If Bigfoot Were Real.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I used to be hopeful but that's pretty well gone for me.  If I was forced to bet a pay cheque,  I'd say no such thing.

 

t.

I agree with you on the pay check  bet. I certainly agree there is no man apes about in the modern world, but I still hope there is.

I think it may be better if they do exist  to remain undetected and unproven.  The mystery is an attraction. More importantly we humans would probably find a way make life miserable for the creatures. We seem to mess up  a lot more than we help.

[Incorrigible1]

Where are the leavings of their food-gathering activities? Gorillas leave huge swaths through their range.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Even snow leopards in Tibet are seen and photographed more often...

 

On a similar note, the two most convincing film evidence (Freeman and P-G) both originate with Bigfoot researchers, involve trackways, are in the remote upland areas of ranges of the PNW and involve clean water sources and surreptitious discovery.

 

Does no one else film these man-ape creatures (game wardens, forest rangers, hikers?)

 

And is this an anomaly or a pattern of deception.

 

The animal is an anomaly and it's filming is also an anomaly, kind of like a double negative.

 

I wonder if that is negatively positive...

 

Gadzooks!

 

In an obituary in the National Post, his friend Christopher Murphy remembered a remark of Dahinden's. "One day he said to me: 'You know, I've spent over 40 years — and I didn't find it. I guess that's got to say something.'"

Edited July 6, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[MIB]

Where are the leavings of their food-gathering activities? Gorillas leave huge swaths through their range.

 

I don't think the comparison is valid.   Two reasons come to mind.

 

First, with regard to signs made by passage, not feeding, if the gorilla pictures online accurately depict typical habitat, it would be pretty difficult to move through such "cover" without damaging plants.   However, this isn't the case for the cover found in most of North America.   I can move fine through a conifer forest (where I've had most of my interactions), oak savannah, and most other plant communities other than some thickets of stuff I'd just go around, without leaving a visible trail.   If I can, they can.

 

Second, with regard to signs from feeding, gorillas are essentially 100% herbivore, however, according to the evidence, bigfoots are not, they are omnivores.   Gorillas seem to eat pretty much leafy green stuff.   Bigfoots seem not to, their plant material tends to be berries, mushrooms, tubers, and the like.   There isn't much evidence suggesting the walk along munching handfuls of leaves torn off trees in a way that would create a trail that you can find.

 

So .. interesting idea on the surface, just don't think about it very hard.  If you do, why it is wrong becomes painfully obvious.

 

MIB

[Incorrigible1]

Thanks for the response, MIB. A creature the size of bigfoot has to earn a living, and doing such must leave telltale marks of its impact on the environment. Yes, I understand the general belief is they are omnivorous, but even so, a creature weighing north of a quarter-ton is bound to make sign.

[Guest DWA]

They do.  They break limbs and leave tracks...oh wait, those are faked.

 

No.  They're not.  That's been scientifically proven.  That most scientists aren't at the cutting edge of any scientific field could not be seen better than in this one.  Nailed it, MIB, and you are by far not the first to say that.  They key to the "lack" of what we see from gorillas...is the environment, not the animal.

 

Where's the massive destruction *bears* cause?  Right?  Maybe bears aren't causing it all.

Edited July 6, 2016 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

Thanks for the response, MIB. A creature the size of bigfoot has to earn a living, and doing such must leave telltale marks of its impact on the environment. Yes, I understand the general belief is they are omnivorous, but even so, a creature weighing north of a quarter-ton is bound to make sign.

You seem to be ignoring the bone stack evidence for elk predation that BTW is investigating.    How many kills are wrongly attributed to cougars?     I find deer kills that do not exhibit the movement, scatter and dismemberment associated with wolves, coyotes,  and cougars.   Ever watched a video of a wolfpack tear apart a deer or elk?      The most puzzling finds of mine are relatively intact deer kills, with pretty much the entire carcass present, but the head is missing.    What animal does that?    As far as berries, fruit,  etc and a swath left behind,   could it be that a omnivore with hands might not make such a mess as a bear.    A bear in a camp is very messy.    Bears do not care of they make a mess eating, tear stuff apart,  leave footprints,  even though they too avoid humans.   They are not smart enough to know that such damage reveals their presence.       You do not see much of a mess left by humans in a self pick berry field even though most humans are pretty much slobs.   And finally, from my own experience with footprint finds,  BF goes out of its way to avoid leaving footprint evidence it has been present even in remote areas.   Avoiding muddy trails by stepping across them, not using human trails, and using patches of vegetation to step on in soft areas.  Why would we not expect the same care from  BF as far as food procurement and leaving behind evidence they have been present?    If their intelligence approaches humans as some suspect,  they might even pin their predation on some other animal by mimicking that animals predation behavior as far as disposition of the carcass.      

[Incorrigible1]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Food for thought!

[ShadowBorn]

On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 11:51 PM, Incorrigible1 said:

Where are the leavings of their food-gathering activities? Gorillas leave huge swaths through their range.

Well

 I am not a poop scooper and nor will I be one since no one will not gain much info of a poop since it can degrade so fast unless it is super fresh. If it is super fresh then you might have well just look for the creature itself since it might still be in the area and get your sample that way. But if you are in a area where you find poop that is the size of bear or even human, then you have to wonder. What made that poop in that area you know there are no bears .  Especially  if you are in a area where there is no large animal that can make poop that size in that area. I just do not collect it and find it a waste of time.  A body is worth more then words or pictures and when some one does bring a body on a slab we will all be vindicated as far as proponents goes. 

Edited July 7, 2016 by ShadowBorn

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Animals in there natural environment don't cause swaths of destruction (maybe I will leave out large herds, insect swarms, mankind, and gorillas)

With a bear you see shredded logs and some scat.

Bigfoot live in the same environments as bears, if BFRO reports are to believed (mostly not, and least for me, sadly).

Scat would be highly useful as in "what else you got"? Plus shouldn't scat have some gut DNA? I guess the problem is all the other food and bacterial DNA, you can still figure out what it eats but knowing it is from a bigfoot is the problem (hint:tracks)

Bears are smart enough, and no, bigfoot would not have a human level of intelligence but likely would be as smarter than almost anything else since it is an intermediary step to human as determined by brain size (larger than chimps, smaller than human, about 1/3 to 2/3 thirds the size of a human brain and a less developed frontal cortex so not great at language or planning dinner parties for a hundred or running a modern state, or inventing automobiles and cell phone)

Of course the problem is also "if".

If is the conclusion presented even by a Dr. Meldrum and other BF researchers who use logic and not sensationalism.

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest WesT]

On 7/6/2016 at 10:14 AM, Incorrigible1 said:

Thanks for the response, MIB. A creature the size of bigfoot has to earn a living, and doing such must leave telltale marks of its impact on the environment. Yes, I understand the general belief is they are omnivorous, but even so, a creature weighing north of a quarter-ton is bound to make sign.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with your logic and line of thinking here. You're on the right track, but the sign and impact on the environment they leave is something you have to see for yourself.

[coffee2go]

I am not convinced by the author's evaluation of evidence in the article, nor am I convinced to purchase his book.

[ShadowBorn]

3 hours ago, coffee2go said:

I am not convinced by the author's evaluation of evidence in the article, nor am I convinced to purchase his book.

C2G

I am not sure it has anything to do with the article of selling a book. But more to do with discounting the evidence with out even investigating the evidence first hand. This is on heard of by any one who has interest in this subject who is willing to learn the truth.

Quote

 A creature the size of bigfoot has to earn a living, and doing such must leave telltale marks of its impact on the environment.

Does it really need to leave tell tale marks on our environment? I mean I have seen some good size trails where it looks like a moose or some thing huge as a moose just went through that area. These trails I just cannot explain since there is nothing that huge in these areas that could have made them.  But then all of a sudden these trails just go un notice or fade into the forest as though nothing went through there. So how does one explain this when the trail goes cold. You are following this trail that is wide open and all of a sudden closes up with no explanation. So like the poster says you have to be there and see for your self.

I am not sure what the environment would look like if there were Gorillas in our mist. But I cannot compare these creatures with apes or gorillas since they do not act the same. If they did we would not be on this forum talking about them but looking at them in a zoo. So there is a very big difference between these creatures and what we know about Gorillas and apes.  

[MIB]

On 7/6/2016 at 7:14 AM, Incorrigible1 said:

 but even so, a creature weighing north of a quarter-ton is bound to make sign.

I agree and I think the sign of passage is there, the question is whether or not there is an observer, whether or not the observer sees the sign, and whether or not the observer correctly identifies who/what left it.   I think there is a lot more out there to see than is seen, noticed, and properly identified.  

In favor of not being noticed are specific diet and eating habits regarding plants, the careful and quiet movement of an apex predator not wishing to scare off potential animal protein thus NOT imitating a drunk sherman tank crashing through a field of corn flakes, and things like that.   Existence of critters like bears that share territory and food sources obfuscates the evidence left as well as providing a rational (and probably most often correct) counter-explanation for what evidence is left.    I believe you've often said that bigfoot should not be our first assumption.   No disagreement, just noticing that overlooking some amount of legitimate bigfoot "sign" is probably a necessary consequence of that.

My suspicion (or rationalization) here is that unless you get into a core area used by some bigfoots for some extended amount of time, there probably won't be enough evidence to for it to be remarkable enough for human notice .. maybe with the exception of the person who is specifically looking for them rather than engaging in some other activity and merely stumbling past (rather than on :)) that evidence.

I think you're more likely to have some sort of bigfoot activity like knocks or howls to bring bigfoot to your immediate attention, then notice the sign that has been all around you already than you are to notice the sign "unprovoked".

Guesses.  Hopefully educated, but definitely guesses.

MIB

 

[guyzonthropus]

Good points indeed! Until the investigator is tuned in to the subtleties of the potential signs left by the passage and foraging of these guys, I'd bet a large percentage of such will go unnoticed. I like the idea of them simulating the patterns of other professors of the region to obfuscate their presence ("bear did it...").

Makes me wonder if there might have been a significant shift in these patterns and behaviors not only as the white dwarves began occupying more and more land, but also as our weapon technologies advanced.

Gorillas were largely uncontested, other than by big cats perhaps, within their environments(especially the mountain gorillas) until Europeans brought in firearms, yet they haven't seemed to develop higher stealth behaviors to the point of near invisibility as seen(or not seen...) in BF's. Though this might been in part due to Europeans in imperialist Africa not so intent on personally moving into the creatures actual habitat and setting up shop, something occurring later as populations expanded and we found out what swell ashtrays gorilla hands make...while here in north America we've been pushing wildlife out as fast as we could eat, skin or simply kill it.

Maybe precolumbian BF were less covert with their signs in that they would have been apex creatures intentionally making their presence known, then when the human threat became more lethal, they went into stealth modes.

In regards to the collection of fecal samples, while I get not wanting to go grabbing up huge steamy piles, nor the subsequent hike out... there is evidential value to it. Crypto's thought of gut DNA is a part of it, though from what I've read, it's a tricky recovery(to procure viable materials, not the getting over digging through the pile for ideal test matter!)But perhaps of greater differentiating potential is the parasite gut load, as there would most probably be unique and previously unknown organisms specific to the source species that could then be cross referenced with known intestinal parasites to determine what the mystery creature is related to and when it diverged, thereby justifying bagging up a bunch of mystery poop...just a thought...

As for the article and its author...he should be ashamed of himself, the university that gave him his degree and the publisher of the article itself. JMHO....go figure.