Some basic questions about Bigfoot

[dafydd]

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=585

Not human...

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[The Shrike]

Just to address another old chestnut of bigfootery:

"Burying their dead" would perhaps be the best way to ensure that archaeologists, paleontologists, and ditch diggers would ultimately find bigfoot remains.

There is no quarter for this elusive bigfoot. It's nonsensical at every parry and dodge. There's just nothing to adequately explain the absence of its remains if it is a real thing. The only logical conclusion is that it is not, in fact, a real thing.

 

[Sonny2]

Yup. They found a huge Pleistocene site near Snowmass, Colorado a year ago. Ditch diggers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowmastodon_site

 

[RedRatSnake]

Actually, real scientists do not and have not gone looking for Bigfoot. There's no good reason to do that. It's understood. Real scientists "get it". That was even true in 1967 when Patterson rolled out his hoax. Real scientists "got it".

It's not difficult to be smart in that way.

Ain't my fault if the ole time BF scientists don't qualify as real anymore, it was their choice to flush the ole reputation down the drain looking for a Giant Hairy North American Forest Ape ~ lol

I just think the claim that Scientists have never looked is bogus.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Now guys, don't make the mistake of thinking I'm advocating any of this stuff. I'm just asking........

You've already begged the question as usual by assuming bigfoot bones are in the normal human range, which is not what bigfoot proponents claim at all.

No wonder you're defensive about it. At least bigfoot advocates don't violate their own premises by saying their super-human sized animal will have human-sized bones.

I doubt they'd argue nobody can tell the difference between male and female skeletons either.

 

[Jerrymander]

I've had a converstation with some bigfooters at the BFF. They actually think that field researchers are either too dumb to find a bigfoot or are hostile to the idea of a North American ape. Strike can atest to that.

 

[foxholeatheist]

<Awesome post snipped>
The lack of bigfoot in the fossil record does not prove there are no bigfoots, but it strongly suggests so to me.

This.

You're example of the short-faced bear was called the cave bear for years because many of it's fossils were found in caves. This may not be an indication that they lived in caves but that caves are more protected from weather and are more conducive to fossilization than other environments.

Also, the short faced bear is the stuff nightmares are made of.

Well, you can't say that you argued against bigfoot, and notice for example Trish Randall just by living there observed the LACK of food resources. Unless they eat pine needles.

I realize you are not a proponent, so let's just pencil out some numbers together because it's kind of fun food for thought...

I argued that it is not the worst place in the world for a large primate. It is not ideal but it is not the worst.

Orangutans in the high fruit season may take in 11,000 calories vs 2,000 calories in the low fruit season. Bigfoot is about 7 times that size, so just using simple proportions that would be 77,000 calories and 14,000 calories.

Let's take apples as an example because that has been pointed out by a lot of 'footers as a food source in Washington, like the recent Elbe trackway proponents. An apple is roughly 100 calories, so that's 770 apples a day while bigfoot is packing on fat for the winter. Maybe 70 bushel baskets of apples. Incredible, yeah but this is an 800 lb animal, not a human, and it's the high calorie season.

Let's say one tree is five bushels of apples, so that's 14 apple trees per day. A week in an apple orchard would decimate about a hundred trees. How about salmon at say 1,000 calories per fish? That's over 500 fish a week, for one bigfoot gorging on the run.

Caloric needs may not correlate exactly along the lines of body weight but have more to do with activity level.

My point was not that the PNW could provide the carloric needs of an animal on the scale of Bigfoot but it is a better candidate than say the American plains or Eastern Woodlands biomes, you know, on-location filming sites for Finding Bigfoot.

I have a friendly but strong disagreement with this for two reasons. First, the winter. That's what necessitates this high calorie/low calorie seasonality for one thing, and for another the kinds of high-calorie foodstuffs that primates eat tend to be found in warmer climates.

What you have there is stands of conifers and the wilderness-y feel of large tracts of land with few people. But conifer forests are very poor candidates for food. That's why they don't support humans. We log the trees to make houses and paper. You need farms to make food, and bigfoot cound indeed make it on apple orchards, strawberry fields or even eating the cattle on a ranch. But that's an obvious problem farmers notice.

Again, my position is that the PNW is not the worst place in the world for a large, no, enormous mammal like Bigfoot.

The winters are much milder than many parts of the country. Many plants such as fiddlehead ferns are available throughout the winter though they are not as tender as they are in the warmer parts of the year. Miners Lettuce grows throughout the year in the PNW and all parts are edible and generally safe. Water tubers such as cattails are available in colder climates throughout the winter. Cattails also produce an excellent rhizome that is available in the winter.

Other omnivores solve the winter problems through solutions such as hibernation/brumation or switching to a more available food source or making the most of food when it is available and living as best as possible off it's energy reserves in the lean times like most animals do.

Farmers notice some animal losses if you believe at least one pig farmer.

In general I agree, the winter poses a huge problem. The PNW poses a not as insurmountable problem whereas Bigfoot sightings in areas like the Midwest or Upstate New York have much more explaining to do.

I apologize for bringing down the thunder, but we really do need to do this instead of letting them get away with ludicrous propositions.

Made my day.

These are my major objections when Footers and Cryptozoologists bring up animals like the Okapi or Gilled Deer, other 'mythical' animals that were eventually discovered. Those are generally low browsers which have a much less noticeable ecologic impact than an half ton omnivore like Bigfoot.

That and the explosion of trail cam use...

We wouldn't even need a fossil of a Bigfoot itself. Just some fossils of an ancestor that might not have been as large would lend a lot more weight to the idea that Bigfoot exists.

But, as far as I know, there is nothing in the fossil record of a Bigfoot or any potential primate ancestor to Bigfoot in North America.

Evolution can take place in geologically short time periods resulting in punctuated equilibrium can occur. With primates we might not expect to find as many fossils.

Yes, I agree but I can understand how it could possibly happen that an animal such s Bigfoot could evolve and not leave much a of fossil record.

 

[Jodie]

At least bigfoot advocates don't violate their own premises by saying their super-human sized animal will have human-sized bones.

They violate their premises all the time on just about anything. Dr. Meldrum thinks we should start paying more attention to bare footprints of normal human size in rural areas because they might be juvenile sasquatch.

 

[Sonny2]

If that's the case, I saw a BF trackway today in the sand!

 

[Jodie]

The legend grows, and before you know it, we are the sasquatch and the magic is gone. They will have to change the name from The Bigfoot Forums to Best Friends Forever in order to reflect the one world, one people theme going on in the preservation groups.

 

[The Shrike]

Actually foxhole, there were two species of short-faced bears that were distinct from a third species known as cave bear. Short-faced and cave bears were really different animals. This, of course, makes it even worse for the 'footers because it's another example of the rich tapestry of life we can describe from the fossil record that they're too lazy to read about and learn from. It's quite sad.

 

[Correa Neto]

And its also worth mentioning that one of the main ways large primates' remains were preserved in Africa and Asia was rain water and/or scavengers carrying bones to caves. The same process is also available in North America... Brought bones of lots of species to the caves, but not a single bigfoot bone... Note also that bigfoots are supposed to live across most North America, so there were lots of opportunities. Oh, and what about all the way between North America and Southeast Asia (if they are gigantopithecus)? Where are their fossils?

 

[MikeG]

............These are my major objections when Footers and Cryptozoologists bring up animals like the Okapi or Gilled Deer, ........... Those are generally low browsers which have a much less noticeable ecologic impact than an half ton omnivore like Bigfoot..................

I take your general point, but.........

........how big do you think an okapi is? They're huge.....the size of a big horse. They can stand 2 metres tall at the shoulder.

Mike

 

[tsig]

That thread is just so darn authoritative sounding! Man, makes me think they really have something. So hows come they can't find it on the TV show?

Cognitive dissonance...

It's got everything but the monkey.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

This.

Again, my position is that the PNW is not the worst place in the world for a large, no, enormous mammal like Bigfoot.

These are statements that are technically true but misleading. (eg ants are not the largest animal in the world.) After making them, their defense requires the arsenal of 'footer tactics, which is why it is a bad strategy:

Many plants such as fiddlehead ferns are available throughout the winter though they are not as tender as they are in the warmer parts of the year.

Available in spring, not all year, as the new leaves before they unfurl. 160 calories per lb. He'll need almost 500 lbs a day in the high season. SHouldn't take more than a thousand acres of forest to provide that.

Miners Lettuce grows throughout the year in the PNW and all parts are edible and generally safe.

44 calories per lb. He'll need order of magnitude more of this. That's why it is a diet food.

Water tubers such as cattails are available in colder climates throughout the winter. Cattails also produce an excellent rhizome that is available in the winter.

Better than miner's lettuce but back to Orangutans, which are the most efficient hominid (fewest calories per lb). They eat fruits like figs, which are closer to 500 calories per lb, ten times miner's lettuce. There isn't anything like that available to them, unless we're back to living on farms raising food for humans.

You put yourself in the position of arguing for very poor winter foods while also arguing for hibernation, and this is the consequence of making a misleading point. The south pole is not the most ideal environment. It's better than the inside of a volcano. They can eat penguins and live in ice caves.

It's better to come to Baby Jesus. Come to the light, fox.

 

[RedRatSnake]

The ole what could BF eat and could the forest support him ~ LOL ~ Always get a kick out of this argument.
It can only be explained one way IMHO. What do mythological Bigfoot eat ~ Time And Excuses ~

 

[Jerrymander]

Fossils: The 'footers hate this. They tell me I'm wrong to expect bigfoot fossils in North America because "primates have a poor fossil record." True, tropical rainforests are not great for fossil production, but those North American bigfoots are not alleged to live in tropical rainforests.

How would you respond to footers that talk about Denisova hominins of Siberia where only one finger was found.

 

[jerrywayne]

Bigfoot and Bigfoot food. Funny thing, the monster ape/giant forest human is seldom ever seen actually eating. You would think that that activity would be the one activity it would be seen doing more than any other.

How to explain the food source? Seems that Meldrum has argued for fish/protein from rivers. Then, why do we not spot the Giganto/Homo erectus actually taking fish, and often, like we see bears?

Moneymaker has the squatch behaving like Cro-Magnon, working in teams to flush and ambush deer. Must be something he remembered from high-school biology class.

Coleman has made things less dramatic for the Apes in America by having them dine, wintertime, on the pika.

The pika: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVJuRgil0wQ

The pika, however, would be no help/food source for most Bigfoot, like the Wood Apes of Oklahoma.

 

[The Shrike]

How would you respond to footers that talk about Denisova hominins of Siberia where only one finger was found.

One finger bone and one molar from two individuals, last time I checked.

1) Those fossils were found, and it took very little material to confirm that they were something different. Imagine what scientists could do with one pinky bone of a bigfoot!

2) There's different and then there's different. The Denisovans were Homo sapiens according to John Hawkes. What happened to them? They might have developed into Melanesians, in which case they're still with us today and we've got a rich record of what they were doing in prehistory right up to the present day. They might also have died out in which case they weren't around the last 10,000 or 20,000 years (the fossils date to about 40,000 years ago) to leave additional material behind.

How does this compare to bigfoot?

1) Bigfoot bones would be really distinct. Just ask SweatyYeti or Jeff Meldrum. We haven't found any. That's the most important thing right there.

2) If Denisovans died out long ago, then bigfoot has had 10,000 to 20,000 additional years of recent history in which its remains could have been left behind to be found. <crickets>

If Denisovans never did die out and developed into modern Melanesians, then of course we have plenty of evidence that they exist. We would expect to find comparatively less evidence of bigfoots, owing to their apparent lack of material culture and presumably smaller population size, but to have found nothing is quite damning.

 

[Correa Neto]

Theres a single type of primate relying mostly on fishes as protein sources: fishermen. Bigfoots would either be using hooks, lines, sinkers, spears, nets, fences, etc. or look and behave like say, otters... Yeah, yeah, I know about the claimed bigfoot - otter mythologic link.

Anyone wants to change bigfoots' looks by adding webbed feet and hands? Oh, don't forget the whiskers.