Why wouldn't bigfoot hunt humans?

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
If we remind them of juvenile bigfoots, then there should be a lot more interaction and a lot less fear on their part.
Click to expand...

The correct answer to this is "Let's identify an animal before we speculate on its behavior," but it's almost April First.

I'm not convinced this is necessarily the case. If mom is known to be protective, a reaction more along the lines of "I better get out of here before the mother I don't see goes berserk on me." Think of that moment in Apocalypto where the protagonist notices he is very, very close to some adorable baby jaguars and moments later is running away from Mom.

As far as I know, there aren't animals that actively avoid unrelated young of their own species... except maybe us. I think most people in an urban setting are wary of looking too interested in someone else's kids.
 
It won't be easy to figure out why they do what they do. The more intelligent an animal is, the more complex its behavior will be. Even if a body turns up, they will still be a pain in the ass to study and clear footage of them will still be lacking. Science hasn't had to deal with an animal that has a level of intelligence that's similar to our own yet, so it's going to be something that needs to be taken one step at a time. The first step would be to prove the animal exists. Right now they are considered about as real as unicorns in mainstream science. Technology will hopefully reach a point where you can easily get photos and videos of these animals and perhaps even study them in detail somehow.

Right now, the question as to whether they hunt humans or not isn't possible to answer. There are a lot of people who go missing every year in forests under odd circumstances. Based on details in a few missing person cases that have occurred over the last few decades, I think it's possible they on occasion kidnap humans, but there's just so many things that can go wrong when you're out in the wilderness that to suggest Bigfoot is responsible for all the cases that have occurred would be pretty foolish.
 
Last edited:
I see so many posts on forums suggesting that if Bigfoot was real they'd do blah blah blah. How do know for sure that Bigfoot would do that?

As human beings I think we tend to project own behavior on others (even animals in general). One must be careful not to project one's own behavior on something that isn't human.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
I see so many posts on forums suggesting that if Bigfoot was real they'd do blah blah blah. How do know for sure that Bigfoot would do that?

As human beings I think we tend to project own behavior on others (even animals in general). One must be careful not to project one's own behavior on something that isn't human.
Click to expand...


True, so far what bigfoot does is entirely speculative. We should not project our own behavior on anything else. Existing would be a good place to start.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
<crapsnip> . . . but there's just so many things that can go wrong when you're out in the wilderness that to suggest Bigfoot is responsible for all the cases that have occurred would be pretty foolish.
Click to expand...

It would be foolish to suggest bigfoot is responsible for any of the cases.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
I see so many posts on forums suggesting that if Bigfoot was real they'd do blah blah blah. How do know for sure that Bigfoot would do that?

As human beings I think we tend to project own behavior on others (even animals in general). One must be careful not to project one's own behavior on something that isn't human.
Click to expand...

It is bigfooters who claim to have nearly completely described bigfoot, not the skeptics.

We have numerous books and papers describing the behavior, anatomy, physiology, etc., of bigfoot. Everything is described. Literally the only thing missing is a body.

None were written by skeptics.

The BFRO has a complete description of the species on it's website as well.

We have detailed info, from bigfooters, on the structure of the feet of bigfoot, for example.

We have detailed info on the skeleton and locomotion of bigfoot, from bigfooters.
 
It is baffling why Bigfooters spend all their time telling skeptics about Bigfoot and essentially none to university, museum and governmental agencies. It's a really weird sort of hobby. It makes little sense.
 
William Parcher said:
It is baffling why Bigfooters spend all their time telling skeptics about Bigfoot and essentially none to university, museum and governmental agencies. It's a really weird sort of hobby. It makes little sense.
Click to expand...

I'd love to hear this addressed by either OS or Chris....what do they get out of any of these conversations here and how does it move the ball forward for their cause?
 
Academics are either close-minded lab rats in white coats living isolated inside their ivory towers, lost in their own theories and artificial worldviews or shills and minions of the government/logging/mining industries conspiracies.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
I see so many posts on forums suggesting that if Bigfoot was real they'd do blah blah blah. How do know for sure that Bigfoot would do that?

As human beings I think we tend to project own behavior on others (even animals in general). One must be careful not to project one's own behavior on something that isn't human.
Click to expand...

What about the traits that would be inescapable for any animal? Such as defecating, urinating, mating, shedding hair, being photographed, possessing testable DNA...? Bigfoot is exempt from all of those as well?

Oh, sorry, I forgot you covered that with your blanket speculation: it's too hard to find.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
I see so many posts on forums suggesting that if Bigfoot was real they'd do blah blah blah. How do know for sure that Bigfoot would do that?

As human beings I think we tend to project own behavior on others (even animals in general). One must be careful not to project one's own behavior on something that isn't human.
Click to expand...

Can you prove Bigfoots not human?
 
dmaker said:
What about the traits that would be inescapable for any animal? Such as defecating, urinating, mating, shedding hair, being photographed, possessing testable DNA...? Bigfoot is exempt from all of those as well?

Oh, sorry, I forgot you covered that with your blanket speculation: it's too hard to find.
Click to expand...

Yes, but of course. Finding samples is one challenge. Another would be identifying them and getting their DNA analyzed. For instance, how do you know the piece of scat that you're looking at is from Bigfoot?

The other possible biological material that someone could find without shooting one is hair and it wasn't possible to analyze the DNA in hair without the root/follicle until just recently.

Cervelo said:
Can you prove Bigfoots not human?
Click to expand...

No, but if they were human, one would expect them to be a lot like us (tool use and everything). If they are Homo sapiens, I think that would change the current theory on human evolution and have strong implications for the theory of evolution in general. It's possible they're in the Homo genus like us and other species like the neanderthals, but that would be hard for anyone to say even if someone has a degree in a relevant field like anthropology. Traits like their head shape, short neck, eye shine and pheromone glands suggest they have some considerable genetic differences. With the exception of size, they seem to match the description of many species that split off from us around 3 million years ago. That would put them somewhere "between man and ape".
 
My dog!

Footers talk about bigfoot's pherormone glands but can't get single bit of reliable evidence to back their claims about bigfoots being real!

Not unlike D&D creature stats manuals...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom