Bigfoot caloric intake.

[Trogluddite]

10 hours ago, norseman said:

Well it certainly doesn’t bode well for the person in Illinois claiming a family of Sasquatch live on his 50 acre wood lot all year long.

 

But I don’t think they are that populous. And also that their activities probably fall through the cracks and are attributed to something else.

 

Lastly? If they are as smart as say an Orangutan? Orangutans pick locks, know sign language and can paddle a boat. Surely Sasquatch could be rather cunning. And they probably know that sustained contact with humans is unhealthy. So they stay nocturnal, take only what they need and keep moving.

 

Haven't heard about that one ... and don't want to, unless a thread explodes and I just can't avoid it.  

 

 

8 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 My personal opinion is there are far less out there than what people like to think.  I would also say there is a lot of bad data incorporated from databases of encounters these days, I would be interested to see a data averaging from the 60's up to say 2008 ( before Finding Bigfoot ). I think you would see a very different spread both across behaviors and clusters geographically on the map.

 

 I do think the scenarios you lay out do in fact occur but just far less than reported.

 

Out of those 1200+ reports, I only believe that 29 are "more likely than not" a Bigfoot encounter and another 161 or so could be a bona fide encounter.  As to bad data .... yikes.  Some "research organizations" would post an encounter if the witnesses heard it from their long dead great grandmother through a Ouija board. 

 

The problem with data averaging is that its dependent upon both encounters, willingness to report it, and someone to take the report.  For example, Maryland encounters in the 1970s reported to John Green make it look like there are was a veritable Bigfoot reunion going on there.  Pennsylvania also had tons, but that's because each state had very active researchers.  Actually, the 70s (post P-G film) and the post Finding Bigfoot era are probably very similar. 

 

[Redbone]

11 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 My personal opinion is there are far less out there than what people like to think.  I would also say there is a lot of bad data incorporated from databases of encounters these days, I would be interested to see a data averaging from the 60's up to say 2008 ( before Finding Bigfoot ). I think you would see a very different spread both across behaviors and clusters geographically on the map.

 

 I do think the scenarios you lay out do in fact occur but just far less than reported.

John Green's Data 1960-2000

 

BFRO Data 2000-2025 

[Backdoc]

18 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

 

This is what bothers me. First, FWIW, I made a chart for my own edification comparing biological facts about common animals.  As I got all of this information off the web, I am certain that it is highly accurate & not subject to question.  Somewhere, I found an estimate that Cro-Magnon, Neaderthals, and paleo-Indians required 4,800 calories per day and moose required 9,700 calories per day.  The data I found for other large animals is just in poundage - 10-20 pounds of food per day for elk, 30 pounds per day for grizzly bears, 35 pounds for black bears(?), and 30-45 pounds for gorillas.

 

Elite body builders in the 1970's world would eat 5,000 a day.   These guys trained nearly daily.   The output of their 'work' to me would equal or way exceed what Bigfoot would put out in a given day in Bigfoots world.   That's just my guess as a max for reasonable estimate.  Yes, these guys weighed under 250lbs back in the 1970's Gold's Gym era of weightlifting.   I would think Bigfoot would only be as active as Bigfoot needs to be.   Bigfoot would rest often and essentially be a couch potato until food, reproductive needs, or whatever motivated Bigfoot.   

 

 

18 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

What bothers me is that if Bigfoot is an omnivore, and if Bigfoot is as populous in the eastern US as some believe, why aren't they eating farmers out of house and home?  

 

Skeptics are skeptics because these reasonable points about Life Support make them skeptics.   We should expect if bigfoot is as common as some say, we should have more of these sightings in trash cans, and so on.  Trash cans tend to exist in towns and cities vs out in the middle of nowhere.    Many have security cameras and Ring doorbells.  The most likely reason to explain this must be Bigfoot are few in number, live in massively remote areas, and are shy to human activity.   

 

 

 

 

I don't know how credible Bigfoot sightings are when all over the country.   Many are just in unlikely places and unlikely regions.  I am sure they see something just not bigfoot.   

 

If Bigfoot was in all these areas the trash cans would be raided, the farms would be raided, and so on.   

 

Bigfoot being near extinct is a better explanation vs attributing ninja skills to bigfoot to explain it.   

 

If you bet on finding Bigfoot, you would bet on the PNW more so than downtown NY City. 

 

 

[Backdoc]

This map has been offered as locations of bigfoot sightings/ reports.  

 

 

 

 

When we look at Canada, we might think from the map there are very few reports of Bigfoot in Canada. The map is deceiving.   Here is a map of where most people live in Canada. 

 

 

 

 

 

The majority live pretty close to the USA Canadian border.     I have never been to Canada.  The winters in the Middle and Northern Canada are more extreme than Canada just above Seattle Washington.  There are large areas of Canada (or Russia for that matter) where few people go.  Large areas as large as Texas might have very few people.  The only limiting factor to many of these areas is just how extreme the winters could be and any limited food supply as a result.  There is more food to eat on Gilligan's Island than the North Pole (sorry Santa). 

 

 

When I look at the bigfoot map, I am immediately skeptical of these places marked in the great planes. 

 

We need to be honest and say that all reports are not created equal.   Just because someone gives a report does not mean it has the same Grade or Credibility as other reports.   Finally, just because there are no reports to an area does not mean there are even people there to even give a report.   

 

 

[Trogluddite]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

If you bet on finding Bigfoot, you would bet on the PNW more so than downtown NY City.

And yet, back in 2014 or 2015 there was a video circulating that claimed to show a Bigfoot in a park in the middle of Brooklyn....

 

I just got back from Canada.  Talk about vast, empty, and remote ... and that's just 20 minutes outside of Jasper (or at least how it felt to me, our dear Canadian members).  I felt the same way driving around Nova Scotia and Cape Breton several years back.  If there is a lack of Bigfoot encounters in Canada, it's likely due to a lack of nearby humans, not a lack of Bigfoot.

 

And the flip side of that, looking at the sightings map, is that Pennsylvania and Maryland look swamped compared to Michigan, Kentucky, or West Virginia.  This is likely due to PA and MD having robust research groups and active researchers who catalogued a lot of reports rather than to an overabundance of Bigfoot.

[Redbone]

3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

When I look at the bigfoot map, I am immediately skeptical of these places marked in the great planes. 

My Bigfoot sighting was along the Missouri River in Nebraska.

I've been hit by a rock in Iowa.

I have other possible experiences in Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.

 

Oh wait - you were talking about big planes. I thought you meant plains.

Never mind...

[JKH]

Back on topic, always interesting 

 

The late great Branco started this one way back and included a lot of information about feeding behaviors and geographic patterns, at least in the South where he documented BF a great deal.