That doesn't answer my question. Unless bigfoot has a wifi connection and reads Wikipedia, it won't know shit about our ethics or the way we treat other animals. Their primary experience with humans consists of a couple drunk assholes in the woods. If anything they would associate us with Guns and food.
Think of it like this, They've had time to study us from a distance and see the fucked up shit we do to each other and to Nature, why on earth would they want to not stay hidden from us.
Think of it like this, They've had time to study us from a distance and see the fucked up shit we do to each other and to Nature, why on earth would they want to not stay hidden from us.
Food is actually the more important association. Every animal that eats meat makes a risk benefit analysis before each hunt. If an animal is starving, or just sufficiently hungry, and they see the opportunity for food in an "abandoned" car or campsite or even somebody's house they will take it if they think they can get away with it.
And again, what do you mean observe us? They're wild animals. Their first priority is survival. That means foraging, hunting, protecting their territory, and looking for a mate. They ain't got time to ponder the human condition.
Food is actually the more important association. Every animal that eats meat makes a risk benefit analysis before each hunt. If an animal is starving, or just sufficiently hungry, and they see the opportunity for food in an "abandoned" car or campsite or even somebody's house they will take it if they think they can get away with it.
And again, what do you mean observe us? They're wild animals. Their first priority is survival. That means foraging, hunting, protecting their territory, and looking for a mate. They ain't got time to ponder the human condition.
They probably steal alot stuff, It just probably gets blamed on Raccoons and bears.
Again you way of thinking about them is that they are nothing more than a dumb upright gorilla.
I'm coming from a view that they are more that likely a Homo type species that have an intelligence very similar to our own, That they are capable of observing us like we do other animals, in their spare time.
Again, you are speculating on the likely behavior of an animal that HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN to exist.
Your assertion that they must have human intellegence is no more valid, or invalid, than calling them a dumb ape because one has never been found to observe and make a call one-way or the other on how smart they are.
You'll have to get over the hurdle of proving said existance first before I'll go any further, and the "They're as smart as us" argument is just circular reasoning to explain the lack of evidence: they've hidden it all from us.
For millions of years? So we cant find even a fossil? A carcass? A difinitive jawbone or skull?
They find the remains of murder victims all the time, ones hidden by intellegent humans intended not to be found, ever.
If we cant hide all the bodies forever, how come these giant wood apes apparently can, for however long they've exusted, and not fuck up once?
Unless they're omnipotent and superintellegent on top of too sneaky to photograph... and I doubt that.
Again, you are speculating on the likely behavior of an animal that HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN to exist.
Your assertion that they must have human intellegence is no more valid, or invalid, than calling them a dumb ape because one has never been found to observe and make a call one-way or the other on how smart they are.
You'll have to get over the hurdle of proving said existance first before I'll go any further, and the "They're as smart as us" argument is just circular reasoning to explain the lack of evidence: they've hidden it all from us.
For millions of years? So we cant find even a fossil? A carcass? A difinitive jawbone or skull?
They find the remains of murder victims all the time, ones hidden by intellegent humans intended not to be found, ever.
If we cant hide all the bodies forever, how come these giant wood apes apparently can, for however long they've exusted, and not fuck up once?
Unless they're omnipotent and superintellegent on top of too sneaky to photograph... and I doubt that.
It's funny, logically I'm aware that it's nigh impossible for an undiscovered primate to exist in North America, and would be the first to point it out.. but something about others doing it brings out my inner defensive 10 yr old. I'm like "weeell let's not be so hasty to rule out nephilum and paranormal origins of Sasquatch.."
It's funny, logically I'm aware that it's nigh impossible for an undiscovered primate to exist in North America, and would be the first to point it out.. but something about others doing it brings out my inner defensive 10 yr old. I'm like "weeell let's not be so hasty to rule out nephilum and paranormal origins of Sasquatch.."
Again you way of thinking about them is that they are nothing more than a dumb upright gorilla.
I'm coming from a view that they are more that likely a Homo type species that have an intelligence very similar to our own
If they were of similar intelligence they would be living in tribes, making tools, jewelry, art, and would probably be more interested in trading with us than hiding. If not trade, they'd be lobbing spears at us every time we went into the woods. You know what's easier than hiding from your enemies? Killing them.
Hunter gatherers don't have that much spare time. Some individuals might be able to devote time to observing us if they lived in large groups with a division of labor, but that doesn't seem to be the case. As I said before, tracks are usually found alone.
The types of behavior you're proposing simply aren't consistent with the evidence. (I use the term "evidence" loosely, assuming that eyewitness reports and physical traces are mostly accurate for the purpose of drawing conclusions about bigfoot behavior.)
I think if any cryptid exists, its in the deep part of the oceans. We would have found something of bigfoot, and loch ness, how old does it hypothetically live, and wouldnt there have to be at least 2? Loch ness is not that big of a lake to hide in.
We do have to keep in mind that something like the giant squid was thought to be a cryptid at one point.
While also impossible, fuck I would love for Siberian mastodons to be real. I've read that, up until recently, locals would still eat the thawed meat of long frozen carcasses.
There's probably still stuff on land we don't know about, but it's mostly in the insect/plant kingdom. Still, some large animals remained undiscovered for ages in modern times. You see this?:
That's the Giant Huntsman Spider - the largest spider in the world by legspan. Know when it was discovered? 2001. It was one of thousands of new plant and animal species discovered in the Greater Mekong Subregion in Laos between 1997 and 2007. When it was discovered, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature commented: "some of these species really have no business being recently discovered".
Also, while they haven't found Nessie in Loch Ness, they did find a type of fungus that they thought had gone extinct down there. But there's a huge difference between some clumps of fungus and a Plesiosaur.
There's probably still stuff on land we don't know about, but it's mostly in the insect/plant kingdom. Still, some large animals remained undiscovered for ages in modern times. You see this?:
That's the Giant Huntsman Spider - the largest spider in the world by legspan. Know when it was discovered? 2001. It was one of thousands of new plant and animal species discovered in the Greater Mekong Subregion in Laos between 1997 and 2007. When it was discovered, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature commented: "some of these species really have no business being recently discovered".
Also, while they haven't found Nessie in Loch Ness, they did find a type of fungus that they thought had gone extinct down there. But there's a huge difference between some clumps of fungus and a Plesiosaur.
I concede a point about that. Alot of rainforest countries and most African equitorial countries still have tons of unexplored regions, mainly because these countries tend to be war zones and not safe for extended studies ie countries like Burma,Laos, all of africa, papau new guinea. Im sure well discover tons new insects like that spider, god damn that is horrifying. Like the spiders that can catch birds by spinning webs in between trees, gives me nightmares.
About bigfoot or the yeti, siberia is about the only place i could see it going unseen, maybe the extreme north of alaska or canada.
Completely off topic but theres a video on YouTube taken of a French research team meeting a village in papau new guinea, it was the first time they had evrr seen white people. And this was like 15 years ago. We were a cryptid to them until then
If they were of similar intelligence they would be living in tribes, making tools, jewelry, art, and would probably be more interested in trading with us than hiding. If not trade, they'd be lobbing spears at us every time we went into the woods. You know what's easier than hiding from your enemies? Killing them.
Hunter gatherers don't have that much spare time. Some individuals might be able to devote time to observing us if they lived in large groups with a division of labor, but that doesn't seem to be the case. As I said before, tracks are usually found alone.
The types of behavior you're proposing simply aren't consistent with the evidence. (I use the term "evidence" loosely, assuming that eyewitness reports and physical traces are mostly accurate for the purpose of drawing conclusions about bigfoot behavior.)
Over the past 20 years, recording technology has become so prolific, so high-quality, and so easily disseminable to the public.
And yet, the "best" evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is a couple seconds of grainy 9mm film and the "best" evidence for Nessie are 50+ year old polaroids....
Agreed. We live in a world where I can see the top of my own head on my phone by zooming in a hidef satellite and anyone can become a master doxxer by knowing their target's first name and hair color. If Bigfoot were real, he'd have 5 million twitter followers and a legion of hangers-on using their cryptid cred to beg for more patreon bucks.
Agreed. We live in a world where I can see the top of my own head on my phone by zooming in a hidef satellite and anyone can become a master doxxer by knowing their target's first name and hair color. If Bigfoot were real, he'd have 5 million twitter followers and a legion of hangers-on using their cryptid cred to beg for more patreon bucks.
Biologist and find species they weren't even looking for all the time. If these animals were real, and considering how much public interest is there on them, we'd more convincing proof of their existence than your redneck cousin swearin' on his mum's grave that he saw big foot once. If the sighings were real, we'd have some big foot falling into a bear trap, or a Chupacabra getting torn by guard dogs.
For real though, one thing I learned (from here of all places) is that fossils can be really really hard to find sometimes.
Why are there so many gaps in the fossil record for homo sapiens? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan is a human ancestor that we only know about because of DNA sequencing and because they found like, two teeth and a finger bone in one specific cave. Apparently tons of stuff doesn't get fossilized, or we don't find it, or it gets lost in cataloging, there was a really good post on here about it I'll try to find.
Otherwise, giant squid are sort of a cryptid that we know exists. I also always wondered about dragons, since a few different cultures have dragon myths. I assumed that it was due to finding fossilized dinosaur remains, but someone recently told me that may not be the case?
Edit: Holy shit this is so obscure I'm actually surprised it was easy to find. Honey I Shrunk the Kids had a spinoff TV series without Rick Moranis (practically a cryptid himself) and the sasquatch has a british accent and just shut your face hole and watch it, it's a fucking experience. http://watchcartoonsonline.eu/watch...ey-hes-not-abominable-hes-just-misunderstood/
