Yuchi1 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 And we know that BF's behave like cattle and have similar nutrient requirements how? I would proffer that, due to BF's intelligence and opposable thumb, their range would not need to be as large as described. Let's take White tail deer for example. A doe's seasonal home range can be as small as 40 acres. A buck's is larger at about 1.5 square miles. I think you would agree that a BF's diet would be more versatile than a deer's, no? (BF have been seen catching fish, digging roots, chasing deer, eating leaves, just to name a few) So why is it that BF need a larger range? Current wisdom now has it that mature whitetail bucks have a normal range calculated at ~60 acres as further study (including a multitude of 24/7/365 gamecam shots) indicates they (normally) move about far less than previously believed. Consider this, the more real estate you cover, the greater (statistically) the odds of being spotted and made a target. Couple that with something that (allegedly) has a much higher level of intelligence than a whitetail, and you have a prescription for elusiveness that has so far, proven problematic for the homo sapiens in pursuit thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) What is the normal range of an adult male homo sapiens? Edited October 16, 2014 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 So I was driving home from playing hockey one night a few weeks ago and Coast-to-coast with George Noory was on the radio. It's mostly a nonsense show that's just a escape for the imagination but sometimes I'll give it a listen, especially if there seems to a legit scientist or credible guest on. On this occasion, there was some hunter on the program discussing bigfoot. Up until then, I hadn't given the idea of "bigfoot" any thought since I'd watched Harry and the Henderson's as a child. The hunter went on at length about his quest to find and kill one. He described all their physical characteristics and their habits, and he told stories about his numerous personal sightings around his property. Then people called in and recounted their own bigfoot stories. It was fishy, but all very intriguing nonetheless. Hmmm, is Bigfoot actually a real thing? Those people seemed quite convinced. I went straight to the computer when I got home and started researching it. It was perhaps the quickest research I've ever done. The first article I read went into how no fossils or remains have ever been found. Looking around a little more, including on this forum, suggested that the first article I read was true. That's pretty much it, isn't it? This particular coast-to-coast episode was indeed nonsense like the rest of them. I mean, nothing at all? The only explanation I can possibly think of is that there's something magic or extraterrestrial about them. I personally find that idea to be completely absurd, but more plausible than the idea that this is a mammal that just gosh darn hasn't been found yet, somehow. Either way, the theory that Bigfoot is just a myth perpetuated by imaginative humans over the years is the extremely, extremely likely explanation. Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted October 25, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 25, 2014 Welcome to the BFF! There are other explanations. To start with it takes a really long time to form a fossil (over 60,000 years for sure), and the event itself is quite rare. Apparently we have exactly 4 teeth to show the fossil existence of chimpanzees. That's not a lot to go on- imagine how hard it is to find 4 teeth in a continent the size of Africa! Funny thing is, we have had BF reports here in the US for longer than science has known about gorillas (which is only about 100 years). Bonobos have only turned up in the last 20 years or so. Imagine a primate that actively does not want to be found and has the smarts to make that stick and you have the current BF phenomena in the US... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 So I was driving home from playing hockey one night a few weeks ago and Coast-to-coast with George Noory was on the radio. It's mostly a nonsense show that's just a escape for the imagination but sometimes I'll give it a listen, especially if there seems to a legit scientist or credible guest on. On this occasion, there was some hunter on the program discussing bigfoot. Up until then, I hadn't given the idea of "bigfoot" any thought since I'd watched Harry and the Henderson's as a child. The hunter went on at length about his quest to find and kill one. He described all their physical characteristics and their habits, and he told stories about his numerous personal sightings around his property. Then people called in and recounted their own bigfoot stories. It was fishy, but all very intriguing nonetheless. Hmmm, is Bigfoot actually a real thing? Those people seemed quite convinced. I went straight to the computer when I got home and started researching it. It was perhaps the quickest research I've ever done. The first article I read went into how no fossils or remains have ever been found. Looking around a little more, including on this forum, suggested that the first article I read was true. That's pretty much it, isn't it? This particular coast-to-coast episode was indeed nonsense like the rest of them. I mean, nothing at all? The only explanation I can possibly think of is that there's something magic or extraterrestrial about them. I personally find that idea to be completely absurd, but more plausible than the idea that this is a mammal that just gosh darn hasn't been found yet, somehow. Either way, the theory that Bigfoot is just a myth perpetuated by imaginative humans over the years is the extremely, extremely likely explanation. Come on. Hey, Occam. Welcome to the BFF. Great handle, BTW. A very large portion of Bigfoot enthusiasts have dispensed with the irritation of trying to explain Bigfoot as a normal species of animal that is subject to the same rules of biology as every other extent large mammal in North America and have embraced the paranormal and/or extraterrestrial nature of Bigfoot. See here... Psychic Bigfoots... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/32184-the-psychic-sasquatch/ UFO's and Bigfoot... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/10821-does-a-bigfootufo-connection-exist/ The following is a map of reported sightings of Bigfoot across North America... http://penn.freeservers.com/bigfootmaps/BFSightingsNAT8.jpg Bigfootery has presented the world with a staggering concept that defies all logic in terms of Bigfoot existing all across North America with not a single set of remains to show for it. It is in this sense that the paranormal enthusiasts have a much simpler time dealing with the lack of evidence, as they are dealing with something on a quasi-metaphysical level. One thing that you will find when coming into contact with Bigfootery is that enthusiasts pass amongst each other various memes or commonly held notions that they take among each other to be true and hardly ever question. An example is the very old, very tired and very false no dead bears argument (that no one ever finds the remains of bears that have died of natural causes, which is nonsense and natural cause or not, dead is dead). When confronted with the fact that there are zero remains of fossils for Bigfoot, enthusiasts will quickly draw out the memes of Gigantopithecus fossils in Asia and limited African apes fossils, talking about acidic soils in the PNW. This is ignoring the fact that it is this same Bigfootery that has given us this staggering continent covering range of Bigfoot, and the fact that every single large mammal that lives in the PNW is accounted for in the fossil record. Proponents will often use the fallacy of discussing how difficult it is to find Bigfoot because of how remote its territory is. This is the same Bigfootery that has given us Bigfoots at dumpster in Seattle, in Ohio, running around in Iowa. You can see here the number of members here that report Bigfoot in suburban locations... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/41572-urban-bigfoot-seriously/ This reality is the weird uncle in Bigfootery that those who are trying to present a sober and cogent argument for rare and remote highly elusive wood apes of the PNW would really like to pretend is not there. Here you have one member asking what is required to find Bigfoot citing searches for lost children and the vastness of the PNW... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/47878-searching-what-is-required/ While in the former thread people are reporting Bigfoots in places like 30 miles outside Chicago. It's something many try to sweep under the rug while never addressing what makes the sighting in Iowa any less valid. They end up having to throw fellow believers under the bus and instead just don't deal with this inconvenient aspect of the phenomenon. No matter what you read, whether from a proponent or skeptic, no matter what their qualifications, question everything, myself included. This very thread is predicated on the same fallacious reasoning regarding Bigfoots elusiveness and trail cameras. This ignores the years of extensive work by field biologists and wildlife conservation bodies to document the rarest of the rare species throughout many of the places that are supposed to be bigfoot hotspots. This thread shows just how extensive the effort is and how successful, right down to being able to record, document and obtain DNA from a single wolverine living where none were thought to exist... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/5116-cascades-carnivore-project-how-do-they-miss-the-bigfoots/ This is a visual representation of those field studies which employ hundreds of camera stations throughout their study areas in correlation to reported Bigfoot sightings... Dots in the white map indicate remote camera stations... Dots on the left map here indicate remote camera stations... And not a single Bigfoot ever despite the astounding range shown by the Bigfoot sightings map. Proponents have to contend with the problem of how they dismiss reports based on location. The problem is in my signature... Bigfoot is everywhere, yet nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Welcome to the BFF! There are other explanations. To start with it takes a really long time to form a fossil (over 60,000 years for sure), and the event itself is quite rare. Apparently we have exactly 4 teeth to show the fossil existence of chimpanzees. That's not a lot to go on- imagine how hard it is to find 4 teeth in a continent the size of Africa! Funny thing is, we have had BF reports here in the US for longer than science has known about gorillas (which is only about 100 years). Bonobos have only turned up in the last 20 years or so. Imagine a primate that actively does not want to be found and has the smarts to make that stick and you have the current BF phenomena in the US... Bonobos were first described in 1928 by German anatomist Ernst Schwarz based on a skull examined from the Tervuren museum in Belgium. It was elevated to species status by American anatomist Harold Coolidge in 1933. Both chimpanzees and bonobos live in hot, wet jungle environments and have a very limited range in central and western Africa... Imagine each of these dots is a chimpanzee... Although far larger, Bigfoot is reported from Alaska to Florida, New York to Arizona and should be expected to have a similar representation in the fossil record as the elusive, rare and nocturnal wolverine, which is far smaller, but shares the same reported habitat as Bigfoot is most commonly associated. Wolverine remains have been documented in Pleistocene sites from cave deposits in Pennsylvania and Maryland and Holocene sites in Alaska, Wyoming, Colorado and Idaho, all places with a history of reported Bigfoot sightings. Limited fossils from steaming jungles has nothing to do with the range and environments accorded Bigfoot by proponents. If we are going to make excuses for the lack of Bigfoot fossils using chimpanzees as an example, then we have to throw a massive portion of the sightings reports under the bus and pretend the phenomenon only exists in places convenient to that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 One of the more contentious " BF" photos ever! I showed this photo to one of our bear experts at work. He said emaciated bear right away. I then saw a photo of a bear in that condition and it looked identical. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Mr Occam scientist said the same thing about fossil record for the panda bear until they finally got a type specimen (body) then guess what they were able to piece together that they did have a fossil record all along. Without all the pieces sometimes you have to wait to see the bigger picture. Kit if the Sasquatch phenomenon is coming from our psychology then we should all take a vacation to Hawaii, that cures the mass hallucination/Sasquatch construct. Sasquatch have been reported in all the states in the united states and in Canada because they all are connected by land if this was a mental construct why are they not reported in Hawaii are there not any Americans in Hawaii or does traveling to Hawaii cure one from this disease? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) Aloha... http://www.bigfoothawaii.com/aboutus.html http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2012/05/bigfoot-sightings-in-hawaii.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ICcha5bsSE Welcome to Bigfootery. Edited October 26, 2014 by kitakaze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Kit did you read or look at any of those links before you posted them here. They are all jokes, and the menehune cannot be compared to Sasquatch unless you are ready to defend said hairy leprechauns. Oh you left out the youtube video of the guy in a cardboard box behind the restaurant. I am talking about a serious sighting report. It was a good way to slip around the question that I proposed to you and that was a legitimate question. If skeptics are going to call foul when a proponent does this then you should be prepared to discuss something you bring up and support it with at least a halfway thought full response. I will propose the question to you and any other skeptic that has called this phenomenon a figment of peoples imagination. If this is a mental construct then why does the people effected by it not see these same mental halucinations no matter where they go in the world and I am talking about Americans and Canadians seeing them when they travel to other parts of the world and to islands and such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I know the first is satire, however the menehune is described a race of diminutive proto-pygmy hominid similar in description to orang pendek and Homo floresiensis... http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2012/05/bigfoot-sightings-in-hawaii.html The there are the sightings of the giant aikanaka... http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/aikanaka.htm http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/obake.htm No leprechauns necessary, the UK has Bigfoot too... http://bigfootresearchuk.com/ https://www.facebook.com/pages/British-Europe-Bigfoot-Research/310693035633265 http://www.kentnews.co.uk/news/britain_s_bigfoot_spotted_in_tunbridge_wells_1_1699895 The BFF is owned by Britain's Centre for Fortean Zoology which can tell you all about British Bigfoot and other UK cryptids. From Big Grey Man of Ben Macdhui to the Beast of Bodmin Moor, to Cannock Chase werewolves, not to mention the mystery cats. Jon Downes, one of the world’s premier cryptozoologists, who runs the esteemed British-based Center for Fortean Zoology, has investigated many such cases, more than a few of which occurred in the English county of Somerset. In Downes’ own words to me: “The area around Smitham Hill in Somerset has been the site of a number of such encounters. For example, what is now an abandoned mine was linked to tales of strange beasts seen watching the miners. Sometimes, on returning to work in the morning, the men would find that carts and equipment had been pushed over and thrown around during the night.†He continued to me: “But these things, whatever they were, are still seen in that area today – or at least as late as November 1993. This is an exact quote from a witness whose case is in my files: ‘I was on a walk through the woods, when I heard a twig snap. I thought nothing of it and continued on. Suddenly the dogs became very agitated and ran off home. At this point I became aware of a foul smell like a wet dog, and a soft breathing sound. I started to run, but after only a few feet, I tripped and fell. I decided to turn and meet my pursuer only to see a large, about seven feet tall, dark brown, hairy, apelike man. It just stood, about ten feet away, staring at me. It had intelligent-looking eyes and occasionally tilted its head as if to find out what I was. After about twenty seconds it moved off into the forest.’†http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2011/05/beware-of-the-british-bigfoot/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 30, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted October 30, 2014 An interesting study. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0110832 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 LOL BobbyO, you beat me to the punch ! I read the article and came right to this topic to post, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 30, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted October 30, 2014 What is it they say about great minds Nathan ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted October 30, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 30, 2014 What - you don't remember?? Thanks for the link. I've suspected that for years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts