or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Finding Bigfoot
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Finding Bigfoot - Page 10

post #136 of 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

If they have human rights does that mean we can have sex with them?

I know which end of that unicorn you're interested in mwink[1].gif
post #137 of 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I know which end of that unicorn you're interested in mwink[1].gif

Too pointy for my tastes.
post #138 of 743
post #139 of 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

If they have human rights does that mean we can have sex with them?

Well, if they have human rights you can have sex with them.
post #140 of 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

Yes, but there is only one, just like Nessie.

All good things do come to an end unfortunately.
post #141 of 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragon8 View Post

All good things do come to an end unfortunately.

Why? It's not like Big Foot is the last of his species, there is and only every was one Big Foot. He's a monster not some stupid animal.
post #142 of 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post


As I think I have mentioned in these threads, I used to be a believer (more or less). What really destroyed my faith was the Mt. St. Helen's eruption in what was supposed to be a veritable hotbed of BF activity. The eruption killed thousands of deer and elk, hundreds of bear, but not a BF was to be found.

Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post


I dont recall bodies being found of any animal at Mt. St Helens. You're making that up. No animals were found with the indian ocean tsunami. May also be BFs sensed the eruption. You just dont know.

Any actual evidence for either side of this? I'm on the Bigfoot is theoretically possible side and I'd love it to be found. It would swing my view from possible to very unlikely if it were true there were thousands of non bigfoot large animals killed in a catastrophic event in an area with a high frequency of Bigfoot sightings and no Bigfoot corpses. If I were a complete loon I'd argue Bigfeet were clever enough to spot the signs of an imminent eruption and clear out, or there had been some cover up in the count, but I'm not that far gone.

I'd just like to point out a few basic points again though... It is thought a breeding population of as little as 3000 individuals could keep the species going, there are n gazillion square miles of wilderness for each of these 3000 clever, nocturnal animals to hide in in the USA, and there are an awful lot of consistent sightings recorded over a very long period of time.
post #143 of 743
^If you do a search on the topic of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption, it is estimated that 7,000 big game animals were killed. I believe lots of bodies were found in the blowdown area.

I would also ask the question, why are Bigfoots so rare? They have no natural enemies (well, maybe grizzlies in the northern part of the purported habitat), they have no human persecution, so why are there so few of them. By way of comparison, mountain lions were given full protection in California 40-odd years ago. Despite poaching and culling of nuisance animals, their numbers have increased about tenfold since then (from about 600 to maybe 6,000). Black bears have increased their population three or fourfold in California in the past 30 years--from about 10,000 to between 30,000 and 40,000--and have expanded their range considerably, taking over a lot of what was formerly grizzly country.

My own view of the matter, given that there is a long legacy of sightings and stories of Sasquatch in the Pacific Northwest and that some tracks turn up in very out of the way places, is that there is a slight chance that something of that sort does exist. However, when you start getting sightings in the California desert, in the vicinity of Fort Worth, Texas, in Delaware, etc., I tend to think this is some kind of psychological thing, much like the Chupacabra craze among the Hispanic population some years back.
Edited by JLibourel - 12/4/12 at 6:18pm
post #144 of 743
I'm sorry that this thread exists.
post #145 of 743
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

I'm sorry that this thread exists.

Same could be said for you 12k posts.
post #146 of 743
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

^If you do a search on the topic of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption, it is estimated that 7,000 big game animals were killed. I believe lots of bodies were found in the blowdown area.
I would also ask the question, why are Bigfoots so rare? They have no natural enemies (well, maybe grizzlies in the northern part of the purported habitat), they have no human persecution, so why are there so few of them. By way of comparison, mountain lions were given full protection in California 40-odd years ago. Despite poaching and culling of nuisance animals, their numbers have increased about tenfold since then (from about 600 to maybe 6,000). Black bears have increased their population three or fourfold in California in the past 30 years--from about 10,000 to between 30,000 and 40,000--and have expanded their range considerably, taking over a lot of what was formerly grizzly country.
My own view of the matter, given that there is a long legacy of sightings and stories of Sasquatch in the Pacific Northwest and that some tracks turn up in very out of the way places, is that there is a slight chance that something of that sort does exist. However, when you start getting sightings in the California desert, in the vicinity of Fort Worth, Texas, in Delaware, etc., I tend to think this is some kind of psychological thing, much like the Chupacabra craze among the Hispanic population some years back.

Mt St Helens. Considering the small number of Sasquatches there are suspected to be (around 10k in N America, its very possible they were either buried in the muck or were never found. I would be surprised if at least 1 didn't die. Its also possible they sensed the eruption. The Asian tsunami proved its possible.

The difference with Sasquatch populations is that it's likely our human development into their territories is met differently than other animals. Remember, these are likely humanoid, so they don't react like a typical animal. I would guess a - impact on their populations.

I agree, many sightings are likely misidentification, but all those sightings cannot be false. If you were to do statistical analysis on it, I am sure it would demonstrate a 99.9% probability that the animal exists. Having rudimentary statistics skills, I think its virtually impossible there are this many hoaxes, liars and misidentifications. Statistics should show, on its own, its very improbable that Sasquatch doesn't exist.
post #147 of 743
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangfastic View Post

Any actual evidence for either side of this? I'm on the Bigfoot is theoretically possible side and I'd love it to be found. It would swing my view from possible to very unlikely if it were true there were thousands of non bigfoot large animals killed in a catastrophic event in an area with a high frequency of Bigfoot sightings and no Bigfoot corpses. If I were a complete loon I'd argue Bigfeet were clever enough to spot the signs of an imminent eruption and clear out, or there had been some cover up in the count, but I'm not that far gone.
I'd just like to point out a few basic points again though... It is thought a breeding population of as little as 3000 individuals could keep the species going, there are n gazillion square miles of wilderness for each of these 3000 clever, nocturnal animals to hide in in the USA, and there are an awful lot of consistent sightings recorded over a very long period of time.

The number is likely 10k in N America. Combine the vast, vast expanses of spaces and a nocturnal predator and you have a pretty convincing case as to why they are rarely viewed. Note that it was just in the last decade we have confirmed the Bili Ape, the worlds largest chimp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_ape
Edited by idfnl - 12/4/12 at 7:03pm
post #148 of 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

I'm sorry that this thread exists.

Me too. Jr I feel like we're the only two sane ones on the internet. Of course Bigfoot doesn't exist. I'm at a complete loss to understand why someone would believe otherwise.
post #149 of 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

I agree, many sightings are likely misidentification, but all those sightings cannot be false. If you were to do statistical analysis on it, I am sure it would demonstrate a 99.9% probability that the animal exists. Having rudimentary statistics skills, I think its virtually impossible there are this many hoaxes, liars and misidentifications. Statistics should show, on its own, its very improbable that Sasquatch doesn't exist.

Next time you cite "statistics" in CE I'm quoting this.
post #150 of 743
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Next time you cite "statistics" in CE I'm quoting this.

You have no math skills, Harvey. And you condone fucking animals. You're the last person to have a comment taken seriously.

You could easily correlate a few variable on the topic and show its unlikely so many reports indicate its fake. I've also not cited any statistics, just that my (admitted) limited capacity to do some statistical analysis makes this being a false positive very unlikely.

I you have any means to prove what I suspect is somehow false, please, by all means.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Finding Bigfoot