Where's Sasquatch - What's Next
Editor’s Note: This is a guest post by Tom Fonner. He has been exploring the backcountry of Arizona for over 30 years. He enjoys the solitude and peace of the outdoors with a passion for wildlife, nature, and landscape photography, tracking, hiking, camping, and fishing. You can visit his blog at swbri.blogspot.com.It has been more than 40 years since the Patterson-Gimlin film was made, and the quest to find Sasquatch has produced very little evidence. With the exception of the footage of Patty, footprint casts and some hair samples are the only things we have that are accepted by most Bigfoot researchers as authentic. In the current judgmental climate surrounding the wave after wave of hoaxes, stories, fabrications, and fantasy filled accounts of Bigfoot/Sasquatch videos, photos and personal sightings will never be accepted as verifiable evidence. With this said, there has been little accomplished to establish Bigfoot/Sasquatch as a new species of primate with the exception of its heightened popularity.
Organizations, groups, and individuals throughout North America conduct field research, gather information, have their conferences and meetings, and search the internet for clues to help improve their efforts. Thousands of people all with the desire to prove that Bigfoot does exist and yet, with all this effort, we still fall short of our goal. There are many reasons for the lack of success in this relentless effort to find Sasquatch. Focusing on financial gain and recognition first, groups and individuals that do not publicize or share their results, flawed field techniques, lack of knowledge relating to primate and other animal behaviors, inability to track or recognized animal movement in a given terrain, not equipped to deal with rugged terrain, and in many cases just human laziness with the desire to go back to camp and have a few more beers.
Understanding the nature of an elusive giant and extremely rare primate is essential for its discovery. Speculation of where it can be found is often tainted by those who believe it exists in forested areas that realistically could not support such an animal. People let their misguided passions for this topic supersede any logic or intelligent discussion to the contrary. People will not consider the fact that any species needs a viable population to reproduce successfully and thrive in any given habitat. There is also the need for any animal to have an appropriate food source that is able to be replenished and be sustained over time. These two facts alone would eliminate the existence of a large 400 to 800 pound primate in most areas of North America.
The lack of a unified effort and consistency may actually be the hardest obstacle to overcome in the effort to find and verify Bigfoot's existence. The current state of investigative research is proving itself to be ineffective and this is unlikely to change unless their is cooperative interaction between those that actively search for Bigfoot. Active discussions between organizations of their preparations, techniques, locations, and other information would be a start to improve results. This is only likely to occur with groups that already have a history of interaction and trust within their ranks.
In previous articles I've advocated the need for a National Bigfoot Research Organization with a network of regionally established response teams that could be trusted to assist in the investigative process. A national organization and its regionally assisted teams could also evaluate evidence to determine authenticity and guarantee those submitting the evidence their rights to recognition or financial gain. Regional teams could evaluate and map out an area for continual study with the time and resources to dedicate to a project where a local group may not be able to follow up on results in a timely manor. Information would also be shared nation wide leading to improved results in the field. The development and implementation of a national organization may also be the key to encourage universities and the scientific community to assist in a broader study of Bigfoot/Sasquatch in North America which would lead to necessary funding. I don't believe that success can be achieved without the funding from established institutions. The establishment of a national organization will be predicated on the desire of organizations, groups, and individuals to strive for the verification of Bigfoot as a species in North America over their personal self centered agendas. I firmly believe that without a National Bigfoot Research Organization the lack of success over the past 40 years is likely to continue long into the future, and the current surge in interest of Bigfoot will fade over time resulting in another myth and legend.
I doubt that bigfoot is going to fade into myth this time around. They'll be verified as a species in a reasonable amount of time I'll bet.
ReplyDeleteYep, any day now. Yet I expect that in 50 years, the new bigfoot believers will be saying the exact same thing. "Any day now..."
DeleteHa ha. Whatever dude. I'm not even gonna argue a point because its like arguing with a brick wall. Why dont you apply some better skepticism-cause people like you make skeptics look bad.
DeleteI thought you didn't care about verification Okie?
DeleteOkie, you made the statement that the species will be verified in "a reasonable amount of time". I simply expressed by opinion that I disagree. I wasn't, nor was I claiming to, represent skepticism or skeptics.
DeleteBy the way, what's a "reasonable amount of time" for you? 1 year? 5 years?
Im not opposed to what I'd consider reasonable verification. But I dont care whether it happens or not really, which I have clearly stated multiple times. I wasn't stating that I expected the species to be verified for my satisfaction, only that I believed it would be verified. I believe it'll happen in then next couple of years.
DeleteAnd 451 your next post down seems pretty skeptical if you ask me. Pretty close minded to the possibility of a new discovery. But whatever man everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
Delete"Im not opposed to what I'd consider reasonable verification."
DeleteI'm not opposed to what I'd consider reasonable verification either. I am also not opposed to what I think about others. I am also not opposed to what I consider things that I like to eat. I am also not opposed to what I consider stupid comments.
I am, however, opposed to high gas prices.
I think that last statement is something everyone can agree on lol...
DeleteStating that discovering a new large land mammal on the North American continent is possible but unlikey = close minded?
DeleteHow is it close minded?
It just is. This Fonner dude's wrong, there's plenty of both space and food sources out there. We could survive out then so could Sasquatch, and likely is.
Delete"It just is"
DeleteWell, that settles it!
People shrieked video. When the Patterson film came along, the same people said, Not enough, we need physical evidence. Scientists locate dermal ridging and living prints with flexation, etc. The skeptics say, "not enough" we need more. The discovery of hair and skat from "unknown primate" is thought to be the dead ringer. Skeptics-No, that aint enough either. Now that the DNA tests are apparently on the verge of coming out, the skeptics are now squealing no, that isn't enough either.
DeleteIf a carcuss is paraded around for all the world to see, skeptics will still snort, "lie, hoax, freak of nature, etc.)
In short, people who have already had an encounter know they are real, many on the fringe of believing will state that the DNA confirms any doubt in their mind. The skeptics who demand proof, want more, etc. will never believe regardless of any evidence put forward. If the Sasquatch is captured and put in a zoo many of the people who post on this site will still refuse to believe. They will claim that a large fat hippy is being held against it will.
Yes, it's been 40 years since Patterson, Gimlin, and Heironymous hoaxed the bluff creek footage. This should be a marker of the start of modern sasquatch popularity, not a marker of the last great piece of film evidence (considering that it's a hoax.)
ReplyDeleteA new large land mammal has not been discovered on the North American continent in over 300 years. It's very, very unlikely that such new species exists. It's possible, but highly unlikely.
That footage is no fake, only troll lore. Whatever took place there exactly who knows but a genuine Sasquath gal that Patty is without any shadow of doubt. That's all been well established by now a good dozen times this Bob Wasisname is not worth anyone's serious time.
DeleteHey 451 if you really want to get critical about skepticism here, show us your CREDIBLE source exposing the Patterson-Gimlin footage as a hoax. Cause I've done quite a bit of research and have never seen anything that has conclusively identified Patty as a hoax. Would you mind proving your claim?
DeleteYou can't prove that it's real and you can't prove that it is.
DeleteOkie Dokie is on the attack again.
Not on the attack-if someone claims that it was a hoax why not ask for the source? If it was a hoax I'd certainly like to know-as would lots of other people I'm sure.
DeleteBTW 02:53 what's with the personal attack towards me anyway? I was just asking for proof and that's it.
DeleteThis will never be proven one way or the other. But given the long and sordid history of hoaxing in the field of bigfootery, and the distinct lack of an actual specimen, it's very likely a hoax.
DeleteIf you objectively look at Patterson's life/character and attempts at making money from bigfoot BEFORE the famous 1967 footage, the ad hominem argument that Patterson hoaxed the footages is very strong.
DeleteOkie, take a look at the PG footage thread on the JREF forums, they pretty conclusively prove that it's a hoax.
DeleteThe Randi geeks is the last place on Earth anybody sane would want to look, to think it's that fat fuck in a suit goes beyond any wild claims of Bigfoots. It's simply false, period. It's also been proven so by film examinations. Film's no hoax but a totally living specimen that's how it'll stay.
DeleteIf the reality of the Patterson film subject had been established, we would all be in agreement. Since we are not, it has not.
DeleteJREF says it all. Most of the people who visit JREF still think the world is flat, we are the center of the universe, and black people should still be sweeping the white mans floors and growing their crops. JFREF is the last place in the world a person would want to go to find open minded conversation.
DeleteThose loons will argue anything by saying, "Its a hoax because you can't prove it."
I can't see air but I know it is there and I need it to survive.
I've heard a lot of nonsense from bigfooters, but calling a respected educational foundation a bunch of idiots and racists takes the cake. Why don't all of you "researchers" take your evidence to Randi and get his million bucks if you're so confident that you can prove its existence.
DeleteApparently 451, you lack the understanding of the word CREDIBLE.
DeleteI think the fundamentalism of footer makes it impossible to have a discussion with them. If you point out that in all these years nothin has improved, no evidence has shown up, they point to the Mountain Gorilla as proof big animals can be discovered. Problem is, the first time they went looking for the Gorillas, THEY FOUND THEM!!!
ReplyDeleteWhen will you people lt it go? When will you understand you are chasing something that in all likelyhood doesn't exist? How many times will you wait for the big evidence only to be let down by hoaxes and lousy science?
I don't suspect any exist, but if you can provide me with some empirical evidence I am more than willing to change my mind. How willing are to change yours ? How long will it have to be with no evidence to finally admit that there is no Bigfoot?
Gee, when will trolls let it go? They strike me as the most fundamentalistic of all, for whatever reason it bothers them that people are out there searching.
DeleteWhy care then if there's nothing there, at least the people had an adventurous day out and their reasons for going is really none of your business, least of all since you're just sitting at home finding dick.
We found the Gorilla because that's an animal ape and whatever Bigfoot is they're certainly not that, so there's no reason at all to stop looking. If you don't look you'll never find anything, if we took that unscientific advice seriously none of the new species found in recent years would've come to light.
Somehow looking for a new primate is taboo, which leads me to wonder the motives of people like Nick Brick.
Ha 01:39 you hit the nail on the head. The thing about trolls is that driving people up the wall is their primary objective. It doesn't matter that people love to search for bigfoot or hold out hope that the species will be protected, our any of that, as far as trolls are concerned. Most likely they are afraid that the existence of a large hominid creature with intelligence that surpasses that of an ape is real. They must find it threatening or something to that effect. Most likely they've never even stepped foot in the woods and couldnt tell the difference between poison ivy and a cedar tree. Furthermore, they are everything that is wrong with the forum-the unbiased, true skeptics with legitimate arguments hate them and the advocates who are credible eyewitnesses, researchers, native americans, etc...hate them because they have no logical arguments.
DeleteNick, you used the term "empirical evidence". That scared these two so they had to lash out in anger rather than addressing your comment in a rational manner. This is the mind of a typical bigfoot zealot.
DeleteHa. Pointless to argue with trolls all over the place.
DeleteLook you little pussies, I'm tired of listening to your insane ramblings over an imaginary creature. I haven't been disrespectful to you. Yet since you have no logical answers nor evidence no nothing more than crazy beliefs you decide to attack me personally. Just better hope you never run into me in person or I will stomp you lying, pathetic, ignorant, retarded, non-scientific ass into the ground. You hear me boy. Shut your ignorant pie hole Or i will shut it for you.
DeleteGoddamn I'd love to see that!
DeleteCan't stand the ramblings? You came here of your own free will. Simple solution to that. Go away to an anger management program - and don't come back.
DeleteLots of guts posting under an anon name huh ?
DeleteIt's like arguing with Jesus freaks.... no evidence, nothing but blind faith. I was hoping to talk some sense into your idiots , but it's apparent that you'd rather just put your blinders on and ignore logic ,critical thinking and science and go with you faith in Bigfoot to save your souls...
Fine, just know that you aren't making the world any better, you are just making it more stupid.
As if "Nick B" isn't anonymous. Last name, Nick?
DeleteYeah Nick, "you little pussies" is totally respectful. And you are disrespectful all the time. If someone wants to have blind faith in bigfoot it shouldn't bother you. People like you are making the world ignorant and small minded. People like you are intollerant of anyone that is different from them. You expect us all to see the world as you see it, but that's not how it works.
DeleteI think Nick B is really Matt Moneymaker. That's how MM talks to anyone who disagrees with him.
DeleteNo, I expect people to be critical thinkers and not believe nonsense. Is it any coincidence that there isn't any empirical evidence for psychics, ghosts, UFO's Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster...etc? Any coincidence that anytime there is any sort of "breakthrough" in any of these things it turns out to be a hoax?
DeleteNope, cuz it's malarky. You believe in imaginary things. You might as well blame all of your problems on witches. It's just as likely as all these other things.HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Then wtf are you doing on a bigfoot site you nuthead? Okie's right, you're only making it worse mostly for yourself, Nicky. You shouldn't even be here with your aggressive attitude, now admit this subject is above your level of comprehension and take your loss somewhere else.
Deletecomprehension? I direct your attention to the bottom of the page nimrod
DeleteNick B. your same old tired arguments. You are definately a JREF candidate. What I find amusing about the jref losers are their biggest argument that "we are open minded." Yet they regurgitate the same puke time and time again. No credibility. Simply letting farts with your mouth. (or in this case, your fingers.)
DeleteI agree with much of what Nick B wrote. In an era in which high tech equipment is readily available to the masses, it seems highly unlikely that thousands of 800+ lb 8-10 feet tall primates are running around North America. It would be more plausible if this animal existed in a more remote part of the earth.
DeleteThat being said, not everyone out there is a kook blinded by their staunch belief in bigfoot. For those leaning toward skepticism such as Nick B yet still remaining open minded, a great resource is the late Dr. Grover Krantz's book Big Footprints. As an anthropologist at Washington state university for decades Dr. Krantz knew his stuff, and his arguments for the existence of bigfoot, based largely on his study of the available evidence, cannot be readily dismissed without consideration.
The problem with bigfoot is that they are seen everywhere in North America. If they do in fact actually exist, this is certainly not the case that they live everywhere. So, one cannot be criticized for having a healthy dose of skepticism regarding the validity of many sightings.
Another problem with the reality of bigfoot is that there is so much hoaxing and nuttiness associated with bigfoot that it's difficult for the world at large to separate the pssobile existance of an actual animal and what they read about bigfoot in the tabloid headlines in the grocery store check out aisle.
The fact is that if bigfoot does exist, it is unknown to science. Therefore, we simply do not know enough about this species or really understand anything about their anatomy. Who knows? There may be in fact a very simple yet effective reason that sasquatches have eluded humans for so long. They may have a defense mechanism that is entirely unique to this species (how many North American animals spray like a skunk?). They may have surprising yet effective ways to mask their presence. Who knows? Hikers and bikers may pass them in forested areas more often than many people realize. There may also be a physiological reason that they are able to avoid electronic devices such as camera traps. They may have super sensitive hearing like other animals in the world that, combined with their shyness, cause them to entirely avoid many man-made objects.
I am not a fundamentalist bigfooter trying to make excuses as to why there is no definitive proof yet of the existence of these animals. I am saying that, one day we might in fact know how they are able to remain elusive.
When respected primate/chimp expert Jane Goodall was asked about the existence of bigfoot, she said that she believes they exist because she has talked to so many people over the years who have seen them that she came to the conclsusion that they are real. Goodall then went on to say that, as for why we haven't been able to definitely prove their existence, she said, "I can't answer that question." Does that mean that they don't exist. No. That means that we don't yet know why they haven't been detected to the extent that they are proven to exist.
Respected, educated people such as Dr. Grover Krantz, Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Jimmy Chilcutt, and others have looked objectively at the evidence and have all been willing to risk their reputations by saying that an undocumented primate exists in North America.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence is the shear number of eyewitness accounts. Not all of the eyewitness accounts come from back country nut jobs. Teachers, a psychologists with a Ph.D, aerospace engineers, many truck drivers, many people from all walks of life have had eyewitness sightings. These many sightings combined with what Dr. Grover Krantz, Dr. Meldrum, finger print expert Jimmy Chilcutt and others seems to support the existence of such an animal rather than the belief that bigfoot is only merely folklore.
Why even be skeptical of a new primate like this? Where's the threat? If you can't imagine it's possible what are you even doing on a site like this, this place is for the openminded not the closeminded like the Randi losers. And lose they will, they just don't know it yet or like to hear it.
Delete"without a National Bigfoot Research Organization the lack of success over the past 40 years is likely to continue long into the future"
ReplyDeleteSomeone buy that man a chocolate fish! With all the secrecy and he-said-she-said it seems that the only way anything will be discovered is if everyone who is looking for them is allocated one body each. For a species whose numbers are likely limited, this lack of cohesion amongst those who claim to want to study and protect the species could well be it's downfall. If anyone has any evidence at all, it should be shared amongst everyone for the greater good. Failing to do so is serving personal interests and will do the beloved bigfoot no favours at all.
This animal is REAL. Skeptics are allowed to have their opinions as are believers. However, BOTH sides must be reasonable in the face of certain evidence or lack of. IMO the animal is real, but I will gladly concede a great amount of evidence is lacking. However, if the Ketchum's study comes out, skeptics, TRUE, UNBIASED, SCIENTIFIC skeptics, will have to conceded that the evidence may be overwhelming in favor of EXISTENCE.
ReplyDeleteI agree Blobsquatch. Real, genuine skeptics will accept credible evidence-hopefully the ketchum report turns out fairly credible! Lol
DeleteStill doesnt prove shit, just that she identified unknown DNA types....with no animal parts to connect the DNA and reproduce results it dont mean shit.
DeleteWho says they won't provide proof of the existence with some sort of anatomical evidence? Not sticking up for them-but I am sticking up for logic and it's plausible that they could provide physical evidence.
DeleteAnonymous' less-than-elegant comment is correct. The best believers can hope for is an inconclusive result. Since there is no bigfoot DNA for comparison, the results won't tell you if any of the samples are bigfoot or not.
DeleteActually if the DNA shows unknown nonhuman primate about eight feet tall, what do you suppose it is then? That's right, a new species.
DeleteDNA is not going to give you the physical estimates of a creature.
Delete"have to concede", sorry
ReplyDelete"have to concede", sorry
ReplyDeleteanother 50 years of tall storys, hoaxed videos, hoaxed prints, and no body. go figure.
ReplyDeleteYou forgot to include trolling.
Deletehow is that trolling? the last 50 years all those things have happened. thats a fact. so we can assume the next 50 years will be the same. go prove the ape is out there or stop crying when people point out the fact theres no proof.
DeleteBut when you post facts you are trolling.
DeleteYes this not a place for facts truth or rationality this is a bigfoot board
DeleteWell goodbye then, come back when we've found it and discuss it further then.
DeleteThis may not be absolutely related but I want to scribble down a few thoughts on this subject. I have been fashinated by the idea of unknown creatures since I was a child and over the years I have come to the conclusion that there are some of these creatures that might actually exist. I believe in the possibility of unknown seacreatures and of some sort of upright creature such as Sasquatch or the Yeti. This being said I do believe there is a big unspoken fear in these communities regarding the creature actually being accepted. The satisfaction of saying "told you so" will only last for so long and then what? I can only look to myself and conclude that I will not be very intrested in migration patterns etc after the creature has been verified. As humans we have a instinct to explore and seek the truth but not all have the special intrest in exploring every detail of each subject. If Sasquatch is scientifically accepted I do think a lot more evidence will surface very fast and leave many people with a feeling of emptiness, some may hang on to go deeper into the facts of Sasquatch, som may go to explore Nessie and others will have a religious awakening. People need the mystery as much as the facts.
ReplyDeleteJN
Sweden
i have been pondering why Melba would switch from DNA sequencing to using STR, that essentially just cuts the DNA into different length fragments and reports on the length of those fragments (which seem to me to be a modernized version of RFLP, which is pretty much obsolete with the new sequencers available).
ReplyDeleteAnyway obviously she is comfortable with the STR technique, as her author bio states she has a patent on some part of the use of that. whether it primers or a faster acting system - whatever.
Anyway, lets do a thought experment shall we!
Imagine you DNA samples keep coming out in the relm of humans. If in fact you had committed au priori to the existance of bigfoot - which is the essential opposite of the scientific method) you need an explanation for that.
One explanation would be that it was interbreeding - but not really, thats a hard point to defend,
so instead you switch techniques, modify it enough so you can get a patent on your version, and that version shows different peaks (different length fragments that other STR methodologies. You could then claim that your results support an unknown species, who is close to peaks provided by human DNA, but different.
Now you would have to ignore the fact that different primers would give you different peaks, and to counter that arguement you need to use your system on human DNA as well, but if you are a sloppy scientist, or a crooked one, your patented system now detects bigfoot DNA, when no other DNA test can differentiate!
So now you have a patented system that is the only one in the world capable of detecting BF DNA - how sweet (and financially rewarding) is that!
I'm now betting this is what we will see!
We will see something like this (thats if it even comes out) scientists will call it out for what it really is, while the bigfoot believers will now have undeniable proof. I heard she cancelled her appearance at a conference because her paper has been rejected yet again and has nothing she can share with the public yet.
DeleteWell done.
DeleteNick: Do you mean "later " claim your results support an unknown species, and the paper will be about the new methods and the never before seen peaks?
DeleteYou heard that because someone left a comment on this blot saying that. Doesn't mean its true.
Delete^ *blog, not blot
DeleteNo, I am saying that the DNA results are human, and that she will alter this by creating new primers that give new peaks and then claim these new peaks are evidence for a new primate. Yet if any outside scientist tries to verify they will get "modern human" and Ketchum will claim that only usin her method does the DNA result in bigfoot. Which will,of course, make mainstream science realize she made up her data and it's worthless. But footers (not being the most science savvy bunch) will eat it up and claim that the mean ole scientists are "covering it up" or "refuse to see the truth" when the reality is , she made it all up from regular old human DNA.
DeleteStill here, Nickie? You seem to want her to fail and that says a lot about you.
DeleteI would love for this to be true. But it isn't. All the evidence points to another con on the footer community. She has done things in regards to the paper that no other paper up for peer review has done. NDA's, no discussion of data. Papers on the weaponization of virus's haven't been under this scrutiny.
DeleteIt looks very very bad.
Like Monk says "you may be right, but I don't think so"
Nick: thanks for the response at 5:52. I assume by outside scientists you mean the reviewers of a respected journal, in which case few others scientists are likely to see it(ie rejected then self published in a book). I think it might be a legit study, only unable to decide the issue. There is plenty of space between fraud and noble prize!
DeleteTony
Please Nick, you're a troll. You post comments only to get a rise out of others. Get a different hobby.
Delete"Weaponizaton of viruses" ROFL Agree completely. Ketchum's study is a complete fail.
DeleteIt's funny and sad that he doesn't mention the possibility of the thing not existing as a reason for lack of evidence.
ReplyDeleteNothing, NOTHING!!!!, will prove the existence of bigfoot except a bigfoot body, live or dead.
ReplyDeleteAs others have pointed out on this site, if you are trying to prove bigfoot's existence and your attempts do not involve the gathering of a specimen, YOU ARE ENTIRELY 100% WASTING YOUR TIME!!!!
This is so true that I can't believe that anyone would argue with it. I don't know why people still go out in the woods with thermal imaging equipment, cameras, etc.
DeleteWell, I know why some of them do it. To get money from bigfoot enthusiasts.
Bigfoot will live on as long as money can be made.
Just shut up trolls, dammit. It will be what it will be and it'll surprise you all, so shut up already and relax.
DeleteI disagree with this statement:
ReplyDelete"There is also the need for any animal to have an appropriate food source that is able to be replenished and be sustained over time. These two facts alone would eliminate the existence of a large 400 to 800 pound primate in most areas of North America."
"At 1.4 billion acres, Canada's boreal forest is one of the last large, intact forest ecosystems remaining on Earth."
http://www.borealbirds.org/forest.shtml
I live in Alberta, I have been to the forests in my area and many other areas of northern Alberta. I always see game animals, whether it's deer, moose, elk or hares, I always see them.
There are plenty of sources of water and cover as well.
I've only covered a very tiny fraction of the province i live in, but everywhere I have been is full of life.
I do agree that a more organized effort needs to be made. Tom mentions a national organization. It would be nice to see Canada included in this. Perhaps a North American Organization would be more appropriate.
What do you surmise sasquatch's diet consists of? If game animals, any breeding population of an 800 lbs ape/manlike creature would have a significant impact on those populations. We aren't seeing such a population impact, so what are the bigfoots eating?
DeleteI agree that it should be a North American Bigfoot Organization. Of the 6 plus billion acres of North America, the most likely habitat would be the northwestern U.S. including parts of Alaska, and a large part of Canada. Even in these areas there are questions of what parts would be prime for supporting a large primate. The most important point that I stressed is the need for a comprehensive and trusted network and organization. Hopefully this can be accepted in the future. Southwest Bigfoot Research and Investigations is my blog site's name as well as the Facebook page. All discussions take place on Southwest Bigfoot Group on FB.
DeleteI understand and agree with your primary point Tom. I'll look up your group on Facebook.
DeleteI also agree that Sasquatch don't inhabit all forested areas. I consider myself fortunate to have so many opportunities to see vast tracts of forested land on a regular basis. I guess I got a bit caught up in that.
@451- You might be correct on the lack of a population impact. This could be for any number of reasons. If Sasquatch was removed from the equation, would the populations of game animals increase? There is no way of knowing the answer to this, I only wanted to present an alternative view.
Because Bigfoot has not been discovered, we don't know the impact they are having on the population of game animals.
There's plenty of deer for instance, we'll never ever run out of those just to name one possible food source. Water's plenty too and that's all you need basically and there's everything else really.
DeleteWe know approximately how many deer are in a given wilderness area, we know their population capacities based on available food sources, and we know how many are killed each year by hunters and.natural predators. If there were a breeding population of 800lbs bigfoots using deer as a food source, we'd see huge anomolous hole in the deer population. States know how many hunting permits to issue because they track deer populations, and they also track the populations of apex predators that prey on deer. There isn't a missing population of deer, which is what we'd see if a mystery animal was using them as a food source.
DeleteMaybe its being assumed that the deer they kill are dying of natural causes.
Delete451 deer populations are ESTIMATED. To say that we know how many are killed in a year by both hunters and predators-thats stepping way out on a limb. I live in southeast oklahoma and I can say that poaching goes on throughout the year and not a whole lot is done about it-why? Cause theres so many goddamn deer that we are practically running over the damn things at certain times throughout the year. A small population of sasquai would have minimal impact on deer populations-especially since they are most likely omnivorous.
DeleteSorry I just got off cracked.com and it amped me up-hence the profanity lol
Deleteenough of your bitching 451 get that cock outta your eyes and realize tat bigfoots are the real deal. I hope they steal you when your camping in and sodomize you. In the ass!
ReplyDeleteI hope so too, sounds kinky!
Delete;)
Very classy, Anonymous. Way to bring absolutely nothing to the conversation.
DeleteOutstanding job on the article Tom. SWP
ReplyDeleteThanks
DeleteOk, thought I would add my 2 cents in here.
ReplyDeleteThe food issue has been a topic for quite sometime and I just want to try to share my opinions on it. It is suggested that in the regions that sasquatch are purported to exist that there wouldn't be an adequate food supply to sustain a population of giant primates.Some people even have went so far as to suggest that it would have to hibernate in order to survive in the the northern climates.
First the food issue:
1) there are carnivores such as wolves, weasels, birds of prey and big cats that thrive in many of the same regions that sasquatches are seen. Deer are not the only source of protein for predators. Fish, rabbits, rodents and insects/worms are also good sources of protein.
2)One source of protein that aids in sustaining deer and squirrel populations in the winter time are nuts such as acorns. Now, I am not really sure what sort of nuts are found up in the PNW, but here in Kentucky acorns are abundant and so are walnuts. In some years, huge amounts can be found if there has been a really wet summer (seems like that is the reason anyway).
3)One thing that I have not heard anyone mention is that maybe these other predators are also on a sasquatch's menu as well. Just something to think about.
4)Herds of deer, elk, and caribou are also sustained during the winter months. How do they do it? I am talking herds here not just one or even ten. Just one bull moose can weigh in at 800 lbs. I am not sure if they travel in herds or not (I don't think they do) but it requires a lot of food per day to live on. Where does it get this food during the winter time? Elk also get really big. A bull elk can weigh in around 27-800 lbs just like a moose. How do they sustain during the winter?
5)Bears are omnivores and like wolves and wolverines are also opportunistic feeders as well, meaning they will eat dead animals.
This is just my opinion, but I believe that if sasquatches are real, that their population numbers aer very small and travel either in family groups or alone. I don't think they travel in larger groups like deer or wolves. Regardless, my point is that there isn't that many to compete with and it is probably a good bet that a sasquatch has evolved to be able to sustain itself on various food sources that sustain other wildlife populations.
One more thing that we need to take into consideration is a bigfoot's immense size. Right now we have no idea what is responsible for that. We don't know if it consumes large amounts of calories or if there is something else that is responsible for it's tremendous bulk. It would be interesting to know if they have lower levels of myostatin compared to other primates.
As far as hibernation and making it through the winter months. Many animals can make it through with no problem. Most are fur bearing animals that develope a winter coat. The Japanese snow monkey is a great example of a cold weather primate. Slow acclimation to cold weather also needs to be taken into consideration along with the anatomy of a sasquatch's hair. We just do not know anything about it along with it's metabolism or it's fall and summer eating habits. Does it fatten up? Plus it's possible that it will utilize whatever shelter that it can find.
Well..anyway these are just my thoughts and I believe that there is enough out there to sustain these animals, apes, beings..whatever you want to call them.
"27-800"
ReplyDeletethat's 7-800 lbs for all u grammar nazis out there. ;)
I have been up since 3 am...I am tired.
Also one more thing to point out, a carnivore doesn't have to eat as often as a herbivore. Herbivores must constantly eat to maintain their weight because their foods of choice are low in calories. If a sasquatch was an omnivore or an opportunistic feeder then it wouldn't have to contend with this issue, especially in the winter months especially if it consumed the entire corpse (bones and all) like wolverines and wolves.
ReplyDeleteLOL...I'm probably wrong about all this crap I just posted but I don't care.
Hi thеre, all the time і usеd tο
ReplyDeleteсheck wеbsіte pοstѕ here
in thе еarly hourѕ in the daylight, sincе і loѵe to
find out more аnd moге.
My ωeb blog Chemietoilette