Top 10 Reasons Why Bigfoot/Sasquatch May Exist

reply to post by Supernatural

I happen to firmly believe in the creatures myself. In fact I am fairly sure I know where there is a current population of these creatures living in a remote area of Oregon. I know this because I was picking chanterelle mushrooms and saw one from a distance of less than 50 feet. Red hair, not brown or black and easily 7 feet tall. They are there, they exist.

Originally posted by Frocharocha
What you mean by the "breeding population issue"?

edit on 1-1-2013 by Frocharocha because: (no reason given)

unless we are going to make a case BF is a magical creature, you need a minumum number of indivuduals to sustain a healthy population, which means the likelyhood you would have groups of 100 - 250 individuals going undetected is very, very unlikely

a group of primates that large needs food, room and leaves evidence

Originally posted by unsteadystate
reply to post by Supernatural

 

I happen to firmly believe in the creatures myself. In fact I am fairly sure I know where there is a current population of these creatures living in a remote area of Oregon. I know this because I was picking chanterelle mushrooms and saw one from a distance of less than 50 feet. Red hair, not brown or black and easily 7 feet tall. They are there, they exist.

And people still say they aren't real. Whomever, i still want the sasquatch to be a human hermit. It would be funny as heck.

unless we are going to make a case BF is a magical creature, you need a minumum number of indivuduals to sustain a healthy population, which means the likelyhood you would have groups of 100 - 250 individuals going undetected is very, very unlikely

250? Hardly.... i was thinking in around 50-100.

In case anyone wants to research the organizations that are researching and searching for the bigfoot. Maybe review reports of recent sightings or join the organization and go on an expedition...

Australian Yowie Researchers - Australians call it the Yowie

The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization

Chinese researchers to relaunch 'Bigfoot' search - thread by Ben81

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by Frocharocha
What you mean by the "breeding population issue"?

edit on 1-1-2013 by Frocharocha because: (no reason given)

unless we are going to make a case BF is a magical creature, you need a minumum number of indivuduals to sustain a healthy population, which means the likelyhood you would have groups of 100 - 250 individuals going undetected is very, very unlikely

a group of primates that large needs food, room and leaves evidence

Have you been to the Pacific Northwest? There are literally hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of forested land with some areas that are very remote. Even though I live in an urban area, I've seen the size of the wilderness, and I understand that there is plenty of room and food for a large population of Sasquatches. Even 20–30 kilometres from Vancouver or Seattle can get one deep into the bush. Anyone can just look up the satellite and terrain images from Google Earth or Google Maps and examine the mountain ranges that stretch from Alaska to Northern California.

It's healthy to ask questions and think critically, but skeptics have to explain all the sightings and reports if Sasquatches don't exist.

sorry if what I say has already been said in this forum, I wanted to quickly respond & then I'll go back & read other peoples responses.

The very recent DNA find could finally prove that there is a bigfoot. I believe the Mom's DNA was human and the Fathers DNA was unknown.

As for never finding any remains for bigfoot, well they could bury their dead like we & Elephants do. If they also have a consciousness, then that could also account for why we can not find any remains and why they remain so allusive. They could be like an indigenous tribe with small tribes in different locations around the world.

I hope we one day find out what people have been seeing after all these years, especially people like Les Stroud.

Originally posted by knoledgeispower
sorry if what I say has already been said in this forum, I wanted to quickly respond & then I'll go back & read other peoples responses.

The very recent DNA find could finally prove that there is a bigfoot. I believe the Mom's DNA was human and the Fathers DNA was unknown.

As for never finding any remains for bigfoot, well they could bury their dead like we & Elephants do. If they also have a consciousness, then that could also account for why we can not find any remains and why they remain so allusive. They could be like an indigenous tribe with small tribes in different locations around the world.

I hope we one day find out what people have been seeing after all these years, especially people like Les Stroud.

Yes but unforetunetly their final work was rejected during the peer review stage but apparently that can be down to the way their findings are presented as much as their findings are flawed.I read that their going to try and get it peer reviewed in Russia possibly.

As for remains.I live in the Highlands of Scotland,have worked and lived in the forest,tree thinning and clear felling in the Caledionian Forest.Ok,it's dwarfed in scale by the Pacific Northwest but in most other ways it's a very similar terrain.

You find very little remains of any kind in the forest,it's too full of animals that'll scavenge anything left lying plus the damp acidic nature of the soil and enviroment mean remains are broken down relatively quickly.

I've never been to the US but as I've written in a Bigfoot [or should it be Bigfeet.lol] thread we have the big cat urban legend over here which is generally scoffed at for a lot of the same reasons as bigfoot.Where's the evidence,bodies,food,how could they possibly hide this long without being discovered,no DNA traces etc,etc.

I was one of the ones to scoff because it did seem,preposturous in all honesty until one walked out in front of me when I was driving home one night that made my German Shepard look small and weak,this was a proper big cat in the flesh caught full square in my full beam.A magnificent and awesome creature and a flesh and blood reality.

Yes I know another witness sighting of a totally different legendary creature on a different continent proves absolutely nothing but the parallel is interesting.It suggests to me that if bigfoot is a flesh and blood primate of a kind we've not yet categorised rather than some form of forest 'spirit' or from another dimension then it's very possible it exists.

There's no physical reason it couldn't apart from the lack of a body but predators,scavengers and the enviroment would soon scatter and erode any remains.

Why hasnt it been caught/killed/run over by a truck ??

Well it's clearly a higher primate and therefore is intelligent,if bipedal as is suggested it can move quickly and silently.Somewhere deep in it's make up something tells it to be very,very wary around your hairless cousins as they are highly dangerous plus once it's back into the forest,we're in it's world so the chances of finding one let alone tracking or chasing one are minimal.

It's all speculation right now though.Certainly I can find no good reason why they can't exist in enough numbers to successfully breed.It's the lack of solid remains and a specimen that stop it from being proven one way or the other !!!

Oh yes and the famous Gimlin Video,,I don't know how many times I've seen it since I was a kid in a 100 documentaries whether it's a poor copy or supposedly a copy from the original film I can't definitetivly tell if it's an ape or a man.I can say with confidence it's a primate.lol

It's always felt like I was watching the real thing,something tells me it's an animal more than a man,.That's the best I can say on that !!

reply to post by fastbob72


You seemed to have responded as if I do not believe in Bigfoot. I believe it is very possible for a species to be unknown to us for a very long period of time. After all, there are still parts of this world that have not been touched by man and we are always learning of new species.

Originally posted by knoledgeispower
reply to post by fastbob72

 

You seemed to have responded as if I do not believe in Bigfoot. I believe it is very possible for a species to be unknown to us for a very long period of time. After all, there are still parts of this world that have not been touched by man and we are always learning of new species.

edit on 2-1-2013 by knoledgeispower because: correction

No I wasn't suggesting you don't believe.I quoted mainly because of the bit about DNA findings,mentioning about it not being peer reviewed

It's a pity they don't publísh the reason for not accepting it because when I first read about it's lineage being human mother and until now unknown primate father leaves you with as many questions as answers.

Is the DNA unviable or are the samples and tests fine but some other part not up to scratch !!!

Originally posted by Supernatural

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by Frocharocha
What you mean by the "breeding population issue"?

edit on 1-1-2013 by Frocharocha because: (no reason given)

unless we are going to make a case BF is a magical creature, you need a minumum number of indivuduals to sustain a healthy population, which means the likelyhood you would have groups of 100 - 250 individuals going undetected is very, very unlikely

a group of primates that large needs food, room and leaves evidence

Have you been to the Pacific Northwest? There are literally hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of forested land with some areas that are very remote. Even though I live in an urban area, I've seen the size of the wilderness, and I understand that there is plenty of room and food for a large population of Sasquatches. Even 20–30 kilometres from Vancouver or Seattle can get one deep into the bush. Anyone can just look up the satellite and terrain images from Google Earth or Google Maps and examine the mountain ranges that stretch from Alaska to Northern California.

It's healthy to ask questions and think critically, but skeptics have to explain all the sightings and reports if Sasquatches don't exist.

edit on 1-1-2013 by Supernatural because: General editing

Well.. Shapfiting Djinns? xD Anyway, there are indeed plenty huge animals that lived or are living in extremely small areas. The Elephant Bird was one of the bigget birds in the world and was know to live in Madagascar. Madagascar is way smaller than Oregon btw and the animals that used to live there were like 5x bigger than Sasquatch. So yeah, it's possible.

reply to post by Supernatural


I have made this same reply to many BF threads....hoping that someone with more diligence than myself would/could maybe pick-up or follow up with a deserving thread....

I have never seen one but, believe they could easily slip in/out of everywhere....
1...Nocturnal
2...Live in water, "rivers are their highways" think of them as a very large beaver...
this gives them ease of mobility, and the ability to follow temp., food, and fish, protien, etc....
and if my out of shape 200lb butt, can traverse, 100 miles by river, w/out breaking a sweat....
imagine how much distance a wild animal could cover...
3...No bodies.....how many peeps ever see dead river animals? very rare....too many foragers....

This theory...."which I claim to be mine" is based on a German man, that during Hitlers rein, this man traveled in/out, repeatedly from/to occupied territory, and wrote a book about it, travel the rivers, only after dark, people are easy to evade....was his point...

I do not believe an 800 lb animal would be living on dry land, when it could use water to aid with weight, ease of travel, heating /cooling and abiltiy to follow seasonal temps and cover vast ammounts of area with ease, this would be a huge caloric saver, and frankly fits my screwed up version of occams razor....although not the simplist, it is the simplist "if" BF is presummed real...IMHO
end of babbling...see y'all on the boards ...

Something I've always wondered about is, why does "Bigfoot" have to be another species? Could it be another "race" instead? Or could it even be not a "race" at all but just "people" who happen to live in the wilderness areas. Maybe they want to be what we'd refer to as "off grid" and have developed their own culture accordingly. Very small group, very remote with customs and guidelines they follow.

It's no more far-fetched than any other theory out there and it's completely just a theory. I have no proof of it, I have no direct evidence to back it up other than evidence of all the other theories out there, but I, just like the others, have logical reasons why it would be possible.

We know that certain personality characteristics can be inherited, we know that nurture plays a key role as well. If a "child" is born into a certain culture, they are taught about the culture, they adhere to it for the most part, even the rebellious ones adhere to their culture even though they claim they don't.

Just like we're taught from a young age not to interact with certain groups, like not feeding the bears or don't approach wild animals in the woods or, I don't know, stay away from that side of town, we, for the most part, adhere to that. Sure, we have some people who go to that side of town anyway, we have some that go out in the woods to "be one with nature" or whatever, but we are a very large population and we don't blend well. Technically, a rebellious "Bigfoot" could blend in certain ways and be dismissed as "another hunter" or dismissed as a wild animal.

I'm not saying it's the answer, but it's definitely possible.

Originally posted by kthxbai
Something I've always wondered about is, why does "Bigfoot" have to be another species? Could it be another "race" instead? Or could it even be not a "race" at all but just "people" who happen to live in the wilderness areas. Maybe they want to be what we'd refer to as "off grid" and have developed their own culture accordingly. Very small group, very remote with customs and guidelines they follow.

It's no more far-fetched than any other theory out there and it's completely just a theory. I have no proof of it, I have no direct evidence to back it up other than evidence of all the other theories out there, but I, just like the others, have logical reasons why it would be possible.

We know that certain personality characteristics can be inherited, we know that nurture plays a key role as well. If a "child" is born into a certain culture, they are taught about the culture, they adhere to it for the most part, even the rebellious ones adhere to their culture even though they claim they don't.

Just like we're taught from a young age not to interact with certain groups, like not feeding the bears or don't approach wild animals in the woods or, I don't know, stay away from that side of town, we, for the most part, adhere to that. Sure, we have some people who go to that side of town anyway, we have some that go out in the woods to "be one with nature" or whatever, but we are a very large population and we don't blend well. Technically, a rebellious "Bigfoot" could blend in certain ways and be dismissed as "another hunter" or dismissed as a wild animal.

I'm not saying it's the answer, but it's definitely possible.

-They are to tall to be just another "race" of humans.
-They are too strong.
-They are too heavy.
-They re often solitary. Don't live in packs like us and have more primate behavior than a normal human behavior.
-They can't communicate with humans by what it seems.
-They are in America longer time than the other native people.

Originally posted by Frocharocha
-They are to tall to be just another "race" of humans.
-They are too strong.
-They are too heavy.
-They re often solitary. Don't live in packs like us and have more primate behavior than a normal human behavior.
-They can't communicate with humans by what it seems.
-They are in America longer time than the other native people.

But do any of those things disqualify them as being a "race"? There are humans that are that tall. There are humans that are that strong. There are humans that are that heavy. There are humans that are solitary. There are humans who don't communicate. There were humans here before Europeans.

Granted, there are arguments against it as there are with all the theories, but there are also possible answers to those arguments. Just because they don't fit what we consider the "norm" doesn't mean they don't fit at all. They are not beyond the extremes that have been seen in other cultures, so it is a possibility.

Probability, no, possibility, yes.

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by Frocharocha
-They are to tall to be just another "race" of humans.
-They are too strong.
-They are too heavy.
-They re often solitary. Don't live in packs like us and have more primate behavior than a normal human behavior.
-They can't communicate with humans by what it seems.
-They are in America longer time than the other native people.

But do any of those things disqualify them as being a "race"? There are humans that are that tall. There are humans that are that strong. There are humans that are that heavy. There are humans that are solitary. There are humans who don't communicate. There were humans here before Europeans.

Granted, there are arguments against it as there are with all the theories, but there are also possible answers to those arguments. Just because they don't fit what we consider the "norm" doesn't mean they don't fit at all. They are not beyond the extremes that have been seen in other cultures, so it is a possibility.

Probability, no, possibility, yes.

See this video, it's basically a summary on Patterson film explaining on why the bigfoot isn't human. But i can't also cut out the possiblity that the sasquatch maybe another human gender. It would be interstng for sure, but the possiblity that the Sasquatch are an unknown species are huge.

I find all of this interesting, if only for the simple fact that 2 or 3 eyewitnesses can get someone convicted of murder, but for some reason 2 or 3 eyewitnesses or more can't seem to convince people that Bigfoot exists.

Anyone that says there's no evidence is ignoring the evidence.

reply to post by kthxbai


I agree with you that it is possible that BigFoot is indeed part of the Human Genome. BigFoot could be a kin to the Neanderthal.


Frocharocha:

1-They are to tall to be just another "race" of humans.
2-They are too strong.
3-They are too heavy.
4-They re often solitary. Don't live in packs like us and have more primate behavior than a normal human behavior.
5-They can't communicate with humans by what it seems.
6-They are in America longer time than the other native people.

I numbered the points you made in order to respond more clearly.

1. There have been giants on this Earth. There was a race of humans, that were considered giants by todays standards, that lived in New Zealand. If I recall correctly, they had remained isolated in an area of mountains until some explorers found them. Within one generation the "tribe" had all lost its height and was of the normal height.

2. I don't really see how their strength would rule them out as a human race. The way that they have to live in nature would probably have them evolve to be really strong. We, on the other hand. do not need to be super strong because of how easy we make everything, therefore we have evolved not to be as strong.

3. Again I don't see how their weight would rule them out as a human race. See above statement about their strength being because of the environment they have been in.

4. How do you know that they live more commonly in solidarity? They could live in small packs. Humans started off living in small packs. Their survival may depend on them keeping very small packs.

5. Again, how do you know they can't communicate with the common human? Natives couldn't communicate with the first European settlers, that doesn't make them any less human. Dolphins can't talk to humans but that doesn't mean that they are not intelligent.

6. Bigfoot isn't found only in North America. There are similar creatures in many other countries. The fact that Bigfoot has been on North America longer than any other native people doesn't really mean anything. They could have once been a very intelligent species that traveled around lots and a cataclysm event took them back a step in evolution.

The possibilities are endless because we really don't know. It could be like Doc Holiday said, BigFoot is more a water species than land (like Hippos, Alligators, Crocodiles etc). All we can do is guess because despite our curiosity, BigFoot remains hidden and a mystery, like so much on this planet.

I saw something cross a dirt road in upstate PA 30 years ago that I still cant explain. I was out deer spotting around 2200 hours with my mother and step father way back off of the beaten path with steep moutain side to the right and corn fields/meadows to the left. It crossed the road at a steady pace and appeared from our right and moved left into a corn field. We all saw it emerge from the moutain side and move into the corn field that was right alongside of the road. It was bizzare because you couldnt make out any leg movement it just seemed as if it were hunched over and gliding across the road while being mostly upright. Never did it appear to look at us and the whole thing last maybe 2 seconds. I dont know what to belive still to this day because it was either a human, bear,or a bigfoot. PA bear dont get that tall and choose to walk around upright and we were soo far out and it was late so I dont see it being a person either

reply to post by Frocharocha


Good point. What is the difference between the Kakapo and Bigfoot? There is one glaring factor which you overlook.

Since you compare them can you please enlighten me on the taxonomy of Bigfoot? What is the description, identification, nomenclature, and classification? We know the Kakapo exists. It has been seen, photographed, studied. We know its behaviour, diet,anatomy and reproduction. These are knowns.

None of this exists for Bigfoot so why should we accept its existence the same as the Kakapo?

Originally posted by openmindfreethinker
reply to post by Frocharocha

 

Good point. What is the difference between the Kakapo and Bigfoot? There is one glaring factor which you overlook.

Since you compare them can you please enlighten me on the taxonomy of Bigfoot? What is the description, identification, nomenclature, and classification? We know the Kakapo exists. It has been seen, photographed, studied. We know its behaviour, diet,anatomy and reproduction. These are knowns.

None of this exists for Bigfoot so why should we accept its existence the same as the Kakapo?

There are even bigger animals that science know it's existence but never found one alive or photographed. The Tibetan Blue Bear is just like the big foot. It's current population is unknown and the only people who ever saw them was natives to the Tibete.

Now the Kakapo can be used as an example. It's population of about 50 birds (They are pretty big) it's still recovering. They are rare and dificult to see and live in a very small country with a very big population of humans and large citys. If the Bigfoot is real, nothing stop it's population of breeding or remaining undetected by science. Of course people who lives in the USA will often see them.