Bigfoot caloric intake.

[norseman]

14 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Unless the “Bigfoot Calorie intake “ issue is used to capture (in body or film) bigfoot the issue is useless.  
 

It only matters if it leads to an encounter.   Otherwise it doesn’t matter.  
 

 

That’s why I am looking at it. 👍

[Backdoc]

5 hours ago, MIB said:

 

You're probably going to start thinking I'm picking on you .. I'm not trying to.    a) you have to ask "useless to whom?"   b) who gets to define "encounter"?    

 

I absolutely look at food availability, location, season, type, effort to extract, etc. when I think about looking for bigfoot.    It's far from the only factor but it does have to be consistent with the rest.   Where there isn't food enough, then we're looking at travel rather than occupancy.   

 

 

 

 

Whatever use you or anyone can make of Bigfoot's diet is fine by me.   The more we know the more likely we can use it to come across Bigfoot.  

 

Since people still argue if Bigfoot eats meat or not that tells us we don’t know what bigfoots diet consists of.  Sure if someone saw Bigfoot eating an apple they could assume Bigfoot likes apples.  It doesn’t mean he doesn’t eat fish.  It really doesn’t mean he prefers apples.  Based on the report I would gladly put apples by a trail camera.  Hopefully Bigfoot would get to them before 100 other animals or insects did.  

 

As far as defining encounter, I’d define it in the most of us do.   To put it in a general way an encounter is the Goal.  That is, seeing Bigfoot, filming Bigfoot, capturing Bigfoot, and for some shooting Bigfoot. 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Backdoc

[Backdoc]

5 hours ago, norseman said:

That’s why I am looking at it. 👍

Godspeed.  May it lead to a PGF 2.0 or better by you or someone. 

[MIB]

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Since people still argue if Bigfoot eats meat or not that tells us we don’t know what bigfoots diet consists of.

 

People who argue that are arguing from "religion", not report data.    The report data, taken as a whole, is very clear.   Taking the next step, the body shape reports are indicative of something that is primarily a predator.   BF seldom if ever is described as having a big sloppy gorilla style gut needed for digesting masses of vegetation, they're described as having ripped abs .. ripped abs are not an herbivore characteristic.    I think that just as black bears are omnivores that are primarily herbivorous but will opportunistically scavenge or even prey, bigfoot is technically an omnivore but primarily a predator, one that will not pass up a berry crop if handy.

 

I suspect this is consistent .. maybe necessary .. for the large distances reportedly traveled.    If you spend 16 hours a day chowing on weeds that's not much time left for walking, but if you can meet your nutritional needs in 15-30 minutes catching and consuming meat, there are many more hours available for travel .. or whatever else is available.     Moreover, that reduced time spent foraging also means reduced time distracted and at risk of being seen.

 

So we don't KNOW .. but like linear approximations in math, we can get within almost any distance from exact that we want to.    And .. from those approximations we can devise tests, devise questions for study.   Like .. science .. at least in a sort of loose hinged way.     I think loose-hinged is fine, we have to remember we're still in discovery mode, not study mode.

 

[Backdoc]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

People who argue that are arguing from "religion", not report data.    The report data, taken as a whole, is very clear.   Taking the next step, the body shape reports are indicative of something that is primarily a predator.   BF seldom if ever is described as having a big sloppy gorilla style gut needed for digesting masses of vegetation, they're described as having ripped abs .. ripped abs are not an herbivore characteristic.

 

 

Gimlin talked about how massive and muscular Party was which goes along with this point. It just makes since Bigfoot would kinda have to be. Seems like a requirement to exist in the first place in such an environment.  

 

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

    I think that just as black bears are omnivores that are primarily herbivorous but will opportunistically scavenge or even prey, bigfoot is technically an omnivore but primarily a predator, one that will not pass up a berry crop if handy.

 

 

Makes sense to me.  I’ve seen some of these scientists on Bigfoot shows limit Bigfoot to plants. I think they do that as cover to try to put their thumb on the scale against considering Bigfoot might be possible.  Well, possible in that available food supply shouldn’t be an issue against Bigfoot.  If Bigfoot can’t eat meat they think it’s harder to make the case there would be enough food to support Bigfoot. 

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

I suspect this is consistent .. maybe necessary .. for the large distances reportedly traveled.    If you spend 16 hours a day chowing on weeds that's not much time left for walking, but if you can meet your nutritional needs in 15-30 minutes catching and consuming meat, there are many more hours available for travel .. or whatever else is available.     Moreover, that reduced time spent foraging also means reduced time distracted and at risk of being seen.

 

 

One fish = hours of scrounging-plants-on-the-full-belly standard. nature is supposed to favor efficiency.   

 

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

So we don't KNOW .. but like linear approximations in math, we can get within almost any distance from exact that we want to.    And .. from those approximations we can devise tests, devise questions for study.   Like .. science .. at least in a sort of loose hinged way.     I think loose-hinged is fine, we have to remember we're still in discovery mode, not study mode.

 

the guessing is getting better now that Bigfoot has moved from the Peter Graves “Monsters and myths” type of presentation and more into the Jeff Meldrum level discussions on TV.   It’s a bit like the “ why don’t we find a body when they die” topic.   At least they address it by logic and compassion to know animals life cycle 

 

 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

People who argue that are arguing from "religion", not report data.    The report data, taken as a whole, is very clear.   Taking the next step, the body shape reports are indicative of something that is primarily a predator.   BF seldom if ever is described as having a big sloppy gorilla style gut needed for digesting masses of vegetation, they're described as having ripped abs .. ripped abs are not an herbivore characteristic.    I think that just as black bears are omnivores that are primarily herbivorous but will opportunistically scavenge or even prey, bigfoot is technically an omnivore but primarily a predator, one that will not pass up a berry crop if handy.

 

I suspect this is consistent .. maybe necessary .. for the large distances reportedly traveled.    If you spend 16 hours a day chowing on weeds that's not much time left for walking, but if you can meet your nutritional needs in 15-30 minutes catching and consuming meat, there are many more hours available for travel .. or whatever else is available.     Moreover, that reduced time spent foraging also means reduced time distracted and at risk of being seen.

 

So we don't KNOW .. but like linear approximations in math, we can get within almost any distance from exact that we want to.    And .. from those approximations we can devise tests, devise questions for study.   Like .. science .. at least in a sort of loose hinged way.     I think loose-hinged is fine, we have to remember we're still in discovery mode, not study mode.

 

Agreed. If it’s primarily an herbivore then winter becomes a very hard sell.
 

Yes. The coast of the Pacific NW is typically devoid of snow. But most of the northern U.S. and Canada where many reports come from have a real winter. That’s a problem for a primate herbivore IMHO. So unless they all migrate into a tiny area along the ocean, they must eat meat.

 

But we don't know what we don’t know, but they don’t discover black holes by looking for them. You cannot observe a black hole. But what you can do is observe the effects of a black hole on the stars and planets around it.

 

If Bigfoot is primarily a predator? Then its effects on ungulate populations that we track MUST be in the data. I really liked the bone study that BTW was doing. Hope all is well with him.