Guest DWA Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 There could be more than one form of wild hominoid in North America, particularly in southern locales like Florida. Encounter reports seem to show enough variability that - if they just aren't a very variable single species, like of course us - there could be more than one species. Bergmann's Rule - colder yields bigger - tends to hold for the same kind of animal in more northerly climes. Big animals can obviously be found anywhere. And it does get cold in FL. I camped out near Orlando one night when the temps reached down to mid-teens. When we took the kids to Disney the next day, it looked like Disney Green Bay.
Guest Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 If not, bent over might indicate stealth, perhaps. I am not sure how being so tall in the forest would be a benefit to them if they have to constantly avoid branches. The size of these things is one thing that puzzles me greatly, but I am sure there are other threads dedicated to this. I'm sure there are other threads on the subject. Be that as it may, I think we have to remember that an animal's evolutionary arc will presumably be influenced by many things. Sure, living in a dense forest and being really big might make it harder to move around (though, in my experience, it doesn't seem to slow them down much) and that might put some evolutionary pressure towards making them smaller. However, they're also likely an apex predator. Size, strength, and speed are all huge benefits when trying to take down a deer or hog or some other game animal. Also, they likely live in the same habitat as other large predators (like grizzly bears) in parts of the Rockies and into British Columbia up to Alaska. That would presumably be another reason for evolution to keep them large. Finally, based on our experience, they're not all eight feet tall and six feet wide. Like gorillas, there may be a wide range of size based on sexual dimorphism, etc.
Guest DWA Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 I am not sure how being so tall in the forest would be a benefit to them if they have to constantly avoid branches. The size of these things is one thing that puzzles me greatly, but I am sure there are other threads dedicated to this. Some big and pretty tall animals live in forests. They're adapted to do it. I once watched a moose in Maine virtually dematerialize into the woods in front of me. I mean that's what it felt like. He obviously didn't find that particularly difficult. Evolution isn't about perfection; it's about good-enough. Size confers benefits. Branches that get in the way can be easily dispensed with; fruit and nuts can be had with less effort; large animals can be overpowered more easily. if it works - and incidentally confers the obvious benefits in mating and territorial battles - it'll be selected for. One of the likely reasons sasquatch appear to have retained quadrupedal locomotion is the easier path it can frequently offer through dense forest. The eastern US used to have bison and elk ...and mastodons. They lived in the woods. They were OK with it because of the advantages it conferred. (For one, they move through woods easier than you and me.)
Guest Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 I once watched a moose in Maine virtually dematerialize into the woods in front of me. I mean that's what it felt like. I almost said something about moose in my post. There are few forests more dense and difficult to traverse than those here in northern Minnesota yet there are still moose and their ridiculous antlers moving about in them. If evolution was perfectly logical, I have a feeling every animal on earth would look something like a dolphin.
Guest DWA Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 I almost said something about moose in my post. There are few forests more dense and difficult to traverse than those here in northern Minnesota yet there are still moose and their ridiculous antlers moving about in them. If evolution was perfectly logical, I have a feeling every animal on earth would look something like a dolphin. ....which is something like that where-do-they-get-it? about everything evolving toward, you know, perfection, i.e., us. Man, if it weren't for beer, cars and outdoor gear I might rather be a sasquatch. Night vision and infrasound, now we are talking potential. That moose, I swear, I was close enough to his butt to count the flies, then ...just...wha...?
dopelyrics Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Yes, the size thing makes sense to me now. Thanks. Lee
Cotter Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 I'd like to add that witnessing a white-tail deer near belly crawling at break neck speeds through thick brush and UNDER barbed wire fences will provide a useful perspective as to how a big game animal can move nearly effortlessly through the woods when it needs to. Amazing event to witness....
Guest Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Case in point, the African Forest Elephant. It is the third largest terrestrial animal on the planet, and it moves quite gracefully through the incredibly thick forests of the Congo River basin.
Guest DWA Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Leaving trails you can drive a truck on. But therein lies the illustration that when there's a will, size supplies the way.
Guest Nalajr Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 I seem to recall one of the Sassy shows on Discovery or Animal Planet or one of the others and it was in Oklahoma. This one had a female reporter going out in the woods with a couple of LEO's that told the story about how they were camping one night and had an encounter that was close enough for them to see exactly what it was. Bipto, do you recall the show I am talking about? If so, is the area they were in considered the same relative area as what you are talking about? Thanks Nalajr
Guest Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 I've read this entire thread and finally decided to make my first post ever in it. In response to Nalajr, that show you are talking about was on the Travel Channel I think. It was a really compelling show to me. I'm looking forward to your answer on that one Bipto.
Guest Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 Are you talking about "Bigfootville?" It was shot in SE Oklahoma. We've had many reports ranging over that entire region. X is in there somewhere. BFF Trivia: Lisa Chandler was a witness interviewed on that show and was also one of the first moderators here on the Bigfoot Forums.
Drew Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 I hope you are using better firearm discipline than the guys in Bigfootville.
Guest Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) ^^^ I hope you use better shoe tying discipline then the 4 yr old i saw in the park the other day... Edited December 22, 2012 by zigoapex
Guest Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 I'm originally an okie and from my years as a resident I would say the hot spots for bf sightings are in central oklahoma, near the North Canadian and Canadian rivers, SE oklahoma in the Ouachita mountains and central eastern oklahoma. I use to live in sequoyah county right above leflore, and you'd hear all kinds of stories. I also lived in Kiowa county and would hear stories coming from anadarko area of squatches on native land. People are often surprised to hear how many bf sightings we actually have there in the state.
Recommended Posts