How do you go about proving Bigfoot?

[hiflier]

7 minutes ago, ioyza said:

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.

 

I completely agree, ioyza. A lot of dots but I think you can agree that in trying to connect those dots there are evidently some missing. In any case, its the known dots that are creating our current picture. Subject to change after the skeleton of carcass has been found and I say that because active hunting doesn't seem to be working. It's why Spring is such a huge seasonal opportunity for discovery.  

[norseman]

20 minutes ago, ioyza said:

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.

 

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. 

 

Ok....I'm done.

 

The paranormal section is that way vvvvvvvv!

[MIB]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

A 700 pound animal simply will not be able to maintain it's size and weight on 2,000 calories a day.

 

Very likely true.   I don't think we will get exact 1:1 calorie requirement comparisons with any known species but we are likely to get in the ballpark.   Calorie needs have to account for exact body weight, surface area, internal temperature, and how effective their insulation is, behavior factors like time spent in the water because it "steals" heat faster than air, and activity level.  

 

However ... diet is important.   Comparing them to a gorilla, no ... they're not built, externally, like a herbivore.   They'll fall somewhere midway between a 50/50 omnivore and 100% carnivore.  A percentage of the calories go back into obtaining more calories rather than the other functions.   Diet ... content, how it's obtained, and how it's processed ... affects efficiency in ways that can stir the total a bit.   The extra piece of that is how much of the total calories might be obtained by poaching calories humans don't notice missing.     The dumpster diving behind WalMart isn't a good way to stay hidden but if it's a "super" Walmart with groceries, it might be a way to get a huge amount of food in a really short time .. tradeoffs sometimes warrant risk.  

 

If most of the calories come from meat, from careful / limited pilfering of farm crops, and from making use of discarded stuff that won't be missed, then a 10K calorie diet doesn't require a trail of destruction like gorillas going through.    It just ... doesn't.   

 

My notion ... when we have a substantial body of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, for something happening "that can't", we need to reexamine our beliefs about what is and is not possible before we start discarding evidence no matter how that evidence confounds / offends our preconceived notions.    (I refer to that as chasing the data wherever it goes.)  

 

Bottom line, there are enough reports from urban areas that I'd want to go to the site and see what factors I might be missing rather than letting my imagination, my stereotypes, interfere with truly seeing.

 

MIB

 

 

[wiiawiwb]

6 hours ago, dmaker said:

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

 

 You seem to have forgotten they were placed on the endangered species list, to begin with, because humans absolutely decimated the population through hunting.

[hiflier]

7 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

 You seem to have forgotten they were placed on the endangered species list, to begin with, because humans absolutely decimated the population through hunting.

 

Indeed they did. But now there are literally a million or more of the animal. Doesn't make what was happening to them right. But it does show that measures for a species' survival can be implemented and succeed. Sure, there may be poachers but the mass harvesting without forethought has pretty much been halted.

[wiiawiwb]

7 hours ago, norseman said:

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!

 

If you're going to attempt characterize what I said, at least get it right.  Take any example of a species that is on the brink of extinction. The population decline was directly due to human intervention either through hunting, sport, or fear.  Had humans not intervened from the beginning there never would have been a problem. That applies to bison, wolves, brown bear, alligators and many mor, particularly the mountain gorilla.

 

Right now, the sasquatch population is free from human intervention yet for some reason, that defies rational explanation, you think humans can begin the process of intervention and get it right.

 

Look what happened to mountain gorillas since they were discovered in 1902. There are now less than 1,000 mountain gorillas on earth. How has human intervention worked out for mountain gorillas?

7 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Indeed they did. But now there are literally a million or more of the animal. Doesn't make what was happening to them right. But it does show that measures for a species' survival can be implemented and succeed. Sure, there may be poachers but the mass harvesting without forethought has pretty much been halted.

 

And the same fate will befall sasquatches. Mass extermination for sport or for profit. Their fate will be more like mountain gorillas where guards with automatic weapons protect every gorilla.  That's the fate we want for sasquatches? Do we want their numbers dwindle to a handful off them  and then herd them to a "park or reserve"  where they can be protected from total extinction.

 

Not me. Humans screw up nature. Sasquatches are one species where man has not impacted their lives. And I will repeat.....it is best to leave them alone from the get go.

Edited July 26, 2017 by wiiawiwb

[hiflier]

34 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

Sasquatches are one species where man has not impacted their lives

 

Not according to the reports of the ones that have been shot. And those are only reports that have been submitted. Who knows how many have been harmed that have never been reported. I'd say we have impacted Sasquatch greatly in numerous ways but like other animals they can get around us and our activities seemingly just fine. Besides, in Wisconsin for example, poaching trophy deer can elicit a fine of as much as 20,000 dollars, lifetime hunting license suspension, and some jail time. I wonder what the fine would be for poaching a Sasquatch? and have any been poached that no one knows about? There simply cannot be a protection policy in place until the creatures are recognized as being real. If people are hunting them now (WHICH THEY ARE) then unless a Sasquatch take-down becomes public knowledge it already IS open season on them- 24/7.  

Edited July 27, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest Cricket]

There is a difference between human intervention on the one hand, and human efforts at the conservation of other species on the other, right?  As far as I know, humans are the only organism on the planet that deliberately engages in the latter in order to prevent extinction of other species, so if BF are left alone and face threats they can't overcome, don't count on the flora and fauna to come to their rescue.  It's us or no one. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Cricket

[hiflier]

Thank you, and true but in all fairness the only perceivable threat to Sasquatch's existence is the threat of unrestrained hunting. That threat is real today. And even though many do not think the creature exists there are those who are actively hunting the creature. Now we know of groups or individuals that seek them for the purpose of scientific recognition but I cannot help but think that there are others who seek Sasquatch for reasons that are much less honorable. It seems that there is this unbreakable catch-22 going on and breaking out of it requires some kind of definite physical evidence. Until then then Sasquatch could end up in the crosshairs time and time again. Yep, sounds pretty melodramatic but I can see where even if one was taken down and sold then what's to stop other from incurring the same fate?

 

The fact of the matter is this: We don't know if any have been taken. I suspect though that if Sasquatch is an extant species then it is possible that there may have been some that have been harvested. If habituation is true then could someone not so honorable habituate a family of Sasquatch for the express purpose of killing them? Granted this idea is pretty out there but good, protective laws have been created for lesser reasons than that.

Edited July 27, 2017 by hiflier

[Patterson-Gimlin]

2 hours ago, Cricket said:

There is a difference between human intervention on the one hand, and human efforts at the conservation of other species on the other, right?  As far as I know, humans are the only organism on the planet that deliberately engages in the latter in order to prevent extinction of other species, so if BF are left alone and face threats they can't overcome, don't count on the flora and fauna to come to their rescue.  It's us or no one. 

I could not agree more.

[xspider1]

^^^  Sad, but very true, Cricket.  When there is an apparently almost completely benign species, minding their own business, I'm against killing one or more of them just to satisfy mainstream 'Science' and/or to appease those who only have enough time to deny it.

Edited July 27, 2017 by xspider1

[Guest Cricket]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

Thank you, and true but in all fairness the only perceivable threat to Sasquatch's existence is the threat of unrestrained hunting. That threat is real today. And even though many do not think the creature exists there are those who are actively hunting the creature. Now we know of groups or individuals that seek them for the purpose of scientific recognition but I cannot help but think that there are others who seek Sasquatch for reasons that are much less honorable. It seems that there is this unbreakable catch-22 going on and breaking out of it requires some kind of definite physical evidence. Until then then Sasquatch could end up in the crosshairs time and time again. Yep, sounds pretty melodramatic but I can see where even if one was taken down and sold then what's to stop other from incurring the same fate?

 

The fact of the matter is this: We don't know if any have been taken. I suspect though that if Sasquatch is an extant species then it is possible that there may have been some that have been harvested. If habituation is true then could someone not so honorable habituate a family of Sasquatch for the express purpose of killing them? Granted this idea is pretty out there but good, protective laws have been created for lesser reasons than that.

 

Sure, human impact is probably highest and most likely on the list of threats, but let's not forget that competition from other animals could throw the balance against them, viruses and other microbial infections could sweep through populations, natural disasters could alter habitats, and far less frequent or likely threats such as celestial impacts, earthquakes and other tectonic events could introduce sudden catastrophic changes to environments.  And if some food source they may depend on suffers some kind of crash, there would be a ripple effect on anything that relies upon it. 

Hmmm.  I suppose someone could habituate a BF group to kill them, but what would they do with them then?  For what end? 

[xspider1]

I have never identified a Sasquatch "at range" but, I'm very sure that I would not shoot one in any situation other than self-defense.  I think that their similarity to humans in appearance, movement and demeanor is underestimated by many folks who have decided already to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

great topic, norseman

Edited July 27, 2017 by xspider1

[wiiawiwb]

Human intervention will be great. 

 

On one hand, we can have await the heart-warming pictures of the great and fearless poachers, aah...hunters, with their .460 Weatherby perched atop the fallen prey (maybe even a juvenile if they're really lucky) as they pose with a big, toothy smile for the camera. Does Cecil and Walter Palmer strike any bells?

 

On the other hand, we can await some talentless, lazy government employee to mistakenly inject a fatal, and highly transmittable, disease into a sasquatch rather than an antibiotic, which was intended. Oops, just another day at the inept government office.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention all of the severed hands and feet that will be mounted and used for ash trays or tables legs, like we've seen with gorillas, in certain areas of the world. Hey, what self-respecting sasquatch couldn't make it without a few appendages, right?

 

Things will go swimmingly for our gentle, large friends.

Edited July 27, 2017 by wiiawiwb

[norseman]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/africa/virunga-national-park-mountain-gorilla/index.html