Jump to content






Photo

Sasquatch blanket statements

Posted by Insanity , in cryptozoology 25 November 2012 · 1,465 views

sasquatch skepticism cryptozoology
I had initially started this as a response to a thread in the Cryptozoology section, but my response began to include several quotes, grew lengthy and I felt the need to reference some facts.  Another person that I had been discussing the subject with suggested I do so as a blog.

Firstly, I am not saying that Sasquatch definitely exists, but there is the possibility.  Skeptics want to use blanket statements to discount the possibility, often do not consider the facts concerning these blanket statements, and often are using the lack of evidence as proof of non-existence.  The lack of solid evidence does not preclude the possibility of existence.  At best it can be said that the existence is unknowable.

Probably the most common blanket statement is along the idea that as the country is so highly populated, or that cameras are everywhere, that any such creature would have been discovered already, and as it hasn’t, it can’t exist.

While the country is indeed highly populated and we do have some advanced technology at our disposal, the fact is most of the population resides in a very small area of the country.

Using the US 2000 census places data, after removing places for Hawaii and Puerto Rico, there is population and land area data for 25,019 places (cities, towns, boroughs, municipalities, villages and other Census-designated places).[1]  This data shows that 73% of the US 2000 population (which was 281,421,906)[2] resided within 4.6% of the country’s land area.

It also has not changed much, the US 2010 Census places data[3] (29,110 places) shows 73.6% of the population (US 2010 population was 308,745,538) resided within 5.3% of the country’s land area.

The states generally considered to be the Pacific Northwest region of the US are Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.  Individually Idaho has 70% of its population residing within 1.0% of its area, Oregon has 79% within 1.6% and Washington has 82% within 5.1%.  Combined the US portion of the Pacific Northwest has 79% of the population residing within 2.4% of the area.

Canada is not too different.  Wikipedia has some limited information on the 100 largest municipalities in Canada[4], and showing that 64% of the population residing within 1.1% of the area.

Combining these two countries, almost 73% of the US and Canadian population resides in about 3% of the land area.

Many sightings take place outside a city limit, often in a wilderness environment, and simply most people are not in the correct environment to begin with.

The types of people who are typically in the correct environment are those who hunt, fish, go camping, backpacking or some other outdoor activity that takes them outside of city limits.  There are not that many hunters in actuality, as of 2006, the number of hunters in the US were 12.5 million,[5] or about 4% of the population at the time (298,593,000).[6]  The number of registered hunters has been in a decline over the years as well.  I do not have figures to represent the people who engage or participate in other activities such as the camping and hiking as typically they do not need to register for a license, or what number take cameras.  As I am sure there is some overlap of activities, i.e. campers going hiking, or fishers going hunting, the percentage would likely not be significantly higher.  Using the percentage of the population that does own cameras might be a reasonable method to estimate the number of these people that own cameras, but still leaves the number in the field as unknown, but presumably low.

Additionally, the US has a lot protected areas.  As of 2005, there was a total of 1,583,330 sq mi[7] of protected areas which is about 16.5% of the land area.  These areas have not been heavily modified by humans, and are less frequently visited.

Simply there are not enough eyes or lenses to put the entirety of the country under any sort of consistent surveillance frequently enough.

Another common blanket statement used frequently is the suggestion that environmentalists or ecologists would somehow be aware of any impact being caused by an unknown ape species, but since we have no evidence of such an impact, Sasquatch can't exist.

It is unlikely that any impact would be noticed even if it was there, as the North American ecosystem is a very complex network of thousands of plant and animal species covering a very large area.  Complex and large enough in fact, that safe to say, we do not have a comprehensive understanding of it.  At best we have estimates of the population of certain species, and some theory models on the interaction of these species.  To have the type of understanding to see such a specific effect of one species would require an extensive surveying of the population of several species on a very regular basis, something that is not happening.  I am not aware of any organization, governmental or private, which is undertaking the task of tagging every large animal, and then repeating the task each season to account for births and deaths.  It would be impossible.  Likewise there is no exact information on the stock of wild food sources for these animals.  All we have are estimates and models, nothing exact or precise.

Considering that most known ape species are herbivores, some being omnivores, with chimpanzees being one of the exceptions which does hunt for meat,[8] it is likely any unknown ape species would also be herbivorous or perhaps omnivorous.  There are a lot of edible wild plant species throughout North America, at least a 1,000 of them.[9]  Numerous animal species compete for these food sources and those likely to be in competition with any unknown ape species are deer and other ruminants, and bears.  In North America, there are estimated to be around 30 million white-tailed deer,[10] about 800,000-1,300,000 moose[11], and over a million elk[12].  Total bear population of all species is estimated over a million.[13][14][15]  The possibility to determine what any ecological impact an ape population would have among the tens of millions of other large animals consuming the same food sources across the same overlapping ranges would be rather difficult, and becomes more difficult the smaller that ape population may be.

While I personally do not readily subscribe to Sasquatch hunting deer regularly, if they did, that adds a significant calorie intake in their diet as meat has a higher caloric density then most vegetation.  As we now know, there are plenty of deer.

We also should consider that the North American continent has been able to support populations of several large bodied herbivores and omnivores for tens of thousands of years.  The Pleistocene epoch had giant sloths, bears, mammoths and mastodons, horses, and bisons as some examples.[16]  Since the Pleistocene, the continent has continued to support a rather large population of deer, other ruminants and bears.  We could also possibly consider the pre-Columbian Native Americans in this as well.

The discovery of the Bili ape was being used as an example of a recent discovery of a large ape previously unknown, and it was suggested that this discovery, in such a hostile area (Democratic Republic of the Congo) shows Sasquatch doesn’t exist in North America.

While the discovery was made in a fairly short time, the Bili forest is of significantly smaller area then North America, roughly 27 sq mi.[17]  The surrounding area may be more hostile due to political reasons, but the area to be searched was about the size of Virginia Beach, and the discovery was not immediate.  Even with the lack of hostility in North America, searching is more difficult as the search area is comparatively enormous, about 150,000 times larger then the Bili Forest.  I do not know the number of man hours it took to document the Bili ape, but it would not be unreasonable that the number of man hours needed to document the Sasquatch would be comparable in number, perhaps lessened a bit due to less hostility, but it would still be a large number of hours.

Additionally some people say that as apes are social and vocal, an ape is not a good candidate for the Sasquatch.

While most apes are social, they can also be solitary, with the orangutan is a prime example.[18]  A few other primates are as well, some lemurs and lorises.[19]  It is not unreasonable to assume that the social structure of any unknown ape species would fall somewhere between being social in small groups, like gorillas and chimpanzees, or mostly solitary like the orangutan.

Apes can be rather vocal, the howler monkey earned its name for a reason.  However, as pokingjoker and Steve Plambeck offered, primates and wildlife in general can be extremely stealthy when they want to.  Wildlife in general know when and how to shut up and remain unseen, and it is possible to be in close proximity to a common species like deer and not even be aware of it.  Steve Plambeck mentioned that Karl Ammann’s findings about the Bili apes could be termed an “avoidance index”, with a rate of aversion to humans directly proportional to the proximity of human habitations.  The Wikipedia article on the Bili expeditions states it was not until the research group was further then 18 km from Bili, that Bili apes were encountered that did not flee from humans immediately.[20]  It is not unreasonable to assume other ape species, known or unknown, could exhibit the same behavior, and purposefully avoid contact with humans.

In regards to the apparent lack of vehicle accidents involving Sasquatch; accidents are just that, accidents.  The frequency in which they occur is due to probability.  The number of wildlife vehicular accidents that occur in a specific timeframe is directly proportionally to the number of vehicles and wildlife in that area.  It also depends on the behavior of the animal and if it’s normal habits bring it near roads.  I have observed deer waiting next to a busy road for traffic to clear long enough, hopefully, for it to attempt crossing.  It is not unreasonable to assume that other animals would be capable of avoiding traffic, perhaps more so with primates including Sasquatch.  Deer and bears are hit often simply because there are a sizable number of them, particularly with deer.

Yosemite was mentioned as an example, as a statistic of 17 bears being hit in Yosemite this year alone.[21]  The same source places the bear population of Yosemite at 300-500.[22]  This means that a population of 300-500 bears in that area is needed for 17 vehicular accidents to occur in a year or so.  If the bear population was 30-50, the number of accidents would be close to 1.7 a year, and over 10 years, 17 on average would occur.  If the population was 3-5, it would be almost 10 years before a single accident occurred.

There is perhaps no better source concerning deer-vehicle accidents that an insurance company and State Farm says that there were an estimated 1.09 million deer-vehicle collisions between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011.[23]  As the deer population is around 30 million, the number of vehicle collisions with deer is about 3.6% of the population, which is actually close to the percentage of bear accidents in Yosemite (17/500 = 3.4%).  The fact that no Sasquatch-vehicle accidents reported could simply be due to a low population of the species, and that a primate may be more likely to be able to avoid getting hit then other animals.

We should also be aware of the fact that several species of hominidae had existed contemporary over the last several millenniums, and continue to do so today.  Fossil evidence does support that at least one species of ape of the approximate size reported with Sasquatch, Gigantopithecus blackii[24], which was contemporary with Homo sapiens and Homo erectus.  While the same fossils have not been found in North America, they have been found in the same regions from which it is accepted that humans migrated from into North America.[25]  Other non-human primate fossils have been found in North America.[26][27][28], and while not apes by any means, North America has had its own non-human primates.  The accepted extinction date for G. blackii is around 100,000 years, which is an extremely short period of time on the geological scale.

Generally the extinction of a species is dated by the youngest fossil discovered, and if the youngest fossil is 200,000 years old, then that becomes the accepted extinction date.  While it may be a fair method when speaking of species millions of years old, it not the best method for more recent species as fossilization is a rare event, as is finding fossils.  Fossil evidence may suggest that a particular species went extinct some time ago, but that certainly does not mean it did, and it is quite possible for members of that species to be living well past the accepted extinction date.  Coelacanths are an excellent example, thought to have gone extinct 66-100 million years ago, yet discovered alive in 1938.[29]  There have been several species that were presumed extinct, some only initially described from fossils and never seen alive before, yet rediscovered to be living today.[30]  The fossil record is far from being complete as fossils are often fragmentary.  If the lack of fossils was proof of non-existence, then we’ve proven our living Coelacanths don’t exist.

I found an article that was recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences entitled Metabolic constraint imposes tradeoff between body size and number of brain neurons in human evolution,[31] which was an interesting read in regards to this subject.  In short, it was a study into viable combinations of body masses and brain sizes among various primate species given their daily caloric intake.  What was interesting is the research does seem to support that a 227kg (500 lb) ape with approximately the same number of brain neurons as a gorilla is a viable combination even if its feeding time was restricted to 10 hours a day.  They had considered 10 hours a day as a practical limitation of available hours of feeding in the research.  Extending the time to a little over 11 hours a day allows a viable combination of the same number of brain neurons, but with a body mass of around 500kg (1,110lbs).  This does not assume any changes in the average caloric content of the raw food used for all the primate species in the research, the only assumption is additional hours to feed per day.  A reproduction of Figure 5 is attached and other then adding the representations for longer feeding hours, made no other assumptions were made.

While the existence of Sasquatch is yet to be determined, the possibility is certainly there.  A creature very similar to what is reported has existed before, and the PNAS article suggests that a primate of the reported sizes is a viable biological possibility.  If it does exist, as to why it has not been discovered yet is a sum of all mentioned here.  The search area is far larger then most people think they know it is, a majority of that area is not under any sort of consistent surveillance, few people go into the correct environment to witness a sighting or capture footage, and if it purposely avoids people, as documented among ape species, it not too surprising that it could have remained elusive all these years.

Unfortunately the existence will likely remain unknowable as proving it really requires physical evidence in the form of a specimen, live or dead.  Even the recovery of partial skeletal remains would satisfy many scientists, or should, as the same has often been used to document other species.



[1] http://www.census.go...r/places2k.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States
[3] http://www.census.go...etteer2010.html
[4] http://en.wikipedia....a_by_population
[5] http://www.fws.gov/h...g/huntstat.html
[6] http://en.wikipedia....ital_statistics
[7] Chape S., Spalding M., Jenkins M.D. (2008) The World’s Protected Area.
[8] http://en.wikipedia....r_and_cognition
[9] Merritt Lyndon Fernald, Reed C. Rollins, Alfred C. Kinsey (2011). Edible Wild Plants of Eastern North America.
[10] http://en.wikipedia....an_interactions
[11] http://en.wikipedia....ose#Populations
[12] http://en.wikipedia....k#Introductions
[13] http://en.wikipedia...._and_population
[14] http://en.wikipedia....ion_and_habitat
[15] http://en.wikipedia....i/Grizzly#Range
[16] http://en.wikipedia....a#North_America
[17] http://www.karlamman...winter2004.html
[18] http://en.wikipedia....tan#Social_life
[19] http://en.wikipedia....tary_but_social
[20] http://en.wikipedia...._field_research
[21] http://www.nps.gov/y...t/bearfacts.htm
[22] http://www.nps.gov/y...ience/bears.htm
[23] http://www.statefarm...isions-fall.asp
[24] http://en.wikipedia....pithecus_blacki
[25] http://en.wikipedia....Gigantopithecus
[26] http://www.utexas.ed...fossil_primate/
[27] http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Notharctus
[28] http://en.wikipedia....Anaptomorphinae
[29] http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Coelacanth
[30] http://en.wikipedia....ing_fossil_taxa
[31] http://www.pnas.org/...1.full.pdf html

Attached Thumbnails

  • Attached Image






QuiteContrary
Nov 26 2012 05:19 AM
Excellent blog entry. You’ve given this a lot of thought and put in some work. It’s obvious this topic means a lot to you. It does me too, just from a different perspective. Although I’d love to know they were real.
I offer a few thoughts, and questions. These are mine only, and don’t reflect on any other skeptic or skepticism in general. There are many other posters who would do a better job.
Your words are in boldface, my replies are not.

At best it can be said that the existence is unknowable.
Some mainstream scientists do say “No, there is not an undiscovered upright “bigfoot” species walking around North America.

Probably the most common blanket statement is along the idea that as the country is so highly populated, or that cameras are everywhere, that any such creature would have been discovered already, and as it hasn’t, it can’t exist
Check the bigfoot sighting maps, that is all any of us can do to. Because it takes people to get a sighting posted, BF obviously (maps), is seen by people.
He is seen where hunters have 100’s of thousands of trail cameras posted.
And people do catch photos of bigfoot, all the time. But every time they are ambiguous or under suspicious circumstances or controversial or not shared with the scientific community. And all this happens without mainstream science even taking notice of what would be a once in the history of humans, discovery.

Another common blanket statement used frequently is the suggestion that environmentalists or ecologists would somehow be aware of any impact being caused by an unknown ape species, but since we have no evidence of such an impact, Sasquatch can't exist.

It is unlikely that any impact would be noticed even if it was there, as the North American ecosystem is a very complex network of thousands of plant and animal species covering a very large area.  Complex and large enough in fact, that safe to say, we do not have a comprehensive understanding of it.
I’ll need some more science to back up your statement regarding the environmental impact of a 400-800 animal would go unnoticed.
Not to mention he eats where people do live. People see him eating and stealing and hunting animals.

Additionally some people say that as apes are social and vocal, an ape is not a good candidate for the Sasquatch.
How do you define ape? As opposed to Sasquatch being what? I need a definition. Ape or Human can be subjective.

The fact that no Sasquatch-vehicle accidents reported could simply be due to a low population of the species, and that a primate may be more likely to be able to avoid getting hit then other animals.
But there have been hits and near misses reported and Bf stopping in the street to stare at the driver. That is risky, not smart. His bravado over his brains?

Fossil evidence does support that at least one species of ape of the approximate size reported with Sasquatch, Gigantopithecus blackii[24],
Is Gigantopithecus included in mainstream science?

Fossil evidence may suggest that a particular species went extinct some time ago, but that certainly does not mean it did, and it is quite possible for members of that species to be living well past the accepted extinction date.
Remember, we are talking about a very large modern species in breeding numbers. Roaming into our sights all the time.

What was interesting is the research does seem to support that a 227kg (500 lb) ape with approximately the same number of brain neurons as a gorilla is a viable combination even if its feeding time was restricted to 10 hours a day.  They had considered 10 hours a day as a practical limitation of available hours of feeding in the research.  Extending the time to a little over 11 hours a day allows a viable combination of the same number of brain neurons, but with a body mass of around 500kg (1,110lbs).  This does not assume any changes in the average caloric content of the raw food used for all the primate species in the research, the only assumption is additional hours to feed per day.  A reproduction of Figure 5 is attached and other then adding the representations for longer feeding hours, made no other assumptions were made.

I would think, eating 10-11 hours per day would make a 400-800lb species vulnerable to detection and collection of evidence.
What of those sasquatch who’ve discovered  the ease and taste of livestock and chickens. Again, this is reported by eye-witnesses, the reports being the only evidence of behaviors we have.
And if they communicate and are social at all, would they tell others where to get this food? Some farmer, actually more than one has had to have shot one or two or more.

I think one critical fact, left out in your blog, is that all I have to go on is what witnesses say. I can’t make up an animal with certain characteristics out of thin air. This creature has reported habits and ranges and characteristics and food sources by witnesses.  These alone should be identifiable and  contain collectible evidence.

The very existence of this creature is based on eye-witnesses accounts, not a body or a skeleton or bones. We know how it behaves, where it lives, what it eats, that it has been hit by cars and had close calls with vehicles. One can’t ignore the only evidence we have- these eye-witness accounts.

We can’t redesign the creature to fit possibilities, or we might as well throw out all the eye-witness accounts and then you are left with nothing.

And what exactly is bf? Witnesses say, “I couldn’t shoot it was too human”. "It walked upright" "It growled" "It was covered in hair" "It howled"  If this animal is a result of mating  humans with another species which, yes, has happened in the past. What/when stopped this breeding interaction? Where did it get its size? Again, is Gigantopithecus even in mainstream science? And where?
  • Report

QuiteContrary
Nov 26 2012 05:39 AM
And to add: my comment hasn't been approved yet. All the BF footprint sightings and photos and casts again, require humans to be there to witness the prints. We know where they walk. Where we are.
  • Report

QuiteContrary
Nov 27 2012 07:44 PM
Hello! I finally found my answer to my question: Is Gigantopithecus in mainstream science? Yes, it is.

G went extinct 300,000 years ago and was believed to be a lumbering quadruped, related to an orangutan, rather than an agile, swift, upright walker. And upwards of 10 feet tall and 1200 lbs.
  • Report

Steve Plambeck
Nov 28 2012 12:24 AM
Yes, Gigantopitheus is officially recognized.  There is some disagreement over the dating of the youngest finds, with a proposed age as recent as 100,000 considered.  As Insanity took pains to point out, date of the most recent fossil does not equate to extinction date.  There are no post-cranial remains among the G. fossils, in fact we only have teeth and one and a half lower mandible.  So there is no basis for any speculation about these animals locomotion, agility, speed, etc.  Even extrapolating overall body size from teeth alone is an iffy proposition (Panda's have large heads and huge teeth, but relatively tiny bodies; this could even be the case with G. as they may have shared similar diets).
  • Report
Same format, your responses bolded, mine are not.  A few of your thoughts or questions I did not respond to directly as they seemed to be more you think-typing.

Some mainstream scientists do say “No, there is not an undiscovered upright “bigfoot” species walking around North America.

Being undiscovered does not preclude any existence, and scientists are not infallible.

Mainstream science is simply the common current thought of the majority, and does change with time.

The focal infection theory of the tonsils was once a medical fact, mainstream science, and resulted in millions of people having dental extractions and surgeries, yet the original science of it was discredited in the 1950s.[1]  The Clovis First theory is another example of mainstream science that has since been discredited, and it seems that the primary support for the theory was the lack of any solid evidence of  pre-Clovis human inhabitations.[2]

Plate tectonics was strong criticized when the theory was first proposed around 1912[3], and while I am not sure if the term ‘fringe science’ was used then or not, it fell into that category at the time and had many strong opponents..  For those wishing to stride away from the mainstream, it is often suggested to examine this example when it comes to developing their ‘fringe’ theory.

Scientists do make statements and are later proven to wrong.  Lord Kelvin made a few of them, including calculating in 1898 that the Earth only had 400 years of oxygen left, and was skeptical of X-rays, and regarded them as a hoax without reviewing the evidence.[4]

The luminiferous aether and phrenology are other examples of scientific theories that were once regarded highly, only to be discredited later.

Remember too that there was a time when it was common belief, or mainstream, that the Earth was flat, was the center of the solar system with the Sun and planets orbiting it before Copernicus shown otherwise.

Particularly in the fields of archaeology or paleontology, where we have far less then a complete picture of the past, and the mainstream view at times is quite speculative.  This is not to be disrespectful of those involved in the research, but we do need to understand that as we have yet to uncover all that is to be found, that this is simply the situation.

Check the bigfoot sighting maps, that is all any of us can do to. Because it takes people to get a sighting posted, BF obviously (maps), is seen by people.
He is seen where hunters have 100’s of thousands of trail cameras posted.
And people do catch photos of bigfoot, all the time. But every time they are ambiguous or under suspicious circumstances or controversial or not shared with the scientific community. And all this happens without mainstream science even taking notice of what would be a once in the history of humans, discovery.


In regards to be discovered, I do not simply mean being sighted, I mean documented as a living species by science.

The gorilla was sighted by Europeans centuries before it was documented as a living species.  Andrew Battell, a British explorer, reported two ‘monsters’ during his trip in Africa around 1625, the Pongo (gorilla) and the Engeco (chimpanzee).  He described the Pongo as “…in all proportions like a man, but that he is more like a giant in stature than a man…His body is full of hair…”[5]  There is some dispute if what he saw were gorillas instead of bushmen, but it is likely that sightings of the gorilla by European explorers did take place during the 17th and 18th centuries.  The gorilla was not described as a species until 1847 by Thomas Staughton Savage and Jeffries Wyman[6], but they were well known to the locals for centuries prior.

Do we know that there are indeed hundreds of thousands of trail cameras?  I have seen figures that thousands have been sold, but no figures as to how many are posted in the field.  Even if there were hundreds of thousands trail cameras, it would not be enough to adequately cover the area, as these trail cameras can only cover a small area at a time.

If you remove the total area occupied by the places in the US 2010 Census data that leaves 3,592,556 sq mi to be considered the search area.  That is a lot of area to be covered.  TrailCamPro[7] sells thousands of trail cameras and also tests them.  They tested the detection zone of 39 models and the data is available there.  The full results also include the field of view for most of the models (two did not), and using the detection range, we can determine the average area that these cameras can view.  As the camera will not take a picture of anything outside the detection range, that is our limit of view range as well.  For almost all models, the field of view was 42°, with a single exception of 54°, and the detection range was from 33 to 79 ft.  To calculate the view area is geometry, and the average of the 37 models is 995 sq ft.  If there were 500,000 cameras posted, only about 18 sq mi would be covered at a time, a very small percentage of the area, 0.0005% in fact.  If we wish to assume every hunter (or at least in 2006, the 12.6 million) owned and posted one, they would still only cover 450 sq mi, or 0.0125% of the total.  There would need to be a billion trail cameras posted to be able to view 1% of the area.

The search area in question is larger then most people think it is, and we do not have it under any type of constant surveillance.

I’ll need some more science to back up your statement regarding the environmental impact of a 400-800 animal would go unnoticed.

Unfortunately there are no feasible methods for doing an exact count of any wildlife populations.  The exceptions to this would be for species that are in very small numbers and within a very small area.  The wolves and moose on Isle Royale in Michigan is an example of this.[8]  It really is not about the science, it is about being impractical.

I found an article relating to estimating the bear population within the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE).[9]

The article states that the study to estimate the grizzly bear population began in 2002 and used more than 2,500 hair traps plus visiting 4,795 natural bear rubs more than 18,000 times.  Then during the summer of 2004, 210 technicians analyzed 33,741 hairs and performed genetic analysis on the hairs to arrive at a number of unique individuals, and thus came to an estimated population of 765 bears within the 12,200 sq mi research area.

I don’t know the exact man hours this project took, but I would not be at all surprised if it was in the tens of thousands, if not potentially over a hundred thousand or more.  It spanned about two years, involved at least two hundred people, for an area less then 1% of the country.  If they wanted to know an estimate for following years, the same amount of work would be required.

Here is another article that does describe the task of estimating wildlife populations as difficult and time consuming, entitled; Wildlife population monitoring; some practical considerations.[10]

Most methods of estimating wildlife population involve counting them, either directly or indirectly, such as counting signs of them; such as nests, scat, remains, and tracks.  Attempting to estimate a population solely on measuring its food sources would be impractical and likely flawed in its results.  The study would have to decide on what food sources to measure, which potentially could be hundreds of species, go into the field and measure the amount of these food sources available prior to being consumed, and then again after being consumed, which may be months apart.  As several other species would likely be feeding on the same sources, you would then have to determine, somehow, what percentage of the consumed food sources was consumed by the target species, which would likely be impossible.

I’ll have to be rather speculative here perhaps to illustrate this, but if we could estimate the biomasses of the various large-bodied species in North America.

Biomass is simply the mass that a species has within an area, simply population multiplied by mass.  In this speculative example, the mass here is the average between male and female, assuming the population would be 50% of each, using the estimated populations from my first post, then we have the biomass and the percentage of the total biomass of all the species that species represents.  I had used 350kg for a male Sasquatch, 230kg for a female, for an average of 290kg, and then a population of 800 as you suggested.

**Edit** Wasn't aware tables couldn't be posted, so then
Species -- Mass (kg) -- Est. Pop. -- Est. Biomass (kg) -- Percent of Total
Deer -- 110 -- 30 million -- 3.3 billion -- 75%
Moose -- 530 -- 1.3 million -- 690 million -- 16%
Elk -- 286 -- 1 million -- 290 million -- 6%
Black Bear -- 210 -- 465,000 -- 98 million -- 2%
Brown Bear -- 360 -- 109,250 -- 39 million -- 0.9%
Sasquatch? -- 365 -- 800 -- 232,000 -- 0.005%

Any estimate would have a margin of error, though we may not know what that is, i.e. the deer population may be estimated at 30 million, but could be ± 300,000 or some other figure.  What I am suggesting is that our margin of error would likely be greater then any evidence for a Sasquatch population.  An analogy would be tuning through the wide band of ecological static to find the very small Sasquatch signal that may exist.

How do you define ape? As opposed to Sasquatch being what? I need a definition. Ape or Human can be subjective.

Apes are generally defined as tailless primates that belong to the superfamily of Hominoidae, which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutan and humans.[11]

Humans are members of a specific genus Homo, of which there have been several species on the planet[12], with H. sapiens sapiens, our species, being accepted as the only living species.

Bipedalism has only evolved among a few species; birds and dinosaurs, kangaroos, homininan apes, plus a few species of hopping mice.[13]  As most sightings describe a hairy, bipedal humanoid creature, it likely belongs to the hominoidae family.

But there have been hits and near misses reported and Bf stopping in the street to stare at the driver. That is risky, not smart. His bravado over his brains?

Driving a car in itself is risky, considering there are oncoming vehicles traveling at speeds upwards of 75mph that could cross the lanes at any given moment unexpectedly, yet many of us do this every day.  The fact that there were 70,000 pedestrian crashes in 2010[14] could be seen as a credit to our own species.

Is Gigantopithecus included in mainstream science?

Hello! I finally found my answer to my question: Is Gigantopithecus in mainstream science? Yes, it is.
G went extinct 300,000 years ago and was believed to be a lumbering quadruped, related to an orangutan, rather than an agile, swift, upright walker. And upwards of 10 feet tall and 1200 lbs.


Correct, in fact there are three described species of Gigantopithecus, with G. blackii being thought to be the largest.[15]  The wikipedia article states an extinction date of 100,000 years ago, so we could say that G. blackii probably went extinct some 100,000 to 300,000 years ago, which is a very brief length of time on the geological scale.  As there have been several species were thought to have gone extinct even further back in history, only to be found alive in modern times, who can say that G. blackii or some descendent may not still exist.

Steve Plemback is correct that Gigantopithecus is only known from a few jaw bones and several teeth, and even though these remains are appreciably larger then that of living gorillas, speculating on its size, gait and agility is just that, speculation.

I would think, eating 10-11 hours per day would make a 400-800lb species vulnerable to detection and collection of evidence.

Consider that the area is under far less surveillance then most people think it is, plus the potential of actively avoiding humans.  I recall reading once of a researcher taking photographs of a chimpanzee’s footprints that was allowed to walk across some wet sand.  He noted that in almost all cases after leaving its footprints, the chimpanzee made attempts at what seemed to be a purposeful covering or obscuring of them.  I have not found this source yet to add here, but it does add the potential for other apes to not only be aware that they do leave footprints, but that they may attempt to cover them or avoid leaving them if possible .  It has been speculated that Sasquatch may attempt to avoid leaving footprints whenever possible, and that what footprints we do find may just be in areas where leaving them was unavoidable or wasn't considered a neccessity..

I think one critical fact, left out in your blog, is that all I have to go on is what witnesses say. I can’t make up an animal with certain characteristics out of thin air. This creature has reported habits and ranges and characteristics and food sources by witnesses.  These alone should be identifiable and  contain collectible evidence.

The very existence of this creature is based on eye-witnesses accounts, not a body or a skeleton or bones. We know how it behaves, where it lives, what it eats, that it has been hit by cars and had close calls with vehicles. One can’t ignore the only evidence we have- these eye-witness accounts.

You are correct that the sightings do suggest specific characteristics; namely large, bipedal, humanoid and hairy.

Eye-witness accounts are not the only evidence; there are the numerous footprints casts, occasionally casts of other body parts, as well as some hair samples.  As mentioned previously about ecology, tracks and footprints are commonly used to estimate wildlife population and I believe a few such as Meldrum has made estimations from these.  While certainly some of the footprints may be hoaxes, or misidentified, all of them are not.  Several show what may be a midtarsal joint in the foot, meaning the foot flexes between the ankle and the ball of the foot, allowing the heel to be lifted while the rest of the foot remains flat.  This is entirely a non-human characteristic, and eliminates the possibility the track was made by a blown up cast of a human foot.  While it may be possible for a hoaxer to be aware of this bit of human and non-human primate anatomy, it seems unlikely.

In regards to performing any hair or genetic analysis, you generally need a known reference sample to be able to compare to in order to identify the unknown sample.  Without a reference, the best anyone could hope to do is to be able to say what it is not, versus what it is.  It may be possible to be able to say what family or group on the tree of life it belongs, but to identify a sample that does indeed come from an unknown species is a difficult task.  A sample might be able to be identified as canine, but without a reference sample, which of the dozens of wild and or domesticated canines it actually belongs to would be difficult.



[1] http://en.wikipedia....nfection_theory
[2] http://en.wikipedia....re#Clovis_First
[3] http://en.wikipedia....t_of_the_theory
[4] http://en.wikipedia....ven_to_be_false
[5] The strange adventures of Andrew Battell of Leigh, in Angola and the adjoining regions (1901) pg. 54 (http://archive.org/d...nture00battrich)
[6] http://en.wikipedia....illas#Etymology
[7] http://www.trailcamp...ameratests.aspx
[8] http://en.wikipedia...._on_Isle_Royale
[9] http://www.post-gaze...timates-267700/
[10] http://digitalcommon...=icwdm_usdanwrc
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
[12] http://en.wikipedia....iki/Homo_(genus)
[13] http://en.wikipedia....Bipedal_animals
[14] http://www-nrd.nhtsa...Pubs/811625.pdf
[15] http://en.wikipedia....ithecus#Species
  • Report

QuiteContrary
Nov 28 2012 10:43 PM
Insanity in boldface
Being undiscovered does not preclude any existence, and scientists are not infallible.
Mainstream science is simply the common current thought of the majority, and does change with time.
Yes, my comment was not in reference to whether a scientist who says "No, there is not an undiscovered upright "bigfoot" species walking around North America" is indeed correct in her statement. My point was that scientists with what they see and know do make blanket "No" statements and not even bother with "probability" statements in regard to the existence of bigfoot. For you, that may mean science just has not caught up with bigfoot yet. But for me it says a lot as to the probable existence of this creature.

Steve Plemback is correct that Gigantopithecus is only known from a few jaw bones and several teeth, and even though these remains are appreciably larger then that of living gorillas, speculating on its size, gait and agility is just that, speculation.
This entire blog is full of complex speculation on bigfoot with less physical evidence than bones. I am only relating scientists (experts in this field) who have done the same. You will need to ask them for their explanations as to why there may be a consensus as to what they say about characteristics Gigantopithecus.

Driving a car in itself is risky, considering there are oncoming vehicles traveling at speeds upwards of 75mph that could cross the lanes at any given moment unexpectedly, yet many of us do this every day.  The fact that there were 70,000 pedestrian crashes in 2010[14] could be seen as a credit to our own species.
Bigfoot does misjudge when crossing roads and if he’s does it once the species is indeed capable of getting hit.   Where are the carcasses along the road? What about the totaled cars or severely injured or killed drivers? Where are the bigfoot (or body parts) through the windshield? These are found for every other animal cars collide with.  What a perfect place for blood and hair and tissue samples too. How does a policeman know you hit a deer and not a person? Evidence at the scene, or locating of injured/dead animal after tracking.

Unfortunately there are no feasible methods for doing an exact count of any wildlife populations.  The exceptions to this would be for species that are in very small numbers and within a very small area.  The wolves and moose on Isle Royale in Michigan is an example of this.[8]  It really is not about the science, it is about being impractical.
I found an article relating to estimating the bear population within the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE).[9]
The article states that the study to estimate the grizzly bear population began in 2002 and used more than 2,500 hair traps plus visiting 4,795 natural bear rubs more than 18,000 times.  Then during the summer of 2004, 210 technicians analyzed 33,741 hairs and performed genetic analysis on the hairs to arrive at a number of unique individuals, and thus came to an estimated population of 765 bears within the 12,200 sq mi research area.
Sounds like tracking animals by their habits and getting samples is not hard at all. If I can get bear hair and scat samples since I know where they live, why not bigfoot samples since we know where they live as well. An animal (of enormous) size has to leave evidence as it eats and brushes through its environment. Movement of bigfoot is witnessed all the time in specific areas to get samples if there were any to obtain. I wonder if any of those hairs spurred further testing when an unknown?

You are correct that the sightings do suggest specific characteristics; namely large, bipedal, humanoid and hairy.
They also show bigfoot is around us and thus seen by us frequently. Yet, we lack clear photographic or physical evidence for this giant.

Consider that the area is under far less surveillance then most people think it is, plus the potential of actively avoiding humans.  I recall reading once of a researcher taking photographs of a chimpanzee’s footprints that was allowed to walk across some wet sand.  He noted that in almost all cases after leaving its footprints, the chimpanzee made attempts at what seemed to be a purposeful covering or obscuring of them.  I have not found this source yet to add here, but it does add the potential for other apes to not only be aware that they do leave footprints, but that they may attempt to cover them or avoid leaving them if possible .  It has been speculated that Sasquatch may attempt to avoid leaving footprints whenever possible, and that what footprints we do find may just be in areas where leaving them was unavoidable or wasn't considered a neccessity..
This is another possibility that doesn’t pan out with our eye-witness accounts and track casts, our only evidence.
Where are the witness reports who saw a bigfoot covering its tracks while walking along? Many see it run off?  Tracks, even just one, show a path an animal took, a very good way to find physical evidence of any animal, especially a very broad and tall and heavy one who needs to eat 11 hours a day.

Lack of tracks possibilities
Lack of carcasses possibilities
Lack of automobile run-ins possibilities
Lack of physical evidence possibilities
Lack of ecological footprint possibilities
Imo, Do not make the existence of this creature any more believable or feasible.

In fact, they contradict the only evidence we have-- eye witness accounts of the locations and habits of bigfoot, automobile bigfoot run-ins, and tracks.

You have created a lot of possibilities, but I can apply them to any unknown and claim it makes that unknown possible.
I need something to back up your possibilities and make each probable.  It just isn’t there, for me personally,  when it comes to what we are told about bigfoot and animals in general.

Again, someone else could do a far better job of this than I can. I applaud you for making it through my post.:)
  • Report

QuiteContrary
Nov 29 2012 11:53 AM
I thought I hit post with my reply. If it doesn't show up after a couple days (after approval)  I'll post it again.
  • Report
I believe the only two speculations I have made was suggesting that it would not be unreasonable to assume that the behavior of an unknown ape species could fall within the behaviors that have been observed and documented with known apes.  Second was an example, which I stated, to illustrate it would be infeasible or impossible to estimate a wildlife population estimate based on food consumption.

A majority of the rest was research, and I have provided the references, if you doubt the figures, you are free to examine the sources and do your own research.  If you find anything contrary, please feel free to add them.

I think you were expecting me to prove Sasquatch exists, but my intent of the blog was not to do so.  It was to illustrate that some of the common statements people wish to use in order to discredit any possibility of existence are not entirely justifiable.

If you feel a need to question those that are speculating on Gigantopithecus's characteristics, you should be able to contact any of them somehow.

In regards to the NCDE grizzly bear project, how difficult the task may seem is relative to the one doing the work and the one watching it, particularly if that person has never worked in the field.  I have sent an email to one of the persons involved in the project to see if I could get their opinion on the degree of difficulty of the project, as the opinion of the people who did the work would be of higher value then that of someone who did not.
  • Report

QuiteContrary
Dec 02 2012 10:51 PM
Probably the most common blanket statement is along the idea that as the country is so highly populated, or that cameras are everywhere, that any such creature would have been discovered already, and as it hasn’t, it can’t exist.

Another common blanket statement used frequently is the suggestion that environmentalists or ecologists would somehow be aware of any impact being caused by an unknown ape species, but since we have no evidence of such an impact, Sasquatch can't exist.

Additionally some people say that as apes are social and vocal, an ape is not a good candidate for the Sasquatch.

In regards to the apparent lack of vehicle accidents involving Sasquatch; accidents are just that, accidents.  
I considered all your responses to your above statements to be speculation as to why bigfoot could be a possibility.  Even if you can give proven statistics and examples. You are still speculatively applying them to the existence of a giant biped roaming the United States.

While the existence of Sasquatch is yet to be determined, the possibility is certainly there.  
For me, this again is your conclusion based on your speculations above.
  • Report

QuiteContrary
Dec 03 2012 09:42 AM
Insanity:
Another common blanket statement used frequently is the suggestion that environmentalists or ecologists would somehow be aware of any impact being caused by an unknown ape species, but since we have no evidence of such an impact, Sasquatch can't exist.

It is unlikely that any impact would be noticed even if it was there, as the North American ecosystem is a very complex network of thousands of plant and animal species covering a very large area.  Complex and large enough in fact, that safe to say, we do not have a comprehensive understanding of it.  At best we have estimates of the population of certain species, and some theory models on the interaction of these species.  To have the type of understanding to see such a specific effect of one species would require an extensive surveying of the population of several species on a very regular basis, something that is not happening.  I am not aware of any organization, governmental or private, which is undertaking the task of tagging every large animal, and then repeating the task each season to account for births and deaths.  It would be impossible.  Likewise there is no exact information on the stock of wild food sources for these animals.  All we have are estimates and models, nothing exact or precise.

Considering that most known ape species are herbivores, some being omnivores, with chimpanzees being one of the exceptions which does hunt for meat,[8] it is likely any unknown ape species would also be herbivorous or perhaps omnivorous.  There are a lot of edible wild plant species throughout North America, at least a 1,000 of them.[9]  Numerous animal species compete for these food sources and those likely to be in competition with any unknown ape species are deer and other ruminants, and bears.  In North America, there are estimated to be around 30 million white-tailed deer,[10] about 800,000-1,300,000 moose[11], and over a million elk[12].  Total bear population of all species is estimated over a million.[13][14][15]  The possibility to determine what any ecological impact an ape population would have among the tens of millions of other large animals consuming the same food sources across the same overlapping ranges would be rather difficult, and becomes more difficult the smaller that ape population may be.

While I personally do not readily subscribe to Sasquatch hunting deer regularly, if they did, that adds a significant calorie intake in their diet as meat has a higher caloric density then most vegetation.  As we now know, there are plenty of deer.

We also should consider that the North American continent has been able to support populations of several large bodied herbivores and omnivores for tens of thousands of years.  The Pleistocene epoch had giant sloths, bears, mammoths and mastodons, horses, and bisons as some examples.[16]  Since the Pleistocene, the continent has continued to support a rather large population of deer, other ruminants and bears.  We could also possibly consider the pre-Columbian Native Americans in this as well.

The discovery of the Bili ape was being used as an example of a recent discovery of a large ape previously unknown, and it was suggested that this discovery, in such a hostile area (Democratic Republic of the Congo) shows Sasquatch doesn’t exist in North America.

While the discovery was made in a fairly short time, the Bili forest is of significantly smaller area then North America, roughly 27 sq mi.[17]  The surrounding area may be more hostile due to political reasons, but the area to be searched was about the size of Virginia Beach, and the discovery was not immediate.  Even with the lack of hostility in North America, searching is more difficult as the search area is comparatively enormous, about 150,000 times larger then the Bili Forest.  I do not know the number of man hours it took to document the Bili ape, but it would not be unreasonable that the number of man hours needed to document the Sasquatch would be comparable in number, perhaps lessened a bit due to less hostility, but it would still be a large number of hours.

Me:
Again going by all we have: eye-witness accounts:
What about when bf researchers know where BF lives?
What about when BF’s food competition is a small population?
Bigfoot is sighted in “hot spots” where his only large carnivore competition is man, if hunting is allowed, and even that is controlled.
How do we even know what bf’s prime diet is? Maybe it’s housecats and coyotes. He’s allegedly seen around houses enough and said to hangs around coyotes.
Known NA creatures leave scat and evidence of eating and moving in areas of their food sources.
BF researchers have no less access to the same for an 8-foot 600 lb creature.
NA animals are studied, tagged, photographed, tracked, etc. Population estimates are completed to study such things as the effect of hunting seasons, disease and  loss of habitat on various animal populations. Even on dwindling and very low animal populations. There are only 40 wolves in the Northern Range in Yellowstone yet they are carefully monitored.
Again, BF researchers have no less ability to do the same if BF is in small yet sustainable numbers.
Why would evidence of an 8-foot 700-lb giant go unnoticed? Field researchers are able to tell which evidence points to which animals. How would bf’s imprint differ from another animal? Scientists are able to distinguish between evidence left by known animals, I would think distinguishing bf evidence to be no different. Especially if he uses tools. Would they not catch an eye or two.
But considering the big picture again, nothing has been proven on the habits or behaviors or diet or size or even the species of this creature.
I will not say something is possible because it has not been proven to happen.  I could apply that reasoning to anything.
Thank you for the discussion, Insanity, but I am done debating over entertaining a list of possibilities that may or may not challenge “blanket statements” on an undocumented animal with undocumented habits and physical traits.
We have alleged reports, none of which have ever been verified by science. That is all. And “possibilities” make this creature no more probable, for me.
I choose to remain skeptical and say BF is a myth.
QC
  • Report
QuiteContary and I had a private conversation prior to the above post, and we've agreed to allow the conversation be copied to here, so long as it is known who had said what.  There is no quote function for PMs.

Here I am in bold, QuiteContray is not.

Perhaps my wording in my blog does make it sound like I am saying it exists, but I am really trying to show that these reasons often used to declare that it cannot exist are not sufficient.

That is why I repeated I can't ignore the eye witness reports, which contradict this creature failing to leave physical evidence and clear images for years.
As a skeptic, I find your list of possibilities, which come up from time to time in discussions of BF, as speculation. Whether you are a believer or unsure, does not change that.

Possibility is having the quality of being possible.
Probability is the likelihood of it occurring.

I understand the distinction between the two.

But some scientists/fish and game/wildlife officials, etc, who clearly understand that you can't prove something does not exist will still publicly say "There is no BF type animal roaming NA."

Not being able to prove an animal does not exist, does not increase the probability that it does exist.

Not to mention, claiming a possibility is in fact a possibility, can be meaningless.
  • Report
Here QuiteContrary is in bold, I am not.

As a skeptic, I find your list of possibilities, which come up from time to time in discussions of BF, as speculation. Whether you are a believer or unsure, does not change that.

What specifically about what I said do you feel is speculation?

What I am attempting to say is more about why it cannot be said it does not exist, then anything about it could or does exist.
Guess I am against the negative versus supporting the positive?  Against the skepticism, but not really supporting the believers either.
The middle road perhaps?  An odd position perhaps in this arena.

But some scientists/fish and game/wildlife officials, etc, who clearly understand that you can't prove something does not exist will still publicly say "There is no BF type animal roaming NA."

True, but are they saying we do not have evidence of it, which is likely true, or are they answering we do not have a means to detect it even if it did?  I agree that we very likely have no ecological evidence to support it, but I also feel we could not detect it, by ecological means, even if it did.  Ecological studies may not conclusive or meaningful in the matter.  Saying there is no evidence when there no methods to detect the evidence is meaningless.  If an ecologist can show we do have the methods to detect it, and then show via those methods there is no evidence, then that would be meaningful.  If there are no methods, then any ecologist saying it does not exist is really just stating their opinion, which may very well be an educated opinion, but still an opinion.

Much like the higgs boson, first speculated in the 1960s or so, but it was not until the LHC was built that we first had the means to detect some evidence of it.  From the 1960s to now, any discussion of the higgs boson existence, whether in support of or not, was speculation.

Not being able to prove an animal does not exist, does not increase the probability that it does exist.

This is correct, but also someone cannot state it does not exist as we can never know that for a fact.
I agree that we also do not know it does exist, which is why it is unknown until it is ever shown to exist, if that occurs.
Probably the best thing for everyone to do is remain open-minded and simply wait?
  • Report
Here I am bolded, QuiteContrary is not.

You:
True, but are they saying we do not have evidence of it, which is likely true, or are they answering we do not have a means to detect it even if it did?  I agree that we very likely have no ecological evidence to support it, but I also feel we could not detect it, by ecological means, even if it did.  Ecological studies may not conclusive or meaningful in the matter.  Saying there is no evidence when there no methods to detect the evidence is meaningless.  If an ecologist can show we do have the methods to detect it, and then show via those methods there is no evidence, then that would be meaningful.  If there are no methods, then any ecologist saying it does not exist is really just stating their opinion, which may very well be an educated opinion, but still an opinion.

Much like the higgs boson, first speculated in the 1960s or so, but it was not until the LHC was built that we first had the means to detect some evidence of it.  From the 1960s to now, any discussion of the higgs boson existence, whether in support of or not, was speculation.


Me: can't edit the boldface
I believe we do have the means and methods to detect this animal AND we know where to find them. If it is supernatural then, I agree we don't, but as an animal that follows natural laws, yes.

I'm not sure what you mean by keeping an "open mind". There is nothing to hold my mind open when it comes to bigfoot. Except hope and imagination. It is just a myth.
But there is certainly room and right for open mindedness, opinions, and even belief in this creature. And I won't try to rob you of that. I just believe differently. :)
  • Report
The rest here is me.

I would be interested in any publications that would suggest we have the means to determine the population size of a particular species via ecological studies, that do not involve doing some form of counting to arrive at estimates.  Without that, having belief that we do have the means is just belief, and anyone is welcome to believe what they want.

If you do not mind, I may transfer some of this to the blog?

I do not know of any methods to determine the population of the deer, some 30 million, in the country strictly on their dietary consumptions, let alone a method to measure the smaller population of any species regardless of what it may be.

**Addition
To which I should add that when I say detecting, I am not suggesting that Sasquatch is paranormal by any means, but that we do not have the methods to determine if such a species does exist based on ecological studies involving dietary consumption of food sources.
  • Report
I am sorry you responded that way QuiteContrary.  We both entered a bit of speculation perhaps.

I still feel that perhaps you somehow were expecting to prove Sasquatch exists, or really even answer all the questions concerning it.  My intent was no more then to show that some of the reasoning people want to use to say Sasquatch does not exist are not sufficient to make statement.

Saying that the country has a high population as a means to say Sasquatch cannot exist, when a majority of the population remains in a relatively very small area of the country, is not sufficient.  This does not prove or increase the likelihood that Sasquatch exists, but the argument is not sufficient to say it does not.

While trail cameras are obviously useful and should be employed, they can only cover a very small area at a time.  In order to say that enough area has been adequately covered by trail cameras, and thus say that we should have good pictures of Sasquatch, but because we do not, it does not exist, there would need to have been several billion used to date.  Many people think that perhaps they are several thousand being used, some people want to say there are hundreds of thousands being used.  Either number, it probably has not been enough to justify saying Sasquatch does not exist.  Again, this does not prove or increase the likelihood that Sasquatch exists, but the argument is not sufficient to say it does not exist.

Despite that we are in the 21st century and we do have some amazing technology at our disposal, the fact is that a majority of our country is not under any sort of constant surveillance.  We probably keep a pretty good surveillance on where we are, but not of the rest.

Others want to say that there is no ecological impact evidence to support such a creature exists, and that several ecologists have stated this as well.  Using the term ecological impact, I assume this means they expect us to see some evidence of their dietary habits in the ecology.  I am not aware of any methods to determine the presence of a species strictly on its dietary habits.  It would be infeasible.  The important question I think that should be asked of ecologists would be "Are there methods to notice the presence of such a creature simply based on what it eats even if it did exist?"  If there are no methods to find this type of evidence, then saying we do not have the evidence is not meaningful.  If ecologists can demonstrate that it is possible to find evidence that supports the presence of an undocumented species, strictly on its dietary impact on the environment, and then show via those methods there is no evidence, that would be meaningful.  I am doubtful that there are any methods to demonstrate the presence of a species strictly on diet.  If there are publications contrary to this, definitely mention them.

Again this does not prove or increase the likelihood that Sasquatch exists, but the argument is not sufficient to say it does not exist.

Some people say that a large ape-like creature simply is not possible.  There is fossil evidence to support that at least at one time in Earth's history, something very similar did exist.  Modern research does support that a primate of the same approximate size could gather enough food to survive.  This does not prove or increase the likelihood that Sasquatch exists.  It does suggest that such a creature is a biological possibility.

None of this proves Sasquatch exists, only a specimen could do that, live or dead.  These arguments are not entirely sufficient to say Sasquatch does not exist.
  • Report

Recent Entries

Recent Comments

0 user(s) viewing

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Latest Visitors

  • Photo
    Alaric
    29 Jun 2014 - 01:09
  • Photo
    Infinite Playlist
    15 Jun 2014 - 02:30
  • Photo
    dixierose
    30 May 2014 - 13:18
  • Photo
    Mikko-kun
    05 May 2013 - 14:24
  • Photo
    odiesbsc
    07 Apr 2013 - 21:00
  • Photo
    Gummug
    06 Apr 2013 - 18:01
  • Photo
    danbell06
    27 Mar 2013 - 23:35
  • Photo
    Thegreatsilence
    27 Mar 2013 - 15:34
  • Photo
    Gaden
    27 Mar 2013 - 04:46
  • Photo
    Nathan DiYorio
    22 Feb 2013 - 19:21
  • Photo
    Liroka
    17 Jan 2013 - 13:54
  • Photo
    Jeff Albertson
    16 Dec 2012 - 03:24
  • Photo
    Steve Plambeck
    06 Dec 2012 - 09:24
  • Photo
    sarah_444
    06 Dec 2012 - 02:50
  • Photo
    QuiteContrary
    02 Dec 2012 - 22:42