Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?

[JcR]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

OMFG... I just laughed so, so, so very hard for, like, 10 minutes. I can't wipe the smile off my face. I dare not look at that again while trying to type. There must be some more recognition I can give this than a post of praise. Can I nominate an image? We should have a poll for JcR's best or maybe a JcR appreciation thread in Humour or Community. It's gold, Jerry! GOLD!!!

Thank You... Kitakaze. I am glad I could take part.
Thanks again, it really is appreciated.

[LTC8K6]

It's a flash video. Make sure you have the latest Adobe Flash player update.

The video is definitely of a wolverine.

The still has him with the bait sticking out of his mouth, making him look a bit like an anteater.

[JcR]

Originally Posted by Bill Munns

Kit:

Thank you for the link reference.

JcR:

Loved it!

Bill

Glad you liked it Bill. Many thanks, Thank you for your great model.

[bob the analyst]

Do you know why bigfoot may be the smartest and wiliest animal/mammal/creature on earth? It's the one single species or animal/mammal/creature that hasn't been caught or killed yet

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by professor smartpants

Do you know why unicorns may be the smartest and wiliest animal/mammal/creature on earth? It's the one single species or animal/mammal/creature that hasn't been caught or killed yet.

Slight alteration.

[JohnG]

You're both wrong:


Do you know why The Loch Ness Monster may be the smartest and wiliest animal/mammal/creature on earth? It's the one single species or animal/mammal/creature that hasn't been caught or killed yet

[Ashles]

Originally Posted by professor smartpants

Do you know why bigfoot may be the smartest and wiliest animal/mammal/creature on earth? It's the one single species or animal/mammal/creature that hasn't been caught or killed yet

Oh no. So we've already discovered every new species we're ever going to find?

They should have had a little party when they discovered the last one.

[Drewbot]

Do you know why Moon Extron13Delta4 may be the smartest and wiliest Satellite orbiting earth? It's the one Earth's moon that hasn't been discovered yet.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by JohnG

You're both wrong:

Do you know why chupacabras may be the smartest and wiliest animal/mammal/creature on earth? It's the one single species or animal/mammal/creature that hasn't been caught or killed yet.

Absolutely. What he said

[quarky]

Let's not forget man-bear-pig.

[WildBackdunesMan]

Originally Posted by EHocking

I couldn't get the video quoted upthread to display, but, based on this frame only (and disregarding the fact that the animal actually does exist), I, personally couldn't that your quoted frame as proof of existences. It is for the same reason that I have a number of doubts about the confidence in the evidence for the rediscovery of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker (as a case in point of "poor" supporting evidence). This countered by the fact that I'm an avid birdwatcher, a closet conservationist and an eternal romantic that would dearly wish that the bird was indeed still extant.

Not picking on you personally, but that particular frame is about as good as any blobsqatch shot. If you disregard the fact that the animal does indeed exist, analyse what you can discern from the quality of the photo as a purely intellectual exercise (call it Devil's Advocate if you wish to get formal).

I am not sure if you have ever seen a Wolverine before, but that picture is not comparable to a blobsquatch... The second I looked at I knew it was clearly a wolverine. Look at the markings on the animal... Also you can perfectly make out a wolverine shape. I covered up the wolverine word, called in a coworker and asked what it was and they instantly said "wolverine, look at the markings that is sweet where was it taken."

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by WildBackdunesMan

I am not sure if you have ever seen a Wolverine before, but that picture is not comparable to a blobsquatch... The second I looked at I knew it was clearly a wolverine. Look at the markings on the animal... Also you can perfectly make out a wolverine shape. I covered up the wolverine word, called in a coworker and asked what it was and they instantly said "wolverine, look at the markings that is sweet where was it taken."

I should have noted, "If this was the only documentary proof of the animal."

I was comparing it's quality - if taken in total isolation from every other evidence for the critter's existence - to the quality of bf (and indeed IBWP) photographic evidence, as an example of why we need to treat such low resolution photographic evidence with caution.

Even if I had thought I'd seen a wolverine before, even if it was known to exist but there was no physical evidence gathered, if this were the only evidence available to prove it's existence I'd still have to leave it in the Wolverine (?) basket. As a birdwatcher who's honest with himself, I have a number of hopeful, wonderous sighting with the disappointing (?) marker next to it's name, because I could not assure myself of a positive ID.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by professor smartpants

Do you know why bigfoot may be the smartest and wiliest animal/mammal/creature on earth? It's the one single species or animal/mammal/creature that hasn't been caught or killed yet

He is also the only creature on earth with eternal constipation.

[xblade]

Originally Posted by quarky

Let's not forget man-bear-pig.

Or Scuzzlebutt.



http://www.leelefever.com/archives/000787.html

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Orthoptera

The California wolverine case is a perfect example of why the Bigfoot thing is so ludicrous. On Feb. 28, 2008, a photo trap (one of a large array set out for a marten study) snaps a picture of a wolverine. Within a few days:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0327093622.htm

Within a month, DNA analysis had determined the animal's sex and geographic origin.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0403125451.htm

Bigfoot hunters should consider the above referenced articles carefully-- this is how real biologists operate every day.

I can't stress enough how fantastic this example is. Here you have an array of gamecams set throughout Northern California, Bigfoot's absolute #1 traditional stomping grounds á la PGF, in a wildlife study intended to increase field data on martens. Now look at the BFRO reports for California. Bada bing bada boom - that's 405:

http://bfro.net/GDB/

What do those cameras capture, other than martens? Something far, far rarer than the allegedly oft-encountered Bigfoot - we got a wolverine in California! That is massive! That's the kind of thing that blows your mind when you head is not in Bigfoot La La Land. That animal may be the only wolverine in the wild in all of California. Scat and hair is collected and DNA analysis made to ascertain the animal's origins. This animal is in Tahoe National Forest in Northern California. Note its position on the map:

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

Now the PGF was filmed a hop, skip, and a jump away in the Six Rivers National Forest. Check the location here:

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

Now Bigfoot enthusiasts are going to tell me that there is a viable breeding population of massive mammals many, many times the size of this one wolverine living in Northern California. These animals are obtaining the roughly 12-13,000 calories they will need each day to survive, which would require basically their entire waking life looking for, finding mates, breeding, having young which they teach to survive, and having enough time on the side to throw rocks at humans, learn to mimic other animals, and walk in front of automobiles? All this without ever having relinquished a type specimen to science??

Facepalm. Total, utter facepalm.

[RayG]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Facepalm. Total, utter facepalm.

Bigfootery is filled with facepalms. If people listen to or look at a lot of the outrageous claims, nutjob investigators, wacky organizations, credulous scientists, pseudo-scientific techniques, and flimsy evidence being presented, without doing this:



then I have to question their reasoning abilities. Seriously.

RayG

[kitakaze]

Thank you, Ray. That almost conveys the level of facepalm we are talking about. Almost.

[kitakaze]

One aspect of the question of having proof or reliable evidence for Bigfoot such as an unambiguous video or photo with clear provenance revolves around detecting the alleged animals based on their feeding habits. One point that I often stress is the ludicrous nature of the idea that we could miss massive land mammals maintaining a breeding population across the North American continent, especially considering the massive caloric needs such creatures would have.

This may belong in the Eugenie Scott lecture thread where she discussed gorillas and their 9500 calories per day needed and comparison with hypothetical Bigfoot species but I think the question is not OT here as it relates to their detection (and we avoid resurrecting another BF thread). The subject recently came up at the BFF and one member, ResplendentYeti (like some kind of anti-SweatyYeti), made the following post which I found to be excellent (edited to remove punctuation text error):

Originally Posted by ResplendentYeti@BFF

The caloric intake of an adult bigfoot is one of the primary reasons I doubt their existence. For the sake of this discussion, I feel it is safe to make the following assumptions:

- Bigfoot is a primate
- A large male Bigfoot would weigh more than a large male gorilla
- The majority of eyewitness accounts describe Bigfoot as being muscular, I don't think I've read many accounts of an obese Bigfoot

According to a recent report by The Federation of Zoos of Britain and Ireland, an average adult male gorilla weighs about 330.6 pounds, and requires between 6000 and 9500 calories per day. I think a large male Bigfoot would weigh considerably more than a gorilla. I believe some estimates on the Patterson-Gimlin subject's weight were in the 600 pound range. So if we assume a conservative weight of an average male Bigfoot at 600 pounds, and had nutritional requirements similar to other primates, we’re looking at 12,000 to over 18,000 calories per day. That is a lot of bugs and roots.

A pound of muscle on average burns twice as many calories as a pound of fat, even at rest. As I mentioned earlier, there are not a lot of fat Bigfoot sightings, so most of the creatures great bulk must be muscle mass.

To eat 12,000+ calories per day, every day, year round in the forests Western Washington, a Bigfoot would have to be actively foraging 24 hours a day, assuming they don't regularly hunt and kill deer, elk and other large animals. This kind of hunting and foraging would be noticed by even the most casual hikers, hunters, etc.
How many reports is there of a witness observing Bigfoot hunting, gathering, or eating? Most reports I have read describe the creature as either standing still and observing, walking somewhere, or some other activity besides eating or looking for food.

So either the species as a whole keeps a well stocked, well hidden network of underground larders, pantries, walk-ins and freezers, along with clandestine Sysco deliveries, or they defy the most basic tenants of biology and primate physiology.

I do not believe it is possible for a 600+ pound primate to sustain itself in North America on a diet of worms, bugs, berries and small rodents, with an occasional deer kill or bit a scavenging for variety. They would expend far more energy hunting and gathering than their meager meals than such food could supply. The constant hunt for life sustaining calories and fats would make them vulnerable to detection and oftentimes drive them to acts of desperation, killing livestock, breaking into homes, etc. Reports of this nature are certainly the exception.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...ic=21578&st=33

Very well said, indeed. An excellent debate follows in which no Bigfoot enthusiast is able to present any working counter-argument to this fatal flaw for footers. They try their best and get destroyed with lame arguments about humans and bears surviving. A couple of pages later member WillinYC makes an excellent follow up and response to RY's above post:

Originally Posted by WillinYC

Agree in totality, with the exception that I think it wouldn't be impossible, but highly improbable. It seems as if whenever this issue pops up, the bigfoot community dismisses this as a virtual non-issue. I do agree that there is a valid reason why this is so often brought up by skeptics.

To add some fuel to the proverbial caloric fire:

1- The caloric issue becomes even more pronounced during the colder months when thermal maintenance jacks the caloric requirements of something like the purported bigfoot even higher.

2- Early native american cultures all had the ability to preserve and most importantly store food to tide them over for the leaner winter months. Factors that were absolutely key in being able to keep infant/juvenile mortality low enough to where maintaining sustainable population abundance wasn't pushing populations to extirpation or extinction. Comparison to humans becomes somewhat invalid IMO.

3- The only subarctic, larger omnivore that even approaches the mass of the purported sasquatch (black bear) bridges the harsh, catch-22 situation of attempting to forage/hunt during the winter, when caloric requirements skyrocket, and bioavailability of potential food sources become less abundant, by hibernating. An adaptation that I think would be a major stretch for something like the sasquatch.

4- Elk and moose may approach the purported mass of BF but are herbivorous, and leave obvious, large scale evidence of their foraging activities. There's all kinds of very questionable evidence on BF's passing in the ecosystem (tree breaks, et. al.) but I can't remember ever seeing a report which discusses evidence of wide scale, herbivorous foraging above the vertical range of elk, deer, et. al. From a metabolic feasibility standpoint, this should be expected, if we're lead to believe that BF is obtaining any significant portion of it's caloric requirements via this route.

I really think the BF community is doing itself a major disservice by dismissing this fact as a non-issue. The BF community seems rigid in it's assumption that if real, the sasquatch, occupies an ecological niche similar to the black bear. The problem with that train of thought IMO is simply that there are no known omnivores that even come close to approaching the mass of the supposed BF that don't bridge the caloric gap, via the hibernation route that are known to exist.

I think the BF community would at least salvage some credibility if it were to stop attempting to dismiss this issue out of hand with arguements that most field bios find to be ridiculous and would maybe also rethink what ecological niche the BF most likely occupies if real. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the wildlife bios I've had this conversation with independently conclude that if real the BF is likely a wide ranging, solitary scavenger, employing survival strategies similar to that of the wolverine. I really think a rethinking of "what BF likely is" by the proponents of it's existence would have some basis of bearing, and could be supported by the purported observed behaviors and physical characteristics of the supposed BF. It's very difficult for even a bucket biologist to see something as massive and frequently as pungent as BF is reported to be, to be an efficient enough pursuit or ambush predator to maintain it's massive caloric requirements. Yet, it's reported massive size would be an asset when it comes to driving off smaller scavengers/ omnivores from carcasses that expired naturally. The scavenging survival strategy would also be more consistent IMO with the reported nocturnal nature of BF. Scavenging efficiency likely wouldn't present much of a drop-off if done at night, and would provide the scientific types a somewhat more feasible explanation on why the BF is nocturnal (attempting to cover enough ground to find sufficient forage during daytime summer temps for something that is an 800+ pound moving heat sink is simply not feasible).

All that said, the way I'm seeing it, even a scavenging sasquatch is more than likely, very improbable, but is a much more viable arguement than what's being offered up here IMO.

The poor shell-shocked Bigfoot enthusiasts don't really even know how to begin dealing with this excellent, straightforward scientific argument against Bigfoot as they describe it. I think this is a great expansion on the argument that Eugenie Scott discussed and the old question of Bigfoot sustenance.

Bigfoot, as described by Bigfoot enthusiasts like SweatyYeti, is completely and irrevocably ludicrous. A big fat poop at the front door of biology.

Shall we say...



Inconceivable!!!

[kitakaze]

BTW, in that post quoted above of RespendantYeti he said:

Quote:

- The majority of eyewitness accounts describe Bigfoot as being muscular, I don't think I've read many accounts of an obese Bigfoot.

He has a good point. I would however like to point out an account of an obese Bigfoot. Starting at around the 5:00 mark of this video we have the MABRC's Bullet Maker recounting his close encounter with a similarly bodied obese Bigfoot with a smoker's cough on his property in Oklahoma. Not only is this Bigfoot getting its daily 12,000 calories, it's getting an excess enough to be a lardass! Surely this Bigfoot with its massive gut and hacking cough is no type of predator, so how is it becoming the mirror image of Bullet Maker?

Apparently this is no kind of problem for the MABRC.

[JohnG]

You missed the most important point: where is Bigfoot getting his cigarettes?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JohnG

You missed the most important point: where is Bigfoot getting his cigarettes?

Baked beans and pancakes and you're gonna worry about cigarettes? As if there's a late night convenience store clerk in the country who'd try to card a sasquatch.

[Vortigern99]

As a non-footer/non-believer who is interested in investigating the possibility of bigfoot's existence, the question of caloric intake intrigues me. Is this question something of a nail in the supposed creature's coffin, as kitakaze and others appear to believe? After some relevant research into the diet and other behaviors of the American black bear (via wikipedia, Yellowstone's site and other wildlife sites), I'm not so sure the stated 8000 - 9000 calorie/day requirement constitutes the damning counter-evidence the cryptid's critics (cryp-tics?) seem to think it is. But it is a damn good question.

American black bear males grow up to 7 feet tall on average, weighing upwards of 600 pounds. The largest Amer. black bear on record was 95" long (that's 1" shy of 8 feet) and weighed 881 pounds. This is close to or in excess of most reported estimates of BF's size, and is certainly in excess of the supposed height and mass of the P-G figure (assuming that figure is a non-human animal, which I'm disinclined to accept).

It's estimated that there are 20,000 - 24,000 ABBs (Amer. black bears) in the state of California alone. This number is something like 10 times the number that is usually posited as the minimum population requirement for BF to be considered a viable species. Somehow 22,000 ABBs in that state alone manage to find enough food to sustain their nutritional needs.

ABB's need about 6000 - 8000 calories a day in spring and summer; in the fall, owing to a metabolism change called hyperphagia, that requirement spikes to about 20,000 calories/day. This, of course, is so that the bears will survive the lean winter months, during which they undergo a semi-dormant state that is akin to hibernation. While ABBs do not truly hibernate (they are somewhat alert and active, periodically arousing and exiting their dens, and females give birth during this time), they do not eat, drink, or excrete throughout this semi-dormant period. In spring they typically emerge with half of the body weight with which they began the winter.

At various times throughout the feeding year, ABBs derive their daily 6000 - 20000 calories from the following foods: herbs, grasses, acorns, nuts, berries, skunk cabbage, horsetail, treebark, honey, ants, bees, wasps, insect larvae, rodents, salmon, trout, crayfish, alligator eggs, deer, elk & moose (usually young or carrion), and dumpster & campsite raids. With regard to live prey, ABBs usually drag their kills to cover and feed in seclusion.

So, my question for the thinkers who devised this excellent question is: If American Black Bears can do it, why not a supposed bigfoot population? If 22,000 ABBs in California alone can do it, why not 2,000 BFs spread across Washington, California, Oregon, Wyoming and the billion acres of Canadian forest preserve?

DISCLAIMER: Of course, there might not be any bigfoot (pl.) at all. Sightings could be willfully invented, hallucinations based on regional expectations, or misidentifications of the very animal which appears to share its diet and habitat, the American black bear.

I'm just here to ask questions.

[drapier]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Now Bigfoot enthusiasts are going to tell me that there is a viable breeding population of massive mammals many, many times the size of this one wolverine living in Northern California. These animals are obtaining the roughly 12-13,000 calories they will need each day to survive, which would require basically their entire waking life looking for, finding mates, breeding, having young which they teach to survive, and having enough time on the side to throw rocks at humans, learn to mimic other animals, and walk in front of automobiles? All this without ever having relinquished a type specimen to science??

Facepalm. Total, utter facepalm.

Looks like more evidence to support Crowlogic's theory that Bigfoot went extinct in the early 20th century. Oh, well.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

As a non-footer/non-believer who is interested in investigating the possibility of bigfoot's existence, the question of caloric intake intrigues me.




So, my question for the thinkers who devised this excellent question is: If American Black Bears can do it, why not a supposed bigfoot population? If 22,000 ABBs in California alone can do it, why not 2,000 BFs spread across Washington, California, Oregon, Wyoming and the billion acres of Canadian forest preserve?
DISCLAIMER: Of course, there might not be any bigfoot (pl.) at all. Sightings could be willfully invented, hallucinations based on regional expectations, or misidentifications of the very animal which appears to share its diet and habitat, the American black bear.

I'm just here to ask questions.

Let me help you once again.

Its not that a BF "couldnt" other than a POPULATION of BF "couldnt" without leaving TRACES as the ABB and others do. ( sightings, raids on livestock,etc)

Thats the argument. Sure, BF "eats" if he exists but he cannot "eat" without leaving signs and being exposed.

Its the domino thing again.

If BF lives then he has a breeding population.

If he is as big as reported, he eats a LOT.

"THEY" then must gather that energy 24/7/365

"They" are allegedly primates and as such dont fall under the ways of the bear.

You cant realistically have that many eating that much in total "secrecy" and never leaving a single solitary trace. Forensic or otherwise.

Explain that if you can and why after hundreds of years ( if BF is real, he existed long before the PGF) hasnt he been found dead, tracked,etc and RECORDED like EVERY animal known to exist?

[Drewbot]

Two questions.

1. Where is Bigfoot always going TO? I mean he is seen crossing roads, and crossing cemeteries, but what is his destination?

2. Maybe all the American Black Bears ATE the Bigfeet. Although I think footer concensus is that in Bigfoot v. Bear, Bigfoot wins and eats bear's liver with fava beans and a bottle of Chianti.

[Vortigern99]

Before I continue this discussion, I want to make it clear once more that I am not a "believer" and am arguing for the sake of separating possibility from impossibility, plausibility from implausibility. If I can find a hypothetical response to a question posed, or pose a question myself, I will... but I am not arguing that BF definitely exists or even that it probably exists. I'm trying to look at all the angles, consider all sides.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

Its not that a BF "couldnt" other than a POPULATION of BF "couldnt" without leaving TRACES as the ABB and others do. ( sightings, raids on livestock,etc)

Thats the argument. Sure, BF "eats" if he exists but he cannot "eat" without leaving signs and being exposed.

If we take even some of the sightings -- let's say 1% of all total sightings, just for the sake of argument -- as indicative of the animal's existence, then that constitutes "exposure" of the kind you're asking for. If we accept even 1% of all the millions of footprints, OR, failing the reliability of even that percentage, we postulate that some signs of passage that have been logged as black bear activity, are actually bigfoot activity, then that constitutes the "signs" you're asking for. Considering the small number of the estimated viable population of these conjectured animals (about 2000), and the extreme remoteness of their supposed habitat, a few dozen sightings and a few hundred misidentified foliage breaks, tracks or other signs of passage would seem a reasonable number. Would it not?

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

Its the domino thing again.

If BF lives then he has a breeding population.

If he is as big as reported, he eats a LOT.

"THEY" then must gather that energy 24/7/365

Well, American black bears, whose size and estimated caloric requirements are similar to a conjectured bigfoot's, don't have to eat 24/7/365. The Yellowstone NP website notes that in the fall, Amer. black bears spend 20 hours a day ingesting the 20,000 calories required by the onset of hyperphagia. Neither that site nor any other I could find noted the amount of hours needed in spring or summer, but if we take the 1 hour/1000 calories estimate suggested by the Yellowstone article, then the acquisition of 9000 calories would take about 9 hours.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

"They" are allegedly primates and as such dont fall under the ways of the bear.

I'm not certain what you mean specifically by this. Both black bears and primates are of course mammals, and the diet of the Amer. black bear is pretty close in terms of kinds of foods (carbo, protein and veg) we find in chimpanzees. If you mean hibernation, you would certainly have a point if Amer. black bears were true hibernators, but they aren't, despite the post that kitakaze quoted above. If we postulate that bigfoot has a similar strategy of hyperphagia followed by winter dormancy, neither of which behaviors is limited to bears but is pursued by several other mammalian species, then we begin to at least allow the possibility that these animals (bigfoot) exist.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

You cant realistically have that many eating that much in total "secrecy" and never leaving a single solitary trace. Forensic or otherwise.

Perhaps not. You may be absolutely correct and there is no possible way the animal could exist without leaving a trace. However, if we postulate that some of the signs that black and other bears are documented to leave are actually signs that bigfoot (pl.) have left, and have been misidentified by wildlife experts owing to expectations and the absence of known or studied bigfoot signs, coupled with the relatively small number of the proposed bigfoot population (around 2000, compared to 20,000 black bears in CA alone), then once more the possibility once more rears its furry head.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE

Explain that if you can and why after hundreds of years ( if BF is real, he existed long before the PGF) hasnt he been found dead, tracked,etc and RECORDED like EVERY animal known to exist?

There are a number of possibilities that spring to mind. I don't pretend to offer "explanations", but I can offer hyoptheticals, suggestions and conjecture:

1. Bigfoot are extremely intelligent, and are cautious of/actively avoid human beings.

2. The PNW (which is the only place I personally think BF could exist) is montane forest, which according to paleontologist Richard Fortey is an unlikely terrain from which to harvest fossil remains, and which by logical induction is also an unlikely terrain from which to harvest stool samples or recently deceased remains. (I'm aware that a member of this forum, who is a geologist, disagrees with this assessment, but apart from stating that he has argued against it, I have not been availed of his line of reasoning, and a search of this forum for bigfoot + fossil revealed nothing.)

3. Stool samples, signs of passage and signs of feeding believed to be bears' have been misidentified and are actually bigfoot's.

I'm sure there are more possibilities, but those are all that are occurring to me at the moment.

[kitakaze]

Thanks for your questions, Vort. I know I can depend on you for a good swing at counterpoint. Again, to be clear, the argument is not that black bears can do it but Bigfoot can't. It's that black bears, humans, Bigfoots, or any other large mammal can't do it without us knowing about it. Also keep in mind, black bears and humans in northern montane regions have often succumbed to starvation.

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

As a non-footer/non-believer who is interested in investigating the possibility of bigfoot's existence, the question of caloric intake intrigues me. Is this question something of a nail in the supposed creature's coffin, as kitakaze and others appear to believe? After some relevant research into the diet and other behaviors of the American black bear (via wikipedia, Yellowstone's site and other wildlife sites), I'm not so sure the stated 8000 - 9000 calorie/day requirement constitutes the damning counter-evidence the cryptid's critics (cryp-tics?) seem to think it is. But it is a damn good question.

That figure is appropriate more for gorillas (6000 - 9500 per day). By basically universal agreement Bigfoot is significantly larger than a male gorilla (around 300-450 lbs and eats 50 lbs of folivorous food per day).

Quote:

American black bear males grow up to 7 feet tall on average, weighing upwards of 600 pounds. The largest Amer. black bear on record was 95" long (that's 1" shy of 8 feet) and weighed 881 pounds. This is close to or in excess of most reported estimates of BF's size, and is certainly in excess of the supposed height and mass of the P-G figure (assuming that figure is a non-human animal, which I'm disinclined to accept).

Aren't you now doing exactly what Euegenie Scott was criticized for? She spoke about some of the upper size estimates of Bigfoot (9-12ft). Your figures are somewhat misleading. The average adult male black bear weighs 250 lbs and is 5-6ft tall when standing on hind legs. When standing in the regular quadrapedal fashion the average adult male is between 2½ and 3 feet tall 4 and 6ft in length.

http://www.americanbear.org/Size.htm

Let's be very conservative with Patty and take her as 6½ft and about 350 lbs. That makes her definitely bigger than the average male black bear. This doesn't even begin to account for Patty being female and pronounced sexual dimorphism in large apes. Adult male Bigfoots as reported far, far exceed the average size black bear.

Quote:

It's estimated that there are 20,000 - 24,000 ABBs (Amer. black bears) in the state of California alone. This number is something like 10 times the number that is usually posited as the minimum population requirement for BF to be considered a viable species. Somehow 22,000 ABBs in that state alone manage to find enough food to sustain their nutritional needs.

That figure seems about right. I get 17,000 - 23,000 bears in 1998:

http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/mammals/ursu-ame.html

2000 Bigfoots would be the very minimum. It would not account for Bigfoot as reported across North America. The BFRO lists between 2000 - 6000 animals. This is just a quote from the hat of an organization notoriously bad at understanding science. There may be only one wolverine in California and we have itd DNA.

Now, instead of using black bears, why don't we use a mammal with a population that might be closer to that of Bigfoot in California. Let's look at this extensive survey of martens (Martes americana) in California:

http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Re...ielinski97.pdf

The take home message with this report is that painstaking effort is taken to detect these animals in the wild across California and no Bigfoots turn up during such a survey as did possibly the only wolverine in California.

Quote:

ABB's need about 6000 - 8000 calories a day in spring and summer; in the fall, owing to a metabolism change called hyperphagia, that requirement spikes to about 20,000 calories/day. This, of course, is so that the bears will survive the lean winter months, during which they undergo a semi-dormant state that is akin to hibernation. While ABBs do not truly hibernate (they are somewhat alert and active, periodically arousing and exiting their dens, and females give birth during this time), they do not eat, drink, or excrete throughout this semi-dormant period. In spring they typically emerge with half of the body weight with which they began the winter.

"Black bears increase their caloric intake from 8000 kcal/day in the summer to between 15,000 and 20,000 kcal/day in the fall to build up a large enough fat store to survive the the winter (Nelson, 1980)."

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/m...i/page%205.htm

Yes, black bears den in the winter and enter a state of torpor. So are we arguing for Bigfoots going into torpor? Finding a giant stinky massive ape in a state of torpor is definitely going to have occurred if they do in fact do this. Huge stinky animal in one spot. Pretty simple.

Quote:

At various times throughout the feeding year, ABBs derive their daily 6000 - 20000 calories from the following foods: herbs, grasses, acorns, nuts, berries, skunk cabbage, horsetail, treebark, honey, ants, bees, wasps, insect larvae, rodents, salmon, trout, crayfish, alligator eggs, deer, elk & moose (usually young or carrion), and dumpster & campsite raids. With regard to live prey, ABBs usually drag their kills to cover and feed in seclusion.

Note that we know what any large mammal in North America eats, regardless of its population. We should know exactly what Bigfoots eat because they should be spending most of their time trying to eat. Let's take salmon runs. Are Bigfoots fall-down stupid? Every animal in the forest that eats meat and has access to salmon runs will pig out on dead and dying fish. Why not Bigfoot? Is Bigfoot a herbivore? That would be a problem.

Quote:

So, my question for the thinkers who devised this excellent question is: If American Black Bears can do it, why not a supposed bigfoot population? If 22,000 ABBs in California alone can do it, why not 2,000 BFs spread across Washington, California, Oregon, Wyoming and the billion acres of Canadian forest preserve?

Again, 2000 is too low for NA and it's not that they can't. They just can't do it an not be known to science.

Quote:

DISCLAIMER: Of course, there might not be any bigfoot (pl.) at all. Sightings could be willfully invented, hallucinations based on regional expectations, or misidentifications of the very animal which appears to share its diet and habitat, the American black bear.

I'm just here to ask questions.

Here's the problem. Bigfoot doesn't appear to share a diet with black bears or any other large mammal in North America. Reports of seeing a Bigfoot eating are the exception. Reports like these are often of the thrown pig variety. Bigfoots should be seen eating all the time. I should be able to go on youtube and see clear video of a Bigfoot on the side of the road working on a blackberry bush or in someone's yard rummaging through garbage. Why don't we see this even just once?

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

American black bear males grow up to 7 feet tall on average, weighing upwards of 600 pounds.

Got a link to that average? That'd be a big black bear around here...

Also the black bear population has exploded, so why hasn't the bigfoot population exploded? Black bear range has also grown a lot.

[LTC8K6]

What's amazing to me when I start looking at wildlife info is the number of people out in the woods gathering data on wildlife for each state. There are all sorts of surveys going on all the time. Wildlife biologists are all over the woods gathering all sorts of data all the time.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Before I continue this discussion, I want to make it clear once more that I am not a "believer" and am arguing for the sake of separating possibility from impossibility, plausibility from implausibility. If I can find a hypothetical response to a question posed, or pose a question myself, I will... but I am not arguing that BF definitely exists or even that it probably exists. I'm trying to look at all the angles, consider all sides.



If we take even some of the sightings -- let's say 1% of all total sightings, just for the sake of argument -- as indicative of the animal's existence, then that constitutes "exposure" of the kind you're asking for. If we accept even 1% of all the millions of footprints, OR, failing the reliability of even that percentage, we postulate that some signs of passage that have been logged as black bear activity, are actually bigfoot activity, then that constitutes the "signs" you're asking for. Considering the small number of the estimated viable population of these conjectured animals (about 2000), and the extreme remoteness of their supposed habitat, a few dozen sightings and a few hundred misidentified foliage breaks, tracks or other signs of passage would seem a reasonable number. Would it not?



Well, American black bears, whose size and estimated caloric requirements are similar to a conjectured bigfoot's, don't have to eat 24/7/365. The Yellowstone NP website notes that in the fall, Amer. black bears spend 20 hours a day ingesting the 20,000 calories required by the onset of hyperphagia. Neither that site nor any other I could find noted the amount of hours needed in spring or summer, but if we take the 1 hour/1000 calories estimate suggested by the Yellowstone article, then the acquisition of 9000 calories would take about 9 hours.



I'm not certain what you mean specifically by this. Both black bears and primates are of course mammals, and the diet of the Amer. black bear is pretty close in terms of kinds of foods (carbo, protein and veg) we find in chimpanzees. If you mean hibernation, you would certainly have a point if Amer. black bears were true hibernators, but they aren't, despite the post that kitakaze quoted above. If we postulate that bigfoot has a similar strategy of hyperphagia followed by winter dormancy, neither of which behaviors is limited to bears but is pursued by several other mammalian species, then we begin to at least allow the possibility that these animals (bigfoot) exist.



Perhaps not. You may be absolutely correct and there is no possible way the animal could exist without leaving a trace. However, if we postulate that some of the signs that black and other bears are documented to leave are actually signs that bigfoot (pl.) have left, and have been misidentified by wildlife experts owing to expectations and the absence of known or studied bigfoot signs, coupled with the relatively small number of the proposed bigfoot population (around 2000, compared to 20,000 black bears in CA alone), then once more the possibility once more rears its furry head.



There are a number of possibilities that spring to mind. I don't pretend to offer "explanations", but I can offer hyoptheticals, suggestions and conjecture:

1. Bigfoot are extremely intelligent, and are cautious of/actively avoid human beings.

2. The PNW (which is the only place I personally think BF could exist) is montane forest, which according to paleontologist Richard Fortey is an unlikely terrain from which to harvest fossil remains, and which by logical induction is also an unlikely terrain from which to harvest stool samples or recently deceased remains. (I'm aware that a member of this forum, who is a geologist, disagrees with this assessment, but apart from stating that he has argued against it, I have not been availed of his line of reasoning, and a search of this forum for bigfoot + fossil revealed nothing.)

3. Stool samples, signs of passage and signs of feeding believed to be bears' have been misidentified and are actually bigfoot's.

I'm sure there are more possibilities, but those are all that are occurring to me at the moment.

>>>If we take even some of the sightings -- let's say 1% of all total sightings, just for the sake of argument -- as indicative of the animal's existence, then that constitutes "exposure" of the kind you're asking for. If we accept even 1% of all the millions of footprints, OR, failing the reliability of even that percentage, we postulate that some signs of passage that have been logged as black bear activity, are actually bigfoot activity, then that constitutes the "signs" you're asking for. Considering the small number of the estimated viable population of these conjectured animals (about 2000), and the extreme remoteness of their supposed habitat, a few dozen sightings and a few hundred misidentified foliage breaks, tracks or other signs of passage would seem a reasonable number. Would it not?

Not at all, thats a standard footers numbers argument. See, a "report" regardless of who makes it or believes it is 100% worthless for anything scientific UNLESS it is inestigated peoperly and has eidenciary support. Also, there arent "millions" of anything surrounding BF. There are "things" that people give BF credit for doing with no basis in fact whatsoever. ( wood knocking,stone throwing etc)

>>>Well, American black bears, whose size and estimated caloric requirements are similar to a conjectured bigfoot's, don't have to eat 24/7/365. The Yellowstone NP website notes that in the fall, Amer. black bears spend 20 hours a day ingesting the 20,000 calories required by the onset of hyperphagia. Neither that site nor any other I could find noted the amount of hours needed in spring or summer, but if we take the 1 hour/1000 calories estimate suggested by the Yellowstone article, then the acquisition of 9000 calories would take about 9 hours.



I'm not certain what you mean specifically by this. Both black bears and primates are of course mammals, and the diet of the Amer. black bear is pretty close in terms of kinds of foods (carbo, protein and veg) we find in chimpanzees. If you mean hibernation, you would certainly have a point if Amer. black bears were true hibernators, but they aren't, despite the post that kitakaze quoted above. If we postulate that bigfoot has a similar strategy of hyperphagia followed by winter dormancy, neither of which behaviors is limited to bears but is pursued by several other mammalian species, then we begin to at least allow the possibility that these animals (bigfoot) exist.

Come on, stay on course and no straw. The point is and always was that a population of BF ( who would have had to be here for centuries- it didnt just drop by) would have left signs. "Everybody" would be seeing them including people in small towns, store cameras etc. Hell, bear, deer and such have landed in swimming pools, been in stores etc, but no BF?

>>Perhaps not. You may be absolutely correct and there is no possible way the animal could exist without leaving a trace. However, if we postulate that some of the signs that black and other bears are documented to leave are actually signs that bigfoot (pl.) have left, and have been misidentified by wildlife experts owing to expectations and the absence of known or studied bigfoot signs, coupled with the relatively small number of the proposed bigfoot population (around 2000, compared to 20,000 black bears in CA alone), then once more the possibility once more rears its furry head

Another non argument-Postulate this: what are the odds of EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY "wildlife expert', hunter, hiker etc misidentifying EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY "alleged" sign for ALL TIME? Yeah, "possible" but highly improbable

>>>There are a number of possibilities that spring to mind. I don't pretend to offer "explanations", but I can offer hyoptheticals, suggestions and conjecture:

which dont go or get very far

>>>1. Bigfoot are extremely intelligent, and are cautious of/actively avoid human beings.

false argument that contradicts itself that footers selectively ignore the opposite. They are trying to imply that a BF has some textbook perfect infallible sense and intelligence above all else in the animal kingdom. BF doesnt. And if he did, conversely, you wouldnt have ANY sightings because BF is so "smart". They cant both be true.

>>>2. The PNW (which is the only place I personally think BF could exist) is montane forest, which according to paleontologist Richard Fortey is an unlikely terrain from which to harvest fossil remains, and which by logical induction is also an unlikely terrain from which to harvest stool samples or recently deceased remains. (I'm aware that a member of this forum, who is a geologist, disagrees with this assessment, but apart from stating that he has argued against it, I have not been availed of his line of reasoning, and a search of this forum for bigfoot + fossil revealed nothing.)

You need to check the BFRO and TBRC reports. BF is "everywhere" ( yet no where)

>>>3. Stool samples, signs of passage and signs of feeding believed to be bears' have been misidentified and are actually bigfoot's.

Yeah, every single solitary one- the ninja BF hides from us by wearing his bear suit. Absolutely brilliant.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

If we take even some of the sightings -- let's say 1% of all total sightings, just for the sake of argument -- as indicative of the animal's existence, then that constitutes "exposure" of the kind you're asking for. If we accept even 1% of all the millions of footprints, OR, failing the reliability of even that percentage, we postulate that some signs of passage that have been logged as black bear activity, are actually bigfoot activity, then that constitutes the "signs" you're asking for. Considering the small number of the estimated viable population of these conjectured animals (about 2000), and the extreme remoteness of their supposed habitat, a few dozen sightings and a few hundred misidentified foliage breaks, tracks or other signs of passage would seem a reasonable number. Would it not?

1) Seems like you've accepted millions of Bigfoot footprints. I'll spot you and take it to mean that you meant "a whole lot." I'm skeptical about this. I know there have been many claims of tracks. I know Meldrum has received and inherited lots of track casts. Many of them he knows are fakes. But I want to see evidence. Bigfoot enthusiasts always talk about all these tracks (not calling you a footer, Vort). From all my knowledge of Bigfootery I'll be willing to meet you at maybe low hundreds for documented prints. And I'm not even talking about after some attempt to verify them. I'm talking about photographed, measured, cast. I don't think there's nearly as many documented prints out there as footers claim and this is before dealing with some nothing in the dirt cast by MABRC guys.

2) You really think wildlife biologists couldn't tell the difference between black bear activity and Bigfoot activity in the field? To me I can't accept that. There are far to many painstaking studies going on in alleged Bigfoot territory and I think it's a big slap in the face the enthusiasts who have the gall to claim the field researchers would miss it or be hush hush about it. And the supposed remoteness is something that just doesn't apply to examining Bigfoot reports. You can't get into dismissing certain claims based on their proximity to civilization or remoteness without getting into glaring pseudoscience. Besides, that's not what black bears do. If Bigfoot needs around 12,000 calories a day to get by, they can in no way afford to be picky and keep a population going. They're going to be no less picky than bears. Bears leave bones, poop, hair, and other sign. Bigfoot? Not so much.

Quote:

Well, American black bears, whose size and estimated caloric requirements are similar to a conjectured bigfoot's, don't have to eat 24/7/365. The Yellowstone NP website notes that in the fall, Amer. black bears spend 20 hours a day ingesting the 20,000 calories required by the onset of hyperphagia. Neither that site nor any other I could find noted the amount of hours needed in spring or summer, but if we take the 1 hour/1000 calories estimate suggested by the Yellowstone article, then the acquisition of 9000 calories would take about 9 hours.

1) Bigfoots and black bears can not in any way be said fairly to be of similar size. The range of sizes attributed to Bigfoot is more on par with brown bears.

2) Either Bigfoot dens in the winter, going into torpor after somehow spending at least 12 hours a day in the fall to fatten up without a single type specimen to be had. Or, it has to face brutal northern winters and face certain death from starvation and freezing at least a good percentage of the time without any type specimen. Either way, completely ridiculous even if there were only ever 2000 animals around, which makes no sense whatsoever.

I think that if you really look at this objectively, Vort, you can see what in all likelihood is a manmade myth.

Quote:

I'm not certain what you mean specifically by this. Both black bears and primates are of course mammals, and the diet of the Amer. black bear is pretty close in terms of kinds of foods (carbo, protein and veg) we find in chimpanzees. If you mean hibernation, you would certainly have a point if Amer. black bears were true hibernators, but they aren't, despite the post that kitakaze quoted above. If we postulate that bigfoot has a similar strategy of hyperphagia followed by winter dormancy, neither of which behaviors is limited to bears but is pursued by several other mammalian species, then we begin to at least allow the possibility that these animals (bigfoot) exist.

The physiology and dietary adaptions of bears and apes are very different. Let's look at brown bears. In Yellowstone will eat massive amount of moths in the summer to get their caloric intake. Up to 40,000 a day! Not to mention the spawning salmon. Why doesn't Bigfoot do this? Have any Bigfoot eating moth reports?

And what about other primates? Do any primates den in the winter and go into torpor? We're not talking about tropical pygmy mouse lemurs. We have macaques in Japan in places like Jigokudani Moneky Park. The depend in large part on the activity of humans to survive. No torpor. And if Bigfoot doesn't do torpor, isn't it supposed to be nocturnal? Wow. Then it's double screwed.

Quote:

Perhaps not. You may be absolutely correct and there is no possible way the animal could exist without leaving a trace. However, if we postulate that some of the signs that black and other bears are documented to leave are actually signs that bigfoot (pl.) have left, and have been misidentified by wildlife experts owing to expectations and the absence of known or studied bigfoot signs, coupled with the relatively small number of the proposed bigfoot population (around 2000, compared to 20,000 black bears in CA alone), then once more the possibility once more rears its furry head.

Give me one good reason to postulate that there are only 2000 Bigfoots and that wildlife experts can't tell apart the sign of a giant bipedal ape from a bear. One that is more likely than Bigfoot not existing would be great.

Quote:

There are a number of possibilities that spring to mind. I don't pretend to offer "explanations", but I can offer hyoptheticals, suggestions and conjecture:

1. Bigfoot are extremely intelligent, and are cautious of/actively avoid human beings.

1) Why should Bigfoots be cautious of humans? We don't see humans killing any Bigfoots. Did they co-evolve with us in Africa? Did Homo Erectus hunt Gigantos?

2) While generally cautious, apes often become curious of humans.

3) Bears become attracted to human-created food sources. They raid dumpsters, farms, and yards. This often gets them dead but never Bigfoots. Saying it is because the Bigfoots look human is no excuse as this doesn't stop trespassing humans from being shot. The MABRC thinks Bigfoot works the latches on chicken coops and puts the lids back on garbage cans. How are those guys doing?

Quote:

2. The PNW (which is the only place I personally think BF could exist) is montane forest, which according to paleontologist Richard Fortey is an unlikely terrain from which to harvest fossil remains, and which by logical induction is also an unlikely terrain from which to harvest stool samples or recently deceased remains.

By what criteria did you keep the PNW reports and dismiss the over 2/3 outside it?

Quote:

(I'm aware that a member of this forum, who is a geologist, disagrees with this assessment, but apart from stating that he has argued against it, I have not been availed of his line of reasoning, and a search of this forum for bigfoot + fossil revealed nothing.)

Advanced search with Bigfoot and fossil specifying user Correa Neto works fine for me.

Quote:

3. Stool samples, signs of passage and signs of feeding believed to be bears' have been misidentified and are actually bigfoot's.

That is remarkably unfair to all the people that work and study in the forest.

Wildlife experts no what bear scat looks like:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/graphics/bear5a.jpg

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/graphics/bear5b.jpg

What does Bigfoot poo look like? Is it gold? That's what it would worth!

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

3) Bears become attracted to human-created food sources. They raid dumpsters, farms, and yards. This often gets them dead but never Bigfoots. Saying it is because the Bigfoots look human is no excuse as this doesn't stop trespassing humans from being shot. The MABRC thinks Bigfoot works the latches on chicken coops and puts the lids back on garbage cans. How are those guys doing?

The BF or the MABRC?

Personally, I think its the MABRC and their "orig 6" and or senior cadre that are doing all the raiding

[Vortigern99]

Good discussion, guys, and some excellent points as usual. You may be on your way to making me a full-fledged non-believer. However, a few niggling points remain.

Kitakaze, thank you for pointing out that Amer. black bears are on average smaller than the size I indicated. Though 7 and 8-foot long individuals weighing 800+ pounds have been measured, they are not the norm. But it is at least worth noting that such massive sizes are on record, showing that the caloric intake necessary to sustain an 800-pound animal is achievable. Also, the website you linked notes:

Adolph Murie, the famous naturalist, once said, "A bear a long distance from a scale always weighs more." The general public often misjudges the weights of black bears. While they are large, they are not the 4,000-pound beasts that some visitors to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park describe.

If we apply this typical exaggeration of size and mass to BF sightings, it's possible we may be dealing with a smaller animal, say 5 or 6 feet tall and weighing some 4 - 500 pounds, rather than the gargantuan beast so often reported. This would put BF's daily caloric requirements only slightly above that of ABBs, which at face value (without the question of sight avoidance) seems plausible.

As to sight avoidance, and the study of martens and fishers using track plates and game-cameras, that certainly seems to be a damning point. The only counter-arguments I can postulate are that 1. BFs are intelligent enough to be aware of these human technological insertions into their habitat, and to avoid them, and 2. There are no longer BFs in CA, or else their numbers are so small the marten/fisher track plates and game-cams failed to capture them. It's worth noting that only 40% of the aforementioned surveys detected one species (martens or fishers); only 3.6% detected both. If there is a tiny population of BF in CA, owing to habitat loss and other factors, then it is at least possible that remote-dwelling, small-population, highly intelligent, human-cautious BFs have so far managed to avoid visual capture and scientific classification. Not likely or probably, perhaps, but it’s at least possible.

So are we arguing for Bigfoots going into torpor? Finding a giant stinky massive ape in a state of torpor is definitely going to have occurred if they do in fact do this. Huge stinky animal in one spot. Pretty simple.

Yes, that’s an excellent point. The improbabilities appear to stack up at this point to the point of near impossibility: A remote-dwelling, small-population, highly intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant species of North American primate that somehow avoids scientific detection year after year is beginning to sound pretty damn unlikely. Why don’t hunters, biologists or wildlife experts, all of whom conduct their woodland activities in deep winter, stumble across these huge, stinky, torpid animals? The only possibility I can devise is that, if they aren’t in true hibernation, the semi-dormant BFs get wind of the humans’ approach, and stumble away (usually) before they can be spotted. Admittedly this is something of a stretch.

We should know exactly what Bigfoots eat because they should be spending most of their time trying to eat. Let's take salmon runs. Are Bigfoots fall-down stupid? Every animal in the forest that eats meat and has access to salmon runs will pig out on dead and dying fish. Why not Bigfoot? Is Bigfoot a herbivore? That would be a problem.

Two possibilities are: 1. BFs don’t eat fish. This would of course deprive them of much-needed calories, but since Amer. black bears don’t eat fish every day, it is at least possible for such a massive animal to survive without fish, OR 2. BFs don’t feed within sight of humans, avoiding visible-to-humans salmon runs. Again, the probability factors here are stacking to the point of nigh impossibility.

Again, 2000 is too low for NA and it's not that they can't [obtain their required caloric intake]. They just can't do it and not be known to science.

2000 is only too low for NA if we include the 2/3 of sightings outside the PNW. (More on this below, in my response to your second message.) They could do it and not be known to science if they are remote-dwelling, small-population, highly intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant, private-feeding animals, which is beginning to sound pretty damn unlikely.

[Vortigern99]

LONGTABBER PE:

Not at all, thats a standard footers numbers argument. See, a "report" regardless of who makes it or believes it is 100% worthless for anything scientific UNLESS it is inestigated peoperly and has eidenciary support. Also, there arent "millions" of anything surrounding BF. There are "things" that people give BF credit for doing with no basis in fact whatsoever. ( wood knocking,stone throwing etc)

I understand that the thousands of reports and millions of footprints (this is the number I’ve read or heard: I don’t pretend to personally verify its accuracy) do not qualify as scientific evidence based on the ease of manufacture of the latter and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony as invented, misidentified, hallucinatory, etc. I’m responding conjecturally to conjectural questions, putting forth possible explanations in response to theoretical questions posed by kitakaze. Furthermore, forgive me, but your reasoning on this point appears to be circular: “We know that BFs have never exposed themselves to human sight because we cannot accept the thousands of sightings reported as evidence that they have been sighted.” I apologize if that seems like a straw man, and I’m certain you’ll correct me if it is, but while the phrasing is my own the line of reasoning appears to be yours.

Come on, stay on course and no straw. The point is and always was that a population of BF ( who would have had to be here for centuries- it didnt just drop by) would have left signs. "Everybody" would be seeing them including people in small towns, store cameras etc. Hell, bear, deer and such have landed in swimming pools, been in stores etc, but no BF?

You say “no straw” but I was responding to specific points brought up by kitakaze and the BFF member whom he quoted. If BF is a remote-dwelling, highly-intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant, private-feeding species (admittedly a lot of “ifs” that when stacked begin to defy probability), that would explain your above objections. It’s not likely, certainly, but it is at least possible that such a species could exist.

Another non argument-Postulate this: what are the odds of EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY "wildlife expert', hunter, hiker etc misidentifying EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY "alleged" sign for ALL TIME? Yeah, "possible" but highly improbable

Actually, many hikers and hunters have reported BF signs. Kranz in his 1992 book describes how some BF hunters have methods of identifying what they believe to be signs of BF passing, distinct from that of bears. Beyond that what I’m suggesting is that biologists and wildlife experts (not sure why this term garners the use of quotations), largely professions of the 19th and 20th centuries (as distinct from the all-caps “ALL TIME” which you prefer), could be mistaken in their identification of the signs of a large mammal passing. Expectation and a lack of a model to distinguish a BF’s passing from a bear’s could lead to their ascribing “bear” to evidence of a BF passing. I don’t understand how this is a “non-argument”, but you’re free to ignore it or mock it as you like.

>>>There are a number of possibilities that spring to mind. I don't pretend to offer "explanations", but I can offer hypotheticals, suggestions and conjecture:

which dont go or get very far

Wow, thanks for the rude comment! It sure is a pleasure having a dispassionate, contemplative discussion with you.

>>>1. Bigfoot are extremely intelligent, and are cautious of/actively avoid human beings.

false argument that contradicts itself that footers selectively ignore the opposite. They are trying to imply that a BF has some textbook perfect infallible sense and intelligence above all else in the animal kingdom. BF doesnt. And if he did, conversely, you wouldnt have ANY sightings because BF is so "smart". They cant both be true.

Please don’t lump me in with the theories and imaginings of others with whom you have had similar discussions. I’m just conjecturing here, as I’ve stated many times, and I have no stake in the outcome of this debate one way or the other. I do not suggest that BFs, if they exist, have “some textbook perfect infallible sense and intelligence above all else in the animal kingdom”. If they exist, one possible explanation for their avoidance of detection is that it is willful, based on high intelligence relative to other animals. This does not mean perforce that BFs are impervious to error or that their senses and intelligence are so high they could never possibly be spotted. You are creating a false dilemma here: “Either BFs are so smart they cannot be detected ever, OR they should be spotted all the time and easily detected and classified.” IF the animals exist (which I willingly admit is improbable), it’s possible their senses, intelligence and remote habitat are sufficient to avoid detection some or even most of the time, but not all of the time.

>>>2. The PNW (which is the only place I personally think BF could exist) is montane forest, which according to paleontologist Richard Fortey is an unlikely terrain from which to harvest fossil remains, and which by logical induction is also an unlikely terrain from which to harvest stool samples or recently deceased remains. (I'm aware that a member of this forum, who is a geologist, disagrees with this assessment, but apart from stating that he has argued against it, I have not been availed of his line of reasoning, and a search of this forum for bigfoot + fossil revealed nothing.)

You need to check the BFRO and TBRC reports. BF is "everywhere" ( yet no where)

I don’t need to accept all sightings everywhere in NA as definitely true and accurate in order to allow the possibility that some sightings in some places might be true. Another false dilemma!

>>>3. Stool samples, signs of passage and signs of feeding believed to be bears' have been misidentified and are actually bigfoot's.

Yeah, every single solitary one- the ninja BF hides from us by wearing his bear suit. Absolutely brilliant.

I see that you, too, are fond of straw men. I never suggested anything so ridiculous as a bear suit. I said “signs of passage and of feeding”, as in after-the-fact traces of their presence and/or activities. See above for my reasoning as to how biologists and the mysteriously quotation-garnering “wildlife experts” might have misidentified some of these traces.

[Vortigern99]

Kitakaze:

1) Seems like you've accepted millions of Bigfoot footprints. I'll spot you and take it to mean that you meant "a whole lot." I'm skeptical about this. I know there have been many claims of tracks. I know Meldrum has received and inherited lots of track casts. Many of them he knows are fakes. But I want to see evidence. Bigfoot enthusiasts always talk about all these tracks (not calling you a footer, Vort). From all my knowledge of Bigfootery I'll be willing to meet you at maybe low hundreds for documented prints. And I'm not even talking about after some attempt to verify them. I'm talking about photographed, measured, cast. I don't think there's nearly as many documented prints out there as footers claim and this is before dealing with some nothing in the dirt cast by MABRC guys.

Meldrum says he as 350 prints; Kranz in his 1992 book Big Footprints claimed to have 81 plaster casts; also in 1992 Kranz stated that Green had “reports of almost one thousand footprint events in his files from North America”. On page 19, Kranz does some fast and loose math and comes up with “something like 100 million potentially visible track events that have occurred within the last 40 years in areas where people coexist with sasquatches.” Some of these “events” are actually multi-thousand track events that go on for miles at a time.

I am not stating that any of these tracks constitute valid, scientific evidence of BF’s existence. They could have been faked by a variety of known methods, which is why I ultimately discounted even the 1% possibility and moved on to my next point in the passage under discussion.

2) You really think wildlife biologists couldn't tell the difference between black bear activity and Bigfoot activity in the field? To me I can't accept that. There are far to many painstaking studies going on in alleged Bigfoot territory and I think it's a big slap in the face the enthusiasts who have the gall to claim the field researchers would miss it or be hush hush about it. And the supposed remoteness is something that just doesn't apply to examining Bigfoot reports. You can't get into dismissing certain claims based on their proximity to civilization or remoteness without getting into glaring pseudoscience. Besides, that's not what black bears do. If Bigfoot needs around 12,000 calories a day to get by, they can in no way afford to be picky and keep a population going. They're going to be no less picky than bears. Bears leave bones, poop, hair, and other sign. Bigfoot? Not so much.

In my above response to LONGTABBER, I suggested that confirmation of expectation, and a lack of a model to distinguish a BF’s passing from a bear’s could lead to biologists’ and experts’ ascribing “bear” to evidence of a BF passing. I don’t mean to suggest that biologists or anyone is “hush hush” about BF signs, as if there’s some kind of conspiracy to hide its existence. (Maybe some “footers” advance this notion, but I see it as kinda silly.) The other points I think I addressed in my previous response to you, above; in brief, a remote-dwelling, human-cautious, privately-feeding animal could explain your objections, if such an animal is even possible, which is looking pretty unlikely at this point.

1) Bigfoots and black bears can not in any way be said fairly to be of similar size. The range of sizes attributed to Bigfoot is more on par with brown bears.

2) Either Bigfoot dens in the winter, going into torpor after somehow spending at least 12 hours a day in the fall to fatten up without a single type specimen to be had. Or, it has to face brutal northern winters and face certain death from starvation and freezing at least a good percentage of the time without any type specimen. Either way, completely ridiculous even if there were only ever 2000 animals around, which makes no sense whatsoever.

I think that if you really look at this objectively, Vort, you can see what in all likelihood is a manmade myth.

The number of improbabilities certainly appears to be stacking up against its existence.

The physiology and dietary adaptions of bears and apes are very different. Let's look at brown bears. In Yellowstone will eat massive amount of moths in the summer to get their caloric intake. Up to 40,000 a day! Not to mention the spawning salmon. Why doesn't Bigfoot do this? Have any Bigfoot eating moth reports?

See my privately-feeding, human-cautious hypothesis. Unlikely, though not impossible.

And what about other primates? Do any primates den in the winter and go into torpor? We're not talking about tropical pygmy mouse lemurs. We have macaques in Japan in places like Jigokudani Moneky Park. The depend in large part on the activity of humans to survive. No torpor. And if Bigfoot doesn't do torpor, isn't it supposed to be nocturnal? Wow. Then it's double screwed.

That known and catalogued large primates are not winter-dormant or torpid is not evidence that this one conjectural, uncatalogued species cannot be winter-dormant or torpid. All I’m saying is that it’s possible. As you note, some small primates (lemurs) hibernate, and of course some large bears also hibernate, but many or even most mammalian species do not. IOW, that most mammals do neither is not evidence that some don’t or can’t.

Give me one good reason to postulate that there are only 2000 Bigfoots and that wildlife experts can't tell apart the sign of a giant bipedal ape from a bear. One that is more likely than Bigfoot not existing would be great. … That is remarkably unfair to all the people that work and study in the forest.

I have nothing here beyond what I’ve already suggested.

1) Why should Bigfoots be cautious of humans? We don't see humans killing any Bigfoots. Did they co-evolve with us in Africa? Did Homo Erectus hunt Gigantos?

Since Gigantopithecus was an exclusively Asian species, and shares no ancestry with African apes before about 10 mya, the answer to your second and third questions here must be “no”, IF and only if G. is the ancestor of the modern conjectured BF. As to the first question, once more I have no answers beyond the purely conjectural. BF might be cautious of humans because of 1. Instinctual, genetically-ingrained fear; 2. Some past calamity with Native Americans that caused the mime of “fear humans” to enter into BF enculturation; or 3. A combination of 1 and 2.

2) While generally cautious, apes often become curious of humans.

Often is not always, and there is the possibility that BFs are distinct from apes in this regard.

3) Bears become attracted to human-created food sources. They raid dumpsters, farms, and yards. This often gets them dead but never Bigfoots. Saying it is because the Bigfoots look human is no excuse as this doesn't stop trespassing humans from being shot. The MABRC thinks Bigfoot works the latches on chicken coops and puts the lids back on garbage cans. How are those guys doing?

Forgive me, but this is illogical. “BFs cannot exist because other animals of the same probable size, mass and diet do A; therefore BFs must also do A, and if they are not seen doing A then they must not exist.” It’s circular reasoning and discounts the “remote-dwelling, human-cautious, private-feeding” characteristics which I’ve suggested must apply to the species in order to explain these questions. Also, I personally don’t give any credence to the MABRC.

By what criteria did you keep the PNW reports and dismiss the over 2/3 outside it?

By the sheer unlikelihood that such animals could remain undiscovered, by trace evidence or remains, or sustain themselves anywhere in NA except in the vast forests of the PNW and Canada. If you reject all sightings everywhere of BF, why can I not reject most sightings based on the same criteria, and postulate that only PNW and Canadian sightings are sufficiently plausible to earn my interest?

Advanced search with Bigfoot and fossil specifying user Correa Neto works fine for me.

This is my next task. I’ll get back to ya on this question, which is important to me.

Wildlife experts know what bear scat looks like….

What does Bigfoot poo look like? Is it gold? That's what it would worth!

Another damning point in your favor. Is it possible, however, that BFs are intelligent enough to bury or cover their excreta? Is it possible that their population is so small (once again, 2000 spread over a billion + acres), and that they dwell in such remote places that their excreta is never discovered? I certainly don’t pretend to know the answers to these questions, but they’re worth raising nonetheless.

To sum up, I agree with both LONGTABBER and kitakaze that 1. There is no inarguable scientific evidence of these animals’ existence, and 2. the probability of their existence is so low as to be negligible. That said, there is at least a tiny possibility that they could exist. I have yet to discover absolute proof that they cannot exist, and until I do, I will continue to suggest the possibility that maybe they do

[LONGTABBER PE]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

LONGTABBER PE:

Not at all, thats a standard footers numbers argument. See, a "report" regardless of who makes it or believes it is 100% worthless for anything scientific UNLESS it is inestigated peoperly and has eidenciary support. Also, there arent "millions" of anything surrounding BF. There are "things" that people give BF credit for doing with no basis in fact whatsoever. ( wood knocking,stone throwing etc)

I understand that the thousands of reports and millions of footprints (this is the number I’ve read or heard: I don’t pretend to personally verify its accuracy) do not qualify as scientific evidence based on the ease of manufacture of the latter and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony as invented, misidentified, hallucinatory, etc. I’m responding conjecturally to conjectural questions, putting forth possible explanations in response to theoretical questions posed by kitakaze. Furthermore, forgive me, but your reasoning on this point appears to be circular: “We know that BFs have never exposed themselves to human sight because we cannot accept the thousands of sightings reported as evidence that they have been sighted.” I apologize if that seems like a straw man, and I’m certain you’ll correct me if it is, but while the phrasing is my own the line of reasoning appears to be yours.

Come on, stay on course and no straw. The point is and always was that a population of BF ( who would have had to be here for centuries- it didnt just drop by) would have left signs. "Everybody" would be seeing them including people in small towns, store cameras etc. Hell, bear, deer and such have landed in swimming pools, been in stores etc, but no BF?

You say “no straw” but I was responding to specific points brought up by kitakaze and the BFF member whom he quoted. If BF is a remote-dwelling, highly-intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant, private-feeding species (admittedly a lot of “ifs” that when stacked begin to defy probability), that would explain your above objections. It’s not likely, certainly, but it is at least possible that such a species could exist.

Another non argument-Postulate this: what are the odds of EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY "wildlife expert', hunter, hiker etc misidentifying EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY "alleged" sign for ALL TIME? Yeah, "possible" but highly improbable

Actually, many hikers and hunters have reported BF signs. Kranz in his 1992 book describes how some BF hunters have methods of identifying what they believe to be signs of BF passing, distinct from that of bears. Beyond that what I’m suggesting is that biologists and wildlife experts (not sure why this term garners the use of quotations), largely professions of the 19th and 20th centuries (as distinct from the all-caps “ALL TIME” which you prefer), could be mistaken in their identification of the signs of a large mammal passing. Expectation and a lack of a model to distinguish a BF’s passing from a bear’s could lead to their ascribing “bear” to evidence of a BF passing. I don’t understand how this is a “non-argument”, but you’re free to ignore it or mock it as you like.

>>>There are a number of possibilities that spring to mind. I don't pretend to offer "explanations", but I can offer hypotheticals, suggestions and conjecture:

which dont go or get very far

Wow, thanks for the rude comment! It sure is a pleasure having a dispassionate, contemplative discussion with you.

>>>1. Bigfoot are extremely intelligent, and are cautious of/actively avoid human beings.

false argument that contradicts itself that footers selectively ignore the opposite. They are trying to imply that a BF has some textbook perfect infallible sense and intelligence above all else in the animal kingdom. BF doesnt. And if he did, conversely, you wouldnt have ANY sightings because BF is so "smart". They cant both be true.

Please don’t lump me in with the theories and imaginings of others with whom you have had similar discussions. I’m just conjecturing here, as I’ve stated many times, and I have no stake in the outcome of this debate one way or the other. I do not suggest that BFs, if they exist, have “some textbook perfect infallible sense and intelligence above all else in the animal kingdom”. If they exist, one possible explanation for their avoidance of detection is that it is willful, based on high intelligence relative to other animals. This does not mean perforce that BFs are impervious to error or that their senses and intelligence are so high they could never possibly be spotted. You are creating a false dilemma here: “Either BFs are so smart they cannot be detected ever, OR they should be spotted all the time and easily detected and classified.” IF the animals exist (which I willingly admit is improbable), it’s possible their senses, intelligence and remote habitat are sufficient to avoid detection some or even most of the time, but not all of the time.

>>>2. The PNW (which is the only place I personally think BF could exist) is montane forest, which according to paleontologist Richard Fortey is an unlikely terrain from which to harvest fossil remains, and which by logical induction is also an unlikely terrain from which to harvest stool samples or recently deceased remains. (I'm aware that a member of this forum, who is a geologist, disagrees with this assessment, but apart from stating that he has argued against it, I have not been availed of his line of reasoning, and a search of this forum for bigfoot + fossil revealed nothing.)

You need to check the BFRO and TBRC reports. BF is "everywhere" ( yet no where)

I don’t need to accept all sightings everywhere in NA as definitely true and accurate in order to allow the possibility that some sightings in some places might be true. Another false dilemma!

>>>3. Stool samples, signs of passage and signs of feeding believed to be bears' have been misidentified and are actually bigfoot's.

Yeah, every single solitary one- the ninja BF hides from us by wearing his bear suit. Absolutely brilliant.

I see that you, too, are fond of straw men. I never suggested anything so ridiculous as a bear suit. I said “signs of passage and of feeding”, as in after-the-fact traces of their presence and/or activities. See above for my reasoning as to how biologists and the mysteriously quotation-garnering “wildlife experts” might have misidentified some of these traces.

By the numbers and lets stick to the basics

>>>I understand that the thousands of reports and millions of footprints (this is the number I’ve read or heard: I don’t pretend to personally verify its accuracy) do not qualify as scientific evidence based on the ease of manufacture of the latter and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony as invented, misidentified, hallucinatory, etc.

Then why use "stories" with no substance as the basis of a point?

>>>I’m responding conjecturally to conjectural questions, putting forth possible explanations in response to theoretical questions posed by kitakaze. Furthermore, forgive me, but your reasoning on this point appears to be circular: “We know that BFs have never exposed themselves to human sight because we cannot accept the thousands of sightings reported as evidence that they have been sighted.” I apologize if that seems like a straw man, and I’m certain you’ll correct me if it is, but while the phrasing is my own the line of reasoning appears to be yours.


Yes, I'll correct you now and my reasoning is quite linear and precise. People ( maybe not you specifically but you are dancing on the line) in the pro BF camp generally

1) point to the "vast" ( thats open to interpretation LOL) number of sightings as "proof" BF must be real because if 1 teeny weenie sighting is true, BF is real. ( argument to numbers)

2) BF is so hard to ( get picture,bones,DNA,whatever) because BF has an intelligence,ability, inborn sense to avoid humans at every turn. ( even the ability to recognize game cams as cameras and avoid them)

Problem is they both cancel themselves out. Those arent explanations for a point, they are EXCUSES for FAILURE to PRODUCE. Nothing is "perfect" including BF and ONCE in its existence he would have been hit by a car, a clear photograph, some real hair or SOMETHING.

>>>You say “no straw” but I was responding to specific points brought up by kitakaze and the BFF member whom he quoted. If BF is a remote-dwelling, highly-intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant, private-feeding species (admittedly a lot of “ifs” that when stacked begin to defy probability), that would explain your above objections. It’s not likely, certainly, but it is at least possible that such a species could exist.


I dont argue the possibility- just the probability

>>>Actually, many hikers and hunters have reported BF signs.

How many is many? What proportion to the whole? An appeal to numbers. Were they sober? mistaken? lying? What exactly is a "bigfoot sign"? ( defined as something uniquely a BF and nothing else?)

A report that has not been investigated and is accompanied by legitimate EVIDENCIARY support is MEANINGLESS

>>>Kranz in his 1992 book describes how some BF hunters have methods of identifying what they believe to be signs of BF passing, distinct from that of bears. Beyond that what I’m suggesting is that biologists and wildlife experts (not sure why this term garners the use of quotations), largely professions of the 19th and 20th centuries (as distinct from the all-caps “ALL TIME” which you prefer), could be mistaken in their identification of the signs of a large mammal passing.

Dont quote a "bigfoot hunter" as something legitimate. Heres an easy task. Show ONE ( thats all) "method" or result that shows BF.

>>>Expectation and a lack of a model to distinguish a BF’s passing from a bear’s could lead to their ascribing “bear” to evidence of a BF passing. I don’t understand how this is a “non-argument”, but you’re free to ignore it or mock it as you like.

It is a non argument and means absolutely nothing because its neither qualifiable or quantifiable. Its just empty words to explain away failure to produce.

>>>Wow, thanks for the rude comment! It sure is a pleasure having a dispassionate, contemplative discussion with you.

Nothing rude to it- it is a statement of fact.

>>>Please don’t lump me in with the theories and imaginings of others with whom you have had similar discussions.

a rose by any other name

>>>I’m just conjecturing here, as I’ve stated many times, and I have no stake in the outcome of this debate one way or the other. I do not suggest that BFs, if they exist, have “some textbook perfect infallible sense and intelligence above all else in the animal kingdom”.

You have implied that

>>>If they exist, one possible explanation for their avoidance of detection is that it is willful, based on high intelligence relative to other animals. This does not mean perforce that BFs are impervious to error or that their senses and intelligence are so high they could never possibly be spotted. You are creating a false dilemma here: “Either BFs are so smart they cannot be detected ever, OR they should be spotted all the time and easily detected and classified.” IF the animals exist (which I willingly admit is improbable), it’s possible their senses, intelligence and remote habitat are sufficient to avoid detection some or even most of the time, but not all of the time.

I'm not creating anything.

>>>I don’t need to accept all sightings everywhere in NA as definitely true and accurate in order to allow the possibility that some sightings in some places might be true. Another false dilemma!

Its called cherry picking

>>>I see that you, too, are fond of straw men. I never suggested anything so ridiculous as a bear suit. I said “signs of passage and of feeding”, as in after-the-fact traces of their presence and/or activities. See above for my reasoning as to how biologists and the mysteriously quotation-garnering “wildlife experts” might have misidentified some of these traces

Sorry, I only use straw in the flower beds. Show me "signs of passage" that point to a BF

[Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Orthoptera

The California wolverine case is a perfect example of why the Bigfoot thing is so ludicrous. On Feb. 28, 2008, a photo trap (one of a large array set out for a marten study) snaps a picture of a wolverine. Within a few days:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0327093622.htm

Within a month, DNA analysis had determined the animal's sex and geographic origin.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0403125451.htm

Bigfoot hunters should consider the above referenced articles carefully-- this is how real biologists operate every day.

Thats just silly. If I was looking for wolverines I would go out side and holler like a cat in the middle of the night. When the wolverines responded I would leave the area as quickly as possible, declaring success the next day via youtube.com

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Good discussion, guys, and some excellent points as usual. You may be on your way to making me a full-fledged non-believer. However, a few niggling points remain.

I will state for the record that I have no desire to make you like me in terms of becoming a fellow Bigfoot skeptic. You yourself have made clear many times that you are not a believer but rather allowing yourself to be open to the possibilities. I think you will find in that regard that we make a point of being open to the possibilities. The difference, I think, comes into what degree of openess the facts at hand dictate as appropriate. Let say for the time being that you are on the fence teetering heavily in the direction where most of us here find ourselves. In that regard your beginning at the JREF will be exactly the same as mine. I think there is no intellectual achievement to be recognized in blindy jumping off that fence at somebody elses urging so with that in mind, let's niggle away.

Quote:

If we apply this typical exaggeration of size and mass to BF sightings, it's possible we may be dealing with a smaller animal, say 5 or 6 feet tall and weighing some 4 - 500 pounds, rather than the gargantuan beast so often reported. This would put BF's daily caloric requirements only slightly above that of ABBs, which at face value (without the question of sight avoidance) seems plausible.

Would real Bigfoots most likely turn out not to be the 12ft goliaths of so many tales? I would certainly have to think so. It just wouldn't make any sense. A 12ft bipedal ape is going to have a type of physiology that we have never seen before. I will fully agree that people tend to exaggerate size. Does that bring Bigfoot into the closer to the caloric ranges of black bears? Well, I think the size consistently reported is big enough to say that Bigfoots are apparently much, much bigger than black bears but for the sake of argument let's spot that point. Let's say Bigfoot's caloric needs are not many several thousands above that of black bears. Let's say it is only a few.

Remember, though, the argument is not about whether or not Bigfoot can sustain itself and survive. It is about whether or not such a large mammal could do it and be unidentified in North America even with a population in the thousands. I am saying most certainly not.

Quote:

As to sight avoidance, and the study of martens and fishers using track plates and game-cameras, that certainly seems to be a damning point. The only counter-arguments I can postulate are that 1. BFs are intelligent enough to be aware of these human technological insertions into their habitat, and to avoid them, and 2. There are no longer BFs in CA, or else their numbers are so small the marten/fisher track plates and game-cams failed to capture them.

OK, let's start with one - Bigfoot being intelligent enough to recognize gamecams and track plates. What are these things to Bigfoot? Why should they cause Bigfoot any alarm? What history does Bigfoot have with having their survival threatened by our doodads? They certainly haven't seen the wrong ends of our guns. Nor our spears or arrows judging by the complete lack of Bigfoot native artifacts (remains, not amorphous maybe boogeymen tales). Bears have gotten all of these things to the point of extinction of many populations yet they are still intelligent recognize that often it is those human-created doodads that lead to food. That reminds me of the recent "Swamp Stalker" episode where a bear started chewing on on of the gamecams because it smelt of petroleum and plastic.

And hey, wait. That brings me to another excellent point about bears. Along with sharp teeth and jaw adaptions that black bears have, they have that other feature of bears that make them so good at getting all those food items you listed from the wiki entry. They have that wonderful bear nose and front limbs so very adapted for digging. Bears are diggers and sniffers. That's how they come up with so much of the food they find. Bigfoot, as a giant ape, certainly could not have evolved these essential traits in its limited time in North America. No great sniffer, no limbs and claws for digging, and no big sharp teeth to aid in predation.

Another thing to consider also when trying to compare a Bigfoot to a black bear is that black bears evolved in North America. They are much better adapted to life in North America than say brown bears, which are of Eurasian origins. How is it that Bigfoot is having the success better even than black bears in turning up all across North America? But that brings us to your second option.

That being that either Bigfoots have disappeared from their once most traditional territory of California or the numbers have become so low as to be imperceptible to the many ongoing wildlife studies. First, let me point out again that even with apparently only one wolverine in California, the studies were able to detect it. So that doesn't bode well for arguing low numbers. Nor does having numbers so low work when trying to stay fed and maintain a poulation. So maybe they are gone? Maybe log was right and the Bigfoots went extinct? And yet there is no sign of it. Not a trace. And yet why are we even considering it? California has a whopping 405 reports at the BFRO. So you tell me, what is most likely at play here? A real species of animal or a social construct that once you take it out of the hyper media and exposure of North American culture, you can see everywhere around the world - the wild man.

Quote:

It's worth noting that only 40% of the aforementioned surveys detected one species (martens or fishers); only 3.6% detected both. If there is a tiny population of BF in CA, owing to habitat loss and other factors, then it is at least possible that remote-dwelling, small-population, highly intelligent, human-cautious BFs have so far managed to avoid visual capture and scientific classification. Not likely or probably, perhaps, but it’s at least possible.

1) If you check the studies again, you'll note that what you are talking about in that first sentence is due to the fact that it is the martens that are in trouble. The fishers are doing fine and so exhaustive studies all across the range of habitats are need to figure out the discrepancy. That's real wildlife biology problems and not Bigfoot gobbledy-gook.

2) At least possible. OK, then. But do you see where that's left us? We are now in the realm of the pathetic. We are on the shelf beside the chupacabras and the alien visitation. We are flittering around in the realm of possible. Why are we here? Why do we need to muck about in such a silly place? There's a really neat place over there called "reality" and it's far more interesting. In reality I can explain Bigfoot easily as a social construct. In reality I can show that much of this so-called "mystery" has been invented by people who want to present a mystery. Millions of footprints? Oh crap! That sounds like a genuine anomaly that we should really check out. Wait, what? Oh, those Bigfoot enthusiasts just made that up and there are maybe a couple hundred, all of which can be explained by hoaxing and misidentification? OK, nevermind.

See the only "mystery", I think, is the social one and how the myth perpetuates itself. That's a valid question to me and the one I'm way more interested in than whether or not Bigfoot is really out there.

Quote:

So are we arguing for Bigfoots going into torpor? Finding a giant stinky massive ape in a state of torpor is definitely going to have occurred if they do in fact do this. Huge stinky animal in one spot. Pretty simple.

Yes, that’s an excellent point. The improbabilities appear to stack up at this point to the point of near impossibility: A remote-dwelling, small-population, highly intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant species of North American primate that somehow avoids scientific detection year after year is beginning to sound pretty damn unlikely. Why don’t hunters, biologists or wildlife experts, all of whom conduct their woodland activities in deep winter, stumble across these huge, stinky, torpid animals? The only possibility I can devise is that, if they aren’t in true hibernation, the semi-dormant BFs get wind of the humans’ approach, and stumble away (usually) before they can be spotted. Admittedly this is something of a stretch.

Something of a stretch, to say the least! The Bigfoots have to be dormant enough to preserve the low metabolism but be ready to take flight should any humans approach? And why? What are they worried about? This is all firmly gone into the realm of the ludicrous. We are at the point where we're just trying to throw Bigfoot anything that will float but all we're chucking is the kitchen sink. Bigfoot may be able to do this and may be able to do that. Maybe they do have infrared vision or infra-sound. The point is why are we making this crap up when we can just acknowledge the elephant (or Bigfoot) in the room and call it myth?

Quote:

We should know exactly what Bigfoots eat because they should be spending most of their time trying to eat. Let's take salmon runs. Are Bigfoots fall-down stupid? Every animal in the forest that eats meat and has access to salmon runs will pig out on dead and dying fish. Why not Bigfoot? Is Bigfoot a herbivore? That would be a problem.

Two possibilities are: 1. BFs don’t eat fish. This would of course deprive them of much-needed calories, but since Amer. black bears don’t eat fish every day, it is at least possible for such a massive animal to survive without fish, OR 2. BFs don’t feed within sight of humans, avoiding visible-to-humans salmon runs. Again, the probability factors here are stacking to the point of nigh impossibility.

1) No, black bears don't eat fish everyday but they do when it's around. When it's not around they have those great sniffers, claws, and teeth, and torpor to help them. What does Bigfoot have? Better not be just better than average ape intelligence because that doesn't even help humans with vast problem solving skills, abstract thought, future planning, and tools when things get scarce and they starve.

2) Yes, you're right. #2 is just silly. Bigfoot sacrifices desperately needed calories in salmon runs that no other forest omnivore/carnivore will avoid and they somehow know which ones are monitored by humans when even bears with their world class noses and hearing do not. Coo coo!

Quote:

Again, 2000 is too low for NA and it's not that they can't [obtain their required caloric intake]. They just can't do it and not be known to science.

2000 is only too low for NA if we include the 2/3 of sightings outside the PNW. (More on this below, in my response to your second message.) They could do it and not be known to science if they are remote-dwelling, small-population, highly intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant, private-feeding animals, which is beginning to sound pretty damn unlikely.

I'm thinking one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by biscuit

thats just silly. If i was looking for wolverines i would go out side and holler like a cat in the middle of the night. When the wolverines responded i would leave the area as quickly as possible, declaring success the next day via youtube.com

rofl!

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

(snip)

To sum up, I agree with both LONGTABBER and kitakaze that 1. There is no inarguable scientific evidence of these animals’ existence, and 2. the probability of their existence is so low as to be negligible. That said, there is at least a tiny possibility that they could exist. I have yet to discover absolute proof that they cannot exist, and until I do, I will continue to suggest the possibility that maybe they do

There is much more in your post that merits discussion that I would like to get to. I think much of it has been addressed in my previous post to you but there are still key things.

By what's quoted above we basically agree on everything in principle. Yes, maybe Bigfoots exist. Yes, the the chances are so low as to be negligible. So where do we differ in this regard? I don't think very much. In many ways (though there are also significant differences) I think we have much in common with how we came to the JREF. I came a few years ago with a very similar stance. I was growing evermore skeptical but I still had points to niggle. I niggled away and I did so in a manner that was respectful to those I was conversing with and open to their wisdom and experience.

I remember one lady by the name of UrsulaV that was ever patient with me as I niggled away and she was always open to looking at claims of compelling evidence. She would wear on her sleeve that she hoped they would pan out but made it clear the past has not been so kind. There were people I felt were close-minded, too, that I would butt heads with when they would imply that only the frightfully stupid would seriously consider Bigfoot. All in all, many things have changed in those three short years that I've been here but many others have stayed the same. UrsulaV is gone now but I like to think I can pass on some of what I got from her in terms of how we approach skepticism on Bigfoot and other things in general.

I think if you stick around things might be similar for you.