Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 (edited) A good way would be to estimate density sightings for black bear and then extrapolate percentages for Bigfoot. They seem to occupy similar habitat and have similar ranges. Of course you need a reliable database of Bigfoot sightings for compare and contrasting which I would guess are not public. Edited February 24, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Have you seen any Sasquatch sign at all this winter BigTree in that area and were this recordings you mention from this winter ? I look at the SSR that now has close to 570 WA State reports in it and I find a real low % of winter reports from the general area you talk about compared to the Olympic Peninsula and other parts of WA. BobbyO, the Spirit Lake highway is a dead end road into the area west of Mt St Helens. Up and back with stops at viewpoints is how most people drive it. Past Hoffstadt Bluffs a few miles the road quickly goes above the 2000' elevation. Few people stop in that area because the valley floor is off limits until the end of April. I have heard that the locals in the area though they have activity at times just live with it and don't make reports. Between the town of Toutle and the mountain there are very few residences. So a lot of wild country. I have been accompanying Chris Spencer whom I believe you know. Anyway the roads on the south side of the mountain in the Lewis River valley have the same situation. Dead end this time of year and even less traveled than the Spirit Lake side. There's really no destination for most people except the woods. Though I have found more bone evidence on the Spirit Lake side and lots of fresh elk sign, other than Chris' audio the bone evidence is from last year. I was out today and found 5 elk remains and a few scattered bones. Two of the remains showed signs of large incisors as we have found before and additionally flat rounded molar impressions which I am very excited about. But the age of these sites is about a year old. Maybe if we continue we will find something from this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 25, 2016 SSR Team Share Posted February 25, 2016 Cool, thanks for clarifying BTW.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) I have always wondered about BF's metabolism and dietary requirements. The basal metabolic rate for a 40 year old, 400 pound, 7' 6" guy is 3435 calories per day. I have no idea if the calculation scales well to that size or is even remotely the same for a BF but you have to start somewhere and it is as good place as any. There is 136 calories in 4 oz of venison. A 180 pound deer yields roughly 72 pounds of meat. Crank through the math and you get one deer able to sustain a BF for roughly 11 days. So they hunt one day per week and lay low the rest of the week. That is an interesting question with two plausible but contradictory answers (IMO). Sasquatch in Coniferous Forests/winter - argument against: Sasquatch as a primate living in the PNW/Canada is unlikely because all great apes today live in tropical habitats (humans and a few monkeys live outside of tropical regions but no great apes). A gorilla released into a coniferous forest would starve or freeze. Gigantopithecus is likewise thought to have been tropically adapted and crossing the Bering land bridge which was at best analogous to the siberian steppe. No great ape is/was adapted for such a journey and the current habitat is unsuitable thus sasquatch is implausible.... Sasquatch in Coniferous Forests/winter - argument for: Just as Polar and Kodiak bears are larger than bears of lower latitudes sasquatch is larger than primates of the tropical regions. This is according the biological principle known as Bermann's Rule (animals get bigger the further one moves from the equator). As the body increases in size the surface area to volume ratio decreases meaning sasquatch doesn't freeze. And while a larger animal does require more food, because of the larger size and staying warmer it can eat relatively less (i.e., per unit of body weigth) than smaller animals. Also, a larger body allows an animal to eat bulkier, nutrient poor foods that smaller animals cannot process. This cuts the number of animals going after the same food resources. Thus sasquatch is completely plausible... Such is the problem with this entire field. It's ALL speculation. You can make any reasoned argument and someone else can make a reasoned argument which is completely counter to the first and both are equally valid. At this point the field of sasquatchery is more philosophy of the people involved than anything else (that and fun camping trips in the great outdoors). Edited February 25, 2016 by Bodhi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted February 25, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted February 25, 2016 A good way would be to estimate density sightings for black bear and then extrapolate percentages for Bigfoot. They seem to occupy similar habitat and have similar ranges. Of course you need a reliable database of Bigfoot sightings for compare and contrasting which I would guess are not public. Who reports bear sightings? DNR bear population estimates are just that, estimates, and bears hibernate in the winter so are unlikely to be seen. Bohi: You know of course that the coniferous forests of the PNW also have plants and trees besides coniferous trees. Maple and alder are common. Much of the area is rain forest and the ground surface is very much like a jungle in the most of it is covered with vegetation of some sort below the tree canopy. That makes travel off trail very difficult but provides abundant edible vegetation. Deer prefer leaves to grass in a lot of areas including my back yard. Berries are abundant in season. There are many edible roots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) Bodhi, I think a Mountain Gorilla living in the cloud forests of the Virunga range up to 12000 ft, would do very well in the coastal ranges of the PacNW. Also Berengia was very temperate along its southern coast line. Think less Siberian tundra and more like Prince of Wales Island Alaska. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia And Apes made it from central Africa to China, so a trip to North America along the coast line during the low sea levels of the last ice age I think is plausible. Edited February 25, 2016 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Bodhi, I think a Mountain Gorilla living in the cloud forests of the Virunga range up to 12000 ft, would do very well in the coastal ranges of the PacNW. Also Berengia was very temperate along its southern coast line. Think less Siberian tundra and more like Prince of Wales Island Alaska. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia And Apes made it from central Africa to China, so a trip to North America along the coast line during the low sea levels of the last ice age I think is plausible. Just presenting cases for and against. I think my personal position that sasquatch is a social construct is fairly well established. Your and SWWA's responses go to my overarching point that any reasoned argument is equally valid at this point which means that it's all speculation. And, for my money, it's more about the personal philosophy of the people involved than objective evidence at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) Sasquatch in Coniferous Forests/winter - argument against:Sasquatch as a primate living in the PNW/Canada is unlikely because all great apes today live in tropical habitats (humans and a few monkeys live outside of tropical regions but no great apes). Well that's true but also misleading in a way. Science says: The Virunga Mountains enjoy a pleasant climate with average daytime temperatures around 10° C (50° F) and 1,000 mm (40 in) of rain annually. Five peaks in Rwanda and three in the DRC rise above the timberline. Winds blowing against the slopes are forced upwards into cooler air, creating an almost constant mist. This moisture has fostered a rain forest of hagenia trees, shrubs, mosses, and lichens climbing as high as 3,400 m (11,000 ft). The Virunga Mountains are most renowned as the habitat of mountain gorillas, vegetarian primates who live in groups of up to 30. Larger and more densely coated than lowland gorillas, they can attain a height of 1.8 m (6 ft) and weight of 200 kg (440 lbs). oops, forgot the link: Virunga Mountains Edited February 25, 2016 by WesT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 If you go Gorilla you have to account for 10 million years of evolution and no evolution to upright walking. If you go Australopithecus or Homo you have only to account for migration to North America, as they evolved upright walking. With the discovery of the Hobbit you also get an Australopithecus that had already migrated out of Africa and lived an eye blink ago at 12,000 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) Bohdi, Because they are not flying purple people eaters, and we know from the fossil record that giant ape men existed in the past? I dont think its a social construct. If Sasquatch never existed on the north American continent then its a collective memory reverberation from the past. I'm completely convinced that the ancestors of north American peoples came in contact with something at some point in their past. Edited February 25, 2016 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) A good way would be to estimate density sightings for black bear and then extrapolate percentages for Bigfoot. They seem to occupy similar habitat and have similar ranges. Of course you need a reliable database of Bigfoot sightings for compare and contrasting which I would guess are not public. Who reports bear sightings? DNR bear population estimates are just that, estimates, and bears hibernate in the winter so are unlikely to be seen. Bohi: You know of course that the coniferous forests of the PNW also have plants and trees besides coniferous trees. Maple and alder are common. Much of the area is rain forest and the ground surface is very much like a jungle in the most of it is covered with vegetation of some sort below the tree canopy. That makes travel off trail very difficult but provides abundant edible vegetation. Deer prefer leaves to grass in a lot of areas including my back yard. Berries are abundant in season. There are many edible roots. As are any estimates of BF population. At least with black bear you have scientist input and study to the data model and reality based testing of the hypothetical population figures. The other option is guessing. At least this way you get a way to test your hypothesis. Edited February 25, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Bohdi, Because they are not flying purple people eaters, and we know from the fossil record that giant ape men existed in the past? I dont think its a social construct. If Sasquatch never existed on the north American continent then its a collective memory reverberation from the past. I'm completely convinced that the ancestors of north American peoples came in contact with something at some point in their past. Sure, they are possible, they seem implausible though. I'm fine with being wrong about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted February 25, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted February 25, 2016 Next time I have BF contact I will explain to them that they implausible and a social construct. Wonder if knowing that will make the bigfoot disappear from my photograph? Earth calling skeptics, people here have seen them! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Next time I have BF contact I will explain to them that they implausible and a social construct. Wonder if knowing that will make the bigfoot disappear from my photograph? Earth calling skeptics, people here have seen them! People CLAIM to have seen all manner of things, some of which later proved to be mythical <cough- chubacabra,dragons,fairies,leprechauns,ghosts-cough> Keep your photo and bring a hair sample back next time, or a piece of scat. Having said that, please do post your photos (red circle optional). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Social construct? That was the ugliest, fastest, biggest *********** social construct EVER! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts