Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Bigfoot???

Now THAT's funny!!! I don't care what ya believe....

Just a thought regarding the finding of carcasses. Remember the old legends of the Elephant's Graveyard ? Locals thought they all went to a special place to die because they seldom found bodies.

Well now if you don't find remains of elephants in arid shrub country, what's the chances of finding a much smaller creature in a temporate forest?

According to National Geographic there are more small planes that have crashed in the contential US and never been found, than have crashed in the so-called Bermuda Triangle. Again, a piper cub is a bit bigger than a BF.

My point being, I guess, just because you don't find it don't mean it ain't there.

Be that as it may, which is to say "good point", it SEEMS like the large primates of the world have been discovered everywhere else they exist on the planet, right?

And yes, I see the obvious flaw in that logic <g>.

Put another way, there are literally people who's job title is "primateologist" or whatever they call it. These people know things. An animal the size of BF would leave scat. It would eat a lot. As another person pointed out, if it's related to us then it can't synthesize vitamin C, which limits it's range greatly unless it is able to dry and store berries and so on.

Plus, at least in the PNW, the large "old" forests are pretty barren places, really, under the big trees. Not a lot to eat there. So their actual habitat would be MUCH smaller than it might appear.

Yes, I have found a dead cougar in the woods. In New Mexico. It happens.

-jeff

Jeff -

I've found a good dozen dead cougars in the woods but only seen 4 live ones that I can recall. I've seen probably, literally, over 1000 bears, but never found a single dead one. The point I was trying to make is that the number of dead of any species we find may not reflect the numbers at all, only their living habits ... and dying habits. Maybe bears are more inclined to die when hibernating, thus holed up in places we don't find them. Maybe bears, even when sick, are inclined to hole up and try to ride it out, and die in places we don't find them. Maybe cougars try to continue to hunt so they are more likely (than bears) to die out in the open where their remains are seen. Just guesses.

Maybe, if bigfoot is really reclusive then perhaps like bears, they don't die where people will find them. Or, to go out on a limb, depending on what level of intelligence they've got, if they're social, maybe the others drag the body off.

Lets just say I've never seen them leave a body behind for me to discover.

Tom

Nor has anyone found a bone... a fossil... ANY physical evidence.

Well, like I've said, I think it would be cooler'n [bleep] if they exist, and I hope they do... but I'm skeptical.

Aliens from another galaxy, now THAT I can get behind! :-)

-jeff

I have a son in Montana with size 20 shoes! Does that count?

You sure? How do you prove we're not misidentifying a ton of evidence right under our noses?


You're a skeptic of one conclusion. I'm a skeptic of both. I've haven't seen enough good enough evidence to convince me there's something out there. I've seen enough evidence I'm not convinced there isn't, either.


You got the hots for Seven of Nine, too?

Seriously, I think it would be easier for science to accept aliens than bigfoot. Aliens appearing raises some questions about how they got around the apparent limitations of physics as we understand those limits today but proves them right about the probability there is other life out there, bigfoot appearing proves them wrong in their belief we know all there is to know about our home planet. That influences objectivity.

I wonder what outdoor people would do differently if they found out we really do share the woods with another primate, one considerably larger and stronger than we are and able to evade us at will ... or possibly to hunt us if it chose to. Some people would be ok with it, some people might never go back in the woods again. It'd be interesting to see how that settled out.

Tom

Jeff -

I think you miss the mark. You're new to Oregon, first generation, so you don't have that first-hand connection to the history. Parts of my family arrived in the 1840s. Got a lot of hand-me-down info about how people lived to compare to what I see today. While the population is vastly greater, it's centralized. There used to be someone living just about everywhere someone could live, trappers, miners, farmers, loggers eeking out a living. Back in those days, they didn't have rapid, they lived where they worked. Instead of an hour on the interstate by car, they often lived 30 minutes or less from "work" traveling on foot. That put a lot of people in a lot of outlying places, not just for a weekend of recreation twice a year, but 24x7, 52 weeks a year. Point? It would be vastly easier to go unnoticed today than it would have in the period from the 1880s to WW II. Look along the rivers through the coast range. Every flat had someone living on it. Look for old orchards ... apple trees don't plant themselves. Look for stonework ... fences and chimneys. Look for scrap iron.

One of the things I used to do to fight homesickness in college was to head for the campus library's map room and study old maps of home. Compare where there are roads now to the pack trail systems of older times. Lot of my hunting trips still follow the 50 year old blaze lines that used to mark pack routes. Betcha those in turn followed Indian trails which in turn followed game routes. We're not new on the land.

The kinds of places I think Bigfoot would live are not the kinds of places we do most of our commercialized recreation nor the places most people go hunting. If I were Bigfoot, I'd be looking at low to middle elevation remote canyons, places there is year around food I didn't have to fight snow to get at, places off the beaten path farther than the average hunter would walk into, places nobody else has any reason to go at all.

There could be a LOT of them out there and we'd not know the difference. The only time we'd ever see one is if it were moving from "tribe" to "tribe" or out scouting and we stumbled across it crossing a road ... which is kind of what the bulk of the current reports suggests.

I'd like to offer up an idea. You got me hooked on Google Earth. Go look for yellow dots, then read the attached bigfoot reports. Look at the variety of dates and think about how many people were in the woods at time of each, attitudes of society towards 'such nonsense' at the time. I sorta think the rate of reports has been more constant than it seems. Been going on as long as European type folks have been in the PNW and certainly the Native American cultures are riddled with lore.

I'm not sayin' there's anything out there. My point is the logic for deducing that there ISN'T something there is weak.

Tom
___________________________________________________
Tom...Good post..:)
I know those remote canyons pretty well in the Cascades and Pacific Coast range..
FWIW...
IF I don't wish to be 'seen' by another human...I KNOW HOW TO BE 'INVISIBLE'...:)Not even a trace of my passing thru the country.

So also do the sasquatch.
Many who have encountered them just don't broadcast their experiences..then or now..:) Jim

While I'm not prepared to jump on the bandwagon that says they do exist, I'm far from ready to dispell the theory that they do.

A lotta talk about bones and lack thereof...........How many shed horns have you guys found that are over a year old????

How many bones of any kind have you found over a year old??

Ever wonder why?

Vermin, coyotes, cougars, all play a part in getting rid of the evidence that should have been found by now.

I too have seen countless bears, but I've never found one dead. Never found a cougar dead either.

The areas that I've hunted in Western or even Central Oregon would easily keep me from ever being seen again. You take an animal that has some extremely good senses of hearing and smell, with even a small tidbit of reason behind it, you'd never see them while tromping though the woods on your deer hunt.

I've sat next to game trails in nothing more than a green flannel shirt and blue jeans, having guys walk within feet of me........I don't give the average hunter much credit for being keen on the senses.

Okay, ....

Throw out the PG film as a hoax.

Throw out the hair evidence as something other than BF.

Throw out the audio recordings whose characteristics most closely match a howler monkey as an escaped pet or hoax.

Throw out the thousands of eyewitness accounts dating back over a hundred years as misidentification.

Throw out the Skookum imprint as an elk.

Throw out the detailed written accounts of rock/stick throwing from the 1800's, when this behavior wasn't know in primates until the 1900's as just plain luck by those that first reported them.

Throw out that many, if not most, North American tribes have known of this creatures existence for centuries.

To dismiss this body of evidence strikes me as silly. Still, there is one piece of evidence that I think is pretty "hard" - footprint casts with dermal ridges that are not human... not primate... similar to both.... a species in of itself.

I simply can not completely dismiss the footprint evidence as presented by Jimmy Chilcutt.... not to mention my own experience with foot prints a friend and I came across in the Olympic National Forest last Fall.

jef..,

Only in the last couple of years has fossil evidence of [bleep] been found. And only a tooth at that.

Not sure if this has been brought up or not but, has anyone mentioned the film of a man/creature running across the hillside? I saw a show once where they tried to reproduce the speed of the animal, using a Division 1 Cross Country runner from the University of Oregon. The speed at which the film's subject was moving is insane, man or not. If I recall, the runner from Oregon had a tough time matching the speed of the creature.

Sco..,

I've seen that,too. It was on a Discovery or History Channel program. Believe it's called the Memorial Day Film.

For those into such things, History Channel has a program on Wednesday nite at 1000pm called Monster Quest. They don't present it as fact and some episodes are clearly just TV, but some episodes are VERY hard to explain rationally.

O