New Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About PhloydPhan

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
  1. Great apes' diets don't vary much from species to species. Gorillas, orangutans, chimps, bonobos, and even (as far as we can tell) pre-agricultural humans all eat/ate diets of mostly fruits and vegetation (leaves, nuts, tree bark, etc.), with protein playing a smaller - although certainly important - role in their diets. While I'm sure that a sasquatch could kill and eat larger animals like deer, and probably do so from time to time, I don't see why we should expect them to be different from other great apes in terms of diet. I'm not aware of many accounts that describe the eating habits of alleged sasquatch, but one of the more famous accounts that does, the William Roe account, describes an animal which is sitting and eating leaves in much same manner as orangutans do. While many other posters are using examples of estimated caloric requirements - and are making strong cases for the manner in which they are making those estimates - I think we should remember that the caloric requirements of great apes can be quite seasonal. This paper (note: hyperlink opens a PDF) describes how orangutans have been observed to gorge themselves on fruit during seasons when fruit is plentiful, consuming some 8,422 calories a day for males and 7,404 calories a day for females. In seasons when food is less readily available, the orangutans consume foods like bark and consume far fewer calories each day, 3824 calories for males and 1793 for females. These periods of low fruit availability can last for years, and this article describes how orangutans' bodies consume their fat reserves and muscles during lean years. Given these examples, I don't find it difficult to imagine a sasquatch eating a diet composed mostly of fruits, vegetation opportunistically eating other proteins (grubs, insects, small mammals, fish, and even occasionally things like deer), gorging on those foods in the flush spring and summer months, eating the more readily available foods like nuts, bark, and perhaps roots like cattails in the autumn, and then drastically limiting its physical activity and living off fat and muscle reserves through the winter.
  2. I think a lot of people assume that a body / substantial part of a body would be worth a pile of money, but I've never read or heard a good explanation of why that would be. The questions are, how much money, and would it be worth it? I doubt you'd be able to sell it to a zoo, university, or museum for much money until the species was confirmed and listed. You could probably make a bit of scratch going the Minnesota Iceman route, but you might well run into state and federal legal issues. You might also be able to sell the body to a rich Tom Slick / Wally Hersom type, but for how much? You'd probably also be able to make money selling your story in a book, TV, and/or movie deal, and you'd certainly be popular on the bigfoot conference circuit, but at the expense of your privacy. In addition, you'd be outing yourself to all of the no-kill folks, some of whom might be quite unhappy with you. I don't have a reference handy, but on an episode of The Bigfoot Show, Brian Brown mentioned that the NAWAC, in the event they succeed in securing a specimen, plan to try to keep the identity of the shooter/shooters private for that very reason. If you tried to cash in on it in a big way, dragging out that body would own you for the rest of your life. Personally, I don't know if it would be worth it.
  3. It looks like, per the Kickstarter page, they have failed to reach their funding goal. They generated only $11,865 in towards their $355,000 goal.
  4. FWIW, Dr. Disotell was interviewed by Scott Herriot for Episode 36 of "The Bigfoot Show" podcast (November 26, 2012) and said that he was not a peer reviewer for the paper. He went so far as to say that he is regularly asked to serve as a peer reviewer for papers which propose to identify new species or subspecies based on DNA evidence and was surprised that he had not been asked to serve as a reviewer for a paper like the one described in Ketchum's November press release.
  5. I thought that this link might be interesting to some of the members of the forum: The poster at the link above modified a remote controlled hobby airplane with a thermal camera to act as a spotter aircraft to assist in hunting feral pigs which were damaging crops on his family's rice farm. He's working on a much smaller budget than the Falcon project, but it isn't pocket change, either - the parts list on his site lists $4500 for the thermal camera, the RC aircraft he modded seems to run somewhere around $100, plus additional cost for some other mods he doesn't go into enough detail for me to price out. I found the hardware end of this project interesting in and of itself. While the thermal video results aren't all that visually compelling on their own, what I also find interesting is that this person used the live-feed video to support ground operations in real time. It will be interesting to see if the Falcon Project takes adopts similar tactics. Certainly not the same thing - the Falcon Project will obviously use a higher-quality thermal camera, will be a blimp instead of an airplane, and presumably won't be used to support armed hunting activities - but perhaps food for thought.
  6. I'm assuming we're talking about kill/no kill in terms of obtaining scientific verification of the species, since someone who is only looking to obtain verification for him/herself and is in a position to shoot one no longer needs to do so. I'm torn on kill/no kill, because I think a body or body part is probably the best way to obtain verification, but I don't think that I would chose to shoot one unless my life were in danger. In terms of obtaining scientific verification of sasquatch as a species, I don't believe that a body (or a part of a body) is absolutely necessary. DNA samples might be enough, if there were multiple, high-quality samples with rock-solid provenance as to where and when they were collected, a verifiable chain of evidence, etc. Video might be enough, if the video in question were long enough, close enough and of a high enough resolution to rule out the possibility of it being a guy in a suit, CGI or some other hoaxery. I don't believe that photos (even a series of photos of the same animal) would be enough to prove the existence of sasquatch, although I would be happy to be proven wrong on that count... That said, I believe that obtaining a body/body part is the surest way to guarantee scientific verification and widespread acceptance of sasquatch. DNA can degrade, depending on how much time elapses between it being deposited and when it is collected, the manner in which it is collected, etc. A video good enough to rule out CGI or other possibilities would have to be absolutely spectacular, and I think such a video is unlikely, if for no other reason than the brevity of most sightings. A body/body part isn't absolutely necessary; however, in practical terms, I think it is probably required. A body/body part leaves no questions as to degradation of DNA, hoaxery or other nonsense. Some will argue that a body/body part could be obtained by someone stumbling across a body in the woods, a logging truck hitting one, or some other combination of events that produce a body/body part without someone intentionally killing one. And they would be right. However, none of those things have happened to date, and seem to me to be equally unlikely to happen in the future. All that said, as a hunter, I don't believe that I would shoot one unless my life were in danger. Even if I were close enough and had observed the creature for long enough to be absolutely, 100% positive that I wasn't going to shoot a guy (or gal) in a costume, I don't think that would choose to shoot something that close to being human unless I was being threatened. I would not choose to shoot a chimp, gorilla or other ape/monkey for the same reason - again, unless I were being threatened. So, to sum up, I think that it is probably necessary for someone to kill a sasquatch to obtain specimen and garner recognition of the species. However, I would not want to obtain such a specimen myself. Incidentally, sitting on this fence is starting to chafe, and if anyone knows of a good ointment for that sort of thing I'd appreciate a PM...