So if the natives are to believed then bigfoot has been around for 100's of years. They have no natural predator other then man and we obviously aren't putting a dent the population. So if they have been around that long with no one or thing killing them in high numbers, why are their population levels so low?

 

 

I'm not sure I'm not an expert on the mating habits of bigfoot (or bigfoot in general).

 

 

 

 

All jokes aside I'm not sure. I would assume they live in small families or groups, only mating once or twice in a lifetime much like humans. By the time the offspring reaches the mating point the 1st and 2nd generations are dying off. So basically their population could stay the same give or take. I mean they haven't been indoctrinated with the human capitalistic way of more, more, more. Make goods, sell goods, buy goods, make babies, make lots of babies and fuel the workload, household, etc. It's possible they don't produce many offspring, it enhances their survival if their numbers are small. It's tough to feed an a large number of primate creatures like this but three or four may be able to make it.

Why is it 7ft in the air?

 

Because it's set up to shoot an area 15-20 yards away and it's facing the only clearing in otherwise thick terrain. It's also slightly more elevated than the camera position so basically the only way to get the angle he needed to see the entire clearing, feeder, etc.

I'm a skeptical person by nature. I even subscribe to Skeptic Magazine. I have never seen ghosts, Bigfoot, spirits, aliens, etc. I don't believe in Horoscopes (except for amusement) or psychics, palm readers, fortune tellers, witches or wizards. I'm not into supernatural stuff.Until there's provable evidence that they exist I'm going to continue to not believe in them. I think people who claim they see these sort of things are looking for things to see, they hope maybe they will see something and sometimes that kind of desire over rides their better judgement. My sister says she has seen spirits and had visions, but I haven't experienced it. She tells me it is not meant for everyone to see, lol, so how do you argue with that? No use trying. They already know what you don't. I suppose I'm one of those who is blocked by some unseen force from being able to see these phenomenons.

I still say that if Bigfoot existed we would have hard evidence by now, particularly in the technological world we live in today. Plaster cast of footprints, sightings, grainy film images, these are not evidence. I would put Bigfoot existence in the same category with Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, and the Loch Ness Monster.

Um, there's a tooth fairy.

Are you listening to yourself? Free ranging animals/humans/gorilla/things have to eat. I'll assume they need water. I'll assume (playing along here) common sense would say they're omnivores. It's one of those, I have to go where the food is. Your game cam pic is either a black bear or a racoon showing you his nuts. If there was a viable game cam pic, we'd have seen it because of the financial boon. Ain't out there. Maybe bigfoot is seasonal and migrates. He's in the Yucatan right now sipping margaritas, on the most private beaches however.

 

I understood and understand you about a solid food supply source. However, I'm sure they would pass on the buffet if there is a chance of somebody with a gun. I mean gun shots ring out and echo for miles it wouldn't take much to drive something like that away. Obviously they know gun shots aren't natural sounds, same way deer and other animals react. So regardless of food supply and regardless of the fact it could be hunted on a limited basis if they know its possible somebody may be out there they're going to leave that area.

I've never known anyone who needs to put a game camera 7ft in the air. Have you ever operated one?

 

No and I get that, typically you wouldn't do that. However like I said in an above post this was the gentlemans only way to get the view he wanted. Pretty sure the guy has multiple game cams and feeders, he owns a lot of secluded, dense property.

I understood and understand you about a solid food supply source. However, I'm sure they would pass on the buffet if there is a chance of somebody with a gun. I mean gun shots ring out and echo for miles it wouldn't take much to drive something like that away. Obviously they know gun shots aren't natural sounds, same way deer and other animals react. So regardless of food supply and regardless of the fact it could be hunted on a limited basis if they know its possible somebody may be out there they're going to leave that area.

Most of the time animals are not phased by gun shots a couple hundred yards away, especially in an area where gun shots are not rare. If it's a sound they've never heard then it will spook them more but most of the time deer aren't spooked by gun shots unless it's right on top of them.

Or a racoon showing his nuts on a trail cam.

 

Hey it may be I never said it was a sasquatch. Actually I would probably agree that it is something else. I'm just trying to get everyones mind turning and at least think of the what ifs. I'm not necessarily saying this about the photo, but rather the topic in general. Everything doesn't always have to be cut and dry as most humans expect or want. The world is full of unknowns and some things we may never know. However, the attitude of 100% rejection is what catches my attention. I can understand being skeptical obviously, but its the way people dismiss and say "impossible". To be honest with whats out there the skeptics cannot prove it doesn't exist just as much as the believers cannot prove that it does. What I am trying to get you guys to see is it doesn't always have to one way or another, can be truths on both sides. Science does not have the answers for everything just like we don't have the answers for everything (although modern mankind believes it knows everything and is all intelligent and supreme). Truth of the matter is it's never hurt anyone to "think outside the box", outside the terms of a common perception. Most of our most significant and innovative ideas have came from those who think outside the box and those who didn't see "impossible."

 

The main thing is no one is right no one is wrong, we cannot prove anything 100% either way. If you say you can then you are lying to yourself. Just like I can't say 100% that they do exist. However what we can do is discuss and receive all the information and at least stimulate free thinking.

Edited February 7, 201412 yr by dolamite

Not to mention you can see the weeds on the ground in that pic and they are fairly close. No chance that camera is 7ft up. I've know people to put them that high if the tree has a bend and they are able to aim in down.

 

Not sure but I am not seeing the ground or weeds in that pic. The bottom half of the picture is basically filled by the animal and the only green I can tell comes from trees in the background. Also it may just be the pixels or the way the brain tries to create images, but on the right hand side I can almost see part of a facial structure, perhaps brow line, eye socket, and nose. Obviously it may just be the pixels or even squirrel nuts as eluded too but it does seem to resemble parts of a facial structure. The color contrast makes it almost impossible to tell I'd like to see it fixed by someone who could adjust the contrast and make it more clear.

My sister says she has seen spirits and had visions, but I haven't experienced it. She tells me it is not meant for everyone to see, lol, so how do you argue with that? No use trying. They already know what you don't. I suppose I'm one of those who is blocked by some unseen force from being able to see these phenomenons.

 

I have to side with your sister on this one. Unfortunately I had the experience of growing up in a haunted house. I grew up a skeptic but after I experienced so many things first hand that were supernatural and out of rational explanation it opened me up to a pandoras box of new possibilities. I understand more than anything why someone would be a skeptic, I would likely be one if not for my experiences. However, it saddens me people just easily dismiss such things and mock those who may believe, its really tough. Unfortunately not everyone can have the experiences so unfortunately most will never believe the things I believe are possible. After you get a Bible thrown at you from off a bookshelf across a room, you tend to look at things a little different to say the least.

 

As for her notion about people being "open to" and "closed off" from these types of experiments I agree. That is why children claim more paranormal contact, they have not been indoctrinated into knowing these things aren't real. Over time your mind builds a wall to these types of things as you've been drilled over, and over, and over again that these things do not exist. It closes your mind off to the possibilities and it is almost impossible to re connect with it.

This is not an "opinion" issue. Either Bigfoot exists or it does not, which makes one group right and the other group wrong.

 

However, since in most cases you cannot prove a negative (exception - we did not all die in 2012, nor did any significant, cataclysmic event occur that was out of line with nature), then the group that promotes the idea can come away saying that "hey, you can't prove that it doesn't exist so therefore we could be right."

 

Skepticism does not indicate a closed mind. It indicates not supporting something just because it COULD be true. Scientific skepticism relies on the foundations of science, that answers are derived from a study of evidence, not on possibilities.

 

Could "Bigfoot" exist? Yes. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it does.

 

Skepticism does not indicate a closed mind.

 

Could "Bigfoot" exist? Yes. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it does.

 

I'm not trying to say skeptics are closed minded so sorry if that's how it sounded. Also there is a difference in skeptically saying I don't think it exists or I don't think it can be proven to saying its impossible, no chance it's real. That's what I'm saying.

 

 

Also some may argue what you could call evidence. Scientific skeptics would say only scientific DNA results, others would say some of the other stuff should qualify. And again for all those who live and die by science, science is always changing and there are plenty of things science is yet to find an answer for. Nothing has all the answers and nothing ever will.

...Also some may argue what you could call evidence. Scientific skeptics would say only scientific DNA results, others would say some of the other stuff should qualify...

 

Such as?

Taken from a trail cam in Pike Co, not saying it's a Bigfoot but it is strange.

 

[ATTACH]42682[/ATTACH]

Look at the foliage in the bottom right corner, that is ground cover. The darker background is ground covered by leaves. Neither of which is that far from the camera. I see what you are saying about the camera pointing at an elevated position. You can see towards the top of the pic to the left of the tree truck more ground covered by leaves and it looks to be on level with the camera.

 

What's funny about the bigfoot trail cam pics is they are always like this, something really close so you can't tell what it is or to far away to make it out clearly. All the evidence people try to use is always up for interpretation. There's never anything cut and dry, if there is it's always proven to be a hoax.

Hey it may be I never said it was a sasquatch. Actually I would probably agree that it is something else. I'm just trying to get everyones mind turning and at least think of the what ifs. I'm not necessarily saying this about the photo, but rather the topic in general. Everything doesn't always have to be cut and dry as most humans expect or want. The world is full of unknowns and some things we may never know. However, the attitude of 100% rejection is what catches my attention. I can understand being skeptical obviously, but its the way people dismiss and say "impossible". To be honest with whats out there the skeptics cannot prove it doesn't exist just as much as the believers cannot prove that it does. What I am trying to get you guys to see is it doesn't always have to one way or another, can be truths on both sides. Science does not have the answers for everything just like we don't have the answers for everything (although modern mankind believes it knows everything and is all intelligent and supreme). Truth of the matter is it's never hurt anyone to "think outside the box", outside the terms of a common perception. Most of our most significant and innovative ideas have came from those who think outside the box and those who didn't see "impossible."

 

The main thing is no one is right no one is wrong, we cannot prove anything 100% either way. If you say you can then you are lying to yourself. Just like I can't say 100% that they do exist. However what we can do is discuss and receive all the information and at least stimulate free thinking.

 

Sorry, the you can't prove it argument holds no water. I can't prove purple elephants won't some day fly of my butt. Does that mean it could happen?

I think someone sees shadows too?