ambivalent. Somethings out there...but what?

As for a body...nature's clean up crews take care of that, scattered bones and hair hidden in the grass and under bushes...mighty hard to spot even when you know what and where to look.

Yes, but given 400 years of colonization on the American continent wouldn't at least skeleton or body have been found? Thousands of people have been through the wilderness but yet not a single dead specimen exists for study. Why?

Originally posted by CaptainKirk

Why hasn't one been hit by a car

Well I have a couple ideas

Alot of the bigfoot sightings are deep in the wildnerness. So if some body is driving through, they won't be speeding along, and if they see something (be it a bigfoot, or any other animal) there is a better chance of the driver stopping, or missing the creature.

Or, the bigfoot are pretty intelligent, and if they hear/feel a vehicle coming they don't run in front of it, and they stay away. I wouldn't think they are dumb creatures. Maybe they act almost the same way as humans?(not walking in front of a moving car)







[edit on 20/7/2007 by enjoies05]

Originally posted by CaptainKirk

As for a body...nature's clean up crews take care of that, scattered bones and hair hidden in the grass and under bushes...mighty hard to spot even when you know what and where to look.

Yes, but given 400 years of colonization on the American continent wouldn't at least skeleton or body have been found? Thousands of people have been through the wilderness but yet not a single dead specimen exists for study. Why?

Assuming for the moment a relatively high order of intelligence on the part of Sasquatch, he knows to avoid man. Most of the encounters take place outside of what we refer to as "settled" areas. The ones that do occur in those areas are, in my opinion, just passing through, or perhaps young ones who've not learned the harsh lessons of dealing with man.

This seems to me to be the most likely explanation.

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
This is a very good question and I'd like to see the investigators response to this.

I've answered this question before on this old thread and I'll quote my answer here for convenience.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for Northern Canada? Well, lets just take British Columbia is 364,764 sq. miles in size. California is 163,707 square miles, Oregon is 98,386 square miles, and then add a Wyoming 97,818 square miles and you still have room. Texas is 268,601 square miles leaving room for Michigan (96,810 square miles) or just about any other state to fit.

For you non-Americans, United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland is 94,525 sq miles which means that ONE province is more than three times the size.

Population is 3,907,738 for British Columbia (2001). Los Angeles is close to 10 million. London is just over 7 million.

Now, you think the hunt would be that easy? Consider that the almost 4 million people are almost all at the southern edge (American border) and that everything else is quite remote. Now add Alaska (586,412 square miles) which is 1/5th the size of the entire United States. Add the Yukon Territories (186,660 sq. mi.), Northwest Territories (519,734 sq mi), and Territories of Nunavut (350,000 sq mi).

Also there are the northern Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec areas to consider. Searching all of the land area is highly improbable. Now consider that in recent years, new animals have been discovered in much smaller countries, that were completely unknown until the last 4-5 years. Doesn't make things so impossible that a creature with a slightly higher intellect, could not be found easily.

Unless you actually live in the region you might not have a real grasp on just how vast an area it is...big doesn't even begin to describe it. There are areas where man has never been in the thousands of years we've been here.

A reasonably sized breeding population of unknown primates, especially given Sasquatches reputed intelligence, could very easily stay more or less hidden from our clumsy attempts to find it.