How can Bigfoot exist?

[Nordmann61]

How can bigfoot exist when there is not enough food in the winter season for bears?

Bears hibernate in the winter, a necessary adaptation, since there is no plantfood available for them in the wintertime.

Bears are mainly planteaters, fish and meat is also on the menu, but plantfood is the everyday food for bears.

So what can the bigfoot find to eat at wintertime, when it need even more energy to retain the body temperature?

The bigfoot believers say they eat, elk, moose, deer, bison and rabbits.

But if a sustaiable population of bigfoots (plural form bigfeet?) taxed the wildlife in witertime, would not the park rangers,wildlife wardens and hunters detect there was another predator along with wolves, coyote and wolverine?

The closest creature to the bigfoot we know have existed, is the Gigantopithecus, a gigant humanoid bipedal ape like beast.

It went extinct about 100000 years ago.

It typical weight is estimated to be about 1000 pounds, about as a very large brown bear.

The bigfoot is described to be very much alike this beast.

And it must therefore eat es much as a large brown bear too, maybe more, since it is reported to be up to 8 feet tall, it would have more heatloss than a more compact bear closer to the ground.

It should trek south in the wintertime to altidudes with no snow to find enough food, so the number of sigthings should be higher in the south than in the north in the winter season.

Since it must be related to the great apes, the gorilla and orangutan, the difference between the gorilla and orangutan is interesting to mention.

The orangutans are soltaire animals, the male and female only meet in the mating season.

The gorillas are social animals living in groups.

The sightings of bigfoots are almost always of single males, but if it was more like the orangutan, solitaire, the sightings should be more of females with offspring, since they must cover more ground to find food.

If it was more like the gorilla, the sightings should be more of groups of animals, male, female and offspring.

I am not saying the bigfoot cannot exist, the gigantopithecus went extinct only 100000 years ago, an eyeblink in the worlds natural history. Older species that was belived to have been extinct, have been found, and an unknown creature can indeed exist in the vast forrested areas in North America and Russia.

But I do have to say I more lean to it is a mythical creature, tv shows like "Finding Bigfoot" do not help either.

Mythical creatures can only be seen in the corner of your eye, when you stare directly at them, they are not there.

Cheers.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Nordmann61

[Kurzweil]

All the bigfoot migrate to Russia in the winter time. They swim across oceans just to get people who camp out in snow storms and eat their tongues.

[PrisonerX]

Good question. If they exist out there, how they overwinter is indeed an interesting thing to ponder. I would guess it would be a combination of bulking up on body fat beforehand, as well as hunting and gathering. Migrations may also play a significant role.

I've happened across reports of these creatures being somewhat thin, which may be post-winter sightings before they've bulked back up. I've also read reports that indicate the mothers will stash their young while they forage for food - similar to how deer will leave their fawns hunkered down in brush while they do so. So, if this is the case, a mother is not likely to be spotted with her young while foraging.

BTW I've read that bears do not hibernate as is commonly believed. They enter torpor. In this state they are much less active, but they can and do sometimes venture from their dens on warmer days for a short duration.

http://www.bigcat.or...and-hibernation

If you want to watch a decent doc on the creature, check out "Bigfoot's Reflection" on Netflix.

Edited January 31, 2016 by PrisonerX

[Rlyeh]

Apparently bigfoot is actually an alien from mars.

[Farmer77]

My personal opinion , and yes I realize its a bit nutty, is that they live underground and that they don't fit into our conventional understanding of an ape, meaning they are of equal intelligence as us.

When you look at the history of sightings globally there is generally a long history of underground mythology where sightings occur at the highest rates and actual underground caverns and cavern systems. This would account for things like no bodies being found (removed for underground burial), the strong smell associated with the creatures, and the green mossy appearance reported by many.

[+Hammerclaw]

"There is a legend that tells of an eldritch race more foul and loathsome than the putrid slime that clings to the walls of hell. Twisted creatures, half man, half beast, who move with the rustling sound of predatory rats, carrying with them the stench of the charnel house. Wretched mutations who live deep beneath the earth in dark tunnels, surfacing in the dead of night and returning before dawn to practice their unspeakable acts and breed their filthy spawn until the day arrives when their swollen numbers shall finally emerge to ravage the earth like a noxious plague." Something I remember from the Night Gallery adaption of Pickman's Model.

[Hudds]

Apparently bigfoot is actually an alien from mars.

That explains the big footprint seen on mars red ground.

[+DieChecker]

How can bigfoot exist when there is not enough food in the winter season for bears?

Well if we accept the base assumption that bigfoot is real, then it isn't too hard to explain the issues with food.

Bigfoot probably would eat much the same things as a bear. But where as a bear usually has a individual range that is perhaps hundreds or thousands of acres for a black bear, bigfoot might have a individual range of hundreds of thousands, or millions of acres. And thus as a much large area in which (per individual) to find food.

There is near on a million black bears in the US and Canada, and the population continues to increase by like 5% every year. Thus, if the population continues to increase, there must be excess food, right? Otherwise the population would not increase year after year, but would remain more at a static level.

So what can the bigfoot find to eat at wintertime, when it need even more energy to retain the body temperature?

That is a good question, and I don't believe anyone has ever put up a exceptionally good reason for that. I do agree perhaps bigfoot eats more meat. But then we'd expect to find proof of ape like teeth on various piles of bones here and there.

But if a sustaiable population of bigfoots (plural form bigfeet?) taxed the wildlife in witertime, would not the park rangers,wildlife wardens and hunters detect there was another predator along with wolves, coyote and wolverine?

Not necessarily. Like I said there is near a million black bears in the US and Canada. If we assume even 1000 bigfoots living in North America, then that is a thousand to one. One thousand bears for every bigfoot. Judging a wildlife kill to be from a bear or bigfoot would seem to always fall into the bear category. Would the death of (for arguments sake) 1,012 deer instead of just 1000 deer be noticeable?

And it must therefore eat es much as a large brown bear too, maybe more, since it is reported to be up to 8 feet tall, it would have more heatloss than a more compact bear closer to the ground.

It should trek south in the wintertime to altidudes with no snow to find enough food, so the number of sigthings should be higher in the south than in the north in the winter season.

That seems reasonable. I've often thought that bigfoot would have to be nomadic. Especially the ones that supposedly live in the furthest north.

EDIT: FYI, a million acres is about 1600 square miles, which would be about 80 miles by 80 miles in size.

Edited February 13, 2016 by DieChecker

[Toad Uoff]

Watch the Six Million Dollar Man for the answer.

Ribbit

[gatekeeper32]

While Nordmann61, if the natives and early European settlers were able to survive the winters in Canada and America so can Bigfoot. Earlier frontiers men in history were able to survive and provide for themselves during the winter season. This assumption is basing that Bigfoot has equal in human intelligence where I feel that your questions is on the assumption Bigfoot holds the some intelligence of other animals such as the bear.

Edited February 17, 2016 by gatekeeper32

[Vlawde]

One interesting theory...way out there for sure...comes from the book Hunt for the Skinwalker. There is a ranch in the southwest that had UFO's, strange animals, portals opening up in the air, ghostly activity, cattle mutilation and other odd things. Billionaire Robert Bigelow put together a private scientific group, bought the ranch, and it was investigated for several years. They saw and experienced things, but said it seemed an intelligent force was actively evading detection. After a few years activity died down and they left, although it is still owned by Bigelow and heavily guarded.

They have several theories, one is it was a military exercise in mid control, but felt more likely everything was interdimensional. That the odd animals just kept appearing and disappearing in/out of portals, same with UFO's and other just weird stuff led them to this. I dunno, after reading the book, I'd say Bigfoots could be interdimensional. It would explain them being difficult to see/capture, and little in the way of physical evidence

[gatekeeper32]

Heard the UFO theory and there is the supernatural theory that Biigfoot is a shapeshifter. Like werewolves there are humans that transform into this creatures. Myself I prefer the theory there are small population of them out there that are a bit more smarter at playing hide and go seek in the woods.

[+DieChecker]

One interesting theory...way out there for sure...comes from the book Hunt for the Skinwalker. There is a ranch in the southwest that had UFO's, strange animals, portals opening up in the air, ghostly activity, cattle mutilation and other odd things. Billionaire Robert Bigelow put together a private scientific group, bought the ranch, and it was investigated for several years. They saw and experienced things, but said it seemed an intelligent force was actively evading detection. After a few years activity died down and they left, although it is still owned by Bigelow and heavily guarded.

They have several theories, one is it was a military exercise in mid control, but felt more likely everything was interdimensional. That the odd animals just kept appearing and disappearing in/out of portals, same with UFO's and other just weird stuff led them to this. I dunno, after reading the book, I'd say Bigfoots could be interdimensional. It would explain them being difficult to see/capture, and little in the way of physical evidence

I do kind of like the UFO - Bigfoot connection theory, because it explains why BF is able to move around so much, and does not appear to have large numbers. And also why no bodies are found. However it does require that Alien UFOs be real, which to my knowledge hasn't been shown to be true.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

All the bigfoot migrate to Russia in the winter time. They swim across oceans just to get people who camp out in snow storms and eat their tongues.

LOL! Good one. A slam on Dyatlov pass Yeti, I am sure :--)

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Well if we accept the base assumption that bigfoot is real, then it isn't too hard to explain the issues with food.

Bigfoot probably would eat much the same things as a bear. But where as a bear usually has a individual range that is perhaps hundreds or thousands of acres for a black bear, bigfoot might have a individual range of hundreds of thousands, or millions of acres. And thus as a much large area in which (per individual) to find food.

There is near on a million black bears in the US and Canada, and the population continues to increase by like 5% every year. Thus, if the population continues to increase, there must be excess food, right? Otherwise the population would not increase year after year, but would remain more at a static level.

That is a good question, and I don't believe anyone has ever put up a exceptionally good reason for that. I do agree perhaps bigfoot eats more meat. But then we'd expect to find proof of ape like teeth on various piles of bones here and there.

Not necessarily. Like I said there is near a million black bears in the US and Canada. If we assume even 1000 bigfoots living in North America, then that is a thousand to one. One thousand bears for every bigfoot. Judging a wildlife kill to be from a bear or bigfoot would seem to always fall into the bear category. Would the death of (for arguments sake) 1,012 deer instead of just 1000 deer be noticeable?

That seems reasonable. I've often thought that bigfoot would have to be nomadic. Especially the ones that supposedly live in the furthest north.

EDIT: FYI, a million acres is about 1600 square miles, which would be about 80 miles by 80 miles in size.

you mean 40x40, right?

[+DieChecker]

you mean 40x40, right?

LOL!!! Yeah.... 40 x 40... :tu:

[Gigmaster]

There are countless biological reasons why Bigfoot is not real. A few are:

It does not fit into any of the known taxonomic classifications. No hairy human ancestor of that size has ever existed.

It does not act like a human, nor any Great Ape, or even monkey. With the exception of Orangutans (they are arboreal, and semi-solitary), primates are social animals, and you will never see just one. Yet, there are no sightings of multiple specimens of Bigfoot.

Humans, and proto-humans leave a huge natural 'footprint' where ever they have existed. One of the defining characteristics of humans, all the way back to Australiopithecus, is that we modify our environment. Primates are all very messy, and we leave trash, broken vegetation, old bedding, droppings, and much more evidence of our presence. It would be impossible for a creature like Bigfoot to exist without leaving any evidence of it's presence. No tools, no trash, no biological waste...impossible.

On all Bigfoot sightings, the specimen never acts like a wild animal, or even a human caught by surprise. No attempt at concealment, no posturing, no attempt at escape...nothing. This does not happen in nature.

And there are many, many more reasons why Bigfoot is nothing more than a fantasy.

[Farmer77]

There are countless biological reasons why Bigfoot is not real. A few are:

I

On all Bigfoot sightings, the specimen never acts like a wild animal, or even a human caught by surprise. No attempt at concealment, no posturing, no attempt at escape...nothing. This does not happen in nature.

Dude you're simply going around the forum making **** up about bigfoot WTF ? Seriously go read an actual report. Peeking out from behind a tree is like the #1 type of sighting. i.e attempting to stay concealed, not to mention the litany of sightings which include posturing and evading through the forest. (not even debating the veracity of those sightings just pointing out your bull****) Its fine to not believe in bigfoot, there are quite a few reasons to not, just dont be a smug jackhole who makes up "facts" to make his point .

Edited March 28, 2016 by Farmer77

[Gigmaster]

The sightings you reference are not confirmed by any physical evidence, so they are irrelevant. They are mis-identifications of normal animals, or just plain made up. The so-called pictures are always so fleeting, or fuzzy that no determination can be made...convenient, huh? No physical samples of any material that could be analyzed. And as I said, it does not fit into the biological system that we know is correct. No such species has ever existed, so there is nothing it could have evolved from. We photograph and take samples from very rare, and much smaller, animals almost on a daily basis, so rarity and shyness is not a viable factor to explain the lack of evidence. Bigfoot simply does not exist. And before you bring up the tired old argument about the coelacanth, the coelacanth is a known animal with a extensive fossil record, and was well known to the local population for thousands of years. It was only 'discovered' because a white European suddenly saw one....in a fish market. It is not a "Living Fossil", but simply a modern representative of a family of fishes that we assumed were extinct. In fact, it was a great boon to science because it verified that what we had previously determined from fossils was 100% correct, so science does know what it is doing.

It is fun to tell stories about monsters, woodland spirits, and things that go bump in the night, but science deals with reality, and only reality. And the reality is that Bigfoot is nothing but stories to to scare people with.

Dude you're simply going around the forum making **** up about bigfoot WTF ? Seriously go read an actual report. Peeking out from behind a tree is like the #1 type of sighting. i.e attempting to stay concealed, not to mention the litany of sightings which include posturing and evading through the forest. (not even debating the veracity of those sightings just pointing out your bull****) Its fine to not believe in bigfoot, there are quite a few reasons to not, just dont be a smug jackhole who makes up "facts" to make his point .

Edited March 29, 2016 by Gigmaster

[Farmer77]

The sightings you reference are not confirmed by any physical evidence, so they are irrelevant. They are mis-identifications of normal animals, or just plain made up. The so-called pictures are always so fleeting, or fuzzy that no determination can be made...convenient, huh? No physical samples of any material that could be analyzed. And as I said, it does not fit into the biological system that we know is correct. No such species has ever existed, so there is nothing it could have evolved from. We photograph and take samples from very rare, and much smaller, animals almost on a daily basis, so rarity and shyness is not a viable factor to explain the lack of evidence. Bigfoot simply does not exist. And before you bring up the tired old argument about the coelacanth, the coelacanth is a known animal with a extensive fossil record, and was well known to the local population for thousands of years. It was only 'discovered' because a white European suddenly saw one....in a fish market. It is not a "Living Fossil", but simply a modern representative of a family of fishes that we assumed were extinct. In fact, it was a great boon to science because it verified that what we had previously determined from fossils was 100% correct, so science does know what it is doing.

It is fun to tell stories about monsters, woodland spirits, and things that go bump in the night, but science deals with reality, and only reality. And the reality is that Bigfoot is nothing but stories to to scare people with.

None of what you just posted has anything to do with the fact that you made a claim that was complete bull****. As i said in my response, not debating the veracity of the reports, just pointing out your incorrect claims about no reports of them acting like "animals".

FYI the belief that BF is an animal in the classic sense is becoming less and less popular in the BF community with many believing it is potentially neanderthal or another related species of "extinct" human. Not that any of that is true, im just suggesting you actually know something about an issue prior to taking a dogmatic stance.

As for fossil evidence, I would point you to the recent discovery of the denisovan and "Hobbitt" human like ancestors. We're learning human evolution is much more of a bush than that of a tree. Again not that that necessitates the existence of BF it just highlights the limits of human knowledge as it pertains to our ancestry.

Being dogmatic about issues on an unexplained-mysteries forum is just obnoxious whether you're leaning on a 2000 year old religious text or a 100 year old textbook.

[+DieChecker]

The sightings you reference are not confirmed by any physical evidence, so they are irrelevant.

Uhhh... ??? Do you have any confirmed sightings that do have confirmed physical evidence? Otherwise ALL the sightings are irrelevant and you might just as well post that fact now.

I'd have to agree with Farmer, you do appear to be making grand statements that are either made without reading up on the subject, or grandstanding.

Plenty of sightings have BF acting very much like a animal, and many have BF acting like a human. Most of them are probably BS, but these sightings do exist. What methodology do you use to pick through the hundreds of sightings and consider some possible and others not?

[DanteHoratio]

Bears are mainly planteaters, fish and meat is also on the menu, but plantfood is the everyday food for bears.

Depends on the bear. Polar Bears eat mainly meat. Understandable, as there is little plantlife in much of the Polar Bears range.

But that's just me being pedantic...

Edited April 2, 2016 by DanteHoratio

[Jarocal]

The sightings you reference are not confirmed by any physical evidence, so they are irrelevant.

AFAIK, there are no Bigfoot sightings with physical evidence invalidating every one according to your standard. Since there are no relevant sightings to be considered, your descriptive assertions are baseless.

They are mis-identifications of normal animals, or just plain made up.

Which would mean the ones you attribute to misidentification of animals proves your statement "they don't act like animals" innacurrate.

The so-called pictures are always so fleeting, or fuzzy that no determination can be made...convenient, huh?

They are pictures, not just so-called pictures. What the picture is of is a matter for discussion and yes the quality of the images does seem to be horrid.

No physical samples of any material that could be analyzed.

Actually there have been purported instances with physical evidence which have always been found to belong to a different animal or be human in origin.

And as I said, it does not fit into the biological system that we know is correct.

I would replace "we know is correct" with "as the model is currently understood". Changes do occur, though I agree with your overall premise.

No such species has ever existed, so there is nothing it could have evolved from.

No hominids existed before current HSS or great apes? What did we evolve from? What were Denisovans and Neanderthals? And yes it has been conjectured that they are Bigfoot, or the origin of native tales about what we call bigfoot.

We photograph and take samples from very rare, and much smaller, animals almost on a daily basis, so rarity and shyness is not a viable factor to explain the lack of evidence.

While I firmly believe today's sightings coupled with a lack of physical point to Bigfoot not existing, lack of evidence for is not a proof of nonexistence.

Bigfoot simply does not exist.

No major arguments from me

And before you bring up the tired old argument about the coelacanth, the coelacanth is a known animal with a extensive fossil record, and was well known to the local population for thousands of years. It was only 'discovered' because a white European suddenly saw one....in a fish market. It is not a "Living Fossil", but simply a modern representative of a family of fishes that we assumed were extinct.

Lloyd Pye actually used Panda Bears to better effect in his presentation about Bigfoot. Not that I found his arguments convincing though admittedly found them entertaining.

In fact, it was a great boon to science because it verified that what we had previously determined from fossils was 100% correct, so science does know what it is doing.

100% correct except for that pesky extinction timeframe and some physiological attributes which were determined through examination of modern specimens and published in peer reviewed journals. So not really 100% correct...

It is fun to tell stories about monsters, woodland spirits, and things that go bump in the night, but science deals with reality, and only reality. And the reality is that Bigfoot is nothing but stories to to scare people with.

Science, like religions, explain phenomena we observe. The difference is that science uses more evidence based methodologies/techniques to explain the phenomenon and contrary to phringe assertions does over time alter its assertions to match newly found evidence contradictory to the currently held paradigm.

Look at the changes over the last century to our understanding of the peopling in the Americas. While the knowledgebase has grown and attitudes greatly shifted in the scientific community it was not a painless process. Alés Hrdlicka is a prominent name that springs to mind in regards to using rather underhanded methods to maintain outdated views in the face of contradictory evidence. Then you also have "Holmberg's Mistake"(a phrase coined by Charles Mann). You also had instances where people like Figgins overstated new evidence and claimed dates in antiquity far greater than the evidence actually supported.

Perhaps Bigfoot is a relic myth handed down from a time when Denisovans and other Hominid species coexisted with HSS, perhaps it was merely an invented interpretation of early aborignal sightings not easily explained but after the time frame other hominids are known to have existed alongside HSS. Last and least likely, is that in some mountain valley a yet unknown Hominid species is sitting in a meadow plotting out the next trek near human occupied areas hoping to avoid detection...

Edited April 3, 2016 by Jarocal

[+DieChecker]

No hominids existed before current HSS or great apes? What did we evolve from? What were Denisovans and Neanderthals? And yes it has been conjectured that they are Bigfoot, or the origin of native tales about what we call bigfoot.

I wonder if he's heard of Paranthropus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus

[+Hammerclaw]

I wonder if he's heard of Paranthropus?

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Paranthropus

North America's biggest smallest hominid?