Guest HucksterFoot Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 To answer the OP, it could be a number of things. I doubt all BF's do the same thing where their stuff is concerned. & check this bad boy out from BC. That looks like a bear plug. Fecal plug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 It seems to me, perhaps others know which ones, that a pair of productions have peered at purported preternatural primate poop. They did not examine DNA, but instead, preferential parasitic presence, and eupeptic primate patterns. Problematically, the poking and prodding produced pittances that were parsable from a presumptive near-person, primarily due to the presumption that they were probing perfumed anthropoid precipitate, instead. Oh the pleasures of parnastic coprophilia.... The dimensions were for the pile, which was several times the size of any I had previously seen. Well, We now know that at least *some* of this species are eating well, in fact, very well..Yikes, Who is going to ask for how much they think it weighed? Wet weight poop is heavier than dry weight poop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I forgot to specify; since I chose other: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) The general rule is people use toilet paper. If a large pile has no paper present, it could be bigfoot, bear ( I think my photo in post 25 is bear poop), or other critter. I doubt there are bigfoot poop-hoaxers defecating in the forest sans toilet paper just to prank other people. It looks like horse poop but could be BF. I would imagine BF poop would be about the same quanity. This video shows possible BF crap clearly. Edited January 3, 2012 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tsalagi Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 To answer the OP, it could be a number of things. I doubt all BF's do the same thing where their stuff is concerned. & check this bad boy out from BC. That looks like bear scat. Yeah, well, supposedly they have their own form of lice/louse according to Dranginis' hair analyses in past years, so why not. I've heard investigators/reseachers say that an average BF dropping would fill a five gallon bucket so that's some deep doo-doo. Where did they get a number like that? That sounds ridiculous since a 6 ft man doesn't even make half or even a third of that. So BF's are reported generally around the 6.5-8.5 ft range. I don't think the amount of poop production would increase that much more dramatically to fit a 5 gallon bucket. I wouldn't be surprised if other animals ate it maybe coyotes or foxes. I knew a hound dog that could put away a ton of elk poop just in one short romp in the woods. Not so sure one should even expect to find BF poop even in their home territory considering how I've never seen mountain lion poop yet know they live in the woods because I've seen their prints and not some bobcat poop though have had close sightings of the animal itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 If I take a volume of an intestinal system and make it one and a half times as high, wide, and deep, the volume increases to 3.375 times its original size. If a bigfoot has an intestinal system that is twice as high, wide, and deep as that of a human, its volume would be eight times that of a human's. Doesn't necessarily mean it's laden with eight times the load, but it's something to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) I am starting to feel real bad I have no photos of immense feces, like everyone else. ~ Not to be rude, but those are some sights to behold, those pictures are. Are they real, or did you guys have your buddies over to help you create a tableau for the purpose of faking it? ~ I read somewheres, I forget where, but will try to recall, about a guy discovering a bigfoot sewage disposal system. Maybe someone else has seen it and remembers. The fellow was in the mountains, in a little hollow that had a lovely natural spring. The spring filled a little area with a water and flowed out the opposite side. Vegetation was all the midst of the area, but also he found piles of bf poo underneath the surface. So under there, the poo was hidden and being slowly washed away. No muss no fuss. By the way, the ~ ~ symbols signal irony or humorous tone. Edited January 3, 2012 by Kings Canyon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tsalagi Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 If I take a volume of an intestinal system and make it one and a half times as high, wide, and deep, the volume increases to 3.375 times its original size. If a bigfoot has an intestinal system that is twice as high, wide, and deep as that of a human, its volume would be eight times that of a human's. Doesn't necessarily mean it's laden with eight times the load, but it's something to think about. Why would the intestinal system be twice as high? If human man is 6 ft and average reported BF is 6.5-8.5ft that isn't twice as big of an animal. He would have to be 12 ft. I'm not following this train of though. That said I think they may bury it, coyotes and foxes probably eat some as well as insects plus poops seems to decompose fast. I wouldn't have thought it decomposed fast but this summer I noticed the geese would leave 8-10 inch piles every evening by the lake. I guess they all gather together in evenings and sit in one spot and unload. It was most bizarre thing, but anyway if it came a real hard rain the next day it would be shrank down to an inch or be gone completely. Since BF's seem to live in areas where rain is frequent such as Pacific Northwest and Southeastern mountains then that might account for poop not being found very often. Then again who is even out looking for it anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 4, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 4, 2012 ....Where did they get a number like that? That sounds ridiculous since a 6 ft man doesn't even make half or even a third of that. So BF's are reported generally around the 6.5-8.5 ft range. I don't think the amount of poop production would increase that much more dramatically to fit a 5 gallon bucket. Well maybe they made it up but one of the best trackers in the SE gave me that tidbit for digestion......but if you are doubtful, read JDL's post or just read the last quote line in King's Canyon's signature. It is all good with me. If you are really doubtful after the above steps you can always PM me and I could give suggestions for followup. There are a few forum members that seem remarkably knowledgeable about the finer elements of the BF phenotype, maybe even the alimentary canal. Then again who is even out looking for it anyway? Maybe a tracker, maybe somebody that happens to stumble upon a very messy situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 4, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted January 4, 2012 I've seen bear poop where I work. Arrowhead Public Safety. I've seen bear poop along side the common roads. Bears even have figured out the garbage pickup dates across the entire Village corridor of Beaver Creek, Bachelor Gulch and Arrowhead. They go where the garbage route goes. These are "garbage bears". There are bears that do not frequent the garbage routes. They stay in the woods. I have never seen bear poop in "the woods" hiking. This leads me to a different question - are there "garbage sasquatches"? Topic will be posted soon. Point being - a hiker, hunter etc does not see nearly as much scat in the woods as they do next to the road...or on the road or on the trail even. Sasquatches probably poop in the woods where they likely spend the most time...thus much less likely to find/see. CG, are those Pics i posted Bear crap ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Why would the intestinal system be twice as high? If human man is 6 ft and average reported BF is 6.5-8.5ft that isn't twice as big of an animal. He would have to be 12 ft. I'm not following this train of though. That said I think they may bury it, coyotes and foxes probably eat some as well as insects plus poops seems to decompose fast. I wouldn't have thought it decomposed fast but this summer I noticed the geese would leave 8-10 inch piles every evening by the lake. I guess they all gather together in evenings and sit in one spot and unload. It was most bizarre thing, but anyway if it came a real hard rain the next day it would be shrank down to an inch or be gone completely. Since BF's seem to live in areas where rain is frequent such as Pacific Northwest and Southeastern mountains then that might account for poop not being found very often. Then again who is even out looking for it anyway? Take a look at the relative sizes of the abdominal cavities of the two figures in your own avatar. We're not talking about relative heights of the individuals, but the relative volumes of that portion of the torso that contains the intestines. I googled height versus intestinal volume and didn't come up with much on the first couple of pages, but if you check lung capacity vs height in men alone, and wade through all of the scatter plots, you find that a two inch increase in height generally translates into an increase from a lung capacity of five litres to a lung capacity of six litres. I doesn't take a 20% increase in height to gain a 20% increase in lung capacity. In this case, it only takes a 1/36th increase in height to gain a 20% increase in lung capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Take a look at the relative sizes of the abdominal cavities of the two figures in your own avatar. We're not talking about relative heights of the individuals, but the relative volumes of that portion of the torso that contains the intestines. I googled height versus intestinal volume and didn't come up with much on the first couple of pages, but if you check lung capacity vs height in men alone, and wade through all of the scatter plots, you find that a two inch increase in height generally translates into an increase from a lung capacity of five litres to a lung capacity of six litres. I doesn't take a 20% increase in height to gain a 20% increase in lung capacity. In this case, it only takes a 1/36th increase in height to gain a 20% increase in lung capacity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12497219 This site suggests that length of intestines is linked to weight of the individual. I don't know if they have delineated a cause for this. It would seem reasonable that someone with a longer gut might absorb more nutrients from the food they eat. The extra calories could be put to use around the body especially as fat reserves. http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/smalllarge-intestine-length-ratio This site says that human guts are smaller than other ape guts and that this is likely due to changes in what we eat. Increased meat consumption and cooking are both suggested for contributing to this state. If BF separated from our lineage before two and ahalf million years ago then they likely have a gut more like a chimpanzees but if they diverged from us later than that then they should have a gut more like ours. Just looking at the subject of the Patterson film I'd say she has a lot of guts. This would suggest that she eats more like an ape: some meat but more foliage. A longer gut is necessary to absorb nutrients from vegetation. And of course she's huge so her guts are going to be long anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I was also thinking that wild creatures probably tend to retain material in their intestinal tract longer than we do because they don't eat as regularly. Longer retention ensures more complete absorption of available nutrients when fewer nutrients are available. If this is the case with bigfoot, when it decides to void, assuming it can do so on command, it just might have enough on hand to write home about. Brings back a curious memory. I had a tomcat that used to come tearing through the living room once a day. It would bound up onto the back of the couch, then use its momentum to literally run along the wall parallel to the floor. It took me a while to put two and two together, but I eventually realized he always did this immediately after depositing a sizable load in his litterbox. What do you suppose a bigfoot would be prone to do after similarly lightening his load? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tsalagi Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) I was also thinking that wild creatures probably tend to retain material in their intestinal tract longer than we do because they don't eat as regularly. Longer retention ensures more complete absorption of available nutrients when fewer nutrients are available. If this is the case with bigfoot, when it decides to void, assuming it can do so on command, it just might have enough on hand to write home about. Also most Bigfoots would be eating healthier natural foods unlike humans who mostly eat processed garbage. If you eat only natural foods you poop less. Same thing with cats and dogs if you put them on organic high quality food versus the supermarket brand foods they poop less. The reason for this is more of the content can be absorbed and assimilated. Edited January 4, 2012 by Tsalagi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts