Wood Ape Sightings: Correlations to Annual Rainfall Totals, Waterways, Human Population Densities and Black Bear Habitat

[anonymous]

This article shows correlations suggesting that most bigfoot sightings occur in similar habitats - which would be predicted if bigfoot was a real species.


http://texasbigfoot.com/index.php/ab...gical-patterns

In Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, anecdotes about huge, hairy, apelike creatures said to dwell in the deep woods and, occasionally, near the peripheries of rural communities, have accumulated for centuries. Many of these accounts were related by highly reliable and trustworthy individuals, people who had nothing to gain by telling their stories.
...
However, the essence of the research presented here does not focus on the validity of any individual report, but on the body of reports as a whole in order to ascertain any correlations and patterns that may exist. When one impartially studies the sum total of all the reports it becomes evident that there do indeed seem to be correlations and patterns that could be representative of a living species.

One of the correlations is that bigfoot is often seen in black bear habitat. Unfortunately, the authors don't say much about why bigfoot sightings are not mistaken sightings of black bears - which I think will be the first response of any skeptic to this article. You'd have to analyze the sighting reports themselves to make a convincing argument they are not black bears.

[Arouet]

I have no problem with bigfoots existing: and yes the hypothesis that they'd living in similar areas might make a lot of sense. So does the fact that they would leave evidence of their existence in other ways such as: waste products, dead bodies, habitat, garbage, etc.

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by Arouet

I have no problem with bigfoots existing: and yes the hypothesis that they'd living in similar areas might make a lot of sense. So does the fact that they would leave evidence of their existence in other ways such as: waste products, dead bodies, habitat, garbage, etc.

You'd have to find it and it's not nearly as easy as you might imagine. 99.9% of people who go into the back country stick mostly to trails and don't wander too much in open country. Not even hunters venture that far off the beaten path for a very simple reason: it's very hard work. Even relatively open areas can be difficult to traverse. So there aren't many people roaming the areas where these creatures might be.

You also don't have very long before the remains blend in with the terrain and then get scattered by scavengers. The likelihood of finding the remains of these creatures isn't all that high.

Would you know their habitat or garbage if you saw it? Probably not.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Craig Weiler

You'd have to find it and it's not nearly as easy as you might imagine. 99.9% of people who go into the back country stick mostly to trails and don't wander too much in open country. Not even hunters venture that far off the beaten path for a very simple reason: it's very hard work. Even relatively open areas can be difficult to traverse. So there aren't many people roaming the areas where these creatures might be.

You also don't have very long before the remains blend in with the terrain and then get scattered by scavengers. The likelihood of finding the remains of these creatures isn't all that high.

Would you know their habitat or garbage if you saw it? Probably not.

I might not, but someone trained would. And we've certainly documented all sorts of other animals in far away places and the places were people claim to see them aren't always that out of the way.

Remember, even though any particular remains or waste will not last that long, it is a cycle. I would expect this animal would be as discoverable as any other.

Nothing would really change for me if a new homonoid was discovered - it would be interesting,and I'm sure biologists would have a field day. So I don't have a vested interest here. I just think these animals would leave a trail - just like every other animal!

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by Arouet

I might not, but someone trained would. And we've certainly documented all sorts of other animals in far away places and the places were people claim to see them aren't always that out of the way.

Remember, even though any particular remains or waste will not last that long, it is a cycle. I would expect this animal would be as discoverable as any other.

Nothing would really change for me if a new homonoid was discovered - it would be interesting,and I'm sure biologists would have a field day. So I don't have a vested interest here. I just think these animals would leave a trail - just like every other animal!

Granted, if someone was trained and they were looking, there is a slight possibility they might find something. But again, they do not generally get deep into the wilderness and that's a lot of territory to cover. As for their waste, they don't appear to be tool makers and their diet is most likely the same stuff that bears eat, so scat and camp areas would likely be indistinguishable from bears.

If they actively cover their tracks, so to speak, no one would find anything.

I don't really care either by the way, it's just an interesting topic to me. I don't think that a lot of the skepticism is justified.

[Arouet]

[QUOTE=Craig Weiler;110380If they actively cover their tracks, so to speak, no one would find anything.[/quote]

It's not that easy to cover one's tracks. What happens when they walk through the mud, you think they are turning around and erasing their footprints?

If we're going to take the numerous sightings as any kind of evidence of their existence, how far off the beaten trail could they be? And if we're not going to treat these sightings as evidence, then why believe they exist at all?

I don't really care either by the way, it's just an interesting topic to me. I don't think that a lot of the skepticism is justified.

Sure it is: what you seem to be saying is that there is no reliable evidence that they exist. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, just that there is no reliable evidence of it. Skepticism often involves withholding belief in something that may turn out to be true, because the case has not been made yet.

[anonymous]

People do report signs of bigfoot. Read the literature. People report hair, tracks (foot and body), odors, vocalizations.

Pseudo-skeptics dismiss the reports claiming they are mistaken or hoaxes. When you ask them how they know this they say one of the reasons is that no one reports physical signs of bigfoot.

Any mainstream scientists who are inclined to take the reports seriously are afraid to pursue the subject because they would suffer persecution and it would probably end their career.

Anyone who frequents the woods knows that there are not deer skulls or bear skulls or racoon skulls piled up from all the dead animals since the last ice age. I did see a squirrel skeleton once. I think it was from a coyote or owl pellet that got dispersed by rain. But where I live, there are no tigers or pythons big enough to eat a bigfoot and conveniently leave droppings on the trail for hikers to find.

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by Arouet

It's not that easy to cover one's tracks. What happens when they walk through the mud, you think they are turning around and erasing their footprints?

If we're going to take the numerous sightings as any kind of evidence of their existence, how far off the beaten trail could they be? And if we're not going to treat these sightings as evidence, then why believe they exist at all?



Sure it is: what you seem to be saying is that there is no reliable evidence that they exist. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, just that there is no reliable evidence of it. Skepticism often involves withholding belief in something that may turn out to be true, because the case has not been made yet.

I am not saying that there is no reliable evidence that they exist. I'm inclined to think that they do actually.

I don't agree with the statement that since we haven't found any dead ones, that they don't exist.

And oh, by the way, according to the researchers, they're fairly careful about not leaving footprints behind. Perhaps they don't want to be tracked?

According to the researchers, they keep track of the people in their area, but prefer to stay as hidden as possible while doing so, remaining behind large objects and at a distance. Perhaps they're aware of rifles?

[paqart]

Originally Posted by Arouet

I might not, but someone trained would. And we've certainly documented all sorts of other animals in far away places and the places were people claim to see them aren't always that out of the way.

Remember, even though any particular remains or waste will not last that long, it is a cycle. I would expect this animal would be as discoverable as any other.

Nothing would really change for me if a new homonoid was discovered - it would be interesting,and I'm sure biologists would have a field day. So I don't have a vested interest here. I just think these animals would leave a trail - just like every other animal!

For what it's worth, I can say that I once went off a trail at Yosemite, and will not want to repeat the experience again. It was dangerous in a number of ways, and in the context of this conversation, shows how easy it would be to miss the signs of various creatures, if they made an effort to avoid the trails. The underbrush was much deeper than it appeared to be from the trail, which not only made it almost impossible to walk, but meant that bending down and looking for signs of animal presence would be pretty difficult as well. More importantly, it was clear that not even rangers were running around in those areas.

This situation is one where I think the old dictum applies that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

AP

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by paqart

For what it's worth, I can say that I once went off a trail at Yosemite, and will not want to repeat the experience again. It was dangerous in a number of ways, and in the context of this conversation, shows how easy it would be to miss the signs of various creatures, if they made an effort to avoid the trails. The underbrush was much deeper than it appeared to be from the trail, which not only made it almost impossible to walk, but meant that bending down and looking for signs of animal presence would be pretty difficult as well. More importantly, it was clear that not even rangers were running around in those areas.

This situation is one where I think the old dictum applies that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

AP

I've been off trail in situations where there was no underbrush and it was still hard just to walk. Uneven terrain, slopes, branches and debris, rocks and such are far more of a challenge than they appear to be.