Jump to content

Is It Implausible For Bigfoot To Survive In This Cold?


gigantor

Recommended Posts

Guest Urkelbot

[quote name="Cotter" post="810469" timestamp=

 

The Nazi Germans and German Jews both had/have excellent propaganda machines.

Huh? German Jews excellent propoganda machines really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, the point....well....all I really need to know is: Are there other cold-adapted mammals on this continent, surviving just fine in these temperatures? Yes? Well then....what was the problem here? Done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest thermalman

Umm, back on topic.

 

It's obvious that if sasquatch could not survive in this recent cold snap, we would have found at least one squatchcicle by now.

Agreed. In our region, we're encountering our second coldest winter, in the past 150 years. Sure to be carcasses of various wildlife, come spring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, the point....well....all I really need to know is: Are there other cold-adapted mammals on this continent, surviving just fine in these temperatures? Yes? Well then....what was the problem here? Done.

[rimshot]

 

Caribou, meet chital.

 

Polar bear, meet sun bear.

 

Lynx, meet...shoot, Lynx, looks like a line here.

 

I would assume, based on the evidence, that apes have a bit of an introduction to make, as well, and I wouldn't toss it without investigation of a large and consistent pile of evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@urkelbot - 

 

Sorry, shouldn't have even mentioned it in the general forum.  It was OT as well.  So, I apologize.

 

But short answer, yes.

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin

I'm sorry, but I will never understand why so many people here consider the BFRO reports to be an impressive source of evidence. ( especially when they fail to see the irony that the larger the pile grows, the less likely bigfoot is to be real.) I have read quite a few of these. The follow-up in many cases is laughable. You can almost see the witness being led by the nose. Things like prior bias stand out like a sore thumb. It's simply not objective to consider this source of evidence with as much weight as people do here. There is a business behind it for Pete's sake. It's like appointing Jack in the Box to be the voice of healthy eating in North America.

Point to 45, 450, or 5,000 BFRO reports. In my opinion it does nothing to bolster your argument. In fact, as the number grows the absurdity of bigfoot being real becomes ever more clear. At what number does the whole idea get crushed under its own reporting weight? 100,000 reports? 200,000 reports? A million? At some point even ardent proponents must acknowledge that you cannot have a life and blood creature running around being seen by that many people yet leaving behind no verifiable evidence. It just doesn't happen.

Ironically, proponents proudly point to the number of reports in the uber biased BFRO database as somehow impressive evidence. I can guarantee that I could lodge a Class A report today before leaving my house for lunch. This report would end up on the pile. Even more so because I would know what " compelling bits" to put in there to get passed the sniff test of those that consider themselves to be able to sniff out fakes. It would not be hard to do at all. Bear in mind, I am not advocating hoaxing, I am simply demonstrating how easy it would probably be to get false reports into that database. Given that, how can it be taken seriously by anyone? Yet somehow this is what is supposed to compel scientists to march into the woods en masse looking for bigfoot?

I find it funny that you see irony in the size of the reporting database disproving the existence of a cryptid.

A human report filed by any human agency, is only a part of the human experience. It has nothing to do with the creature at all.

Obviously if people consistently report seeing a cryptid year after year? The amount of reports will grow logically. No real irony here.

If people are consistently seeing a cryptid year after year? And the government and academia shows no interest? Then it's kinda hard for them to poke holes in BFRO report MO......as well.

It's like the rule about complaining about the cooking at elk camp right?

People going about their daily lives and seeing a cryptid is not going to solve this mystery. But it's not going to make it go away either.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Shelly,

Even though I know what you mean I also know that you are being general. There are and will always be casualties for a number of reasons. It's why I had started the "Dead Sasquath" thread in the first place. To cover the possibility of death due to age primarily but also due to harsh winters/lack of nutrition. Mostly for the old age idea though.

Well that is true. Anywhere that anything lives, some will die.   I am sure someone has done an attrition study on say, Kodiak Bears or some other cold weather animals to see what percentage may succumb during the winter.  The lack of verifiable, genuine, dead sasquatches across time does sort of stump me.  A lot of very rare, never seen alive in the wild type animals (giant squid, megamouth shark, etc.) are still known by dead specimens.  Even humans, who are very fastidious as a rule about dead bodies. don't get every one and you find random dead people out and about now and then. So I can't believe that every dead sasquatch is instantly spirited away, burried, eaten, hidden, or whatever.  I am sure they can, as do many other animals, suffer from things like heart attacks, etc. too.  Squatch could be looking into Mrs. Smith's barn and keel over dead from something sudden.  

Yes but we do know that a lot of animals that have wide ranging habitats are also specifically suited to their particular habitat.  Like an Iguana that lives in the Galapagos islands can not survive where a Mexican Iguana lives.  Some Iguanas eat meat. Some eat vegetables. Some are aquatic. Some live on dry land or on trees. Yet they are all Iguanas.  

 

So, assuming that Sasquatch is some sort of primate, it is not unnatural to assume he can be similar yet dissimilar to other known primates.  Even people that live in different climates have different physiological differences, different diets etc.  Compare a traditional Eskimo to a traditional Japanese for example.  Their diets would be about as different as night and day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Shelly,

 

Thank you for the reply. A couple of things do come to mind here, Dead marine fauna do sometimes appear which may have once been considered cryptids. The medium they lived in is part responsible for that I think. Some wash ashore, and some of course end up in nets etc. Forest habitat is certainly different from that and things will not float up, or wash ashore. Sometimes stuff gets brought up during excavations or farming though which only compounds the mystery IMO as Sasquatch bones per se have not been recognized by science. And too, has been suggested that the BF population is not that large. Was it ever? I couldn't begin to tell you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parkie,

 

It would be harder to establish a heat-generating midden as the temperature drops.  Most bacteria and fungi shut down and go into spore form to protect themselves from the cold.  When they do this, they don't generate heat.  So the midden would either need to be initiated when it is warm enough to do so, or would have to be heated to a warm enough temperature until the micro-organisms begin to generate enough heat to sustain themselves.  Some of the necessary heat would come from fecal matter and urine, but insulation, in part from the added vegetative matter would be required, and body heat provided at close proximity would also be necessary to sustain a viable temperature until the bacteria in the midden begin to evolve heat.  The actual temperature required to initiate the midden would depend on the mix of organisms, but there are plenty of studies that discuss this in detail, with varying heats recorded and varying recommendations offered.

 

In the thread about bigfoot that have been shot, hiflier posted a summary of accounts, and one of them caught my attention.  A hunter noticed that a large amount of moss had been removed from some rock faces and investigated.  He explored in that direction and was surprised by a squatch that suddenly stood up from behind a fallen tree.  After shooting at the squatch, which took off, he found that it was in the act of covering a large amount of fecal matter with moss.  It was unclear whether or not it was matter from a single defecation, or from more than one, perhaps from multiple individuals, but the account indicates that it was a significant amount of moss that had been harvested, indicating that the pile may have been pretty large.  Now the squatch, if it simply wanted to cover feces, could have just buried them without harvesting moss from one area and carrying it to the location of the fecal matter, so I postulate that this may be an account of a squatch establishing a midden in a sheltered spot around which a shelter could be constructed.  The sheltered location makes sense, both from the perspective of nurturing the midden and from the perspective of being a good place to build a shelter.  The combination of moss and fecal matter also makes sense as starter material which would contain both bacteria and fuel necessary to establish a midden.

Edited by JDL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good point.  If birds and crocodilians create nesting sites using compost to heat their eggs, then we have to assume that a squatch can use the same natural heating process to its advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...