Bigfoot caloric intake.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

To conclude at this point that BF is a large ape and would have a limited diet as the result is making a lot of assumptions with little data.      We have multiple witness reports of BF being seen carrying deer and elk and a few of them running the same down.     I say we should go with the anecdotal data until we can examine a BF mouth and determine what diet one would expect from the teeth.    Just because known great apes do not eat meat may have nothing to do with BF who may be from a completely different ancestral line. 

Not so, the entire genus and all know subspecies are omnivores at best but largely vegetarians.

Lineages such as this have not changed for 10 million years (except for man, although we do it to the detriment of our health as we are not predation adapted as far as metabolism and physiology).

 

It would be a violation of basic evolutionary biology to have a carnivore spring from our genetics.

 

This does not mean that it never happens, it means that it is not likely to happen very often.

Deductive reasoning would suggest the witnesses may be wrong, not the other way round.

As I made extensive arguments you can read elsewhere, they have no way to eat the kill.

If of the burden of proof remains as to how you think that happens, try chewing through a fur coat to get at dinner sometime, would will starve first.

They have a very similar dental structure for the same reasons we do.

 

Chimps are a good example of omnivores that sometimes eat meat, study how they do it.

Our own ancestors ate either small animals like frogs, fish or they found a predator kill that had been opened up by predators and disarticulated and then rotted to the point of softness, or we used a tool to crack the bone for marrow, or we ate the maggots of the decomposing corpse.

 

Bigfoot kills are kind of like an Internet meme, popular but meaningless. No doubt many will continue to believe. I think the only thing a Bigfoot would kill on a regular basis might be a turkey or marmot. Not a big game hunter, of so saying you believe means nada, The believers never manage to answer the how or why.

 

How many reports of a BF eating a large animal (I hear crickets) or using stone tools (crickets again).

 

Spears, but they never see one throwing one.

 

So you can ignore the contradictions, it does not affect me one whit and will not make you any closer to a logical answer.

 

I do predict more "reports" of tools and eating, etc as the meme must be fed with ever new and nonsensical arguments.

 

One thing you never get is a point by point rebuttal of evolution of great apes and their diet or a proponent that does not rely on "belief" or selective arguments.

 

You can't argue with evolution.

 

You only think you can.

 

Sophistry depends on logic and logic is what the quasi sophisticated argumentation lacks.

 

A = B, B = C, so A = C.

 

There is a step missing in the logic of carnivorous big game hunting.

 

If you can prove it then you have your sophisticated and true proof.

 

Otherwise you will never have a proof because that is how the science of logic and the logic of science works.

 

Now you just have to figure out what is meant by A,B, and C

 

C is consuming the kill and the piece that is missing.

 

A is making a kill.

 

B is processing the kill.

 

D is a predator

 

E is tool use.

 

Substitute D or E to explain B.

 

If you can't get to D without BS then no sale.

 

I'm as open to the next person if provided with a proof, why would I ignore logic, why would you?

 

It's the questions that you ask not the answers you think you know that wind up mattering the most.

 

Don't ya know, the knife cuts both ways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest DWA]

On ‎8‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 1:30 PM, Cryptic Megafauna said:

That was an opinion stated as fact.

 

No reason to or not to from a purely philosophical perspective.

 

Perhaps you are just being obtuse to provoke argumentation, however.

 

A buffalo can kill you but it can't eat you.

 

So killing is not the key behavior relevant to an analysis of Bigfoot killing to eat, but eating itself with hands and a ape mouth.

 

Because apes can't consume raw kills of large animals like an elk, you are a great ape so you can test that yourself.

 

Cheating is not allowed, no knives or forks.

 

Word.

 

 

 

Perhaps you are just being obtuse to provoke argumentation, however.

 

No primate has specialized night vision, because we don't.

No primate can swing with ease through treetops, because we can't.

No primate can - didn't I already say this? - kill and eat its meat raw, because we can't.

No mammal CAN FLY, because we can't.

 

Oh wait.

 

One cannot project our limitations onto another species about which we know...that it kills and eats large ungulates because the evidence says it does.

 

Word.

[SWWASAS]

Cryptic your response to my posting is so full of logical errors and assumptions I will not even address them.    It certainly gives everyone a peek into your head.  

[norseman]

23 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Not so, the entire genus and all know subspecies are omnivores at best but largely vegetarians.

Lineages such as this have not changed for 10 million years (except for man, although we do it to the detriment of our health as we are not predation adapted as far as metabolism and physiology).

 

It would be a violation of basic evolutionary biology to have a carnivore spring from our genetics.

 

This does not mean that it never happens, it means that it is not likely to happen very often.

Deductive reasoning would suggest the witnesses may be wrong, not the other way round.

As I made extensive arguments you can read elsewhere, they have no way to eat the kill.

If of the burden of proof remains as to how you think that happens, try chewing through a fur coat to get at dinner sometime, would will starve first.

They have a very similar dental structure for the same reasons we do.

 

Chimps are a good example of omnivores that sometimes eat meat, study how they do it.

Our own ancestors ate either small animals like frogs, fish or they found a predator kill that had been opened up by predators and disarticulated and then rotted to the point of softness, or we used a tool to crack the bone for marrow, or we ate the maggots of the decomposing corpse.

 

Bigfoot kills are kind of like an Internet meme, popular but meaningless. No doubt many will continue to believe. I think the only thing a Bigfoot would kill on a regular basis might be a turkey or marmot. Not a big game hunter, of so saying you believe means nada, The believers never manage to answer the how or why.

 

How many reports of a BF eating a large animal (I hear crickets) or using stone tools (crickets again).

 

Spears, but they never see one throwing one.

 

So you can ignore the contradictions, it does not affect me one whit and will not make you any closer to a logical answer.

 

I do predict more "reports" of tools and eating, etc as the meme must be fed with ever new and nonsensical arguments.

 

One thing you never get is a point by point rebuttal of evolution of great apes and their diet or a proponent that does not rely on "belief" or selective arguments.

 

You can't argue with evolution.

 

You only think you can.

 

Sophistry depends on logic and logic is what the quasi sophisticated argumentation lacks.

 

A = B, B = C, so A = C.

 

There is a step missing in the logic of carnivorous big game hunting.

 

If you can prove it then you have your sophisticated and true proof.

 

Otherwise you will never have a proof because that is how the science of logic and the logic of science works.

 

Now you just have to figure out what is meant by A,B, and C

 

C is consuming the kill and the piece that is missing.

 

A is making a kill.

 

B is processing the kill.

 

D is a predator

 

E is tool use.

 

Substitute D or E to explain B.

 

If you can't get to D without BS then no sale.

 

I'm as open to the next person if provided with a proof, why would I ignore logic, why would you?

 

It's the questions that you ask not the answers you think you know that wind up mattering the most.

 

Don't ya know, the knife cuts both ways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not true as far as the Homo lineage.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314091128.htm

 

Neanderthals lived for hundreds of thousands of years on a primarily meat diet. The farther north our genus went the more we wer e forced to eat red meat 

 

As far as chewing through a fur coat? As I've stated earlier, our teeth are much sharper than Lucy's were. Evolution has shaped us into much more of a meat eater than our ancestors were. 

 

[Twist]

For those more up to speed on Homo lineage, how does our evolution of sharper teeth coincide with both using fire to cook meat and tool use to process meat ? 

[norseman]

They are parallel. But obvious Lucy and her kind ate meat....if they had not, they would not have given rise to us.

 

So there must be something about bipedalism and scavenging? Surely they were not dedicated hunters like later human species. But meat was needed for big brain development.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

norseman, MagniAesir, I agree with you both.

Not mutually exclusive.

Scavenging and therefore meat use is consistent with hominids, where I have a problem is with big game kills, although it may happen on occasion.

What the anthros came up with for our superior brain development is that there were a lot of marrow bones left over from cheetah kills.

When we learned to crack the bones we had a lot of high protein diet that meant we did not need to chew plants all day.

 

With less chewing, the skull could evolve to have a bigger brain, make better tools, leading to better hunting, more meat and even bigger brains.

 

Bigfoot has a brain 1/3 to 1/2 the size of a modern man (perhaps even 1/5).

 

That means he is just at the place where we were when we began that ascent (or descent, depending on how you see human evolution).

 

So perhaps rudimentary tool such as a hand axe or pointed stick although very little reported in that vein at this point.

 

So their meat eating is likely scavenging and small animals with an occasional kill that they have to let rot an be picked apart by scavengers with strong bills, talons, claws and serrated teeth before they can even get to marrow bones or through the tough hide and fur.

 

They can also bury the kill and let it rot and dig it up to eat the maggots much like what grizzlys do.

 

Even cats and bears have a problem and need to let kills age, they can  eat the stomach and softer parts immediately but it takes a pack of wolves to really get down to business.

 

Often a cat kill will only have the underbelly being eaten. So then come along the scavengers. Still plenty of meat for them.

 

But we ascribe status to apex predators and we ascribe status to Bigfoot.

 

So we want the big hairy guy to be an apex predators.

 

Lions themselves are often scavengers of Hyena kills, so things are not always as they seem.

 

Perhaps vegetarians are more evolved that meat eaters?

 

Especially vegetarians with big brains and complex social structures?

 

 

 

[norseman]

Well you seem to be forgetting that Lucy and her kind were 3.5 feet tall and not 8 feet tall as Bigfoot reportedly is. I don't have a problem imagining a 8 ft tall Bigfoot ambushing a deer and consuming that deer. No problem at all.

 

The question is....how often are they hunting big game? To compare with a grizzly bear? Not often. Omnivores are well rounded...it's true, but that does not mean they are incapable predators if needed.

 

I just feel that large groups of Sasquatch would be easily track able based solely on their foraging practiced based on what is needed for just one creature to sustain itself, let alone five or ten.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Moose eat vegetation, is not a restrictor on growth.

Large body mass is can be an adaptation for plant toxins.

Woolly mammoths were big as well.

 

Most predators don;w rely on brute force but on hamstringing, suffocation, jugular vein, disembowelment because they have the least likely hood of injury. No reason to get dinner if dinner injures you. So direct force has more chances of getting you hurt, being hooked with a horn, hit by a hoof. One reason I suspect hominids are not big game hunters.

Gorillas are big and even share many characteristics with a Sasquatch.

 

My biggest problem is with the idea that an omnivore can also be a predator and a big game hunter that relies primarily on meat protein.

 

Two separate problems but logically linked.

 

They are mostly mutually exclusive for that reason.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[norseman]

But Gorillas are not true omnivores like say a Grizzly bear. And there are reports of Griz killing moose and elk with a single blow to the back of the neck. 

 

So essentially a 800 lbs silverback delivering a hammer blow to the neck of a deer or elk is just not a big deal in my mind.

 

I think we are gonna have to agree to disagree. 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

On 8/27/2016 at 1:57 PM, SWWASAS said:

Cryptic your response to my posting is so full of logical errors and assumptions I will not even address them.    It certainly gives everyone a peek into your head.  

Don;t peak into my head, it's a scary place 

[SWWASAS]

14 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Don;t peak into my head, it's a scary place 

If you say so.   

[MIB]

Only scary if you're a brain cell afraid of being alone in the dark. 

 

Hmmm ... have you read CJ Cherryh's "Voyager in Night"?   Reminds me a bit of your posts at times.    I don't know if that's good or bad.

 

MIB

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

4 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

If you say so.   

At my age I could care less, realy! 

But keep on thinking that way if you like, hurts my head however.

 

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[NCBFr]

On 8/28/2016 at 10:53 PM, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Bigfoot has a brain 1/3 to 1/2 the size of a modern man (perhaps even 1/5

 

I am curious where you came up with this little factoid.  

 

I am guessing by volume an 8 foot BF head is at least twice the size of humans.  If the brain is 1/3rd to 1/2 the size, what is filling up the rest of the space?

 

 

Edited August 31, 2016 by NCBFr