I'll repeat my earlier observation that not all reported sightings need to be true in order for some to be possibly true, or to inspire investigation into the origins of the phenomenon.
That of course brings us to the problem of deciding what's good and what's bad. This is not a process that Bigfoot enthusiasts seem to be able to agree upon.
I have serious doubts about the Lake Worth creature and indeed, all other sightings in Texas. The gray-haired anthropologist lady with glasses (whose name I've forgotten) who did the "Ask Science" presentation threw out the "200" number when I've routinely heard 2000 from other sources.
Most Bigfooters with a lick of sense know they need to be talking about numbers in the thousands. Two thousand still, I think, would not be enough to account for the reports. Krantz was of the mind that they were doing quite fine and that there were at least several thousand. I think Eugenie Scott was referencing some footer arguing 200. I can't stress enough how excellent I thought her lecture was. I think any problems like mentioning west rather than east Texas were superficial.
The last known Giganto. fossil dates from about 300,000 ya. Natural selection would of course have continued during that time, perhaps producing a "Patty"-like animal with morphology adapted to bipedal locomotion and a smaller jaw than that formerly necessary for a foliovorous diet. I'm not suggesting that "Patty" is definitely one such animal (you know my reservations about "her"), simply that such an animal as I've described might conjecturally exist.
Remember, such an evolution to an omnivorous diet would bring Giganto in direct competition with human ancestors. And that would bring us to the fall down odds of Patty as Giganto descendant evolving the exact same limb proportions as the only guy to ever claim to be her. But we know what we think about that.
That's a damn good question. The question in my mind isn't the "9000 calorie" question -- bears and wolves used to live in this exact same location, somehow finding enough nutrition to sustain their populations -- but rather how a conjectured large primate would go about (mostly) avoiding detection after decades of human activity in their conjectured habitat. It's a damn good question.
Thank you. I haven't seen an answer from Texas' TBRC but Oklahoma's MABRC has cracked out enough to suggest that Bigfoot is intrinsically intelligent enough to understand the concept of game cams and the inherent threat they pose to their eluding humans. They suggest the sasquatches will throw an object in front of the game cam and after it takes a shot, scuttle by unsnapped while the camera recovers.
They might be related to orangs, but that does not perforce mean that all of their behaviors are going to be exactly like orangs. Humans and chimps have very different sets of behaviors, despite our close kinship. I propose the danger call as one possible means of human avoidance; perhaps it's used among the single-female-with-young groups, of whom there are fewer reported sightings, while the solitary males have no such warning system, leading to their more frequent reported sightings. This is all conjecture on my part, a kind of educated guessing game.
The other alternative being that the average person making up Bigfoot fantasies, while being imaginative, is not imaginative enough to break the beast man mold and throw in some kids or females.
"Abuse the Farce, Fluke!" If there are Jedi bigfoot, I wonder if there are Sith bigfoot as well? This could be the next area ripe for study! Darth Sasquatch: Misunderstood Misanthrope, or Tragic Hero of the Bigfoot Wars? YOU be the judge.
If Jedi Bigfoots are like wookie Bigfoots, there may be very few. Burgstahlian Bigfoots do employ Sith-like abilities, including stealth and affect mind techniques.
Whoever completely understood that can join me in the Hall of the Sad.
Well done. A near perfect Chewbacca defense. I am impressed.
