Bigfoot / Sasquatch In North America

[amyasleigh]

Some fairly random “Bigfooty” thoughts – prompted first and foremost, by current re-reading of a couple of books by Bill Bryson, in brief sections of which he writes – marvelling – of the heroic and highly-extensive travels, in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, of numerous European botanists, in the wild and largely unexplored hinterlands of North America, in search of new – in a European context – plants, flowers and trees, which (scientifically catalogued in the process) could be sold to eager collectors of the “product”, back in Europe.

Bigfoot-relevance: these botanical Indiana Jones-es did their stuff largely in the eastern half of North America – but not exclusively; Bryson mentions the accidental death of two of these intrepid characters in British Columbia. And, while overall picture re Bigfoot tends to indicate the biggest concentration of reports, from just a few areas of North America [“most and greatest”, U.S. Pacific Northwest / British Columbia / south-east Alaska] – there are and have been plentiful reports from “all over the place” further east too: in recent times; and numerous recountings of “wildman encounters” of one sort and another, for a couple of centuries back.

The explorer-botanists’ feats as celebrated by Bryson, brought back to mind for me, IMO one of the big problems facing proponents of Bigfoot (and “same principle” for its reckoned “cousins” elsewhere on the globe) as a purely-flesh-and-blood species which has somehow eluded official discovery and documentation up to the present day.

These botanical guys, and numerous other kinds of exploring European, ventured into and bit by bit, fairly exhaustively investigated, the fastnesses of North America throughout the 16th / 17th / 18th / 19th centuries. In the process, they discovered (quite often killing specimens) the continent’s large mammals, whose biological documentation and classification followed on therefrom; but never a Bigfoot did they nail down -- nor has anyone at a later date. One is impelled to put together the extreme shortage of any kind of hard evidence, even now, for the existence of a creature of such great physical size; and on the other hand, the continuing large number of accounts of sightings of / encounters with – “whatevers” – which would seem to fit the Bigfoot bill (to me, it’s credible for many of these accounts to be put down to lying / hoaxing / hallucinations / misidentification of the mundane -- but dismissing ALL of them thus, I cannot buy). The conclusion to which I personally am forced, is that the least improbable scenario would seem to be that something is going on, and that in it, the paranormal is in play, somehow: precisely how, is likely way beyond speculation – interesting though it can be to speculate, if that is one’s thing.

 

[GNC]

It could be that they are closer to human than animal, so their intelligence is greater and they have the nous to hide themselves better. Pretty big things to stay hidden, mind you, even in that environment.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

It could be that they are closer to human than animal, so their intelligence is greater and they have the nous to hide themselves better. Pretty big things to stay hidden, mind you, even in that environment.

Even then, any other species of primate we're aware of more often than not only have the nous to shy away from humans after we've killed lots of them, and there don't seem to be a lot of Bigfoot corpses around.

 

[oldrover]

It could be that they are closer to human than animal, so their intelligence is greater and they have the nous to hide themselves better

Thats the thing though they don't. All the reports even from the north west cluster around the highest areas of human population. And still no evidence.

This isn't something thats reported primarily from the deep woods but the suburbs.

 

[GNC]

Thats the thing though they don't. All the reports even from the north west cluster around the highest areas of human population. And still no evidence.

This isn't something thats reported primarily from the deep woods but the suburbs.

Yeah, but there would be more humans around to spot them in the suburbs than there are deep in the forest. It could be like the Teddy Bears' Picnic for Bigfeet in there!

 

[oldrover]

That's exactly my point, there'd be some physical evidence.

It could be like the Teddy Bears' Picnic for Bigfeet in there!

But i do like the idea.

 

[amyasleigh]

Bigfoot-type “Teddy Bears' Picnic” – temptation to go “full circle” by referencing him with whom the teddy-bear idea originated: Theodore (“Teddy”) Roosevelt, a keen hunter and considerable scourge of wildlife. There was the occasion, though, when he had a bear cub at his mercy, but thought it too sweet to kill – supposedly, thus the notion of cuddly toy bears was born.

Roosevelt is peripherally associated with Bigfoot-type doings something over a hundred years ago, in the general north-westerly reaches of the U.S. There’s a gruesome story, in one of his books about experiences in the wilds of that area, of a happening about which he heard. Wish I could access it, and not have to depend on vague memory: the Net site “Bigfootforums” used to have voluminous and fascinating archives, but those are no longer “on tap” for users. Something involving a couple of “wilderness guys” – prospectors, trappers, I forget. Chap A had to be absent a while from their camping place in the deep forest: came back to find chap B horribly dead: seemingly torn apart by something which would need hands to achieve the feat. I don’t think Roosevelt indicates BF as the culprit in so many words – but something strange, powerful, and hostile, is implied. (Alternative “take” on the tale, which some have – could it be that the two fell out, A murdered B, and explained it away by blaming the bogeyman?)

And on a hunting trip in Washington State, Roosevelt and a companion seemingly went into a particular area (against the advice of their Native American guide, who was chary of the area because of unspecified “preposterous superstitions” on his part). Roosevelt reported hearing, while camped at night there, strange and alarming noises – not described in detail, but apparently not match-up-able with anything known. Bigfoot devotees subsequently, have latched on to this story and – as they would do – attributed the mysterious element to “our friend”.

Anyway, “that’s Teddy and Bigfoot, such as it is”.

 

[Analis]

These botanical guys, and numerous other kinds of exploring European, ventured into and bit by bit, fairly exhaustively investigated, the fastnesses of North America throughout the 16th / 17th / 18th / 19th centuries. In the process, they discovered (quite often killing specimens) the continent’s large mammals, whose biological documentation and classification followed on therefrom; but never a Bigfoot did they nail down -- nor has anyone at a later date. One is impelled to put together the extreme shortage of any kind of hard evidence, even now, for the existence of a creature of such great physical size; and on the other hand, the continuing large number of accounts of sightings of / encounters with – “whatevers” – which would seem to fit the Bigfoot bill (to me, it’s credible for many of these accounts to be put down to lying / hoaxing / hallucinations / misidentification of the mundane -- but dismissing ALL of them thus, I cannot buy). The conclusion to which I personally am forced, is that the least improbable scenario would seem to be that something is going on, and that in it, the paranormal is in play, somehow: precisely how, is likely way beyond speculation – interesting though it can be to speculate, if that is one’s thing.

This sums up well my opinion.

 

[Kondoru]

but how do you explain the footprints?

 

[Bigfoot73]

The best explanation for the lack of hard evidence I know of is that Bigfoots have some senses and cerebral abilities we can only speculate about, the use of which give the impression of paranormality.
If Bigfoots had some telepathic faculty they could tell when someone was in the area intending to shoot them. Very few people have actually ventured into the forests intent on shooting sasquatches but they all failed to so much as see one.
It's been suggested that they have an ability to deceive witnesses' brains into not registering their visual image, thus giving the impression of invisibility. The suggestion is that this could be done with infrasound, which could be generated by passing electrical charge through a saline solution such as ocular fluid, which would explain why bigfoots are seen with glowing yellow eyes.
They are not paranormal, they just seem that way.

 

[coaly]

Infrasound using electrical inteferance in the vitrious humour, making them invisible? Come on now.
When I've read or heard about bigfoots. (-feet?) having supernatural powers, and that's why we can't find any hard evidence, I say, "Why not go the whole hog, and say they can disappear, re-appear, freeze time, an d other impossible powers? Well, you might as well.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Infrasound using electrical inteferance in the vitrious humour, making them invisible?

Not actually making them invisible,just messing with our cognitive processes in a way which causes witnesses to fail to register that they are still there.

I say, "Why not go the whole hog, and say they can disappear, re-appear, freeze time, an d other impossible powers? Well, you might as well.

Yes but that would be to miss my point :- that they are not paranormal at all.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Wouldn't any animal with such remarkable survival and predator evasion skills be prolific and widespread? Or do they practice safe sex?

 

[amyasleigh]

My greatest sticking-point on the whole business is: so many reports of sightings / encounters; yet so little in the way of “physical traces” (in the very broadest sense – including photographs / films) of such creatures – but there are some: including, as Kondoru says, footprints. The least improbable explanation for me is “paranormality” of a kind by which, some of the time (likely, I would consider, a minority of the time), whatever-they-are, are physically present on earth; but “for a lot of it”, they are not.

I’m disinclined to rule out almost any explanation, feeling that this is basically “uncharted territory”. Maybe hopping-between-dimensions; or Bigfoot being at the beck and call of alien visitors, disembarked / re-embarked by them accordingly; or the suggestion offered by a few on the Bigfoot scene, that the whole carry-on is something set up by God (or, pagan version, “the pranksters on Olympus”) to promote a bit of humility in mankind, by setting a puzzle which will be throughout the time of life on this planet, impossible for us to solve.

What bothers me about the “seemingly paranormal, in fact this-worldly attributes / senses / abilities, which science does not yet know about” line of thinking; is – assuming that “they’re here on earth all the time” – why so few traces of their presence? (Sightings / encounters, here, aside.) Footprints, yes, but rather few, and often showing up in seemingly random ways; next-to-no possible traces in the form of excrement, or hair which parts company from its owner, or dead specimens (whether made so because of accidents, or by more dull and ordinary things in the life-and-death cycle). I reckon almost nothing impossible; but find harder to credit, than many things : attributes-unknown-to-science, enabling Bigfoot to conceal and obscure traces / evidence of their presence, to the extent indicated just above.

 

[amyasleigh]

Wouldn't any animal with such remarkable survival and predator evasion skills be prolific and widespread? Or do they practice safe sex?

Sort-of "devil's advocate" job on my part; but supposing BF to be more human than animal (which like most things, I don't rule out), the possibility thereof raised earlier in this thread: safe sex or an equivalent, IMO not out of the question. I remember reading about a relatively primitive tribal people somewhere in the wilder fringes of India -- still, not more than a couple of decades ago, living separate-to-theirselves and according to their tribal ways -- their custom was, "whyever", that sex was confined to within marriage, and that a married couple were restricted to having sex no more than seven times during their marriage -- and this, apparently, was largely adhered to. Human (or quasi-human?) behaviour and custom can be remarkably various...

 

[Dr_Baltar]

their custom was, "whyever", that sex was confined to within marriage, and that a married couple were restricted to having sex no more than seven times during their marriage -- and this, apparently, was largely adhered to. Human (or quasi-human?) behaviour and custom can be remarkably various...

True. The available evidence wouldn't appear to point to something even as simple as existence let alone such cultural sophistication but, as you've pointed out, when it comes to Bigfoot, anything is possible.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Wouldn't any animal with such remarkable survival and predator evasion skills be prolific and widespread? Or do they practice safe sex?

Perhaps the females only ovulate once a year or two, like an awful lot of species.
It' s probably just mundane ecological factors that regulate their numbers :- being large they need to eat a lot, and there are only so many nuts , berries and roots , at limited times of year and with other animals after them too.
Many witnesses and researchers claim that they eat deer, but as with human hunters that would be a time and energy consuming exercise so it wouldn't be that many .
Bigfoot numbers could be compared to non-agrarian hunter-gatherer humans, i.e. not many and only just getting by.

As for evidence, that which has been scientifically analysed is just vaguely ascribed to some " non-human primate" . There are not many Biggies occupying a vast area , leaving not much evidence, most of which is never discovered.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

I've never heard of a primate with that kind of menstrual cycle. And besides that, even if we take elephants as an example, they only ovulate about 3 or 4 times a year, have been mercilessly hunted into near extinction by humans and yet there's still an awful lot of them around, are easily spotted and they leave a mass of evidence of their existence lying about. Likewise with non-agrarian humans.

Again, none of this rules out Bigfoot's existence, but it doesn't look good.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Perhaps that is not a characteristic of their reproduction then. There isn't much conjecture on their breeding, it's only recently that people have started accepting that the smaller less bulky shorter haired bigfoots seen are not another species but in fact young bigfoots.
Yes, elephants are easily spotted, and if Bigfoot lived in treeless areas of Africa or went round Asian forests routinely making sounds that could be heard miles away and eating the trees they would be seen more often too.
Non agrarian hunter-gatherer humans are not trying to conceal their presence , and live in far larger groups than bigfoots do.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Non agrarian hunter-gatherer humans are not trying to conceal their presence , and live in far larger groups than bigfoots do.

How do you know Bigfoot is trying to conceal its presence or what size of group it lives in?

 

[oldrover]

regarding the footprints

The least improbable explanation for me is “paranormality” of a kind by which, some of the time (likely, I would consider, a minority of the time), whatever-they-are, are physically present on earth; but “for a lot of it”, they are not.

Not somebody hoaxing them then?

 

[amyasleigh]

regarding the footprints

The least improbable explanation for me is “paranormality” of a kind by which, some of the time (likely, I would consider, a minority of the time), whatever-they-are, are physically present on earth; but “for a lot of it”, they are not.

Not somebody hoaxing them then?

That goes on, for sure: but its being, and having been, a hoax in every instance -- often in such remote locations and difficult terrain -- I frankly cannot buy.

 

[Bigfoot73]

How do you know Bigfoot is trying to conceal its presence or what size of group it lives in?

Well they are not exactly parading through Time Square on the 4th of July are they ?
I do not recall watching David Attenborough speaking in hushed tones while sat amidst a troop of bigfoots. Bruce Parry and Ray Mears are yet to visit any bigfoot villages deep in the Washington forests.

 

[Analis]

Perhaps that is not a characteristic of their reproduction then. There isn't much conjecture on their breeding, it's only recently that people have started accepting that the smaller less bulky shorter haired bigfoots seen are not another species but in fact young bigfoots.
Yes, elephants are easily spotted, and if Bigfoot lived in treeless areas of Africa or went round Asian forests routinely making sounds that could be heard miles away and eating the trees they would be seen more often too.
Non agrarian hunter-gatherer humans are not trying to conceal their presence , and live in far larger groups than bigfoots do.

If you refer to the frequency of sightings, elephants are not a good reference. The various known apes are better, whether they live in groups (chimpanzees, gorillas) or are solitary or in couples (orang-utans, gibbons). Or bears are a good comparison, too. They live in the same areas than Bigfoot, and are well known. In the Pyrenees, bears are scarce, so scarce that their population is not viable. But each time poachers have intended to find them, they found them quite quickly.
By the way, Bigfoot is reported in any kind of natural environment, including non- or little-forested areas, supposedly emitting various sounds. And there are reports of BHMs coming from Asian forests too, so the situation is similar there.

The reproductive issues are also an other strong argument against the biological possibility of Sasquatch. They would be so scattered that they would be below the reproductive threshold. Supposing that females ovulate only once or twice a year would only make things worse.

 

[Kondoru]

Perhaps they use dating agencies?

 

[Bigfoot73]

But each time poachers have intended to find them, they found them quite quickly

.
Bigfoots might have some sensory faculties bears don't.

By the way, Bigfoot is reported in any kind of natural environment, including non- or little-forested areas, supposedly emitting various sounds.

I haven't seen any reports of desert bigfoots, plains bigfoots, arctic bigfoots or indeed urbanized bigfoots living on waste ground and raiding trash bins.

And there are reports of BHMs coming from Asian forests too, so the situation is similar there.

Yes, there are large cryptohominids reported from all over the world - in forested regions that is. For something with so many biological and ecological contingencies operating against it , it seem to be doing rather well.

They would be so scattered that they would be below the reproductive threshold.

How scattered is that exactly? Why do they have to be scattered? It's just that they don't get seen very often, on account of all those trees getting in the way.

 

[Analis]

Bigfoots might have some sensory faculties bears don't.

And no other animals either, it seems...
I suppose that their bodies have the same super-senses, as we still have found no carcasses.

I haven't seen any reports of desert bigfoots, plains bigfoots, arctic bigfoots or indeed urbanized bigfoots living on waste ground and raiding trash bins.

There are numerous reports from the Great Plains, from urban or semi-urban areas, or from subpolar regions. It seems there are even from Newfoundland or Puerto-Rico. But well, if they could swim to Australia, I suppose they could have done the same to these islands...

Yes, there are large cryptohominids reported from all over the world - in forested regions that is.

Not always in forested regions, also in high mountains, above forested levels, or in semi-deserts in Australia.

For something with so many biological and ecological contingencies operating against it , it seem to be doing rather well.

Yes, and this is part of the problem. Everywhere they are as ellusive and uncatchable, despite numerous attempts to find them.

How scattered is that exactly? Why do they have to be scattered? It's just that they don't get seen very often, on account of all those trees getting in the way.

They have to, given the rarity of their sightings. And the absence of dead bodies, hair, droppings etc...

And we have to take into account the numerous variations, which would leave us to believe that a surprizing number of hominids would live in North America : three or four toes, white fur, pointed ears, claws, long or short hair, lack of opposable thumb, hairy "stick-men", pygmy bigfoots or on the contrary really huge ones (Mark C. Hall and Loren Coleman wrote a book on them ; but do they really believe that 5 m tall primates could live in North America ?) etc...

 

[oldrover]

Australia is a great example of the whole Bigfoot/yeti/almas* etc question. Despite the fact that no ape, not even early humans, ever set foot in there there are people claiming to have see them, and many many more willing to believe it. I don't think the Yowie in its modern sense is anything more than a myth inspired by the success of the Bigfoot phenomena, which was itself I believe based on the interest in the Yeti during the 50's, which as someone pointed out here was likely due to the Everest expeditions. I see these as containing fairly deliberate commercial elements in many cases, and distinct from the indigenous traditions which they rely on for support.

It seems that wild hairy man in the woods type things have got an inherent appeal to people, and though there may well have been other species of humans contemporary with us at one time, I still tend to see the indigenous origins of these stories as reflecting the tendency to want to create some sort of 'other' to differentiate and underline our place in the natural world as distinct.

The similarity of the stories worldwide and the absolute lack of any evidence I'd say is conclusive.

*Orang Pendek not included.

 

[Kondoru]

We have to remember they are a mythical archetype

Reinforced by the now knowlege that we were really once like that.

 

[GNC]

We have to remember they are a mythical archetype

Reinforced by the now knowlege that we were really once like that.

But were we ever that tall?