Bigfoot Found.

[Kyka]

Creaphis said:

Oh, I love these things! Here's a couple more fun ones:

Military intelligence
Microsoft Works

My personal favorite is "Government Initiative"

Oh. Ummm. Yeah. On topic...... BIGFOOT FOR PRESIDENT. !!!

[Remilia Scarlet]

Death-Destiny said:

I guess it's just a fun hobby, like looking for the Lost City of Atlantis and the Loch Ness Monster and whatever other legends someone thinks might be plausible despite contrary evidence.

Just to play devil's advocate...

Like coelacanth, the megamouth shark, and the okapi? Just because evidence is against the existence of a species doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist at all.

[Naked Snake]

Death-Destiny said:

I agree with Creaphis. Any imaginary new apes wandering around would have long since been discovered if they were really here and looked for this exhaustively. I guess it's just a fun hobby, like looking for the Lost City of Atlantis and the Loch Ness Monster and whatever other legends someone thinks might be plausible despite contrary evidence. You probably learn some interesting things during your hunt nonetheless. There's no harm in it and, again, it probably is quite fun for some.

They aren't looked for "exhaustively", those types of dedicated searches cost money. There's plenty of uninhabited woodlands in the USA for a creature such as Bigfoot to survive, thrive and hide. The arguement of "it doesn't exist because we haven't found it" fails. We're finding new creatures all the time, even in places where humans have inhabited for quite a while.

Two good examples : the Giant Squid and the Coelacanth (which was already mentioned). One was thought to be a legend of salty sea-dogs who had spent too much time at sea, the other was concluded by scientists to be extinct until some villagers in South Africa were like "we catch them once in a while, they suck, they're no good to eat." and scientists were like "DON'T THROW THEM BACK, WE'LL GIVE YOU MONEY!" "Oh-ho?"

Now, I personally have a hard time believing in something like Bigfoot, but it isn't impossible or even illogical, it's just unlikely.

[kristus]

Naked Snake said:

We're finding new creatures all the time, even in places where humans have inhabited for quite a while.

Any of those being anything even remotely similar to bipedal wookie/ape men type of deals? You know, the kind that sort of sticks out.

Naked Snake said:

Two good examples : the Giant Squid and the Coelacanth (which was already mentioned). One was thought to be a legend of salty sea-dogs who had spent too much time at sea, the other was concluded by scientists to be extinct until some villagers in South Africa were like "we catch them once in a while, they suck, they're no good to eat." and scientists were like "DON'T THROW THEM BACK, WE'LL GIVE YOU MONEY!" "Oh-ho?"

I didn't realize people lived under the sea... :o (except in Disney movies and Homer Simpson's imagination)

[Kyka]

kristus said:

Any of those being anything even remotely similar to bipedal wookie/ape men type of deals? You know, the kind that sort of sticks out.

As long as they paid their taxes and didn't make a big hoohaa, no one would care too much about certain people in their midst who were a little taller, and a little less attentive to their grooming, shaving etc than everyone else. That's the real reason that Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) haven't been discovered more often. They're already here, quietly going about surviving in this modern world, living alone, holding jobs that don't attract much attention. Driving our taxis. Cleaning our streets. Killing our underworld crime bosses, like bigger, hairier Dark Knights. Lecturing theoretical physics. And occasionally arguing on forums much like this one in a vain attempt to prove their own existence.

Oh. Errr. Umm. I have to... go... now.

[GreyGhost]

I should have guessed - you're a shaver!

[Sharessa]

Creaphis said:

Alright alright alright.

But I can't help but feel that if such a huge number of people looked for any specific hypothetical species for such a long time, you would find just as much evidence for it.

The answer to that question is pretty much covered here and here.

Patrick Pineda said:

I knew some wierdos around here who said they saw a bigfoot chasing some deer up in the foothills.

Well apparently deer are one of their main sources of food. Sightings are more common after herds of deer come through. The creepy part though is that that mostly just eat the liver. Makes sense, though, seeing as how the liver stores more nutrients than the rest of the body.

[Kyka]

GreyGhost said:

I should have guessed - you're a shaver!

Ewwww. It sounds so.... Crude. And I don't like most TV to start with.

In regards to bigfoot, he is actually far more likely to possibly exist than not exist. I don't know about for the US, but here in Australia, less than 10% of Australia's land mass has been surveyed other than by satellite. In addition, it is estimated that more than 1/3 of Australia has never even been seen by human eyes. Some put the figure at well over half. Satellites may have mapped all the lanmdmasses on the globe its true, but given that they only infrequently look at a given area, as well as the sheer amount of work required to critically cover even a relatively small area by actual people, means that something like bigfoot could easily continue to evade modern discovery.

Consider the fact that it still takes a team of trained surveyors several years of work to survey a 10km2 block of land, and consider that the US is 10 million km2, you start to see the size of the logistical problem. Books are still being written to resolve the discrepancies between satellite mapping and traditional surveying techniques. And bear in mind as well that you are probably trying to find something that is doing all it can to evade you, making the task far harder again.

[Edit] Not that I believe in bigfoot, I am just saying that it is quite possible that he may exist.

[GreyGhost]

An estimated 100k lowland gorillas were recently discovered in a rarely-visited part of the Congo basin - doubling the population of that species. Homonids don't come much larger than that yet they've managed to evade our gaze, bigfoot might be doing the same deliberately throughout much of it's range.
One way to overcome bogfoot's reluctance to show itself would be to use camera traps. They've been used with some success in parts of India where tigers were thought to have been hunted out. If the BFRO were to set some up for a season at known hot-spots they might get the breakthrough they've been waiting for.

Personally - I doubt the creature exists.

[DooMikE]

I wonder which creature-discovery would get the best odds at the bookies, if anyone would take the bet that is..:

BigFoot
or
The LochNess Monster
or
The Basketweaving Patrick Duffy legged Scuzzlebutt

???

[Kyka]

DooMikE said:

I wonder which creature-discovery would get the best odds at the bookies, if anyone would take the bet that is..:

BigFoot
or
The LochNess Monster
or
The Basketweaving Patrick Duffy legged Scuzzlebutt

???

Come on. Everyone knows that Duke Nukem Forever would get the best odds. :P

[Sharessa]

Kyka said:

In regards to bigfoot, he is actually far more likely to possibly exist than not exist. I don't know about for the US, but here in Australia, less than 10% of Australia's land mass has been surveyed other than by satellite. In addition, it is estimated that more than 1/3 of Australia has never even been seen by human eyes. Some put the figure at well over half. Satellites may have mapped all the lanmdmasses on the globe its true, but given that they only infrequently look at a given area, as well as the sheer amount of work required to critically cover even a relatively small area by actual people, means that something like bigfoot could easily continue to evade modern discovery.

Consider the fact that it still takes a team of trained surveyors several years of work to survey a 10km2 block of land, and consider that the US is 10 million km2, you start to see the size of the logistical problem. Books are still being written to resolve the discrepancies between satellite mapping and traditional surveying techniques. And bear in mind as well that you are probably trying to find something that is doing all it can to evade you, making the task far harder again.

[Edit] Not that I believe in bigfoot, I am just saying that it is quite possible that he may exist.

Yeah, there is still a lot of relatively unexplored (and at least rarely visited) land out West here, especially in Washington. Hell, there's even a volcano on the possible magnitude of Mt. St. Helens out there in the North Cascades that's rarely visited and hardly anyone knows about.

I've done quite a lot of hiking in my day and have seen wilderness that goes on for miles. And I've only really gone on day hikes on well-maintained trails. There are all sorts of forestry roads, logging roads, and mountain trails out there that go deep into the wilderness, not to mention all the areas not even accessible by any paths.

Furthermore, there's even MORE wilderness out there in Alaska and Canada.

GreyGhost said:

An estimated 100k lowland gorillas were recently discovered in a rarely-visited part of the Congo basin - doubling the population of that species. Homonids don't come much larger than that yet they've managed to evade our gaze, bigfoot might be doing the same deliberately throughout much of it's range.

There's also the Bili Ape which was just discovered recently. They've only gotten a few photographs of them so far and are still trying to classify them.

One way to overcome bogfoot's reluctance to show itself would be to use camera traps. They've been used with some success in parts of India where tigers were thought to have been hunted out. If the BFRO were to set some up for a season at known hot-spots they might get the breakthrough they've been waiting for.

There actually was one possible sasquatch photographed using that method, though it was accidental. It was taken by a hunter trying to track deer movements. I'm not sure why the BFRO hasn't tried this yet. Perhaps the cameras are too expensive.

[Technician]

Leave for a couple days and see what a mess my thread has become (Inevitably). I just couldn't help resists the coincidence of the American Georgia conspiracy and this monster popping up in Georgia around the same time.

But I agree with Naked Snake. We may not have a Bigfoot in America but much of the world is still undiscovered. And the ocean is a whole new topic altogether.

[Use]

According to some naturalists the food source for an animal that big would be scarce, and it would probably have to migrate often to keep up with its meal, especially in a climate like the United States, not so much in the tropics where an animal like a bigfoot is much more likely to exist.

[chungy]

Danarchy said:

Yeah, there is still a lot of relatively unexplored (and at least rarely visited) land out West here, especially in Washington. Hell, there's even a volcano on the possible magnitude of Mt. St. Helens out there in the North Cascades that's rarely visited and hardly anyone knows about.

Heh, Glacier Peak? I've been there a few times, nice vacation spot. Though, Mt. Rainier poses an even larger threat.

[GreyGhost]

Use3D said:

According to some naturalists the food source for an animal that big would be scarce, and it would probably have to migrate often to keep up with its meal

Our ancestors were doing likewise before the discovery of agriculture - admittedly they were better equipped and as a consequence far more numerous than the most optomistic bigfoot population guesstimate. I have difficulty believing that bigfoot can maintain a small population base (estimated at 2000-6000) across a range that encompasses most of North America without sliding into extinction. Not that I'm suggesting the population is evenly spread - anything but. The BFRO's sightings map suggests that there are population pockets scattered across the continent - each of which would need to maintain an adequate population density and genetic diversity to remain viable. The use of green corridors to connect what are effectively islands of wilderness would help with the latter - that's assuming bigfoot aren't aggressively territorial or clannish.

[Kyka]

"Welcome to our newest member, yeti."

I just noticed this at the top of the Doomworld forums home page; given the topic of this thread I thought it was kinda amusing.


Oh, and Grey Ghost, I liked your points about population distribution and genetic diversity. It makes a lot of sense. If bigfoot exists, he would have to obey certain laws such as these in order to have survived this long.

[Ichor]

Clayton Officer Fired Over Bigfoot Hoax

[Sharessa]

MikeRS said:

Heh, Glacier Peak? I've been there a few times, nice vacation spot. Though, Mt. Rainier poses an even larger threat.

Huh...all I know about it is what I read in the Wikipedia article, really. TBQH I haven't done much vacationing up in the North Cascades aside from making a couple stops along the pass there, so I didn't know it was a big vacation spot. Still, my point still remains: there's a lot of wilderness in this state.