Bigfoot and required protein intake. Options

[StinkFoot]

Sorry if this has been talked about before. While I do believe in the possibility of bigfoot, I find myself thinking more about the science of proving one exists.

I used to lift weights, to the point I was taking protein supplements to put on muscle.

At my high point I weighed 260 pounds, and was a rather "big" man. To maintain that size, I had to ingest protein on a regular basis..drinking shakes, protein bars, eggs, etc. Given the size of bigfoot, and his physical size, I find myself wondering how much protein he/she would have to ingest on a daily basis to maintain that size/muscle. They certainly would have to be predators, much like the lion/tiger, and ingest gross amounts of protein. I'm talking in the realm of 600-800 grams a day...that's A LOT.

No fruit or berry can sustain their size, and I wonder with all the sightings that they never seem to "hunt" us, even though the metabolism they must have must leave them in a state where they have to be hungry...why wouldn't we be considered food? Certainly we're slower than most four legged creatures they would normally hunt. We'd be easy pickings yet we don't seem to be on their menu.

They have to be carnivores. There's no way they can't be and obtain the protein necessary to be the size they are. If they hunt animals, why not us. We'd be the prime target.

It doesn't make sense.

[moregon]

Maybe they just don't like the way we taste. Maybe we're too salty, or fatty or we simply upset their tummy.

It seems there was some Native American or First Nation stories of beings that could have been bigfoot that did eat humans. It's possible that was done before they started using bows and arrows. They seem intelligent from what the reports say, so maybe they observed those people bringing down elk, deer, and bear from a distance, not at close quarters. If they are intelligent maybe they simply figured out we weren't worth the mortal risk to themselves. With the influx of humans brandishing firearms now with the ability to bring down wild animals from a greater distance than bows and arrows... it just isn't worth the risk as long as their plenty of other wildlife to feed off of.

If WE didn't have modern inventions to take some game animals not many of us would have ever eaten shark either if we had to depend on getting it by swimming into the ocean and taking them with our bare hands either. As far as having to be a predator to keep the reported size and muscle tone, what about gorillas? They are fairly large, quite a bit heavier than we are and very muscular yet are vegetarians.

This post has been edited by moregon: Mar 20 2008, 01:09 AM

[micahn]

I see a problem in your thinking. Your using a human to compare to a Bigfoot.
Just look at some of the other great apes like say a Gorilla for example. They eat maybe 99% green plants yet they are many times stronger then any human can ever think of being. Sure they will eat some meat if they happen upon some just like every animal will (Even seen a cow eat some meat one time from a dead deer). So if they are getting enough protein from green plants then I so no problem of Bigfoot getting enough from some meat and some plants. Personally I think they eat what ever they can find and catch. One day it may be a deer the next some berries or what ever they happen to find.

A Gorilla is just one example you can find many from bears to other animals that have much more muscle then humans yet do not eat all that much protein.

[What the?]

Don't forget that the the Moose of North America subsides primarily on leaves, plants, twigs and buds throughout the year and they can weigh up to 1300 pounds in Canada and 1700 pounds in Alaska.

Moose can sustain their huge size from plant matter, so why not Bigfoot?

http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=93

[chrisandclauida2]

before we ASSUME that they have to be carnivores to get an ASSUMED amount of protein grams we should look at other animals.

deer and elk get their required protein from only plant matter as to moose.

bears get their needed protein from mostly plant and some meat.

i dont think it would be hard for a 500 lbs anything to get the needed protein only from plant matter. add small rodents and deer and it is easy to get the needed food from many different environments around the country.

[COGrizzly]

Great comments everyone. Moregon, you never cease to amaze me.

I would think they are much like a bear, an opportunist. From bark to berrys to bugs to road kill and I would think even elk and deer. I've read plenty of reports of people watching BF attack kill and dissect deer and elk. Survivalists eat whatever is not poison and can be digested.

BF hunting people? Great story of Camp Hale in CO of a 10th Mountain division soldier missing in the late 40's or 50's. They hiked up Pearl Creek drainage to above tree line as a training exercise. Went back down and was missing a soldier. Went back up following their own tracks. Got to an area at tree line and found an M1 bent almost in half, tattered clothes, blood everywhere and a "drag" area with giant footsteps going up hill.

I know the area VERY well. Actaully have road my quad down that drainage before it closed. Also have a 2nd hand account from 2 different guys that saw a large white creature go up a steep snowy cornice and once on top, got up on 2 feet and walked away. That was on Chicago Ridge not far at all from the Pearl Creek area.

So many stories untold to the public. I wonder what kind of percentage of people report seeing these things?

[MANGLER]

Don't want to compare it to a human, but it's ok to compare it to a ungulate?

If you are going to compare it to a gorilla then you need to accept the fact that no one on earth can track this animal that eats 30-50lbs of forbs a day, IMO any animal that ingests that much food is extremely easy to locate and track.



m

[Paul1968UK]

No fruit or berry can sustain their size,

I think you completely misunderstand and underestimate what animals need to consume.

Consider my old Shire horse - he weighed a full metric tonne (2204lb), lived on nothing but grass, got plenty of exercise, and yet we still had to restrict his food to stop him gaining weight.


We know absolutely nothing about bigfoot metabolism, and so it is naiive to make a statement like the one you made.

[FoxJr]

I think you completely misunderstand and underestimate what animals need to consume.

Consider my old Shire horse - he weighed a full metric tonne (2204lb), lived on nothing but grass, got plenty of exercise, and yet we still had to restrict his food to stop him gaining weight.
We know absolutely nothing about bigfoot metabolism, and so it is naiive to make a statement like the one you made.

We do know the metabolism and diet of every modern day primate, and we do have a general knowledge of what sustained those found in archealogical digs. We do know that large primates like gorillas, have evolved highly specialized digestive tracts to utilyze particular food sources that have greatly restricted the environments they can survive in. We also do know the only primate to successfully spread out and thrive outside of the environs of their ancestors, and to populate various, different habitats the world over, all evolved highly specialized skills that allowed them to do so. (tool making being the big one that primarily fueled the ability to maintain a certain nutritional parameters) Furthermore, the data available from the scientific community concerning the dietary needs of primates worldwide is vast and precise, and without a doubt pretty reliable. Therefore if as most on this forum would agree, BF is a primate of some sort, BF has not generally been spotted carrying spears or bows and arrows on a regular basis, and here is the kicker "BF has established a thriving population, to some degree, in environments as diverse as the forests of the PCNW to the swamps of Florida, from the hills of W.VA. to the piney woods of East Texas, from a prairie in Manitoba to the slopes of the highest Asian mountain peaks. Thus I think the logical question concerning the possible existence of this creature has always been how does it sustain itself, espicially based on what we know about existing primates versus what is widely reported within the BF community.

On the other hand, if we consider the fact that BF is an equine, or an ungulate even, well that opens up another whole can of worms. Comparing BF to a shire horse? I think comparing BF to what we know as scientific fact and basing the field of research, or even offering up opinions, observations and asking questions with this in mind, is far from naiive.

This post has been edited by FoxJr: Mar 30 2008, 04:25 PM

[OklahomaSquatch]

Funny, humans are primates and they've managed to live off the land since the beginning of time in every corner of the globe. So much for restricted environments. Not to mention the larger primates with these specialized digestive tracts, evolved that way to live in the specific regions they were at. I don't see how that would be any different in this case. That's what nature does, adapts to survive. In fact chimps in different regions thrive off of different food types that are available to them, but they are all chimps.

I have to agree with Paul, you can take all the knowns we have and throw them in the fire when it comes to Bigfoot. We know nothing about their metabolism, regardless of what a gorilla eats.

[FoxJr]

Funny, humans are primates and they've managed to live off the land since the beginning of time in every corner of the globe. So much for restricted environments. Not to mention the larger primates with these specialized digestive tracts, evolved that way to live in the specific regions they were at. I don't see how that would be any different in this case. That's what nature does, adapts to survive. In fact chimps in different regions thrive off of different food types that are available to them, but they are all chimps.

I have to agree with Paul, you can take all the knowns we have and throw them in the fire when it comes to Bigfoot. We know nothing about their metabolism, regardless of what a gorilla eats.

Humans have not managed to live off the land since the beginning of time in every corner of the globe. If you follow the theories of evolution it is common knowledge that humans evolved from a specific area, in Africa, and over eons evolved anatomically and developed certain skills that then allowed them to push into other environs. Are you suggesting that 'larger primates" with existing specialized digestive systems somehow evolved these prior to habitating these environs, so that they could move into them? And yes chimps, as well as most of the animal kingdom, do adapt to certain situations within their habitat, but adapting and evolving is long way apart. I haven't came across any evidence of chimps 'adapting' to grazing on long stem grasses and therefore facilitating their ability to spread out across all of Africa and beyond to populate anywhere other than their existing locals. Your last statement concerning taking all the 'knowns' and throwing them in the fire, is precisely why BF research, in general is still a pseudu-science and has little merit within the logical conforminity of the scientific community.

What, "in fact" do you base your observations on?

This post has been edited by FoxJr: Mar 30 2008, 05:21 PM

[RedRatSnake]

We do know the metabolism and diet of every modern day primate, and we do have a general knowledge of what sustained those found in archealogical digs. We do know that large primates like gorillas, have evolved highly specialized digestive tracts to utilyze particular food sources that have greatly restricted the environments they can survive in. We also do know the only primate to successfully spread out and thrive outside of the environs of their ancestors, and to populate various, different habitats the world over, all evolved highly specialized skills that allowed them to do so. (tool making being the big one that primarily fueled the ability to maintain a certain nutritional parameters) Furthermore, the data available from the scientific community concerning the dietary needs of primates worldwide is vast and precise, and without a doubt pretty reliable. Therefore if as most on this forum would agree, BF is a primate of some sort, BF has not generally been spotted carrying spears or bows and arrows on a regular basis, and here is the kicker "BF has established a thriving population, to some degree, in environments as diverse as the forests of the PCNW to the swamps of Florida, from the hills of W.VA. to the piney woods of East Texas, from a prairie in Manitoba to the slopes of the highest Asian mountain peaks. Thus I think the logical question concerning the possible existence of this creature has always been how does it sustain itself, espicially based on what we know about existing primates versus what is widely reported within the BF community.

Hi

That whole post is about known ape species, Were talking about an unknown creature, Is there anything in the science community box your in that might help in the quest to find what were looking for in this thread

Or is this just another negative suggestion that there is no BF

Peace
Tim

[FoxJr]

Hi

That whole post is about known ape species, Were talking about an unknown creature, Is there anything in the science community box your in that might help in the quest to find what were looking for in this thread

Or is this just another negative suggestion that there is no BF

Peace
Tim

I am not getting in a pissing contest with you BF experts here, all I suggested is we seem pretty sure BF is an ape species, as all of you suggest. A little common sense would preclude that he would have evolved along the lines of known ape species to some degree. And that 'science community box, you suggest I am in, is pretty good place to start a quest as it is full of facts and truths that might help you start a legitimate mode of discovery, and offer some clue as to how such a creature can exist and what type of environment it would find optimal. At that point, if you had one of your feet in 'this box' and grounded in reality, perhaps it could point you to a more precise location to conduct some sort of investigation, which would probably be more condusive to the objective than just standing in your backyard hoping one wanders by.

This was never intended by no means to be a negative suggestion concerning the creature's existence as I am very open minded about the possiblity. But if my common sense approach, use of associated, pertinent, legitimate scientific research, and my expression of logical reasoning comes across as being negative in your opinion, perhaps you should think outside the 'tiny little box' you are in and consider trying a little something different than attacking anyone who would dare question some of the crap floating around the www about BF.

Peace Back

[RedRatSnake]

I am not getting in a pissing contest with you BF experts here

Hi

Certanilly there are no experts here and i am sure everyone would agree on that, We do have many members that have had sightings of BF doing all kinds of things including eating plants and animals, So with that i think it is safe to say he has a great food source through out the entire country or World,

As far as this:

perhaps you should think outside the 'tiny little box' you are in and consider trying a little something different than attacking anyone who would dare question some of the crap floating around the www about BF.

Attacking is not the best word, You are not the first to come up with this and won't be the last,

If you are open to the possibily of BF then write it that way

Peace
Tim

This post has been edited by redratsnake: Mar 30 2008, 08:13 PM

[FoxJr]

If you are open to the possibily of BF then write it that way

Peace
Tim

I don't understand, do I need to come out gushing and exclaiming that "Yes BF is real, he is here and always will be and no matter what anyone says or what evidence is exposed contrary to BF, it just don't matter, he's real, he's real!!!"

Sorry, but that aint the way I work. There exist certain evidence and particular reports that I find intriguing, which even after being scrutinized to pieces by both those with a scientific approach and even more, by those such as yourself, who only accecpt what goes along with what they believe this creature should be and act like, it is this particuliar intriguing data/evidence that compells my conviction to investigate and pose questions. I am beggining to realize, that there are those within this group who automatically reject any attempt to verify or legitimize some of the irrational theories and their hair-brained ideas pulled from thin air, by applying a scientific approach or asking them to offer some sort of explanation for these claims grounded in common sense or existing data.

You keep on telling all your pals that BF is real, you just know it in your heart. (Maybe you see them all the time?) But myself, well I have to have a little something more solid before I make up my mind, and although I sincerely keep my mind open to all but the most ridiculous and obviously unsubstatiated claims, I have to still keep within certain parameters when considering this possibilty.

It is probably my parents fault when they told me that Santa Claus was real. Heck lots of my friends believed it, older people I respected talked about him coming, he was on tv alot after thanksgiving, and I even sighted him a few times myself. But I eventually garnered enough elementary school science, and my young mind suddenly, all on its own, began analyzing and sorting thru the facts and accepted truths of society, and one day out of the blue....it dawned on me that folks had me believing in something totally outside the realm of possibiltiy. Just because you say so, just because I see him on tv or hear other people talk about him to extremes or read all their face to face encounters with him, I am still going to need a little elementary school science to help persuade me 100% BF is among us. That or a dead body drug up and inspected by some scientific types.

Sorry about mixing science in with your BF talk Tim! I'll quit right now.

[RedRatSnake]

Hi

Um Ok Guess you have your mind made up, Sorry a simple minded guy like me upset your night, Maybe some day soon we will have a BF to study but for now, I would just like to focus on finding him and talking about the things that might make the Big Guy tick, Not a lot of Science involved in staking out a spot in the woods and trying some wood knocking or just sitting and watching nature, As for my friends we all have differant thoughts and ways we go about it

Peace
Tim

[OklahomaSquatch]

Humans have not managed to live off the land since the beginning of time in every corner of the globe. If you follow the theories of evolution it is common knowledge that humans evolved from a specific area, in Africa, and over eons evolved anatomically and developed certain skills that then allowed them to push into other environs. Are you suggesting that 'larger primates" with existing specialized digestive systems somehow evolved these prior to habitating these environs, so that they could move into them? And yes chimps, as well as most of the animal kingdom, do adapt to certain situations within their habitat, but adapting and evolving is long way apart. I haven't came across any evidence of chimps 'adapting' to grazing on long stem grasses and therefore facilitating their ability to spread out across all of Africa and beyond to populate anywhere other than their existing locals. Your last statement concerning taking all the 'knowns' and throwing them in the fire, is precisely why BF research, in general is still a pseudu-science and has little merit within the logical conforminity of the scientific community.

What, "in fact" do you base your observations on?

Little abrasive don't you think? It's ok to disagree with me, I don't take it to heart. You shouldn't either.

You first sentence right off the bat makes absolutely no sense to me. I said nature adapts to survive. I have no idea how you took what I said and managed to turn it around the way you did.

"Not to mention the larger primates with these specialized digestive tracts, evolved that way to live in the specific regions they were at."

Did you not see the structure of the sentence here? "to live in the specific regions they WERE AT" not "WOULD BE." This clearly shows I meant exactly what I said, and in no way insinuated that they evolved prior to moving into a region.

It's funny that you use the word "theory" and "common knowledge" in the same sentence as though what you are stating is fact. It may be where the evidence leads at this current time, but as you very well know it is not indeed a fact as of yet. By your statement you would seem guilty of the very same things all of us "Bigfoot experts" are. Your words, not mine. But let's go ahead and play in scientific sandbox for a moment. That's fine with me. Let's say modern man's original ancestor was in Africa. As time went on that ancestor evolved and adapted and moved out of Africa. Eventually spreading to the various corners of the globe. Otherwise I'd be typing this from Zimbabwe, and not Oklahoma. After a very long period of time, people ended up just about anywhere. The only means they had for survival was to adapt to the environments they were in. If you've done so much science homework, then you obviously know we did not start out as omnivores. We adapted to eating meat over time. It most likely got started by humans who had to eat meat in order to survive in their ecological niche. Furthermore, name one race of humans that didn't survive by living off the land at some point in time. I didn't realize grocery stores had evolved right along side us and followed us over on the land bridge. No chimps aren't known for eating long stem grasses, nor has their survival as a species due to environmental changes hinged on it. I haven't noticed any humans going around grazing on bamboo chutes either. That's not quite how it works.

I'm all for being scientific when it comes to Bigfoot research, obviously more so than you realize, but at the same time I am logical enough to realize we are dealing with an unknown, and to treat it as anything else would be speculation at this point. They appear to be some sort of primate. That's about as far as I can take it. The thing about primates, and what they can or can't do, or how far they have evolved, seems to be relatively based on brain size. I don't know the size of a Bigfoot's brain, therefore I can't say it has evolved to the point of a gorilla, or a human. Technically just because it appears to be a type of primate doesn't even mean it is. And that's according to the laws and facts of science. Hyenas are a fine example of such.

In closing, my statement has no bearing on why Bigfoot is taken as a pseudo-science. It has nothing to do with that "type of mentality" or "reasoning." It's taken as a pseudo-science because it is a cryptid, as all cryptids are. We don't have any physical proof of their existence, and all of our evidence to this point in time is riddled with various possibilities. As long as that's the case, it will be us "pseudo-scientists" conducting the research.

[Tnwoods]

"Humans have not managed to live off the land since the beginning of time in every corner of the globe. If you follow the theories of evolution it is common knowledge that humans evolved from a specific area, in Africa, and over eons evolved anatomically and developed certain skills that then allowed them to push into other environs."

Where is this common knowledge? Or based in fact?

Theory is all it is. And many a good theory has gone the wayside over the years.

Let's take a bit of theory.

Skin pigmentation.

How can in the beginning of man - we somehow evolved into white, black, brown, and yellow - but in the last 10,000 years we haven't changed at all? How the heck does that work?

Humans have been living off the land since the beginning of time. Otherwise we wouldn't be here now to argue the fact.

Hunting is considered living off the land - as is growing crops. McDonalds is NOT considered living off the land. that would be living off the Big Mac.

So which of your statements are true? And please do offer some sort of rational argument.

[BobZenor]

...Are you suggesting that 'larger primates" with existing specialized digestive systems somehow evolved these prior to habitating these environs, so that they could move into them? And yes chimps, as well as most of the animal kingdom, do adapt to certain situations within their habitat, but adapting and evolving is long way apart. I haven't came across any evidence of chimps 'adapting' to grazing on long stem grasses and therefore facilitating their ability to spread out across all of Africa and beyond to populate anywhere other than their existing locals. Your last statement concerning taking all the 'knowns' and throwing them in the fire, is precisely why BF research, in general is still a pseudu-science and has little merit within the logical conforminity of the scientific community. ...

The ancestors of chimps apparently evolved into hominids that ate a much rougher diet than chimps if the crest of robust australopithicines is evidence of that. How hard is it to grow a larger cecum or colon to ferment more cellulose? Which animal is specialized. I always thought of chimps and humans as being omnivores and not having specialized digestive systems. Neanderthals have been reported to be nearly pure carnivores. That could be from analysis of dried waste in the cave. Eskimos may have been pure meat eaters as well, at least for extended periods. Is there something stopping a different hominid from becoming a "pure" vegetarian?

"...
Let's take a bit of theory.

Skin pigmentation.

How can in the beginning of man - we somehow evolved into white, black, brown, and yellow - but in the last 10,000 years we haven't changed at all? How the heck does that work?
...
So which of your statements are true? And please do offer some sort of rational argument.

I certainly don't mean this to sound argumentative or to be taking sides so please excuse me for butting in.

Skin pigmentation logically changed as we move out of Africa to get the correct balance of vitamin D. More melanin is needed in the tropics to prevent excessive sun burn. There is much less sunshine in the north and skin pigment quickly adapted to get the ideal balance. Evolution is driven by selection. Selection favors the ideal balance so it tends to stop change in animals that are already ideally suited for their environment. There are 4 different skin pigments, I believe, so you get variations of skin tone. The only way I would believe reported skin tones of early humans is genetic studies. I don't think you could even rely on paintings or writings unless it was in the last few thousand years.

[FoxJr]

This got ridiculous, sorry, but I have no idea how to even answer any of these comments. If this is considered intelligent debate and thoughtful dialogue then I am out of my league. I am abrasive when someone uses inane logic and zero common sense to try and make a question or observation I posted look stupid. I have some legitimate questions, where on this forum could I post them and have them discussed or answered in an intelligent format? I am not here to debate on this level or to babysit children.

This is a great thread starter, but it is going to be buried by all the "BF Experts", too bad, maybe someone could direct me to another post or even somewhere on the www that this has been given some serious consideration? Anybody ever read anything on how "BF might have evolved and migrated, seemingly within some of the same environs as humans, without developing some of those specialized skills that allowed humans to do so?" Why BF and humans are the only two primates capable of this?

I will let you fellers have at it, but I bet this thread will die pretty quick if you aint got anyone to poke at!

FYI - as far as skin pigment, 10K years is not very long on the scale of evolution if you look at the big picture.

[RedRatSnake]

Hi

If you can't find what you are looking for here in the BFF, I suggest this site for serious discussion ( The Bigfoot reference guide ) I am sure a person with your Superior intelligence will find it most enlightening

Peace
Tim

[OklahomaSquatch]

Personally I don't care if you "believe" in Bigfoot's existence or not. The majority of the people researching the phenomenon aren't 100% sure if they exist or not, so no, you aren't part of some superior minority group of scientific thinkers. I find it interesting when your scientific beliefs were questioned that you took the route of treating us like a bunch of blind bigfoot believers who have no common sense or scientific knowledge. So the only way we can match your intelligence in this, or use scientific debate is if we agree with what you say is right? Yeah, ok.

Let's run through it one more time for the people in the back rows such as yourself. Would humans have invented tools and equipment necessary to survive if they had no use for them? What if they didn't need them? What if their brain didn't allow for the intelligence it took to make these tools, but their physical make up allowed them to not need them? Why does a Bigfoot need a spear when they can catch their prey without one? Why do they need clothes and fire when their hair protects their bodies from the elements? Human ancestors survived for quite awhile before they started making tools. They had no way of knowing the future or the past, they didn't have access to fossil records and science scholars to tell them what was right and acceptable. Nobody has the facts to say that a certain creature should have evolved a certain way because humans did it that way. Two different brains, two different species, two different lines of evolution and adaptation.

[lookinginmichiga...]

Well I think this is a good thread even if it has pissed off some.
I maintain plenty of weight in my quarter horses with grain and hay while force feeding. In the summer they graze off pasture grasses and do just fine.
Why don't they hunt us? Seems quite logical, more of us than them, we have guns, make fire, destroy forests, drive vehicles that they see plain out deer, etc. They do a great job of keeping away from us for a reason.

[FoxJr]

Personally I don't care if you "believe" in Bigfoot's existence or not. The majority of the people researching the phenomenon aren't 100% sure if they exist or not, so no, you aren't part of some superior minority group of scientific thinkers. I find it interesting when your scientific beliefs were questioned that you took the route of treating us like a bunch of blind bigfoot believers who have no common sense or scientific knowledge. So the only way we can match your intelligence in this, or use scientific debate is if we agree with what you say is right? Yeah, ok.

Let's run through it one more time for the people in the back rows such as yourself. Would humans have invented tools and equipment necessary to survive if they had no use for them? What if they didn't need them? What if their brain didn't allow for the intelligence it took to make these tools, but their physical make up allowed them to not need them? Why does a Bigfoot need a spear when they can catch their prey without one? Why do they need clothes and fire when their hair protects their bodies from the elements? Human ancestors survived for quite awhile before they started making tools. They had no way of knowing the future or the past, they didn't have access to fossil records and science scholars to tell them what was right and acceptable. Nobody has the facts to say that a certain creature should have evolved a certain way because humans did it that way. Two different brains, two different species, two different lines of evolution and adaptation.

Honestly I guarantee you I do not consider myself superior, reread your own post. Surely you are not intending these as serious, mature answers to some legitimate questions concerning this thread. If you are, then yes, I am of a superior intellect than you, but I don't apologize for it, its just a fact. Just like there exists certain facts to back up some of the things people suggests on this forum, then there is posts like your own? IS there some kind of answer to my question in all that, do offend I you personally because I can't accept an answer without some degree of scientific theory or fact to back it up. How about a comparison of some sort in the known natural world to compare your 'two different lines, brains, species, etc.' too?

I normally wouldn't even bother to respond, but why jump in and call me abrasive and superior, and question my beliefs and motives, just because I point out that obiviously alot of your answers are pointless and/or not grounded in any known factual data? How about countering with some links or data to back up your ideas? I got plenty to back mine, so load your gun, hoss, and take a shot, I might get in this pissing contest after all!

This post has been edited by FoxJr: Mar 31 2008, 06:39 PM

[OklahomaSquatch]

This is no "pissing match" I assure you. So the only person holding a [censored] in their hand is you. You do a stand up job of being all confrontational and such. It's not real difficult to point out various scientific theories, treat them as facts, and then say "THIS is why Bigfoot must NOT exist!" And I'm sure the ability to create a log in and make some posts on a Bigfoot forum so you can tell someone you don't even know that you are of superior intellect than they are looks amazing on a resume. "do offend I you personally?" Not no all at.

The only point I'm trying to get across is that there is ANOTHER side. One that you clearly can't see. Which is fine. Someone, such as yourself, can look for scientific reasons as to why the existence of this creature is not possible till the proverbial cows come home. That's all fine and dandy. Meanwhile, some of us such as myself, actually go out into the big scary woods at night and find out for ourselves. Regardless of what the message board science expert says. It's also possible to take that same scientific approach and apply it to reasons as to why their existence IS in fact possible. Unfortunately when someone does that, they are met with great and obvious hostility by people from the other side of the fence.

Assuming these creatures do exist for the sake of responding to this thread, we do not know about their metabolism, their metabolic rate, nor do we know what sort of caloric intake they must sustain on a daily basis. We do know that other animals manage to grow to large sizes and maintain that weight and health by foraging off the land naturally. We also know these things are reported to exist in areas that normally have plenty of natural food sources for doing so. They do not have a large enough population to have an effect on their given ecosystem, therefore their presence would normally not be felt. To try and speak on things such as exact protein needs, and how they acquire them, would be based in speculation entirely. Other large mammals seem to do just fine, so I assume it would be no different for a Bigfoot.

Now if that answer gets you all worked up and pissed off, that's on you. If you think it's riddled with stupidity and scientific ignorance, then by all means show me the light.

"How about a comparison of some sort in the known natural world to compare your 'two different lines, brains, species, etc.' too?"

What I actually said was; "Two different brains, two different species, two different lines of evolution and adaptation."
My only response to that request is a firm "Are you serious?"
Are you seriously asking for an example of this? You do know that the entire theory of evolution works off of those principles don't you? It is a branching system, with many splits and forks. But if you insist...

Humans and every other primate. Pretty decent example.
Wolves, dingos, coyotes, African wild dogs, and domestic dogs.
Whales and hippos.
Dugongs and elephants.
Parrots and Cockatoos.

[MooseMan]

Skin pigmentation.
How can in the beginning of man - we somehow evolved into white, black, brown, and yellow - but in the last 10,000 years we haven't changed at all? How the heck does that work?

Dead wrong, humans are 'changing' now more and faster than we ever have. With travel there isn't such a thing as genetic isolation anymore.

Red heads and blonds will be a thing of the past soon, being caused by recessive genes. People are cross racially breeding at a rate never seen before and soon most of the population not be able to be racially defined.

[FoxJr]

This is no "pissing match" I assure you. So the only person holding a [censored] in their hand is you. You do a stand up job of being all confrontational and such. It's not real difficult to point out various scientific theories, treat them as facts, and then say "THIS is why Bigfoot must NOT exist!" And I'm sure the ability to create a log in and make some posts on a Bigfoot forum so you can tell someone you don't even know that you are of superior intellect than they are looks amazing on a resume. "do offend I you personally?" Not no all at.

The only point I'm trying to get across is that there is ANOTHER side. One that you clearly can't see. Which is fine. Someone, such as yourself, can look for scientific reasons as to why the existence of this creature is not possible till the proverbial cows come home. That's all fine and dandy. Meanwhile, some of us such as myself, actually go out into the big scary woods at night and find out for ourselves. Regardless of what the message board science expert says. It's also possible to take that same scientific approach and apply it to reasons as to why their existence IS in fact possible. Unfortunately when someone does that, they are met with great and obvious hostility by people from the other side of the fence.

Assuming these creatures do exist for the sake of responding to this thread, we do not know about their metabolism, their metabolic rate, nor do we know what sort of caloric intake they must sustain on a daily basis. We do know that other animals manage to grow to large sizes and maintain that weight and health by foraging off the land naturally. We also know these things are reported to exist in areas that normally have plenty of natural food sources for doing so. They do not have a large enough population to have an effect on their given ecosystem, therefore their presence would normally not be felt. To try and speak on things such as exact protein needs, and how they acquire them, would be based in speculation entirely. Other large mammals seem to do just fine, so I assume it would be no different for a Bigfoot.

Now if that answer gets you all worked up and pissed off, that's on you. If you think it's riddled with stupidity and scientific ignorance, then by all means show me the light.

"How about a comparison of some sort in the known natural world to compare your 'two different lines, brains, species, etc.' too?"

What I actually said was; "Two different brains, two different species, two different lines of evolution and adaptation."
My only response to that request is a firm "Are you serious?"
Are you seriously asking for an example of this? You do know that the entire theory of evolution works off of those principles don't you? It is a branching system, with many splits and forks. But if you insist...

Humans and every other primate. Pretty decent example.
Wolves, dingos, coyotes, African wild dogs, and domestic dogs.
Whales and hippos.
Dugongs and elephants.
Parrots and Cockatoos.

I promise from this point not to respond to any of your further posts, as it is fruitless, you have not the least grasp in any way of any shred of scientific logic or evolutionary theory. I assure, as a biologist and an outdoorsman, I have spent a great deal of time in the woods, and unlike you, no longer see them as big and scary. I also in no way have said BF does not exist, all that has been asked is by what means, just how do you propose he seems to pop up in every backyard in the US, what exactly is he sustaining himself on?

I only brought up evolution to point out that humans are the only primate able to sustain themselves in moat of these environments, and they were only able to do so by evolving tool skills. So no genious, your "human and every other primate", is a pretty stupid example but it does go hand in hand with your other arguments. Perhaps a little pre-study or looking else where on the www beforehand, just to give you a little ammo next time?

Whales and hippos? what in the hell does any of this have to do with the thread? Please go back and re-read the thread and then think about what it is all about then maybe you might wish to go post on another thread where you'll feel more at ease?

[mike2k1]

Well, I'll be a dirty ol' cow man if something ain't real familiar about some of the things in this thread.

By the way, telling someone to not post or to go post somewhere else to post is tripping the lines. I suggest you not do that.

[OklahomaSquatch]

Nobody asked you to respond to my comments. I simply disagreed with an opinion of yours, as did several others. I understand wanting to back up your opinion and all that, but come on. As I stated, if I'm so mixed up on my statements and ideas of what evolutionary theory is, just show me. I'm willing to learn.

You asked me to provide real world examples of animals that have two different size brains, are two different species, and evolved and adapted along two different lines. So I did. I won't be continuing this any further.

[Redwolf]

FoxJr. I am not sure where your confusion lies. You ask a question and Matt answered it. If you don't understand or agree with the answer that is another issue.

Tossing insults does nothing to bolster your argument. It only makes your argument look weak.

That said, humans are quite capable of sustaining themselves in the wild if they knew what to look for, and how and when to eat it. Humans have done this in the past and no longer need to. Nice to know we have something to fall back on though. If you fail to believe this then perhaps you should do some research on ethnobotony and wild foods. Very interesting reading. I highly recommend Native American Ethnobotany by Daniel Moerman.

Redwolf

[rockinkt]

I respectfully disagree with you Redwolf.
While you are no doubt correct regarding some climates or geographic zones - First Nation people in many areas of Canada lived very precarious existences and starvation was a fact of life.
That being said - without tools - survival in many places would have been impossible.

[Redwolf]

Point taken in regards to location, I should have been more specific.


RW

This post has been edited by Redwolf: Apr 1 2008, 07:31 PM

[RedRatSnake]

just how do you propose he seems to pop up in every backyard in the US, what exactly is he sustaining himself on?

Hi

I can state with complete certainty that BF has not been in my back yard, If BF were to come by and want to chow down, He could easily find the sirloin steak l leave out every night to bait him, All he has to do is cross over the Sagamore bridge leading into cape cod MA, walk down RT 6 and hook a left onto my street, there he will find the sign i have pointing him to the direction of the free meal, I also request he sign my guest book, Since there have been no signatures, I can with all certainly say he has not been there, So with that BF has not been in every backyard in the US, Sorry if this sounds a little out there but it is how i work, You have your way and i have mine

peace
Tim