Finding Bigfoot

Dave!

maccored wrote: »

If this was before October 17th, 1902, then you would be calling the mountain gorilla something that "most likely the product of a very interesting biological phenomena, the tendency of humans to imagine things that aren't there and make **** up."

Considering mountain gorillas do in fact exist - as was discovered on Oct 17th, 1902, you would, once again, be incorrect.

It would depend on the evidence for the mountain gorilla whether someone would say that about it, wouldn't it? If the evidence were as uncompelling as the evidence for Bigfoot, and there was a huge cultural and mythological backdrop to the whole thing, then it would be pretty reasonable to take a skeptical stance on it wouldn't it? And then if new evidence comes to light, reassess and adjust your position accordingly. That's the great thing about science, isn't it? You're not entrenched in one position, your view may legitimately change many times as a subject is discussed or studied.

Evidently your own strategy is to credulously believe every outlandish claim that is made about anything remotely considered to be paranormal, probably because you've retained an interest since childhood, and then if you turn out to be correct you can thumb your nose at everyone.

Just because you happen to arrive at a correct conclusion doesn't mean that your method or thought process was a good one.
I play a bit of poker, and constantly have to explain myself to friends when I raise before the flop (holding just 2 cards). They're under the impression that, until there are cards on the table, you can't make an intelligent decision. Of course, that's not the case - if I'm holding two aces, and they're holding a 2 and a 7, then I'm likely to win 85%+ of the time. However if by a fluke they stick with their garbage hand and manage to win, you can bet there'll be all manner of nose thumbing and it'll be seen as a vindication of their "strategy".

maccored

It is reasonable to presume that before they were 'discovered', those who had seen them were ridiculed and disbelieved. We know that as this forum is a fine example of such a cynical disposition in society.

Evidently your own strategy is to credulously believe every outlandish claim that is made about anything remotely considered to be paranormal

Money where your mouth is time ... find me quotes anyway of me ever showing that kind of 'strategy'. I am pointing you out on this and I am claiming you are talking through your arse on this particular occasion.

Dave!

No maccored, that's not the kind of "strategy" that one admits to having, it is simply one that becomes apparent through conduct. I'm forming an informal opinion on you based on my interactions and observations of you on Boards. I'm not interested in digging up quotes for you, you can take or leave my opinion, I am not conducting science at this time.

steddyeddy

Dave! wrote: »

It would depend on the evidence for the mountain gorilla whether someone would say that about it, wouldn't it? If the evidence were as uncompelling as the evidence for Bigfoot, and there was a huge cultural and mythological backdrop to the whole thing, then it would be pretty reasonable to take a skeptical stance on it wouldn't it? And then if new evidence comes to light, reassess and adjust your position accordingly. That's the great thing about science, isn't it? You're not entrenched in one position, your view may legitimately change many times as a subject is discussed or studied.

Evidently your own strategy is to credulously believe every outlandish claim that is made about anything remotely considered to be paranormal, probably because you've retained an interest since childhood, and then if you turn out to be correct you can thumb your nose at everyone.

Just because you happen to arrive at a correct conclusion doesn't mean that your method or thought process was a good one.
I play a bit of poker, and constantly have to explain myself to friends when I raise before the flop (holding just 2 cards). They're under the impression that, until there are cards on the table, you can't make an intelligent decision. Of course, that's not the case - if I'm holding two aces, and they're holding a 2 and a 7, then I'm likely to win 85%+ of the time. However if by a fluke they stick with their garbage hand and manage to win, you can bet there'll be all manner of nose thumbing and it'll be seen as a vindication of their "strategy".

Agree with this aswell and this puts me in a dangerous position (the middle ground). I do agree with him combating the view that bigfoot proponents are in the dark regarding biology and evolution though. I think wheter or not you accept bigfoot it doesnt affect your knowledge of biology.

maccored

So you are, as I said, talking through your arse then. You cant obviously back up your opinion in anything I have actually written on this forum.

Making it all up Dave, thats what you're doing, and hoping the mud sticks and no-one notices your lack of research into the subject.

Dave! wrote: »

No maccored, that's not the kind of "strategy" that one admits to having, it is simply one that becomes apparent through conduct. I'm forming an informal opinion on you based on my interactions and observations of you on Boards. I'm not interested in digging up quotes for you, you can take or leave my opinion, I am not conducting science at this time.

maccored

For the record, Im not a bigfoot believer. Im a skeptic on the subject ... I cant prove bigfoot doesnt exist, and I recognise theres a very, very slim chance there *may* eventually be some creature found int he future ... but I wouldnt hold my breath as there probably isn't.

Dave!

Alright maccored, you got me!



Rather than responding to my actual substantial points in that post, you picked up some off the cuff remark I made and argued against that.

Shows the depths of your disingenuousness. I'm about done with you, you're boring and predictable at this stage.

steddyeddy

Well Im a follower of the bigfoot hypothesis. It I find the explantion given for the sightings, footprints and statistical data at odds with the hoax claim. I dont think the hoax side have put themselves forward in a scientific manner at all. Not that all the bigfoot proponents have of course.

As regards skepticism I think on both sides of the arguement its important to bring the science in.

maccored

Good for you Dave. Try and remove yourself from the fray but trying to be funny, and yet refer to some 'substantial points' you didnt in fact make, but pretend that you did.

This is your last post, and there isnt anything substantial to it at all.

No maccored, that's not the kind of "strategy" that one admits to having, it is simply one that becomes apparent through conduct. I'm forming an informal opinion on you based on my interactions and observations of you on Boards. I'm not interested in digging up quotes for you, you can take or leave my opinion, I am not conducting science at this time.

Dave! wrote: »

Alright maccored, you got me!



Rather than responding to my actual substantial points in that post, you picked up some off the cuff remark I made and argued against that.

Shows the depths of your disingenuousness. I'm about done with you, you're boring and predictable at this stage.

maccored

steddyeddy wrote: »

As regards skepticism I think on both sides of the arguement its important to bring the science in.

totally agree.

steddyeddy

maccored wrote: »

Im surprised the myrid of fully qualified scientists - who are way way smarter than me and you - that apparently frequent this place, hadn't made that point earlier.

Well I often make the point that the gorilla, panda, giant squid and the more recent Hoan kiem turtle were yesterdays bigfoot. All dismissed by skeptics as lying witnesses, misidentification ect. Its worth being said that some prominent zoologists stood up for the existence of all these creatures including bigfoot. Misidentifications simply dont add up to thousands of similar sightings. It goes against what we know about zoology.

Zombrex

steddyeddy wrote: »

I dont think the hoax side have put themselves forward in a scientific manner at all.

What, you mean other than the existence of Bigfoot would go against pretty much everything we know about biology and how biological species evolve and populate?

Population theory alone rules out Bigfoot. While it is plausible that a species might exist on the verge of extinction now it would not have been able to do that for a long sustained period without, you know, going extinct. Or to put it another way, if Bigfoot was real then there would be far more of his ancestors and the evolutionary ancestors of his species and this evidence would be littering North America. They would have been the dominant species of North America until man arrived on the scene a few million years later. They should have been everywhere.

Species do not simply appear out of thin air at tiny numbers required for Bigfoot and his ancestors to remain hidden from human detection. If Bigfoot was a real species that diverged from other apes a few millions years there would be tons of evidences supporting this because their populations must have been much bigger in the past.

This is not the case. We are expected to accept the idea that a tiny population of these animals exist now and apparently have always existed in a tiny number explaining why we not only don't find them all over the place now but we don't find any evidence for them or their evolutionary ancestors in the fossil record.

And all this is before you get into the other reasons they are very unlikely to exist, such as no record after forest fires (why when a forest that is supposed to have a Bigfoot in it burns down do we not find lots of dead Bigfoot?) or no feasible way to explain their small numbers given they would be on top of the food chain and have unlimited food supply and would only be at risk from us hunting them which we don't do because we have never seen them.

Sorry, but the science is all on the hoax side, it is very unlikely these are a real animal species simply based on everything we know about real animals species. Unless they are some how magic.

Zombrex

Zombrex wrote: »

Population theory alone rules out Bigfoot.

Sorry, but the science is all on the hoax side, it is very unlikely these are a real animal species simply based on everything we know about real animals species. Unless they are some how magic.

Population "Theory" alone rules out Bigfoot. How can a theory rule out anything ?
If there is something that large living in these area's I think alot of people especially from Ireland are unaware how large these area's actually are. In Canada alone, a new species of tree was discovered recently , it was huge and this thing was not even moving. Is it possible for a large carnivore to breed and populate there ? Absolutely yes.

Again everything for me falls back on not being able to top the Patterson Gimlin footage from the 60s . With the technology available now and we cant get the shots ? ? ?

Senor Willy

Zombrex wrote: »

What, you mean other than the existence of Bigfoot would go against pretty much everything we know about biology and how biological species evolve and populate?

Population theory alone rules out Bigfoot. While it is plausible that a species might exist on the verge of extinction now it would not have been able to do that for a long sustained period without, you know, going extinct. Or to put it another way, if Bigfoot was real then there would be far more of his ancestors and the evolutionary ancestors of his species and this evidence would be littering North America. They would have been the dominant species of North America until man arrived on the scene a few million years later. They should have been everywhere.

Species do not simply appear out of thin air at tiny numbers required for Bigfoot and his ancestors to remain hidden from human detection. If Bigfoot was a real species that diverged from other apes a few millions years there would be tons of evidences supporting this because their populations must have been much bigger in the past.

This is not the case. We are expected to accept the idea that a tiny population of these animals exist now and apparently have always existed in a tiny number explaining why we not only don't find them all over the place now but we don't find any evidence for them or their evolutionary ancestors in the fossil record.

And all this is before you get into the other reasons they are very unlikely to exist, such as no record after forest fires (why when a forest that is supposed to have a Bigfoot in it burns down do we not find lots of dead Bigfoot?) or no feasible way to explain their small numbers given they would be on top of the food chain and have unlimited food supply and would only be at risk from us hunting them which we don't do because we have never seen them.

Sorry, but the science is all on the hoax side, it is very unlikely these are a real animal species simply based on everything we know about real animals species. Unless they are some how magic.

+1
How come in this day and age with almost everyone owning a camera phone and so many sightings, that we don`t have any good pictures or videos.
Answer: There is no Bigfoot.

steddyeddy

Senor Willy wrote: »

+1
How come in this day and age with almost everyone owning a camera phone and so many sightings, that we don`t have any good pictures or videos.
Answer: There is no Bigfoot.

How many of the sightings have you looked into?

steddyeddy

This is sort of my view on finding bigfoot. I appluad the men for trying to find the creature but some of their methods arent scientific. There are plenty of scientists looking at this question now using statistics, enviromental science, genetics and zoology so I dont see the need for people running into a forest saying sasquatchs are definatly here.

By Brian Regal
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency recently issued a statement indicating it knew of no evidence of the existence of “aquatic humanoids.”
This remarkable statement was prompted by calls from viewers of Animal Planet’s “Mermaids: the Body Found,” which claimed such creatures exist. A swarm of television programs, listed as “scientific” and “reality based,” perpetuate similar pseudoscientific ideas that are gobbled up by viewers, especially kids.
This incident illustrates a dangerous trend: Viewers’ acceptance of claims made by untrained laypeople as authoritative, and their simultaneous rejection of work done by experts in science, history and politics. This idea argues that egg-headed specialists — with a lifetime of focused academic work, peer-reviewed scholarship and study — are hiding the “truth” from us so that the only way to get answers is from down-home folks with little schooling but good sense. In other words, formal education is bad.
One program that encourages this fallacy is “Finding Bigfoot” (also a product of Animal Planet). It follows members of a group called the Bigfoot Field Research Organization as they search for the elusive creature. The investigators travel to various locations of supposed Bigfoot activity, with the genre staples of night vision cameras and hushed voices. While full of enthusiasm, the BFRO members don’t seem to have any technical training or follow scientific method in their search. They often say, “There are ’squatches here!” but viewers never see the big hairy beasts. And that’s about all. The show imparts no knowledge of environmental science, animal behavior studies, primate anatomy or even the history of monster hunting. Yet with spurious “evidence,” the group makes claims that the creatures are real and just around the corner, and expects us to accept it.
Sasquatch-like creatures may actually exist — they are some of the only mythical monsters to have an evolutionary and biological plausibility — but stumbling around the woods claiming every blip on an infrared scope or twig snap is a “‘squatch” isn’t helping the searchers’ case. There are a number of intelligent, capable, trained individuals who do scientific work searching for cryptozoological creatures, who ought to get more coverage. Unfortunately, good-natured and quirky amateurs, like the guys on “Finding Bigfoot,” are better for ratings, despite the fact they never find anything.
The format for “Finding Bigfoot” is not original. It‘s lifted largely from the earlier and equally problematic “Ghost Hunters.” We also must contend with “Ancient Aliens,” “Destination Truth” and “Long Island Medium.” Especially egregious is “Psychic Kids,” which perpetuates the myth that people can see spirits. And don’t get me started on “American Diggers.”
These programs glorify amateur investigators, who have little knowledge of the fields they “study” while often disparaging the work of professional scholars. Genuine experts — physicists, evolutionary biologists, historians, classicists and others — rarely make it to the screen because they might explain why there are no mermaids, ghosts or sasquatches, that there is no evidence aliens have visited the earth, and why our lives and our history should be valued as more than just junk sold for a couple of bucks to a pawn shop.
Programs such as “Finding Bigfoot” should be getting viewers, especially children, turned on to science and history as the way to understand the world; it should trumpet the value of education and expertise. What it actually does is turn us away from learning, books, science, history and the hard work of the intellect for a view of the world where serious study and intellectual pursuits are suspect or unnecessary.
How to combat this? Tell your kids that smart people are not the enemy; then buy them a microscope or a telescope. Get them a book on biology or zoology or even history from the library and read it with them; fight to make sure they get a good education. We’ll all be better off and, yes, if it is out there, someone might even actually find Bigfoot.

I would be far more interested in Brian skyes recent announcement that he wants to test samples of hairs and other material in an effort to prove that bigfoot as a species is real. Brian skyes is an oxford geneticist who is an expert in population genetics. Heres a sample of what the wall street journal had to say.

In May, the Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes planted himself in the media spotlight, announcing a project to hunt for the yeti—the "abominable snowman." Not by trekking into the Himalayas, its rumored home, but by persuading people who claimed to have samples of the beast (hair, skin, blood and so on) to mail them to his laboratory for genetic analysis. If the DNA in the samples didn't match that from any known species, Bigfoot would be declared real. Genetics, Mr. Sykes argued, would settle the dispute over such "cryptic species" once and for all. "Using genetic analysis is entirely objective," he told LiveScience.com. "It can't be falsified."

Brian also met with Jeff meldrum a paleontologist who is a proponent of bigfoot and below is the press release from Dr.Meldrum.

On Saturday, April 28, I had lunch with Dr. Bryan Sykes and his lovely wife Ulla, in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah. Professor Sykes is the author of The Seven Daughters of Eve (2002), which traces the descent of Europeans back to seven women, who lived tens of thousands of years ago. His stop-off in Salt Lake City was part of a book tour for his latest popular title, DNA USA: A Genetic Biography of America. Sykes is a former Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford and a current Fellow of Wolfson College. He is founder of Oxford Ancestors, a genealogical DNA testing firm.
Sykes published the first report on retrieving DNA from ancient bone in Nature, in 1989. He since has been involved in a number of high-profile cases dealing with ancient DNA, including those of Ötzi the Iceman, a natural mummy over 5,000 years old, discovered in the Alps between Austria and Italy, and the Cheddar Man, Britain’s oldest complete human skeleton, nearly 10,000 years old.

We also discussed the relict hominoid question and the potential for addressing the genetics of the issue. I was pleased to learn of his interest and intentions, first from RHI editorial board member Dr. Anna Nekaris, Reader in Biological Anthropology and Primate Conservation at Oxford Brooks University, who will be collaborating with Sykes on the production of a related television documentary project to include the results of the study. Nekaris’ field research into nocturnal prosimians of southern Asia has brought her into contact with local accounts of, e.g., the Orang Pendek and Mande Barung, two distinct potential relict hominoids. The “Oxford –Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project” is a welcome development.

So in short there is already enough science involved in this to have to resort to running into a forest shouting. I do admire the teams collection of bigfoot eyewitness accounts however.

Dave!

Won't be getting into another prolonged debate with you eddy, but...

steddyeddy wrote: »

So in short there is already enough science involved in this to have to resort to running into a forest shouting. I do admire the teams collection of bigfoot eyewitness accounts however.

That's a bit of a cop out in fairness... You regularly point to the high number of alleged sightings as indicating that there is something there, so given the ubiquity of digital cameras and phones, there should really be better photographic evidence than there is.

Myrddin

The fact there isn't a huge commercial push to find & capture a couple of 'bigfoots' to put on a paid public display speaks volumes to me. Who wouldn't pay money to see Bigfoot?

The fact no dead ones have ever been found & publicly displayed speaks volumes to me. Surely if there's a large unknown species who crosses path with man from time to time, someone would have stumbled upon a dead one somewhere surely?

The fact that a lot of these rural towns make money out of 'bigfoot' speaks volumes to me.

The fact that there hasn't been anything scientific, plausible or concrete in over fifty years of searching, also, speaks volumes to me.

There is no bigfoot. There is no chupacabra. There is no lock ness monster.

Mr Freeze

Well Shows like this won't help anyways.

It couldn't be faker, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the video they discredited in the show, was actually made specifically for the show.

steddyeddy

Dave! wrote: »

Won't be getting into another prolonged debate with you eddy, but...



That's a bit of a cop out in fairness... You regularly point to the high number of alleged sightings as indicating that there is something there, so given the ubiquity of digital cameras and phones, there should really be better photographic evidence than there is.

Im not getting into a debate either Dave as much as I enjoyed the last one. Since our last debate a lot more of the scientific community have took on this question so theres no point in debate. The evidence is being examined.

Yes I still point to the high correlation of anatomical and ethological observations cited in the reports. Observations made pre internet I might add and well before the name bigfoot was used in public parlance.

As regards the camera phone snaps theres loads of fuzzy pics out there. They may be bigfoot they may not be. A camera pic or any other pic does not prove the existence of an animal. The clearest shot we have is the 1967 film which Im of two minds about. Its certainly not proof nor is any other picture despite how clear it is. I have stated before that a lot of the wildlife photgraphy you see is staged. Its very hard to get a good picture of any far ranging creature. There will always be someone saying thats a man in a suit regardless of wheter it is or not. We need a body plain and simple.

As regards my finding bigfoot problem. They run out into the woods and shout in order to attract a creature. Thats not any zoological technique that works with primates. Sometimes a thing called call blasting is used but Its a bit old. A wildlife biologist called mionczynski is trying to use blood hounds to track down the creature. Which to me is a good idea. Hes using his own fund in the project aswell so he cant been seen as wasting tax payers money.

steddyeddy

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Well Shows like this won't help anyways.

It couldn't be faker, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the video they discredited in the show, was actually made specifically for the show.

I agree they put the wrong idea out there about bigfoot proponents.

steddyeddy

EnterNow wrote: »

The fact there isn't a huge commercial push to find & capture a couple of 'bigfoots' to put on a paid public display speaks volumes to me. Who wouldn't pay money to see Bigfoot?

How would you suggest one would be captured? Look up the efforts made in explorative zoology and see how difficult it is to find a new species territory and then capture it.

The fact no dead ones have ever been found & publicly displayed speaks volumes to me. Surely if there's a large unknown species who crosses path with man from time to time, someone would have stumbled upon a dead one somewhere surely?

Thats an unfortunate public perception about wildlife. When it came to find previous unknown species they dont just turn up dead. Forest enviroments have acidic soil which also prevents fossilization in many cases. As an example I can say that we have a total of four chimp teeth in the whole chimp fossil record.

The fact that a lot of these rural towns make money out of 'bigfoot' speaks volumes to me.

Unfortunatly the motives of rural towns dont inform scientific principles. Are you aware of the careers in science that have been nearly ruined because a scientists chooses to study this? For real scientists this is not a money spinner.

The fact that there hasn't been anything scientific, plausible or concrete in over fifty years of searching, also, speaks volumes to me.

Hvae you looked at the sightings and come to that conclusion? Are you aware of tha gaussian distribution produced from examination of a wide sample (500 plus) of the known footprints? Have you read the peer reviewed paper on the ichnotaxonmy (study of animal footprints) of hominid tracks in north america?

When you inform yourself of the large amount of effort that has gone into this question by scientists then get back to me.

There is no bigfoot. There is no chupacabra. There is no lock ness monster.

I agree with you on the last two but we differ on the methods used to come to that conclusion eg science vs feeling.

Myrddin

steddyeddy wrote: »

How would you suggest one would be captured? Look up the efforts made in explorative zoology and see how difficult it is to find a new species territory and then capture it.

The same way other large apes are captured? I'm aware how difficult it is to find/capture new/unknown species, but the proposed 'bigfoot' isn't a new species of frog, or insect or other tiny creature...its an animal larger than humans & would would have to be in fairly decent numbers to propagate the species for all this time. It's also been 'seen' in many locations which would give any prospective hunter a relative area that the animal is known to frequent/explore. I know the areas are huge, but we've had a lloonngg time to find it.

It's well within the bounds of possibility, to find, capture & exploit such a creature with enoufgh money/backing behind such a project. It appears only locals, hicks & tree loggers only ever see it though...weird that.

Thats an unfortunate public perception about wildlife. When it came to find previous unknown species they dont just turn up dead. Forest enviroments have acidic soil which also prevents fossilization in many cases. As an example I can say that we have a total of four chimp teeth in the whole chimp fossil record.

No they don't on average turn up dead. But when your in the area the animal is known to be in [many sightings in close enough proximity], statistically your going to come across something, some shred of evidence over the decades we've been looking.

Nothing. A few shaky videos, a few hoaxes, & a few blurry pics.

Unfortunatly the motives of rural towns dont inform scientific principles. Are you aware of the careers in science that have been nearly ruined because a scientists chooses to study this? For real scientists this is not a money spinner.

Oh I'm aware its probably scientific suicide to be associated with it...nevertheless, Bigfoot generates money. If it didn't, I suspect there'd be some other bizarre creature seen to take its place.

Hvae you looked at the sightings and come to that conclusion? Are you aware of tha gaussian distribution produced from examination of a wide sample (500 plus) of the known footprints? Have you read the peer reviewed paper on the ichnotaxonmy (study of animal footprints) of hominid tracks in north america?

I've looked at the pics we've all seen, I've looked at the videos we've all seen, I've looked at the tourism generated, I've looked at the lack of evidence, I've looked at the time invested in finding it, I've looked at the lack or progress in finding it.

I don't need to read studies, or papers etc...I'm fairly happy to conclude to myself that the whole thing is the North American version of the Loch Ness Monster. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, & I'll be the first to hold my hand up & admit it...but when I see backwater towns generating money out of propagating the myth, & decades pass by without a shred of actual evidence...yeah, I'm ok with that.

When you inform yourself of the large amount of effort that has gone into this question by scientists then get back to me.

No bother, in the meantime I'll be reading about The Jersey Devil, Faeries, The Kraken, Elves, & Leprechauns so don't hold your breath :rolleyes:

I agree with you on the last two but we differ on the methods used to come to that conclusion eg science vs feeling.

Why do you agree with the latter? There's not a single scrap of evidence to support any of them? Nothing, not a hair, a nail, a tooth, nothing.

EnterNow

EnterNow wrote: »

There is no bigfoot. There is no chupacabra. There is no lock ness monster.

The fact that you just made this statement most likely have not looked yourself into any of these, speaks volumes to me. :rolleyes:

But what Dave is saying is right, all this photographic equipment going about , yet nobody can top the video from the 60's .

Myrddin

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that you just made this statement most likely have not looked yourself into any of these, speaks volumes to me. :rolleyes:

You actually believe any of these exist?

Do I have to have studied thesis after thesis to be qualified as a skeptic now? I've looked into them as much as any amateur with a passing interest in the paranormal would...I'm not going to devout days & weeks to reading 'scientific studies' that justify why scientists waste their time on mythological creatures...I'll read material up to a point, but at some point I'm going to need fairly conclusive evidence to remain interested....all of these cases have none, zero.

EnterNow

EnterNow wrote: »

No they don't on average turn up dead. But when your in the area the animal is known to be in [many sightings in close enough proximity], statistically your going to come across something, some shred of evidence over the decades we've been looking.

Again you really dont know how big these area's are. Take Steve Fossett, he was missing for about a year with alot of people looking !! Not only that again the crash site was not moving.

Myrddin

Deleted User wrote: »

Again you really dont know how big these area's are. Take Steve Fossett, he was missing for about a year with alot of people looking !! Not only that again the crash site was not moving.

There's a bit of a difference between one person, and a whole species. The numbers kinda increase the odds of finding something, anything.

steddyeddy

The area where they where searching for the mountain gorilla (rwanda) is roughly the size of munster. The mountain gorilla being a terrestrial knuckle walker as oppossed to a bideal ape would be a lot less mobile than sasquatch. The areas that sasquatch reports come from are vast and certainly bigger than rwanda.

Myrddin

steddyeddy wrote: »

The area where they where searching for the mountain gorilla (rwanda) is roughly the size of munster. The mountain gorilla being a terrestrial knuckle walker as oppossed to a bideal ape would be a lot less mobile than sasquatch. The areas that sasquatch reports come from are vast and certainly bigger than rwanda.

And you know its a bideal ape how?

steddyeddy

EnterNow wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

The area where they where searching for the mountain gorilla (rwanda) is roughly the size of munster. The mountain gorilla being a terrestrial knuckle walker as oppossed to a bideal ape would be a lot less mobile than sasquatch. The areas that sasquatch reports come from are vast and certainly bigger than rwanda.

And you know its a bideal ape how?

From the anatomical detail in over 2 thousand consistent eye witness reports.