Comments on: Badlands Bigfoot

By: MrInspector

MrInspector — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:36:19 +0000

Just a thought on remains here, but has anyone considered just how difficult it is to find the remains of a specific person even when the general location is known? For instance, a criminal investigation. I can’t even begin to count the number of times searches have been carried out in an area with hundreds of people and turn up nothing, only to have someone else stumble upon partial remains in the very same area years later. Don’t underestimate the difficulty involved with such a feat. Scavenger mamals and carion eating birds are only one aspect that make the task difficult. It’s just a big country with a whole lot of nothing to look through. Now compound the dificulty by about a million fold and you get an idea of the difficulty. Think of the old saying, “a needle in a haystack,” now think of the needle as microscopic and moving through a haystack roughly the size Iowa trying to avoid you.
Now let’s look at Giganto for just a sec. The entire fossil record for this animal comes from a few teeth and a partial jawbone found deep in the soil of caves. If anyone has ever seen the recreation of this animal you know this thing was HUGE, The remains of the ENTIRE SPECIES will fit in a shoe box now.
Assuming this is a real animal,(I’m not convinced either way) it is obviously secretive and elusive. There is also the possiblity that it’s also OUR relative and could even be quite crafty not just instinctive. The hardest thing in the world to find is someone or something that doesn’t want to be found. And to make matters more difficult, anyone who’s looking only has the faintest of idea where to start.
I think what it really boils down to is money though. Searches take money and there just isn’t any available. There aren’t any major reasearch labs or college studies to support these efforts. Everyone who is in the field now does so at his own expense. Most are very poorly funded and even more poorly equiped. Most larger groups who have the equipment can’t afford the time to truly use it. There is no way spending a weekend here and week or two there is going to be productive without the element of chance. Anyone who has ever been in combat, has ever been involved with field research, has ever engaged in extreme sports, or even gamblers, can attest, luck can save you or break you, but you can NEVER count on it.
Anyone who wishes to help should donate their time and what money you can spare to your local research group.
The only way these animals will be found is to LOOK for them. I’m pretty sure Bigfoot’s not gonna stop by UCLA, Champ isn’t going to lumber over to MIT, and none of those guys are going to get off their arses and go look.
We should also tip our hats to those who do spend their time and money in the field, it’s expensive, exhausting, and thankless, and they don’t have to do it. SO, thanks guys, keep up the good works.

By: joe levit

joe levit — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 19:48:58 +0000

Kittenz,

Recall that Gigantopithecus is known from only a few jaw fragments and some teeth. Is is not entirely possible for small clues such as this to espape detection in North America, especially considering that most people who would find such evidence would not know it was anything out of the ordinary, and that a good number of the people who would know what was up would choose not to reveal that knowledge for fear of persecution on the job?

I think it is more than probable that there is physical evidence in the way of bones from some of the different forms of hidden hominids/anthropoids in this area that have been ignored, misidentified and/or purposefully tucked away in a location never to see the light of day. Remember that there are many different agendas that many different people are working under.

By: things-in-the-woods

things-in-the-woods — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:32:50 +0000

hey Sasquatch and Mnynames- I take both your points. We should keep in mind though that the Kung San of the Kalahari, as well as all other human hunter-gathers, manange to survive in such harsh environments at least in part due to their very sophisticated tool kits (spears, bows and arrows, traps, containers, etc) and coordinated hunting strategies. Neither of these have been noted with regards to bigfoot as far as I’m aware.

It’s interesting to hear about the black bears in Arizona, but bears do not have the increased encephalisation and attendant need for increased cooling of the brain that is present in primates.

Anyway I don’t mean to be too negative- nature is a wonderful thing, and we often just dont what it has produced until we see it. Just waiting to see it myself.

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:57:57 +0000

Things-In-The-Woods- concerning whether a principally-vegetarian mammal can survive in the Badlands, keep in mind that the environment is much richer in biomass, both flora and fauna, than say, the Kalahari Desert of Africa. The principally-vegetarian, bipedal primates of that area, Humans, seem to get along just fine.

Just food for thought…

By: sasquatch

sasquatch — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:41:24 +0000

Gigantopithecus. Remains mostly found in China I believe. Some say these creatures made their way over from the Alaskan Land bridge. I don’t know for sure.

Yo, “Things in the Woods”, There are tons of pine forests in the badlands area ajoining the places like in the above picture. If sasquatch eat meat, then I see no reason why they couldn’t live there. Also, did you know Black bears live in the Arizona desert? They are omnivorous AND are black hair (fur) covered!

We shouldn’t be suprised by anything in nature. It is full of strange critters that defy our first impressions. Before proven real, They used to think Duck Billed Platypuses were a fantisized concoction of REAL animals, like Beavers and Ducks. Did you know they are poisonous? Weird huh?

Just one example of things we accept and take for granted, but if you break down their different attributes it really starts to freak you out. God is amazing…

By: kittenz

kittenz — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:04:19 +0000

This story sounds credible, as do many others. But seeing Sasquatch is not like, say, seeing a thylacine in Tasmania or a Sumatran rhino or even a sabertooth cat. Those are animal species which are known, not only from tracks and sightings, but from hard physical evidence. I realize that an animal can remain undiscovered for years, but even those animals that have become extinct left bodies somewhere. There are skulls and other bones, coprolites, even natural mummies or preserved museum specimens. Even people are from time to time found dead in the forest or in a glacier or a cave. Granted that there is a great deal of the planet that remains unexplored by “civilized” people – where is the actual physical evidence of Sasquatch? If such an animal is part of a given environment, it didn’t just appear overnight; it had to have existed for many centuries. In all that time, there hasn’t been even ONE whose remains have come to light? Not one found dead of old age in a cave. Not one found dead in the woods. Not one. Surely someone, somewhere would have found irrefutable physical remains of at least a few individuals.

I know that there are probably large animals that are still completely undiscovered by civilization, in very remote areas, but even those very rare “living fossils” are usually known to local tribal peoples, who have at least a skull or a skin or teeth of the rare critter. I try to keep an open mind about Sasquatch, but I wonder: why isn’t there some direct physical evidence somewhere?

By: madman

madman — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:55:36 +0000

The story sounds credible, in my opinion.

By: Sky King

Sky King — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 20:10:28 +0000

I’m sorry, I did misread it. And sschaper, I HAVE ridden horses, and the spook factor – their startle reaction – is the reason I won’t ride them anymore.

A neighbor has two and a pasture right out back of my house, and feeding treats to and watching is enough horsey for me.

By: rayrich

rayrich — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:32:51 +0000

Sounds like a pretty legit and true story to me. My aunt worked on a reservation in North Dakota as a counselor for many years and relayed many stories to me of Sasquatch encounters years ago in both Dakotas some very similar to this one.

By: MrInspector

MrInspector — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:43:19 +0000

A haymaker is a hard hitting power punch, depending on who you ask. In the old days it was punch that knocked you on your kiester. I think what he meant here was round-house.

What I would like to know is, how these fellows’ boss handled the, “bigfoot crossed our path so we didn’t get the cattle story?” I’ve worked for some pretty understanding people, but most would still have expected me to get the job done and wouldn’t hear word one about chiya-tanka. However, if the boss man just nodded his head and said “Oh! Ok.” Then that might also lead to a little insight into just how accepted these stories are or aren’t.

There’s also the point about these things “spooking” horses that I find interesting. Most of the things that “spook” horses in this manner are predatory in nature. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen horses “spooked” by a leaf or a road sign, or refuse to go between too narrowly spaced trees. But this confrontational standoff position is a purely defense against predator stance. And it’s quite possible that the horses turned several times. It would be typical for the horse to put its rear to the predator. Remember horses see from the sides not directly ahead and its primary defense is a rear kick. One might postulate that these horses narrowly missed becoming a meal. It’s quite likely that these animals were stalking the horses in tandem. I know it’s specultation but it seems it’s what the horses were thinking. It might be that the horses smell covered the human odor; I use horses to get right next to deer, geese, and even turkey all the time, day or night; and the sight of the humans sent them away. Many of the closest BF sightings seem to be from horseback. Patterson & Gimlin for instance. All the skeptics and laymen seem to make a big deal about how bigfoot just seems to casualy stroll away; and by laymen I mean scientists as well, you may know your field, but the wilderness is MY field. However in the wild when two predators of a different species meet the best course of action is typically to turn and walk casualy away. You never run and you only posture if you have to. If you run you are food and you initiate the chase instinct, if you posture you become a threat and initiate the defensive-aggresion response. This could lead to both predators being injured or even killed. This actually lends credence to the stories to me. Lends credence mind you, not verification.