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.
Trying to fit a North American sasquatch into the ecosystem doesn't work. The land is too populated. Food supply would be completely inadequate for a primate of that size. The size of a healthy breeding population would mean there would be enough of them out there that there would be some conclusive evidence of their existence --- and there is not a scrap. Not a hair. Not poo. Not a corpse. Not a nest. Not a bone. Nada.
Conclusion: If Bigfoot exists in North America, the supernatural is the only logical explanation.
i'm sure there are some places in America remote enough for a small population to exist without anyone tripping over them!! I would like to think so anyway.
Trying to fit a North American sasquatch into the ecosystem doesn't work. The land is too populated. Food supply would be completely inadequate for a primate of that size. The size.....
What part of North America are you 'looking' at? Too populated???
Willow Creek, California is known for its Big Foot sightings. They have a (dwindling) population of just over 1,700. Communities in this part of the state are miles apart with less than 5,000 people in most places.
Take a look at images of the area on google in satellite view.
There is plenty of space for creatures of any size to roam and feed.
This part of California is home to large herds of Elk. They are big critters and found in large numbers and have plenty of food. A few Bigfoot could survive just fine.
I used to live in the Kneeland area (just a bit south west of Willow Creek) and when I would stand at the top of the ridge, my view to the north, south and east was all wilderness.
there are millions of acres of forest in the midwest,mid south,south etc to provide plenty of BF food. Bigfeet do work together in drives to kill deer.
I have to agree that the there is plenty of room and food for something the size of bigfoot. I don't see lack of scat as evidence but I do find it strange that no positive trace has yet been found.
I wonder how many pages this bigfoot thread will run, and if there will be any information or opinions that haven't already been posted umpteen times in the other bigfoot threads?
This part of California is home to large herds of Elk. They are big critters and found in large numbers and have plenty of food.
Yep. And you know what we have because elk have enough food and maintain a healthy breeding population? Lots and lots of evidence that elk really do exist.
You know what we have showing that a healthy population of Bigfoot exist? Nothing. Not a scrap of credible evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwlKaMyst
A few Bigfoot could survive just fine.
Not for long. To avoid genetic disease, you need a very healthy breeding population. And big creatures like Bigfoot need a lot of food. When you have a healthy population of large animals, it isn't all that difficult to find one.
Do you really think it feasible that a population of dozens or even hundreds of huge mammals can exist in North America and not leave behind a single corpse, bone, scrape of hair, pile of droppings, abandoned nest, or even be seen long enough for a single good picture by people hunting them with the best technology available?
Not for long. To avoid genetic disease, you need a very healthy breeding population. And big creatures like Bigfoot need a lot of food. When you have a healthy population of large animals, it isn't all that difficult to find one.
Do you really think it feasible that a population of dozens or even hundreds of huge mammals can exist in North America and not leave behind a single corpse, bone, scrape of hair, pile of droppings, abandoned nest, or even be seen long enough for a single good picture by people hunting them with the best technology available?
I don't find that likely at all.
Did you know that the first non-local to have seen a panda was in the early 20th century, less than 100 years ago?
Let's examine the characteristics of a panda. They are as smart as a bag of stones. With black and white markings, they stand out like a sore thumb among green bamboo trees. They are slow moving and awake during day time. They have only once source of food.
Let's examine the alleged characteristics of a bigfoot. They are one of the smartest creature on the planet, maybe only behind human. They are brown-ish and don't stand out with clear black and white markings. They are allegedly known to eat anything from plant to fish to insects to deers. They are fast and smart. They are known to be mainly active at night.
If panda are not discovered by science until about 100 years ago, is it so hard to imagine that bigfoot might be out there?
Yep. And you know what we have because elk have enough food and maintain a healthy breeding population? Lots and lots of evidence that elk really do exist.
You know what we have showing that a healthy population of Bigfoot exist? Nothing. Not a scrap of credible evidence.
Not for long. To avoid genetic disease, you need a very healthy breeding population. And big creatures like Bigfoot need a lot of food. When you have a healthy population of large animals, it isn't all that difficult to find one.
Do you really think it feasible that a population of dozens or even hundreds of huge mammals can exist in North America and not leave behind a single corpse, bone, scrape of hair, pile of droppings, abandoned nest, or even be seen long enough for a single good picture by people hunting them with the best technology available?
I don't find that likely at all.
BS On your no credible evidence. Plenty in the real world. Just not on tv.
Did you know that the first non-local to have seen a panda was in the early 20th century, less than 100 years ago?
Let's examine the characteristics of a panda. They are as smart as a bag of stones. With black and white markings, they stand out like a sore thumb among green bamboo trees. They are slow moving and awake during day time. They have only once source of food.
Let's examine the alleged characteristics of a bigfoot. They are one of the smartest creature on the planet, maybe only behind human. They are brown-ish and don't stand out with clear black and white markings. They are allegedly known to eat anything from plant to fish to insects to deers. They are fast and smart. They are known to be mainly active at night.
If panda are not discovered by science until about 100 years ago, is it so hard to imagine that bigfoot might be out there?
While I get what you are saying, there is a slight difference, that being that the US is teaming with Westerners while a hundred years or so ago China was not. The Chinese on the other hand, knew all about the panda.
The same can be said of the gorilla. The locals knew about them though.
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.
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.
