If Bigfoot Were Real.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

1 hour ago, guyzonthropus said:

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.

Man has not been safe for an Australopithecine to be around for about a million or two years.

That is about the point our brain got big enough (our homicidal little mind) and our social complexity began to outstrip theirs that we could plot to wipe them out and steal all their dinners into perpetuity. Or even have then increasingly as the main course.

Their primary adaptation was to run to and adapt to an ecological niche that we found impassable and difficult to navigate in (plus all the covert crypto scout evade and avoid behaviors).

You can see what the evolutionary adaptation was, though science thought they all died out (the hobbit will force a rethinking of that as the hobbit has significant Australopithecine indicators) the adaptation being the thick hairy caps and coats (long outer fur and shorter denser underfur) to shed rainforest up mountain moisture and the strength and gigantism that makes athletic running up steep slopes easy for them for us. The big foot itself may be an adaptation. I'm sure there are others as well. They have had a milion years to develop new genetic sequences and behavioral strategies.

 

 

[BigTreeWalker]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

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.  

Very astute observation MIB. As I've said before bears are a very good indicator species for bigfoot. The biggest problem is differentiation between bear feeding behavior and what might possibly be bigfoot. The problem being that most of what bears do can't really be separated from what something with similar behavior would do. Such as ripping up stumps, rolling logs, flipping rocks or digging roots. That's one reason, as SWWSP mentioned, I've presented another facet of feeding behavior that is different from what bears do. It doesn't require a PhD to figure out. Just good observational skills. Bears and canids destroy and scatter bones from animals that they feed on. If you find a pretty much intact skeleton it was probably a cougar that feed on it. Even after natural decay processes this is apparent. If the ribs are close to their natural position even after decay then you probably have a cougar feeding site. However, if the ribs are removed from the vertebrae, are still intact and placed separately from them you have to ask what predator/scavenger did this. You don't have to be a dental expert. You don't even have to look that closely at the bones. Although to determine which animals were doing what, I did do those things on over two dozen feeding sites now. Out of those sites six exhibited the behavior I mentioned to look for above. 

Incorrigible is right. If bigfoot exists there should be evidence of their presence. The problem comes, as MIB says, in finding it, then recognizing what you have found.   

[Lake County Bigfooot]

On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 11:20 AM, MIB said:

Even after you do see one with your own eyes, the scoftics will still call it a belief or a delusion or a lie.   Been there done that.   Be prepared to be ridiculed just like everyone else who has seen one is.   You're not going to get special treatment.

 

MIB

If I cared at all about the scoftics not believing me I would not be here in the first place, what I need is to prove beyond any doubt their existence to myself, because without seeing on in the flesh there will always be room for doubt. I have only been at this for three years, and only because of what unexplainable stuff I have going on right in my backyard, yes I read about them before that, but if I went 30 years simply on belief, with no other strong evidence, well like others I too might throw in the towel and become a doubting Thomas. Even Rene was in that boat, so frustrated with not being able to see on as to doubt they even exist.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot
add more

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

11 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

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 someone who has had to collect human fecal material for medical analysis, you really don't need to "dig" into the sample if you want to get the subject's sloughed off intestinal cells. The intestines contract, forcing the fecal mass through. The type of "churning" occurring in the stomach doesn't really occur during intestinal transit. The fecal mass is pushed through and out. So the greater concentration of sloughed off intestinal cells would be on the exterior of the fecal mass, not the interior.

Same goes for blood. When your doctor examines your poop for occult blood after doing a digital rectal exam, the doc isn't "digging" into the fecal mass. The doc collects stool from the exterior of the fecal mass, and tests it on the test paper. Of course, where the blood cells are in the fecal mass is dependent where the bleeding is. For example, if a person has a stomach ulcer, the blood will be "mixed" into the stool, and will be partly digested. If the person has hemorrhoids, the blood is introduced as the fecal mass is leaving the body, so the blood is not digested and would be more concentrated on the exterior of the fecal mass.

Regarding parasites, if you want to look for evidence of parasites (their eggs, segments of their bodies, etc.), sample may need to be from the interior or closer to the interior of the fecal mass or it may not. *GROSS WARNING: stop reading if you are sensitive* Tape worm bodies are segmented. Each segment contains eggs. The segments are found on  stool, not in it. In contrast, the liver fluke lives in the liver. So it's eggs are deposited higher in the GI tract and may be found in the stool.*END GROSS WARNING*

Anyhow, "if BigFoot were real", he/they would be sitting back and patiently waiting for humans to self-destruct because we're currently doing an extremely good job of killing ourselves.

 

[Incorrigible1]

Thanks for the detailed info, Chasing Rabbits. I think? ;-) That may have been a little too much info!

[ShadowBorn]

13 minutes ago, ChasingRabbits said:

 

As someone who has had to collect human fecal material for medical analysis, you really don't need to "dig" into the sample if you want to get the subject's sloughed off intestinal cells. The intestines contract, forcing the fecal mass through. The type of "churning" occurring in the stomach doesn't really occur during intestinal transit. The fecal mass is pushed through and out. So the greater concentration of sloughed off intestinal cells would be on the exterior of the fecal mass, not the interior.

Same goes for blood. When your doctor examines your poop for occult blood after doing a digital rectal exam, the doc isn't "digging" into the fecal mass. The doc collects stool from the exterior of the fecal mass, and tests it on the test paper. Of course, where the blood cells are in the fecal mass is dependent where the bleeding is. For example, if a person has a stomach ulcer, the blood will be "mixed" into the stool, and will be partly digested. If the person has hemorrhoids, the blood is introduced as the fecal mass is leaving the body, so the blood is not digested and would be more concentrated on the exterior of the fecal mass.

Regarding parasites, if you want to look for evidence of parasites (their eggs, segments of their bodies, etc.), sample may need to be from the interior or closer to the interior of the fecal mass or it may not. *GROSS WARNING: stop reading if you are sensitive* Tape worm bodies are segmented. Each segment contains eggs. The segments are found on  stool, not in it. In contrast, the liver fluke lives in the liver. So it's eggs are deposited higher in the GI tract and may be found in the stool.*END GROSS WARNING*

Anyhow, "if BigFoot were real", he/they would be sitting back and patiently waiting for humans to self-destruct because we're currently doing an extremely good job of killing ourselves.

 

Chasing Rabbits

So is it worth the effort to collect stool sample from these creatures if found ? I find that it is not worth the effort to collect the stool when found unless it is fresh.

[southernyahoo]

On ‎6‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 8:21 PM, Crowlogic said:

The blog from is from Scientific American, that's not exactly a rag publication.  Witnesses aren't all liars but they are far more likely to have been mistaken, stressed, mentally primed to have an out of ordinary occurrence morph into bigfoot, and yes Virginia  some witnesses are pulling your leg.  There is nothing speculative in that article.  It is pretty easy to do a search of say supposed bigfoot sounds and have them be totally different from each other.  Just look at the cast evidence.  Heck there's everything except the kitchen sink, 5 toes, 4 toes, 3 toes, 25 inches, 13 inches, MTB no MTB.  Then there's the reported size (not an issue in the article)  but worth mentioning.  We got em 6', 7'. 8', 9' 12' GASP 15' tall.  I don't know about you but I fully understand that with virtually all known wild animals that for instance if say you saw a bald eagle a fairly cohesive and standard image of one can be counted on to represent the sighting or species in general.  You know there is a common element in bigfootism that whenever a solid case is made against bigfoot the wagons get circled and the author of whatever doesn't know what they are talking about.  But you know every time I hear a bigfooter say bigfoot is this or that, does this or that, or did this or that all I have to do is remind myself of the rational realities of the evidence to know that it's the bigfooters who either don't know what they're talking about or simply refuse to grasp the realities that fly in the face of their muse.

The author could just say, I don't see enough good evidence.  But an author does not make an authority on the evidence. Oh and I do differ with him/her on the homogeneity of vocalizations. 

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I should have put the GROSS WARNING at the beginning of my post. sorry.....

Shadowborn, it depends what you're looking for. If you want to see what the animal is eating, collecting stool might be useful. If your goal is to collect the animal's sloughed intestinal cells, it's probably useful too. In theory, you should be able to swab the poo and get the cells, similar to obtaining cells for those ancestry DNA tests. And in theory, the fresher the better.

 

Edited July 8, 2016 by ChasingRabbits

[BigTreeWalker]

In other words, if the pile is steaming it might be worth it. Otherwise we just may be looking at what it's diet is. 

 

Yes, Gross. I think I'll continue to work on what I have been researching. Bones are a lot easier to collect.  

[ShadowBorn]

5 hours ago, ChasingRabbits said:

I should have put the GROSS WARNING at the beginning of my post. sorry.....

Shadowborn, it depends what you're looking for. If you want to see what the animal is eating, collecting stool might be useful. If your goal is to collect the animal's sloughed intestinal cells, it's probably useful too. In theory, you should be able to swab the poo and get the cells, similar to obtaining cells for those ancestry DNA tests. And in theory, the fresher the better.

 

ChasingRabbits

I know that this is not the topic for this , but since we are talking about it I might as well ask you. DNA can be extracted from fresh stool? how would it be kept preserved? Oh, by the way thank you for answering my question. I have looked at some stool samples that had bugs mixed in with it that was large, but this was in a area where there are a good population of Black bear. So swiping off the top layer of stool samples is like getting samples from inside of the back of the mouth for DNA. That is interesting ! How would one preserve this? Sorry but I have to pick your brain on this one.

Quote

The author could just say, I don't see enough good evidence

SouthernYahoo

He could have said that he could not have seen enough good evidence to convince him. But no, instead he just discounted every thing while in the mean time making sure to discount these professors who have made tenure (

give (someone) a permanent post, especially as a teacher or professor ).  People who have put their lives studying features of bones, feet and movement of animals. This is what has upset me, since these Professors deserve more respect then what this article has gave them. Like I have said , they have actually put their feet in the field and seen the evidence for them selves. I will give those respect more then those who have never done the field work them selves. I can not say nothing for those who can not go out into the field since for them it is much harder to under stand the evidence presented. 

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

On 7/8/2016 at 8:48 PM, ShadowBorn said:

ChasingRabbits

I know that this is not the topic for this , but since we are talking about it I might as well ask you. DNA can be extracted from fresh stool? how would it be kept preserved? Oh, by the way thank you for answering my question. I have looked at some stool samples that had bugs mixed in with it that was large, but this was in a area where there are a good population of Black bear. So swiping off the top layer of stool samples is like getting samples from inside of the back of the mouth for DNA. That is interesting ! How would one preserve this? Sorry but I have to pick your brain on this one.

 

You would need to carry with you a  cell transport medium that will keep the cells viable for an extended period of time. And the medium has to be specific to whatever you want to do with the sample. However, I don't know what the transport medium would be because the transport media we use here are the ones for PAP smears......

In theory, however, if you have a portable microscope and know how to make specimen slides, you would be able to at least see animal cells in a sample of the specimen you collected.

[scottv]

Hello,

DNA from fecal samples is becoming very popular in wildlife biology. It's being used to estimate population density and size for many animals that were formerly very difficult to study (deer, bears, elephants etc). I don't have enough posts to be able to give links but go to google and enter "population density fecal dna" and you'll get a lot of hits. The papers should give the protocols for field handling.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

The problem is knowing what is a bigfoot sample, as opposed to a unicorn sample.

[BigTreeWalker]

Here's some info on collecting fecal DNA. 

Choosing a sample: Scat samples provide a non-invasive method of collecting DNA from animals. Scat samples must be collected as fresh as possible (preferably within 24 hours but not more than 72 hours) of defecation otherwise the DNA will be severely degraded.

 

They also have various prices listed for testing:

http://web.nrdpfc.ca/index.php/services/

[Guest DWA]

 

 

 

We need to put another article in Scientific American.  Let me propose a title:  If Crowlogic Ever Read Or Thought About This Topic