U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 08-23-2017, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Western MN
759 posts, read 331,868 times
Reputation: 1288

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DelmarvaNative View Post
Hi, this is Bigfoot.


Ask me anything

Cheers everyone
Have you ever seen the movie Harry and the Hendersons?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-23-2017, 03:43 PM
 
9,609 posts, read 8,920,561 times
Reputation: 3645
I have a friend from Oklahoma and 3 yrs ago he told me that the FBI used to come ask him about BF all very friendly and then after Homeland Security came into existence they (HS) came very unfriendly and told him to stay out of certain areas.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 04:40 PM
KCZ
 
609 posts, read 233,736 times
Reputation: 1376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
I enjoy watching "Finding Bigfoot" on the Animal Planet channel. They never come up with anything conclusive, but there are a lot of people that are convinced they have seen one. It's entertaining, and maybe one day they will actually come up with real proof. It does seem unlikely that all this time none has been captured, but you cannot argue with the DNA evidence that has come from legitimate scientists, like that which Josh Gates has come up with on "Expedition Truth." Whether it's Bigfoot, ghosts, aliens or even the Chupacabra, I prefer to keep an open mind about unexplained things.

Uh, Josh Gates is a scuba diver, climber, traveler, and television personality. He has no legitimate science credentials.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 05:43 PM
 
44,058 posts, read 34,593,497 times
Reputation: 26917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile View Post
I have a friend from Oklahoma and 3 yrs ago he told me that the FBI used to come ask him about BF all very friendly and then after Homeland Security came into existence they (HS) came very unfriendly and told him to stay out of certain areas.
Keep in mind, I'm not arguing for or against the existance of bigfoot here....but dang man...your friend is full of it lol.

He probably got told to stay out of areas because he was poaching on federal property or an Indian Rez.

Come on. Tall tales from old timers like your friend about visits from the FBI are classic.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 11:13 PM
 
Location: Heart of Dixie
11,125 posts, read 8,273,500 times
Reputation: 24767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile View Post
pLENTY OF PEOPLE HAVE SENT IN dna TO LABS AND IT COMES BACK AS UNKNOWN PRIMATE
Where are your sources? All of the samples I've seen published have been mundane mammals, like raccoons, bears, bison, etc.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 05:40 AM
 
Location: Central WI
678 posts, read 228,589 times
Reputation: 1076
I'm trained as a scientist, so I keep an open mind about such things.

While people who claim to have seen BigFoot are convinced of its existence, we have to keep in mind that an emotional response to being surprised by a large, hairy beast in the woods can play tricks on our minds. These reports demand skepticism, but cannot be summarily discounted....Remember that the Upland Gorilla was unknown to mainstream science until 1907, although locals were well aware of them.

It can be argued that no physical evidence of bones, hair, spoor etc has been positively identified. But even those things from an over-abundant species like deer are fairly hard to find even in a populous area like WI's woods. This isn't much of an argument against BigFoot. Absence of evidence is no proof of absence.

Another problem that leads to skepticism is the large number of proven hoaxes. And even the specimens reported to be from BigFoot by groups such as those Nepalese monks, not wanting to fool anybody, have proven to be from bears, etc.

The report of the discovery of DNA of an unknown primate is pretty dubious: Bigfoot I'm betting contamination.

The biggest problem I have in believing too strongly that BigFoot exists is the problem of population biology: for large mammals, a mating population of less than 500 individuals is theoretically doomed to rapid extinction. To maintain a population that large, large tracts of continuous habitat must be available. So I summarily dismiss any reports coming from any American area not in the Pacific NW-- the only area such habitat is available.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Maine
12,881 posts, read 17,555,950 times
Reputation: 13968
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
The biggest problem I have in believing too strongly that BigFoot exists is the problem of population biology: for large mammals, a mating population of less than 500 individuals is theoretically doomed to rapid extinction. To maintain a population that large, large tracts of continuous habitat must be available. So I summarily dismiss any reports coming from any American area not in the Pacific NW-- the only area such habitat is available.
Until you factor in a vital element: Food.

A large mammal requires an incredible amount of daily calories to survive. Large primates in places like Borneo and equatorial Africa are surrounded by nutrient-rich vegetation, and they basically spend most of every day eating.

Nowhere in North America has that. Nowhere. A large primate can't survive off pine cones and branches. Any large mammal would have to supplement its diet with meat, much like bears do. But even bears still can't get enough calories to survive the winter, which is why they have evolved to hibernate.

So, if Bigfoot is part of the natural environment, we're talking about a minimum population of 500+ huge mammals who have to hunt and kill meat to survive. For such a population of meat-eaters to exist in the 20th century is nigh on impossible.

Conclusion: If Bigfoot exists (IF!!!), then it must be a supernatural creature.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 07:15 AM
 
9,609 posts, read 8,920,561 times
Reputation: 3645
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
I'm trained as a scientist, so I keep an open mind about such things.

While people who claim to have seen BigFoot are convinced of its existence, we have to keep in mind that an emotional response to being surprised by a large, hairy beast in the woods can play tricks on our minds. These reports demand skepticism, but cannot be summarily discounted....Remember that the Upland Gorilla was unknown to mainstream science until 1907, although locals were well aware of them.

It can be argued that no physical evidence of bones, hair, spoor etc has been positively identified. But even those things from an over-abundant species like deer are fairly hard to find even in a populous area like WI's woods. This isn't much of an argument against BigFoot. Absence of evidence is no proof of absence.

Another problem that leads to skepticism is the large number of proven hoaxes. And even the specimens reported to be from BigFoot by groups such as those Nepalese monks, not wanting to fool anybody, have proven to be from bears, etc.

The report of the discovery of DNA of an unknown primate is pretty dubious: Bigfoot I'm betting contamination.

The biggest problem I have in believing too strongly that BigFoot exists is the problem of population biology: for large mammals, a mating population of less than 500 individuals is theoretically doomed to rapid extinction. To maintain a population that large, large tracts of continuous habitat must be available. So I summarily dismiss any reports coming from any American area not in the Pacific NW-- the only area such habitat is available.

Thanks a very good post. Except you are wrong. You are making statements off your assumptions. You apparently have not looked into this subject. How scientific is making assumptions? There is so much more territory for BF other than the PNW! anyone that doubts that can find so much by just googling.

Get back with me when you have collected the actual facts.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Central WI
678 posts, read 228,589 times
Reputation: 1076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile View Post
Thanks a very good post. Except you are wrong. You are making statements off your assumptions. You apparently have not looked into this subject. How scientific is making assumptions? There is so much more territory for BF other than the PNW! anyone that doubts that can find so much by just googling.

Get back with me when you have collected the actual facts.
It's a good assumption that BigFoot is not an obligate carnivore: a large animal, he would need large kills and a very large hunting area (tigers need 10-20 sq mi) or access to herding prey, ie- open range, not forest. We would surely frequently find evidence of his kills.

It's a good assumption he is not a strictly vegetarian animal. Again, being large, he would need large amounts of vegetation. Herbivores are usually pretty dumb- not hard to sneak up on grass or tree leaves and usually have eyes placed on the side of the head for better field of vision while head is down or up as they feed almost constantly. We'd surely see large tracts of devastated vegetation as he munched his way along.

Therefore, he's probably an omnivore, the only other possibility. He would hunt and gather, so to speak. Picking nuts and fruits, he would not leave much evidence of his passing thru and maybe catches birds, small mammals and probably insects. Again, not leaving much evidence he had been around. This fits the picture.

A hunter/gather the size of man needs ~2 sq mi per individual for successful foraging. Being larger, he would need at least 3 if not 4 sq mi. Five hundred individuals @ 3 sq mi ea would need 1500 sq mi- a patch of forest 50 x 30 miles to maintain that small breeding population. That area would have to be fairly devoid of humans, or he would remain unobserved only with exceptional powers of hiding and covering his tracks. I would submit that to remain anonymous for so long, he would need 10 or more sq mi each, a patch at least 70 x 70 mi.

Where in the US east of the Mississippi do such areas exist?

The Great Plains can be eliminated: few places to hide; no more herds of grazing animals, etc.- not to mention few reports of sightings. The SW deserts can be eliminated: low food density, etc.

That leaves the mountains and the Pacific NW.

FYI: I'm coming up with that 500 minimum population based on the math of population biology for large animals with low birth rate (1 or 2 offspring per yr). Consult any source on the subject for details.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 08:28 AM
 
44,058 posts, read 34,593,497 times
Reputation: 26917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
Until you factor in a vital element: Food.

A large mammal requires an incredible amount of daily calories to survive. Large primates in places like Borneo and equatorial Africa are surrounded by nutrient-rich vegetation, and they basically spend most of every day eating.

Nowhere in North America has that. Nowhere. A large primate can't survive off pine cones and branches. Any large mammal would have to supplement its diet with meat, much like bears do. But even bears still can't get enough calories to survive the winter, which is why they have evolved to hibernate.

So, if Bigfoot is part of the natural environment, we're talking about a minimum population of 500+ huge mammals who have to hunt and kill meat to survive. For such a population of meat-eaters to exist in the 20th century is nigh on impossible.

Conclusion: If Bigfoot exists (IF!!!), then it must be a supernatural creature.
That's actually a meme used in several movies and TV shows like with vampires if you put a stake in them they turn to dust and are completely consumed (Like the Blade movies) so there is never any physical evidence.

Not a bad conclusion since you'd otherwise suspect that in the last hundred years you'd have one hit and killed by a car right on the spot and recovered or drowns and washes up on a river bank and so forth.

I mean, even Giant Squid have washed up on beaches (something that in past centuries was dismissed as sailor tall tales).

So, at this point I concur that the only logical explanation would have to have a supernatural component.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top