Bigfoot - Ferocious And Invincible ?

[Guest]

By comparison a human can throw a 16 lb shot about 50-70 feet (world record is 75.8'). The drum is 27x heavier and it was thrown about as far as an average high school athlete can throw a 16 lb shot.

Rocks of 15-20 lbs have been described to be thrown on flat trajectories "like a Nolan Ryan fastball".

I wonder if they play catch?

Yikes, Were those stones thrown to kill, or to scare off humans?

I believe that effort would work for most intelligent humans.

I'd retreat! Rather quickly to boot..

[wiiawiwb]

If Bigfoots are out there, and are capable of a fraction of the things that have been attributed to them, they are surely the apex predators in their environment.

So why don't they kill and eat us? Why aren't we seen as easy prey and a light meat-based snack with the added fun of some toys like cellphones and flashlights to play with. We'd be like Kinder eggs in reverse - covered in exciting items, clothes etc. and with a chewy centre.

And why, when we crash around their forests, don't they see us as intruders and pummel us to jelly? Yes, they sometimes throw rocks near us, and bash trees and let out bone-rattling howls, but nothing more. Surely, every so often some gormless hikers must unknowingly get between a female BF and her child? And yet these people still have their heads attached.

It strikes me that the 'respect' for human life these things are said to display is at odds with what one would expect from an omnivorous predator. Personally I can't shake off the feeling that for them to treat us, our trail cams and our expeditions with the diffidence they do, they'd need to understand the relationship between them and mankind. They'd need to know what cameras are, and what the consequences would be if they're caught on them. They'd need to have first-hand experience of what happens if you do eat the weedy pink things hopping through the woods in their clothes (i.e. they get hunted down and killed). Basically, for them to be so reticent, we'd have had to have employed a systematic regime of hunting and killing them for a long time. Otherwise, what are they afraid of? They can't know they live in this weird twilight zone between of seen, heard, smelt and occasionally filmed, and not actually being proven. And they can't know what impact being proven to exist would have. Yet everything they reportedly do seems to be designed to keep them firmly in that zone. My contention is that an animal as dominant as BF has nothing to fear from man. We haven't been killing them for centuries. One on one, we've got no chance of killing them in a forest glade encounter. Nothing kills bigfoot (apart from old age, illness and Mt. St. Helen's) so what do they think we're going to do to them?

All warm-blooded creatures on this planet understand that man is the apex predator. They've learned, over the millennia, that if you kill one of them many more will come and you'll die. BF has undoubtedly seen men bring their boom sticks into the forest which instantly kills deer, coyote, elk, moose, bear, and everything else, from far away.

When man enters the woods those creatures who wish to survive disappear as fast as they can; and that includes sasquatch.

[Guest Lesmore]

I love this topic! A big grizzly should be scared of a completely bad ace 10-12 ft alpha male squatch and the thought of battles in the past are AWESOME to wonder about. How about in the ice age era, the Squatch evolved larger for the reason of better defense against the various super predator mammals of the day? Sabre tooth, Dire wolf , Short facebear? Sasquatch obviously the smartest and second to none in agility learned to use size and intimidation to defend itself and the opened can of whoop-ass when needed. I saw the old Ivan Marx movie on Youtube last night, entertaining(although silly by the end)ROFLMAO but unshure of the aledged "Squatch kill" of a bear with broken neck, just as easily shot and left for the wolfs /yotes.

How do you know for sure about any of the above speculation ?

[Guest vilnoori]

If you look at our mythologies giants, trolls, werewolves, satyrs, wood men (woodewose), hairy men, etc. have all a reputation for being rare or less numerous than us, for sometimes eating people when they do come in contact, or stealing women and children, and being hunted down and killed by people with superior technology and numbers. Even with all the strength they might have, they may not be as limber or fast in a fight, they might not be able to out-strategize us, and they might underestimate us little pinkies or brownies as the case may be. Perhaps there is a natural downswing and upswing in their numbers, and they tend to avoid us except when their numbers are on the increase. Maybe that is the case now. All pure speculation, of course.

[Guest]

How do you know for sure about any of the above speculation ?

Knowing for shure about speculation is impossible, that would be stating a fact...

It's merely a idea based on a thought. Just comparing large mammals of the not so distant past that should have lived side by side with the squatch as the early native americans did IMO.

It would make a great episode of Wild America or Mutual of Omahas Wild Kingdom if we had a time machine..lol

[Guest nona]

All warm-blooded creatures on this planet understand that man is the apex predator. They've learned, over the millennia, that if you kill one of them many more will come and you'll die. BF has undoubtedly seen men bring their boom sticks into the forest which instantly kills deer, coyote, elk, moose, bear, and everything else, from far away.

The reasoning skills of BF must then be highly advanced compared to most other warm-blood creatures. I only assume this to be true because this understanding doesn't stop all warm-blooded creatures from going after man. Every now and then you hear stories of a man being mauled by animals such as dogs, bears, monkeys, and even other humans.

When man enters the woods those creatures who wish to survive disappear as fast as they can; and that includes sasquatch.

Yet, we hear of all these face-to-face encounters.

[Guest Lesmore]

Knowing for shure about speculation is impossible, that would be stating a fact...

It's merely a idea based on a thought. Just comparing large mammals of the not so distant past that should have lived side by side with the squatch as the early native americans did IMO.

It would make a great episode of Wild America or Mutual of Omahas Wild Kingdom if we had a time machine..lol

Good for you for indicating that it is speculation. I have no difficulties with speculation, just as long as people separate fact, from speculation or fiction.

Just an observation...that is not directed at all to you Gearman...but I sometimes find that many posts/threads in this forum, seem not to discriminate the difference between fact and fiction.

[JDL]

I think this is one area where bigfoot aren't going to fit a particular mold when compared to either us or the great apes.

Their strength is indisputable, greater than ours, and possibly greater than the apes.

Their agility is as good as our best and they have an edge in their own environment.

Their speed is greater than ours in a sprint.

Their endurance is also pretty good based on reports.

What we have is not one (us) or the other (apes). They have a blend of the best characteristics of both.

Take an ape's strength and put it on a larger and stronger frame (thicker bones) than we have. Increase their lung volume by a factor of what? Four? More?

What could you do if you could process oxygen more efficiently and had much more blood glucose and glycogen stored than we have?

They win in all of the above categories. And they're stealthy to boot.

Maybe we should ask what their shortfalls/vulnerabilities are, instead.

Edited July 25, 2011 by JDL

[Guest nona]

I think this is one area where bigfoot aren't going to fit a particular mold when compared to either us or the great apes.

Their strength is indisputable, greater than ours, and possibly greater than the apes.

Their agility is as good as our best and they have an edge in their own environment.

Their speed is greater than ours in a sprint.

Their endurance is also pretty good based on reports.

Yes, the stories make it sound as if the physiology of these creatures goes beyond the current understanding of any animal we know of to date.

I feel the need to go back to that other thread and change my response to Homo. Superprimaticus.

Maybe we should ask what their shortfalls/vulnerabilities are, instead.

Interesting, where would man have the advantage? There are plenty of animals that can beat us physically but it's our intelligence that has allowed us to dominate all other creatures on this planet.

[Guest Lesmore]

I think this is one area where bigfoot aren't going to fit a particular mold when compared to either us or the great apes.

Their strength is indisputable, greater than ours, and possibly greater than the apes.

Their agility is as good as our best and they have an edge in their own environment.

Their speed is greater than ours in a sprint.

Their endurance is also pretty good based on reports.

What we have is not one (us) or the other (apes). They have a blend of the best characteristics of both.

Take an ape's strength and put it on a larger and stronger frame (thicker bones) than we have. Increase their lung volume by a factor of what? Four? More?

What could you do if you could process oxygen more efficiently and had much more blood glucose and glycogen stored than we have?

They win in all of the above categories. And they're stealthy to boot.

Maybe we should ask what their shortfalls/vulnerabilities are, instead.

How do you don't know if any of this is true.

Can you confirm any of this speculation ?

Edited July 26, 2011 by Lesmore

[Guest]

How do you don't know if any of this is true.

Can you confirm any of this speculation ?

It is clear that you have been here much longer than I have, and there has been much healthy debate on this forum between skeptics and believers for as long as I have been here. However, this is a Bigfoot forum and it makes sense that many people who believe in the animal are going to discuss it, and there is no reason for them (us) to walk on eggshells with every post we make to make sure it is worded perfectly in a way that "satisfies" the skeptics. This is the second time I've seen you make this post, and it's my opinion that it is unnecessary and serves only to "put the believer in his place" by pointing out the obvious. Yes- of course we don't know if any of this is true. Yes- of course it is only speculation. We don't have to go out of our way to say as much when discussing amongst ourselves just to make sure someone doesn't come behind us and say "Where's the proof?!".

C'mon man, contribute something.

[Guest nona]

It is clear that you have been here much longer than I have, and there has been much healthy debate on this forum between skeptics and believers for as long as I have been here. However, this is a Bigfoot forum and it makes sense that many people who believe in the animal are going to discuss it, and there is no reason for them (us) to walk on eggshells with every post we make to make sure it is worded perfectly in a way that "satisfies" the skeptics. This is the second time I've seen you make this post, and it's my opinion that it is unnecessary and serves only to "put the believer in his place" by pointing out the obvious. Yes- of course we don't know if any of this is true. Yes- of course it is only speculation. We don't have to go out of our way to say as much when discussing amongst ourselves just to make sure someone doesn't come behind us and say "Where's the proof?!".

C'mon man, contribute something.

Why so defensive? If you truly believe in what you say there is no need to walk on eggshells, simply state it. Not everyone may agree with your opinion but that is often how a discussion is started, and ideas and opinions are then traded back and forth.

Is this not a "discussion" board on the topic of Bigfoot? Or is it simply meant to be a room filled with echos?

[Guest]

Why so defensive? If you truly believe in what you say there is no need to walk on eggshells, simply state it. Not everyone may agree with your opinion but that is often how a discussion is started, and ideas and opinions are then traded back and forth.

Is this not a "discussion" board on the topic of Bigfoot? Or is it simply meant to be a room filled with echos?

Discussion I like; discussion I welcome. I might even point out that I quite enjoy your posts, and you don't strike me as much of a "believer" yourself. However, I have also never seen you point at someone's post and basically say "fix it so that it doesn't imply BF exists". It just comes off as a very snarky and non-contributive comment that is basically the opposite of "discussion".

However, it is certainly not my intention to derail this thread, and I should probably just let it go.

[Guest Lesmore]

It is clear that you have been here much longer than I have, and there has been much healthy debate on this forum between skeptics and believers for as long as I have been here. However, this is a Bigfoot forum and it makes sense that many people who believe in the animal are going to discuss it, and there is no reason for them (us) to walk on eggshells with every post we make to make sure it is worded perfectly in a way that "satisfies" the skeptics. This is the second time I've seen you make this post, and it's my opinion that it is unnecessary and serves only to "put the believer in his place" by pointing out the obvious. Yes- of course we don't know if any of this is true. Yes- of course it is only speculation. We don't have to go out of our way to say as much when discussing amongst ourselves just to make sure someone doesn't come behind us and say "Where's the proof?!".

C'mon man, contribute something.

It posts masquerading fiction as fact, that don't help the BF community who have a genuine interest in getting down to understanding whether BF does exist. The general BF community has more than enough problems with credibility and if fantasy..'what if'... posts continue all that does is further erode what little credibility the BF community at large has.

As far as contributing something...posting fantasies doesn't cut it. It reinforces the 'fringe' element that many outside the BF community... feel those interested in BF belong. I happen to think that the BF community deserves more.

Another concern I have is that I do believe those who fantasize about BF attributes...blur the line between what is real and what is not....among those who are relatively new to the BF issue.

I don't see how unlimited speculation contributes anything to the BF issue.

[Guest]

It posts masquerading fiction as fact, that don't help the BF community who have a genuine interest in getting down to understanding whether BF does exist. The general BF community has more than enough problems with credibility and if fantasy..'what if'... posts continue all that does is further erode what little credibility the BF community at large has.

As far as contributing something...posting fantasies doesn't cut it. It reinforces the 'fringe' element that many outside the BF community... feel those interested in BF belong. I happen to think that the BF community deserves more.

Another concern I have is that I do believe those who fantasize about BF attributes...blur the line between what is real and what is not....among those who are relatively new to the BF issue.

I don't see how unlimited speculation contributes anything to the BF issue.

So what should we discuss? If all we discuss is what is known to be fact, then there is nothing to discuss. The entire BF topic is under the umbrella of "not proven"... we don't have to label it as such in every post of every discussion, that's all I'm saying. If I'm talking about BFs size and strength, I don't have to include a disclaimer that this is all, of course, not proven. We know that. I'm talking about his presumed size and strength. You know that, but you still feel it necessary to MAKE me say it. That's what I don't find necessary or particularly appreciate. Of course, you disagree, so we can agree to disagree since we are both reasonable adults.