How do you go about proving Bigfoot?

[norseman]

If your throwing out facts to support eye witness reports? I would seriously reconsider that.

 

We know pretty close the caloric needs of a 800 lbs Primate. You can plug and play the numbers from there.

[hiflier]

One would think that experienced BF researchers do look for signs of foraging and not just dead deer carcasses. Spring time is probably the best time to do just about any activity involving anything like evidence or proof: the ground is soft, the amount of flora for foraging is scarce but is just beginning to grow new shoots and leaves, animals that didn't survive the winter may be present- even a Sasquatch body, visibility in a forest or tract of woods is better (cuts both ways on that)......and a bunch of other factors that make Springtime one of the best times of year for research.

 

An assumed mating time in the early to mid-Autumn might be a good time as well. 

[norseman]

I have targeted spring skunk cabbage areas for precisely that reason. 

[hiflier]

So have I and I still consider that to be a very important aspect in the Spring search. It's to the point where I rarely if ever go research in the Memorial Day-Labor Day time frame.

[dmaker]

On 7/25/2017 at 11:32 AM, wiiawiwb said:

Can you name me one example of a species that was better off after humans were involved than before humans were involved?

Shark conservation works well in some areas. Alligators made a resounding comeback in the Everglades after human management.

 

http://evergladessafaripark.com/blog/everglades-national-park/how-we-rescued-the-american-alligator-from-extinction/#.WXi_K4jysiw

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by dmaker

[norseman]

According to wii......humans caused it. So any attempts to use science to reverse humankind's abuses to the planet are folly. We should evidently just let species go extinct because.........

 

They just wanna be left alone!

[ioyza]

21 minutes ago, norseman said:

If your throwing out facts to support eye witness reports? I would seriously reconsider that.

 

We know pretty close the caloric needs of a 800 lbs Primate. You can plug and play the numbers from there.

 

That's not a fact at all, we don't know the first thing about these guys. I assume an eye witness report is reliable unless there's specific reason to doubt it - the data not supporting your assumptions is not a good reason. Cart, horse, reverse it so you can move forward.

[norseman]

Like Bigfoot living in Illinois? You don't doubt that evidently........

 

But we cannot take great ape data including human data and upsize it to 800 lbs!? What about an omnivore Grizzly bear? We have mountains and mountains of data on caloric requirements for large omnivores!

 

But nope Granny saw Bigfoot in her window last night in Chicago, so we have the cart in front of the horse!

[ioyza]

But that's not how the sightings read and you know it. Show me the report from Chicagoland or anywhere in Illinois that comes across as ridiculous, specify how it's spurious outside of the fact that you don't like its location. 

 

You have way too much faith in your estimates, there's tons of room for error. How do you know it's valid to take great ape data and scale it up linearly? Do we know for sure it's a linear relationship? Do we have mountains of data on bigfoot metabolism? Do we have reason to think it should be identical to known species? 

[norseman]

Like this? Cook county = Chicago

https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=45041

 

I know what a Grizzly bear needs to survive....and they hibernate in the winter. I know what size of range they need. I know that they liked to be left alone and do not like human intrusion. I know how many of them are left in the lower 48, albeit that number is rising. And I know that much of North America is not suitable for a large solitary omnivore. Let alone a social family group of them.

 

Something has to give. I'll stick with what we do know, versus trying to connect the dots of anecdotal accounts.

[hiflier]

17 minutes ago, ioyza said:

Do we have reason to think it should be identical to known species? 

 

In due respect to what you are saying there are animals of good size on this planet. Genetically each one according to it's species will have the propensity to attain their size whether Gorilla, Human, Orangutan, or whatever. Sure there are variations, especially among Humans but generally the physical size and maintaining that size, such as a Grizzly or Black Bear, is a known quantity. IMHO there really isn't much against transferring known caloric intake of large fauna to a Sasquatch. Reports do say that they can vary in size and girth as well but in the general sense I think it safe to state a reasonable range for maintaining weight/size. Skinny BF's 6 feet tall? Similar to Humans they may only need 2-3000 calories a day. A large BF coming in at 600 lbs. or better may need 10,000. It's really just a biology issue TBH. A 700 pound animal simply will not be able to maintain it's size and weight on 2,000 calories a day.

Edited July 26, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest Cricket]

19 hours ago, MIB said:

 

No, not at all.   It's just .. history.   Among my interests are the history of westward migration, westward expansion.   Manifest Destiny, the growth of the United States.    We accomplished some great things and we did some very shameful things along the way.   We can't change the past.   We can learn from it but only if we acknowledge the bad and the good.   I'd like to think that some of the people who did the bad did so not understanding the consequences of their actions.   I'd like to think that we can learn from their mistakes and do better.    It's very obvious as a student of history and of human nature that we're not there yet.

 

MIB

 

I would recommend a couple books then about Native Americans and this country's history that would present some nuance to that history:  The Invented Indian: Cultural Fictions and Government Policies, James Clifton, editor, and Being and Becoming Indian: Biographical Studies of North American Frontiers, again by James Clifton.  There was a lot of horrific and damaging events that occurred regarding the expansion and creation of the U.S., so very true.  But this is 2017 and awareness and norms have changed considerably since that period.  Just look at the public outcry and response to Standing Rock.  I'm not saying that your concerns are misguided, only that what was customary and acceptable several hundred years ago would not be so readily accepted now.  And most contemporary Native Americans do not live on reservations or pueblos, but live everywhere and anywhere in the country.  There are also ethics protocols in place that restrict some kinds of research. 

Edited July 26, 2017 by Cricket

[Incorrigible1]

24 minutes ago, ioyza said:

But that's not how the sightings read and you know it. Show me the report from Chicagoland or anywhere in Illinois that comes across as ridiculous, specify how it's spurious outside of the fact that you don't like its location. 

 

You have way too much faith in your estimates, there's tons of room for error. How do you know it's valid to take great ape data and scale it up linearly? Do we know for sure it's a linear relationship? Do we have mountains of data on bigfoot metabolism? Do we have reason to think it should be identical to known species? 

Respectfully, are you suggesting a woo-factor?

[ioyza]

What's wrong with that report, is the phrase "peek-a-boo" too silly? That peeking behavior is extremely common in reports, I've witnessed it myself and know exactly what he's talking about. 

 

And you're right hiflier, I'm forced to again concede I really don't know how they do it, and you don't either. But there are a LOT of dots to connect, and they all connect to the same thing - they are the basis for our extremely limited understanding of them, and the best thing we've got by far. It really doesn't make sense to ignore them.

2 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Respectfully, are you suggesting a woo-factor?

 

Maybe gently suggesting its possibility. What we don't know about them vastly outweighs what we do know, that much is clear. This is why I advocate looking at just the basic, raw information we have, which includes anything anyone says. Watch for what patterns we see, let the image sharpen as things become more consistent, generate ideas and see how they stack up against what's reported, and usually end up back at the drawing board. To start with your ideas, then cherry pick your data, justifying it because of the nature of that data, is poor methodology. 

[norseman]

That map is what is wrong with that report. 

 

Unless ignoring them makes sense (reports).