The Ketchum Report

[Crittergetter]

If there were 9K reports, would that then double the possibility bigfoot exists?

Statistically speaking the likelihood that we're dealing with a real creature as opposed to independent hoaxers and misidentifcations goes up with the number of sightings, yes. Unless I happen to be mistaken about that, mathematics was never my strong subject. But I suppose in the end Bigfoot is either real or not real, and the numbers have no hold on that reality. Unfortunately, being on the internet, we do not have the luxury of dealing with such physical realities in a direct fashion.

There, I think I've answered your question satisfactorily.

Cheers!

-Crittergetter

[Guest BFSleuth]

I'm sure this "evidence FOR existence vs. evidence AGAINST existence" stuff is one of the most common discussions on these forums. But as was pointed out several pages ago (http://bigfootforums...post__p__586982 -- sorry to link to my own post), evidence against bigfoot's existence doesn't always amount to, "The evidence FOR bigfoot is fake!" or some such permutation. It also includes accepted knowledge about animals in general.

The simplest way I can summarize it is: A) there are general needs an animal has as far as caloric intake, and the combination of purported size of bigfoot combined with the biomes they are supposedly found in, makes it highly dubious they could survive in North America. Lack of a body is not definitive proof that big does not exist, but that itself strong evidence.

Untrue. Bears thrive in N America, and they are similar in size and apparent diet to BF. That's one reason why the overlapping range findings of bear and BF are so significant..

Mulder is correct, BF size and diet correlate highly with bear size and diet. Most people that attempt to argue the position that there simply isn't enough available calories to sustain such a large creature are speaking from a wealth of ignorance regarding edible flora and fauna in the wild. I had this discussion with a friend of mine last week, and to make his point that there couldn't possibly be enough to eat out in the wild he pulled up a picture and challenged me to name anything that one could eat. I quickly identified enough edible roots, bark, tubers, and seeds to make a feast for a family in short order - with plenty left over for putting away for the winter. Most folks are unaware of wild edibles and might starve to death in the midst of plenty. I highly doubt that BF has this problem.

[AaronD]

BF, are these things we, as humans, can eat as well or would our "evooooolved" digestive systems be confounded by them? My guess is that, of the things we could safely eat in the wild, they are likely much better for our health than say Mc Nuggets, hot poppers, or extreme fajittas....???

[Guest Transformer]

Mulder is correct, BF size and diet correlate highly with bear size and diet. Most people that attempt to argue the position that there simply isn't enough available calories to sustain such a large creature are speaking from a wealth of ignorance regarding edible flora and fauna in the wild. I had this discussion with a friend of mine last week, and to make his point that there couldn't possibly be enough to eat out in the wild he pulled up a picture and challenged me to name anything that one could eat. I quickly identified enough edible roots, bark, tubers, and seeds to make a feast for a family in short order - with plenty left over for putting away for the winter. Most folks are unaware of wild edibles and might starve to death in the midst of plenty. I highly doubt that BF has this problem.

I think you need to think exactly which geoclimatic zone you are discussing before you state such broad based "facts".

People like native indians starved to death in the area I now live in (5 miles north of the US border) due to there not being enough food of sufficient quantity or quality to allow them to survive every year. It is far worse once you get further north or further inland. In the Lower Mainland of BC and adjacent valleys which was sasquatch central until Ray Wallace did his thing there are numerous times in which bear populations suffer in areas because of drought, poor salmon runs, poor berry crops, poor acorn crops just to name a few reasons. The bears do not get enough stored fat and then die in hibernation or never actually attempt to hibernate and then die from malnutrition and/or exposure. To state that sasquatches are OK because bears are OK because sasquatches are just like bears is really not factual but a guess, right? Bears compete for range because they need to find food. Too many bears also causes die-offs. Other competitors that supposedly (we must add the words "supposedly", "maybe", "guessing", when discussing sasquatches because we sure don't know what they eat, right?) compete with them would be noticed by anybody doing a animal study for any number of reasons. Wildlife Census Reports, Habititat Conservation Reports, Forestry Impact Reports, they all identify what species are in the areas and numbers and the sustainability of those numbers. If it exists it eats, leaves tracks and other sign and poops. Any extremely large omnivorous creature would impact the area and be noticed. The evidence of one grizzly bear travelling between the BC coast through the mountainous region of the area stradling the border was noticed about 10 yrs ago and became quite an event in fact because that area was expirtated of grizzlies decades before even though black bears thrive in the area. Also, bears eat when they are not sleeping or looking for something to eat. Eat, eat, eat. When would a sasquatch be able to store the literally tons of food they would need to survive a severe winter and where would they store it that it wouldn't be found by other animals and stolen or fought for? There really seems to be some leaps of logic in so many matter of fact ways people just pull out "facts" about sasquatches that it makes me wonder if they really thought it all the way through.

[Guest]

I think storing "tons" of food is a bit of an exaggeration. An intelligent omnivore would do quite well in the forested area's of NA, not to mention the ability to operate on the fringe a little. During the winter some of their game, such as deer would be in a weaker state, and easier to take. Depending how much energy they conserve due to less activity, they may not have to store as much food as you think. There is still a lot of prey out there for a smart predator. We really know nothing of social structure, or their lifestyle. Perhaps the increase in sightings over the years is directly tied to our own success's. Maybe they have moved just a little closer to Humanity, to take advantage of the abundance of food it provides, from crops, to a large increase in animals such as raccoon, possums, etc.

[southernyahoo]

I think the initial argument was that there was nothing to sustain the caloric requirements of a Sasquatch (which we don't know) Yet we do know bears survive on something as omnivores.

Edited May 19, 2012 by southernyahoo

[Incorrigible1]

A factor would be whether the sasquatch had adopted a hibernation survival strategy. No other primates have done such, but it's not out of possibility the bigfoot might have done so. It's a necessity for most bears, at least in the upper half of the US.

I'm not of the opinion the creatures hibernate, but thought I'd mention the possibility. They can't all live in caves.

[Guest]

Good point, its a mute discussion, already proven by mother nature.

[Guest Transformer]

The thing about obtaining food in the winter is that it takes a lot of wandering around to aquire it which means huge numbers of tracks and trailways that are just not found, right? So if they don't wander around looking for food where are they? Hibernation may be the answer but like Incorrigible1 says no other primate has aquired this ability. I think one does have to consider the possibility though. And tons of food is not an exageration for an animal that size. A cow will easily eat 1and 1/2 tons of high protean (17%) hay per winter in this area and that type of high protein is not found in usual forest edibles that can be stored without refrigeration. Also cows have an incredibly specialized digestive system that gets the absolute maximum amount of value out of every thing it eats which is certainly NOT like bears or other omnivores. Omnivore digestion cannot be highly specialized because it is not digesting a specific type of food, right? Bears have a poor digestive system and leave a lot of undigested product in there scat thereby meaning that they have to eat a lot more to obtain the same amount of nutrient. We still seem to be trying to fit a lot of different conflicting types of things into one animal that just doesn't add up. That is my opinion anyway.

[Guest]

In the Mt. Rainier area, the river valleys fill up with large, semi tame elk herds every winter (always after hunting season is over). Theoretically, if bigfoot ate elk, it would be easy pickings.

[indiefoot]

Hasn't it been suggested that Seasonal Affective Disorder is a holdover from the ice age winters when we went into a stupor and slept a lot.

[Guest Transformer]

In the Mt. Rainier area, the river valleys fill up with large, semi tame elk herds every winter (always after hunting season is over). Theoretically, if bigfoot ate elk, it would be easy pickings.

Good point. I wonder if there has ever been someone study the die-off and/or predation rates of the herds because it would be interesting to see if there was any kills that were classified as unknown predator.

Hasn't it been suggested that Seasonal Affective Disorder is a holdover from the ice age winters when we went into a stupor and slept a lot.

I have heard that too and it would explain a possible reason for survival. If one is using less energy one needs less food for survival as long as relativley warm quarters are found. Surviving skinny is still surviving.

[JDL]

DNA techniques may have progressed, but not that much as to make a difference in this specific case. Don't forget that the skull was also modern human, which when added to DNA evidence makes a strong case for Zana being human.

Please keep in mind I don't make these points as a skeptic. I've seen what I consider to be an unclassified primate in northern America. However, I also believe scientific facts are hard to dispute. Clinging desperately to the belief that all 'evidence' MUST indicate a cryptoprimate doesn't do anyone any good.

As I recall, they were able to find Kwit's remains fairly readily, but there was considerable difficulty locating Zana's gravesite. Searching online tonight I have been unable to find any verification that Zana's remains were recovered. In fact, each reference explicitly indicates that they were not recovered despite several trips to the region specifically for that purpose. If this is so, then the assertion that a DNA analysis and a CAT scan of Zana's remains proved her to be modern human, is inaccurate.

Are you certain of your facts? Is there a reference or report that I have missed?

[Guest gershake]

"Not making any more statements about timing since I have said it all before. I can say that all is well and things are happening as expected."

[Guest Shaun]

As I recall, they were able to find Kwit's remains fairly readily, but there was considerable difficulty locating Zana's gravesite. Searching online tonight I have been unable to find any verification that Zana's remains were recovered. In fact, each reference explicitly indicates that they were not recovered despite several trips to the region specifically for that purpose. If this is so, then the assertion that a DNA analysis and a CAT scan of Zana's remains proved her to be modern human, is inaccurate.

Are you certain of your facts? Is there a reference or report that I have missed?

Fairly. This documentary tested the skulls. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1JL5HDRDjc