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 3 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.