3
Sasquatch blanket statements
Posted by
Insanity
,
in
cryptozoology
25 November 2012
·
726 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
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
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?