What If Bf Isn't A Primate.

[BobZenor]

Well, I think I'll defend Dr. Jablonski.

She is referring to the natural diets of known great apes. She is doing what any good scientist would do --- she is extrapolating from known principles and facts. Truth be known, if sasquatch is a giant ape and lives as other great apes do, then yes the food source in North America is lacking of the type of vegetable staples year round found in the diet of other great apes. Consider the diet of the gorilla: http://www.seaworld....orilla/diet.htm

This type of argument from Dr. Jablonski is made by someone who is told Bigfoot is an ape. If ape, then the following must apply (so the argument goes). What Dr. Jablonski is probably unaware of is the tenacity of the Bigfooter. To some Bigfooters, the sasquatch is an ape, but an ape that is so unlike other great apes that one cannot extrapolate generally from known ape to sasquatch. It is a special ape --- an idea that Dr. Jablonski may not have considered.

Even Dr. Meldrum realises that it is no good to pretend Bigfoot is just another ape. He understands that the sasquatch could not have a gorilla like diet, so he suggests Bigfoot harvests fish from rivers to sustain itself with protein. John Green has likened the sasquatch lifestyle to that of bears.

Problems with Bigfoot diet are numerous. If sasquatch could sustain itself gorilla-like, it would be a grazing eater. We would not see a nomadic ape, migrating here and there. We would see a more cow-like eater, slowing spending most of its day eating low caloric foods, making up in quantity what it lacks in quality.

We ought to see more sasquatch dung than we do. After-all, this IS a big ape, right? Dr. George Schaller, in his forward to Meldrum's SASQUATCH makes this observation: "I am puzzled, for example, why so few large fecal piles have been reported along sasquatch trails. One would expect many from a bulky vegetarian with only rare access to meat, as shown by gorillas and giant pandas."

Of course, Dr. Schaller is behind the times. It is now casually known (or, at least, so promoted by Bigfooters) that Bigfoot is a deer eater. This would seem to explain how a giant primate can survive in the American wilds. Except, like any other primate, the sasquatch would not seem to be equipped to be a predator of this magnitude. Like a chimpanzee, sasquatch may eat meat it can conveniently capture, like a mole in a hole. But if it were to deer hunt, it would use up a tremendous amount of energy, too large for such a big animal to expend regularly, not to mention being ill-equiped for the task (no claws or weapons). So, it is easy to say a large sasquatch may live like any other large predator, a bear for instance; in reality, an ape is not built like any large predator; a sasquatch is not a bear.

BTW, I once read that Dr. Heuvelmans himself once gave credence to the idea that sasquatch reports may have been reports of giant ground sloths. Good gravy!

I didn't realize that western lowland gorillas were such fruitivores. Still the great diversity of gorillas diets makes her general argument invalid by itself. The coarseness of mountain gorilla diets makes her remark about the big brain requiring high quality diet invalid. It is also not valid because it isn't true that all the food in that forest is that coarse since humans obviously survive there.

Mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei):

This subspecies consumes parts of at least 142 plant species and only 3 types of fruit (there is hardly any fruit available due to the high altitude. About 86% of their diet is leaves, shoots, and stems, 7% is roots, 3% is flowers, 2% is fruit, and 2% ants, snails, and grubs.

There are easily hundreds of plants that could qualify as food for a sasquatch. I doubt they would have to eat as coarse a diet as some species of gorillas do but it isn't really such a stretch. You do have robust Australopithecus and some erectus with enormous chewing apparatus and extending the colon to digest it better isn't much of an evolutionary stretch. (no pun intended)

Dr Meldrum mentioned them eating some species of tree which I think was alder. All it would require is a greater amount of some enzyme to break down a toxin what would be toxic to us. It doesn't really matter if the tree was alder, aspen, willow, birch or some conifer. The same principle applies that something could evolve to eat them. Animals could become adapted to eating them. I don't mean to imply that there isn't plenty of non toxic edible leaves, roots, seeds, berries, fruit, insects, grubs, mammals, birds... To just state that there isn't enough food in PNW or anywhere else in America is not being scientific. It is arguing from ignorance. Clearly there is the capacity for animals to evolve to eat food native to the northern hemisphere.

Notice the number of species that gorillas eat from. They could easily have to eat more species but that is what is required for them to survive in their environment. Animals adapt quickly to digest their selected food better. Humans are especially good at digesting starch. People that live close to the fertile crescent have been reported as digesting wheat grain better. I think Scotland was the place in Europe that had the most intolerance to wheat. The point of that is that given possibly millions of years of eating their diet, since the plants are very similar in America and Asia even in ancient times, they SHOULD have evolved to eat it better. Apparently she can't get beyond apes as gorillas, chimps and orangs. She is not extrapolating from known principals and facts. She is apparently completely ignorant of them or thinks nobody would call her on it since she is poopooing bigfoot.

[Guest]

I think the problem arises when one compare a tropical existence, such as that of the known great apes, with existence in the temperate rainforest of the Pacific Northwest, of sasquatch. For instance, if we were to transport a small colony of gorillas to the Pacific Northwest and left them to fend for themselves, they probably would not survive their first winter.

We do not know of any ape that exists outside of tropical climes. Even the ancient ape Gigantophithecus is thought to have been a tropical denizen. The large jaw noted on Bigfoot would imply, as is noted of other apes, that it eats bulky, hard and hard to digest vegetation. Perhaps tree or tree bark would do the trick during snowy winters. We have to ask ourselves, though, if this solution has enough evidence to support it, or is it just pure rationalization.

In any event, any study of the phenomena should include possible solutions and due consideration as to how Bigfoot, if considered an ape, survives in habitat not considered suitable for ape life. In this respect, Dr. Jablonski was simply extrapolating from what is known about apes. She was addressing two issues of the program: PNW sasquatch, and sasquatch as ape. I grant she did not consider the possibility that sasquatch is a special ape that defies what we think we know about apes in general. Some may find fault with such an approach, others will not.

[BobZenor]

I would just like to add another note on the detoxifying enzymes just because it is an interest of mine. It isn't like it would have to evolve another enzyme to detoxify the toxin. Most likely it already exists in hominids. Most of the detoxifying is probably done by cytochrome enzymes and there are many different kinds with over 11,000 known in various lifeforms. There are other possible methods like beneficial intestinal bacteria that might break a particular toxin down. The affected system might compensate by increasing the amount of whatever is affected. If a toxin reduced some chemical pathway, the way to counter it is to increase the pathway. They might make an antidote. Cytochrome enzymes often reduce toxicity by oxidizing various chemicals and making them water soluble. Then the metabolites go into the blood stream and are released quickly by the kidneys before they reach dangerous levels. That is just one way the body gets rid of toxins by the way. Evolutionary pressure would increase the number of those that could handle the local toxins best. That is just part of the chemical arms race between many plants and the animals that eat them. Plants do better if they can minimize the amount of toxin since they can grow faster so the least toxic plants tend to win out until they are selected by animals that feed on them. Squirrels and and some people for that matter probably select the least bitter acorns.

The main point of all that is that we don't really know what they might be able to eat. Alder for example makes its own nitrogen, actually bacteria in root nodules do, so it is probably quite nutritious. Those plants tend to be higher in protein. The best source I could find was that a member of the genus was about 15% proteins for leaves in the mountains of Rowanda no less which I believe is the home of mountain gorillas. Toxin resistance in animals varies considerably. Grapes can kill dogs. Deer eat yew which is deadly to humans. They probably have a different mix of cytochrome enzymes. They also somehow detoxify it in their stomach as well. Squirrels obviously have much more resistance to all the tannins in oak than modern humans do.

Edited September 5, 2011 by BobZenor

[gigantor]

They could eat pine bark, it's not toxic. See How to eat a pine tree

Also see 50 Essential Wild Edible, Tea, and Medicinal Plants You Need to Know

[kitakaze]

Of course, Dr. Schaller is behind the times. It is now casually known (or, at least, so promoted by Bigfooters) that Bigfoot is a deer eater. This would seem to explain how a giant primate can survive in the American wilds. Except, like any other primate, the sasquatch would not seem to be equipped to be a predator of this magnitude. Like a chimpanzee, sasquatch may eat meat it can conveniently capture, like a mole in a hole. But if it were to deer hunt, it would use up a tremendous amount of energy, too large for such a big animal to expend regularly, not to mention being ill-equiped for the task (no claws or weapons). So, it is easy to say a large sasquatch may live like any other large predator, a bear for instance; in reality, an ape is not built like any large predator; a sasquatch is not a bear.

What a perfect time for Igor Bourtsev on the Carter-Coy farm to demonstrate the alleged Bigfoot deerkill method...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js_r7WKwfvU

Just get that thing, Igor!

BTW, I once read that Dr. Heuvelmans himself once gave credence to the idea that sasquatch reports may have been reports of giant ground sloths. Good gravy!

Like Sanderson with his giant penguins in Florida...

I swear aside from the obvious Jacques Cousteau inspiration, Steve Zissou and his epic hunt for the elusive jaguar shark was at least partially inspired by these guys...

Shirts are for squares.

[Guest Biggie]

I hold to the primate theory too, I was just playing along with the "If they aren't primates, what could they be?" idea. Obviously, whether sloth, bear, primate or whatever, they would have to have made some major adaptations to be where they are now. But you know what I really believe from PMs anyway Biggie, lol

Right I understood your intent when I replied. That was not directed at you, just sharing my thoughts with the others here.

We ought to see more sasquatch dung than we do. After-all, this IS a big ape, right? Dr. George Schaller, in his forward to Meldrum's SASQUATCH makes this observation: "I am puzzled, for example, why so few large fecal piles have been reported along sasquatch trails. One would expect many from a bulky vegetarian with only rare access to meat, as shown by gorillas and giant pandas."

That's a lot of land to cover looking for dung though which is visible only for a short period since it is broken down by insects and the elements, and we can't find their dead bodies or bones which are much larger than dung piles too so it's not much of a factor to me not finding more of their dung.

I grant she did not consider the possibility that sasquatch is a special ape that defies what we think we know about apes in general. Some may find fault with such an approach, others will not.

I believe that could possibly be the case and if so it would not be the first time scientific belief has been proven to be wrong.

[Guest]

Kit,

For some reason, every time I see that clip of Dr. Bourtsev, I think I hear John Cleese saying "And now, for something completely different" and the Flying Circus theme starts up!

[Guest HairyGreek]

I believe that could possibly be the case and if so it would not be the first time scientific belief has been proven to be wrong.

Amen to that brother.

[Guest]

Bigfoot and water is something I've been pondering for a couple of years now...

[Guest habber]

I think they are very old world humans that have somehow adapted and focused all there energy to there environment so well as too almost be one with nature, Or they are the poor homeless people that were living with Janice Carter and have us all bowled over big time

Tim

same here, the monkey argument doesn't hold water.

[Guest Biggie]

Kit,

For some reason, every time I see that clip of Dr. Bourtsev, I think I hear John Cleese saying "And now, for something completely different" and the Flying Circus theme starts up!

Speaking of John Cleese when the Dr was walking with his hands next to his feet in that clip he looked like he belonged in the ministry of silly walks.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Biggie

[GuyInIndiana]

So Basically Bigfoot is a Yowie ?

Tim

Finally someone has put the pieces together. Hooray

The only problem with that is... HOW long ago was it Australia was cut off from being connected to the north? Hundreds of millions of years?

[Guest para ape]

Is it possible that BF is not a primate? Could they have a linage unknown to science?

On the show ( best evidence) the woman ( I can't remember her name) said BF is not characteristic of what you would expect of a large primate living in the woods. She didn't go into details. It left me wondering, what if they are not primates.

Are you saying that my topics aren't logical?

All the evidence that shows that the creature is non-physical is the answer to your question.

Midnight Owl made a very good point.Most people are comfortable with bigfoot being just an undiscovered ape instead being something that is unknown.I don't think people can handle the truth.The same is true when it comes to the ufo phenomenon.People don't want believe that aliens are anything but beings from distant galaxies.

[Guest Swamper]

Biological super-family Hominoidea if they exists. The only question is where will the scientist place them. Will they place them in the the great ape category or even along side humans (genus Homo). Will a new category be created between humans and the great apes (chimpanzees (genus Pan), gorillas (genus Gorilla), orangutans (genus Pongo)? Sasquatch (genus Squatch) in its on category just below humans.

The Erickson Project with their genus (wookie) say they have the goods collaboratively with Dr. Melba Ketchum\s DNA report. If that's the case only proper classification will be left. Gonna still need a body and more DNA for that.

If this whole EP thing is a hoax and Melba has no definitive answer then I'm gonna start hanging with para-ape

[GuyInIndiana]

Are you saying that my topics aren't logical?

All the evidence that shows that the creature is non-physical is the answer to your question.

Midnight Owl made a very good point.Most people are comfortable with bigfoot being just an undiscovered ape instead being something that is unknown.I don't think people can handle the truth.The same is true when it comes to the ufo phenomenon.People don't want believe that aliens are anything but beings from distant galaxies.

Or.... OR..... maybe "most people are comfortable with bigfoot being just an undiscovered ape" is because it's the most rational answer in a world that is observable to be rational and follows orderly schemes of design.