Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NatFoot

To Anthropomorphize

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

norseman,

Agreed.

But we don't know how much meat makes up the sasquatch diet, 5%...25% ? Even most of a bears diet is vegetation. Either or...

I'm just of the opinion they are closer to the other great apes, bronze over brains, hair covered, that flexible upper lip, no cloths etc., I reckon everyone has there own reason why they formulated their opinion. To each their own haha.

 

Pat... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

I suspect well over 50% meat in their diet, maybe upwards of 90%.   Look at the abdominal muscles and shape compared to a gorilla.   Gorillas' large gut is needed to process enough plant material to extract the necessary nutrients and calories.  (This would also be why the trail of plant destruction Norseman hypothesizes is necessary is not found ... because they're not eating plants in similar proportions.)   It does not seem to be present in sasquatch based on the reports, instead, they look pretty much like us but bigger.    Most of that "bigger" seems to be muscle, not digestive equipment.    So, going out on a limb perhaps, I think most of their dietary calories, etc come from meat, and plants are used only to provide specific "stuff" not available, or slightly deficient, in a meat diet.

 

I guess we're going to have to wait to find out.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor
7 minutes ago, MIB said:

I suspect well over 50% meat in their diet, maybe upwards of 90%.   Look at the abdominal muscles and shape compared to a gorilla.   Gorillas' large gut is needed to process enough plant material to extract the necessary nutrients and calories.  (This would also be why the trail of plant destruction Norseman hypothesizes is necessary is not found ... because they're not eating plants in similar proportions.)   It does not seem to be present in sasquatch based on the reports, instead, they look pretty much like us but bigger.    Most of that "bigger" seems to be muscle, not digestive equipment.    So, going out on a limb perhaps, I think most of their dietary calories, etc come from meat, and plants are used only to provide specific "stuff" not available, or slightly deficient, in a meat diet.

 

I guess we're going to have to wait to find out.

 

MIB

 

Interesting. I hadnt thought of that. Thanks for sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, MIB said:

I suspect well over 50% meat in their diet, maybe upwards of 90%.........

 

I wouldn't venture a guess on ratio, but I'm confident that their diet is much higher in meat than other primates with the possible exceptions of baboons and humans. My reason for suspecting this is because their habitat is temperal instead of tropical, so greenery is less available or non-existent for part of the year. The other omnivores they share the habitat with (black bears) are hard and fast hibernators who don't have to hunt or scavenge in the winter. 

 

Not long ago I read somebody theorize (I forget if that was on this forum or elsewhere) that the possible reason why sasquatches stink so badly is because they're constantly scavanging rotten meat, and that maybe that meat was hunted, killed, and cached by the sasquatch itself. I thought that the theory was brilliant. It offers an excellent solution to the problem of what they eat in the winter, and it somewhat mirrors other omnivore behavior (aboriginal human and brown bears) with regard to food caching for times of poor hunting and no vegetables to eat.

 

Today, mulling your post, I thought that an SSR query might show stench in reports more prevalent in winter season when vegetation is sparce; mid-November to early May. It showed almost the opposite; stench was reported more in late summer when vegetation would be most available.

 

Oh, well..........

 

E02D7C5C-04A2-4DEF-8146-14C0430BCFD4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Smells do not travel as far in winter. They lay low on the ground. Hound dogs have scrunchy fur and floppy ears to trap it against the nose.

 

Summer time is a hard time to track. The scent disperses widely and is no longer concentrated along the trackline.

 

Huntster your hypothesis could still be correct. But the witness may have less opportunity to smell them. Because of the cold air.

1 hour ago, MIB said:

I suspect well over 50% meat in their diet, maybe upwards of 90%.   Look at the abdominal muscles and shape compared to a gorilla.   Gorillas' large gut is needed to process enough plant material to extract the necessary nutrients and calories.  (This would also be why the trail of plant destruction Norseman hypothesizes is necessary is not found ... because they're not eating plants in similar proportions.)   It does not seem to be present in sasquatch based on the reports, instead, they look pretty much like us but bigger.    Most of that "bigger" seems to be muscle, not digestive equipment.    So, going out on a limb perhaps, I think most of their dietary calories, etc come from meat, and plants are used only to provide specific "stuff" not available, or slightly deficient, in a meat diet.

 

I guess we're going to have to wait to find out.

 

MIB

 

I agree. This is the only connection to us other than bipedalism. They must have a high protein diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

I don't think that the ability to create technology makes us superior. I think it makes us dependent (and necessary) and will ultimately lead to our extinction. 

 

(Aside: Read up on the Carrington Event. Next time the sun sends us a huge flare, the kind that disrupts our tech, we have created the potential for our own ELE.)

 

I think our two species are night and day different, but with enough differences to make anthropogenic comparisons. I like Christopher Noel's autism comparisons.

Edited by Madison5716

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Huntster said:

the possible reason why sasquatches stink so badly is because they're constantly scavanging rotten meat,

 

They do not stink all of the time.  Many theorize that the overwhelming odor is a 'fear' response/olfactory signal.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor
3 minutes ago, Madison5716 said:

I don't think that the ability to create technology makes us superior. I think it makes us dependent and will ultimately lead to our extinction.

 

Read up on the Carrington Event. Next time the sun sends us a huge flare, the kind that disrupts our tech, we have created the potential for our own ELE. 

 

I think our two species are night and day different, but with enough differences to make anthropogenic comparisons.

 

Population numbers suggest we are the more successful species. Maybe (most likely) we die off and the last remaining life is cockroaches - then I guess they were the most successful.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

Our numbers are successful only because of the discovery and utilisation of an amazing, one -time energy source - oil and it's incredible derivatives. Without it, we would be less successful. When it's scarse once again, our population will plummet and crash. Numbers do not prove success, we are simply a species blooming in a temporarily energy rich environment, much like yeast, imo.  Our ability to use our tools to take advantage of this energy is a temporary thing, and ultimately an unwise decision.

Edited by Madison5716
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter
6 minutes ago, Madison5716 said:

I don't think that the ability to create technology makes us superior. I think it makes us dependent and will ultimately lead to our extinction.

 

Read up on the Carrington Event. Next time the sun sends us a huge flare, the kind that disrupts our tech, we have created the potential for our own ELE. 

 

I think our two species are night and day different, but with enough differences to make anthropogenic comparisons.

 

1 minute ago, NatFoot said:

 

Population numbers suggest we are the more successful species. Maybe (most likely) we die off and the last remaining life is cockroaches - then I guess they were the most successful.

 

Humanity has survived for most of its time on Earth with very limited technology.  Any catastrophe that may occur may well wipe us down to a very low number but we will survive no matter what. we have an ability to adapt that dwarfs that ability in any other species.  In terms of being highly evolved, homo sapiens aren't, Neanderthals were actually more evolved, more specifically evolved for a particular climate to be exact... ultimately, that was part of their downfall.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter

Have faith... humans are amazing creatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
22 minutes ago, Madison5716 said:

Our numbers are successful only because of the discovery and utilisation of an amazing, one -time energy source - oil and it's incredible derivatives........

 

Our energy transformation from wood/coal to oil was just one factor in our incredible population explosion over the past century. Refrigeration, electricity, health care, and numerous other technologies are every bit as transformational as the use of petroleum oil. 

 

The human population at the time of Christ is estimated to be @ 300 million. A thousand years later, it remained about the same. When Columbus landed in the New World, the human population is estimated at @ 475 million. Two hundred years later, just before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the human population was estimated at @ 640 million, a bit over double that when Christ walked the Earth 1700 years before. That's when our population growth began exploding. Transitioning from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, the increasing use of steam power, the development of machine tools, and the rise of the factory system led to an unprecedented explosion in the rate of population growth. Our population doubled again in just 150 years to 1.3 trillion by 1850. 150 years and incredible technological advances later, our population has grown again by 550%.

 

We've devoured the Tree of Knowledge. In my hands as I type is more knowledge than all the libraries in the history of the Earth contained before my birth. Yet my Daddy rode a horse to school, his parents never owned a car, a refrigerator, or telephone. 

 

Technology can be seen as incredibly wonderful, but the human explosion is also widely seen as absolutely horrible. Sasquatches might not be as smart as us, but maybe they're wiser?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, NatFoot said:

Population numbers suggest we are the more successful species. Maybe (most likely) we die off and the last remaining life is cockroaches - then I guess they were the most successful.

 

Please list any time in the past when there wasn't any times of war/conflict and genocide on this planet.   There were signs of battles in Alaska before the ice barrier melted.

 

Last night, I watched the original MIB movie. The one with the giant cockroach.  The giant cockroach said that humans were pathetic and working on making themselves extinct. An interesting view injected into the movie.  Check out who produced and who directed the movie.

Where are the neuralizers when you need one?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
9 minutes ago, Catmandoo said:

.......Check out who produced and who directed the movie.........

 

Plussed, because that little lesson should be shouted worldwide and daily from every rooftop..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×