Guest nona Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Here is a question you asked me earlier, and I have just now had the opportunity to do a little reading on the subject: "Surveyor, I'm under the impression that you realize animals that appear to have particular "amazing" ability which sets them apart from other animals usually have specialized morphological features which allow them to do so. I am also under the impression that the Bigfoot also has similar morphological features to that of humans or chimps when it comes to its face. Knowing that do you think Bigfoot would have a sense of smell similar to that of a human and chimp or to that of a creature with a long muzzle such as a German Shepherd?" As far as olfactory ability, one of the things vertebrates sense smells by are olfactory sensory neurons in the olfactory epithelium. The larger the olfactory epithelium comparatively, the greater the sensitivity to smell. That is not nearly the only thing that determines a powerful sense of smell, though. The olfactory bulb in the brain also contributes significantly to the ability to detect and manage the sense of smell. In bears, the olfactory bulb is roughly 5 times the size of that in humans. Also, the olfactory abilities of humans and other primates, such as chimps and gorillas, are NOT equal. Humans have the least olfactory senses of any known primate, and we have fewer odor receptor genes than any other primate or mammal. Also, there are some primates who have additional glands on their heads that aid in the olfactory process (gathering and processing scent molecules). It has been widely documented by scientists and wildlife biologists that most mammals communicate by scents and pheromones in addition to sounds and body language. What does all this mean? It seems to me to mean that whether BF is a primate or not, there is sufficient biological reasoning to believe that it likely possesses much greater olfactory abilities than humans, regardless if the apparent external facial structure appears similar. Outside of that, we can simply agree to disagree. Surveyor, thank you for answering my questions. Based on the wording of the initial question I asked, I can now see how we lost track of each other. I wasn’t really interested in "if Bigfoot could specifically smell better than a man". If you look at the comment immediately below that question, They say under perfect conditions such as a cold environment and no wind a dog may be able to pick up a scent that is up to 4 weeks old. Trail cams are exposed to everything that mother nature can throw at them including the sun, snow, rain, and wind, which by far makes for less than ideal conditions. Under such conditions I would assume that even a creature with an amazing scene of smell such as dog would have a hard time picking up on a human sent left over 2 weeks ago. Combine that with the many number people who have left trail-cams out for months before they've decided to pick it up... I was primarily interested if you thought Bigfoot could smell as well (which later as the discussion continued became "better") than a dog. And if you believed somehow Bigfoot could detect human cent on a trail-cam even though "a dog’s nose" wouldn’t, and hence the reason for Bigfoot avoiding them. I decided to try and make it as clear as possible in my last post and thus I reworded the question in to 3 parts. I probably should have stated them in that fashion initially. But, then I think our little chat would have died out long ago. Sorry, if you may have found my last comment simply rhetorical as bipedalist did. I think if you go back through our comments, you will see that we don’t really have much to disagree on other than a vulture being able to smell better than a dog and possibly scents coming from inside a trial-cam box. And of course other than our belief in the existence of a creature known as Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Of course, this explanation is very convenient, It's not "convenient", it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Please do not take what you see on the TV show and think this is really what happens in real field research... This is all hyped up for ratings and really belongs right where it is at, in the magical land of the silver screen... I wouldn't be so hasty. We've talked about several intriguing IR/thermal cam "hits" right here over the last year or so. There's nothing wrong with using IR/thermal and night vision gear in BF research. Indeed, it allows penetration of the suspect habitat with greater stealth and greater ability to perceive the surroundings (when you don't have a big gaggle of film lights, cameras and cameramen, sound techs, etc crashing through the brush alongside that is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 It's not "convenient", it's true. Well I believe it's true too, but it seems like if you aren't very careful about what you post, some hardcore skeptic will run over saying "NA-AH! THERE'S NO PROOF!", ridicule you, kick over your sandcastle, and run away. I've just become accustomed to hedging my words in that way but if I were to be honest, I find it very annoying that I have to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Bears just need to see that something is different and they will go poke their nose in it and try to pull it apart. That's because they are opportunistic feeders and look at anything new as either a possible food or possibly containing food. Also - bears do seem to love the smell of hydrocarbons. Esp formaldehyde, which makes things smell (to bears) like ants' nests. That's one of the things about the Snelgrove Lake incident that argued strongly against "bear" as a source for the damage to the cabin. The intruder ripped the refrigerator out of the wall, but didn't tear the fridge itself open to get at the insulation (which is what bears do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Well I believe it's true too, but it seems like if you aren't very careful about what you post, some hardcore skeptic will run over saying "NA-AH! THERE'S NO PROOF!", ridicule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 Well I believe it's true too, but it seems like if you aren't very careful about what you post, some hardcore skeptic will run over saying "NA-AH! THERE'S NO PROOF!", ridicule you, kick over your sandcastle, and run away. I've just become accustomed to hedging my words in that way but if I were to be honest, I find it very annoying that I have to do that. True. I have long experience myself with the phenominon...I just don't usually bother "hedging" like that. The Skeptics are gonna fling poo no matter what you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17, 2011 Share Posted July 17, 2011 True. I have long experience myself with the phenominon...I just don't usually bother "hedging" like that. The Skeptics are gonna fling poo no matter what you say. Good point. If I put a qualifier on what I say, it should be because it's how I feel, not because of what someone else might say. While I am a believer, I don't believe everything I hear about Bigfoot. From now on I'm just going to say what I feel, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts