Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

DNA Proves Bigfoot Is real


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

#91    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,791 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:41 AM

View PostInsanity, on 09 April 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

There is a lot of area that we are simply not at every day.  About 73% of the population only lives on 5% of the area, and most of those people do not leave the cities or highways.

And if Bigfoot were only occasionally seen in those areas, I might buy it.  But he's seen EVERYWHERE - from the backwoods of Washington State to within a few miles of New York City.

And as I've said many times and will continue to say - such a diverse and widespread population requires a BREEDING POPULATION in the entire of North America.  If that were truly the case, Bigfoot would be as known and accepted as black bears.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#92    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:06 AM

I get what you're saying Rafter, there are times it seems they're practically dancing around begging to be seen by everyone but me. Yet, no one can take a decent picture of them. Sort of reminds me of pictures of UFO's I hear and read witness accounts and the witness' all give detailed accounts, but if a picture comes along with the story then the picture is little better than a blobsquatch pic.......it's a blob-ufo, but the witness can describe seeing inside through windows and describing the aliens right down to their clothing details. Yet the pictures are a blurry, out of focused mess.

Go figure?


#93    Insanity

Insanity

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 575 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2012
  • Location:Tau Ceti

  • "Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal..." - H.P. Lovecraft, "The Tomb", Published 1922

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:08 PM

View PostRafterman, on 10 April 2013 - 01:41 AM, said:

And if Bigfoot were only occasionally seen in those areas, I might buy it.  But he's seen EVERYWHERE - from the backwoods of Washington State to within a few miles of New York City.

And as I've said many times and will continue to say - such a diverse and widespread population requires a BREEDING POPULATION in the entire of North America.  If that were truly the case, Bigfoot would be as known and accepted as black bears.

What is a breeding population?

The minimum viable population (MVP) is a lower bound on the population of a species, such that it can survive in the wild, and to assure a 90-95% chance of survival for the next 100 to 1,000 years.  MVP is the smallest possible size at which a biological population can exist without facing extinction from natural disasters or demographic, environmental, or genetic stochasticity.  The actual number needed varies from species to species.  An MVP of 500 to 1,000 individuals is usually given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored. When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands.  Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals, though apparently for pandas their MVP is 50 to 60 individuals.

Seems a population could only be a few thousand individuals, maybe as low as several hundred and be sufficient to maintain a breeding population.  In the case of the panda, less than a hundred is enough.

A population in the millions or even hundreds of thousands is not needed, a few thousand is enough and maybe more than enough.

View Postkeninsc, on 10 April 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

I get what you're saying Rafter, there are times it seems they're practically dancing around begging to be seen by everyone but me. Yet, no one can take a decent picture of them. Sort of reminds me of pictures of UFO's I hear and read witness accounts and the witness' all give detailed accounts, but if a picture comes along with the story then the picture is little better than a blobsquatch pic.......it's a blob-ufo, but the witness can describe seeing inside through windows and describing the aliens right down to their clothing details. Yet the pictures are a blurry, out of focused mess.

Go figure?

This is likely just do to a lack of zoom lenses in peoples' iphones or whatever mobile device they have.  To the human eye with 20/20 vision, at 500 feet a person's head is a blur.  It is going to be a blur to any camera without a zoom lens feature.  Digitally enlarging the picture is not anywhere as near as good as a 30x zoom lens.  Mobile devices are inherently limited to what level of zoom they can achieve, if any at all, and many have a fixed lens.  While they may be good for catching clear images within 10s of feet, getting an image with high detail of something at 500 feet is not going to happen with them.

An 8x zoom lens for an iphone looks like this;
Posted Image

The following image shows what some levels of zoom capture.  The frame for each shows what portion of the entire scene.
Posted Image

A zoom lens is needed to get clear images of anything that is of some distance away, and focusing on a moving object with a zoom lens can be just as difficult as aiming on a moving target with a high-powered rifle scope.  The actual field of view is quite small and the object covers it quite quickly.  

How many images exist of moving deer that were taken using a 8x or more zoom lens?

"We see things only as we are constructed to see them, and can gain no idea of their absolute nature. With five feeble senses we pretend to comprehend the boundlessly complex cosmos, yet other beings with wider, stronger, or different range of senses might not only see very differently the things we see, but might see and study whole worlds of matter, energy, and life which lie close at hand yet can never be detected with the senses we have." - H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond" Published 1934

#94    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,791 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:29 PM

View PostInsanity, on 10 April 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

What is a breeding population?

The minimum viable population (MVP) is a lower bound on the population of a species, such that it can survive in the wild, and to assure a 90-95% chance of survival for the next 100 to 1,000 years.  MVP is the smallest possible size at which a biological population can exist without facing extinction from natural disasters or demographic, environmental, or genetic stochasticity.  The actual number needed varies from species to species.  An MVP of 500 to 1,000 individuals is usually given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored. When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands.  Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals, though apparently for pandas their MVP is 50 to 60 individuals.

Seems a population could only be a few thousand individuals, maybe as low as several hundred and be sufficient to maintain a breeding population.  In the case of the panda, less than a hundred is enough.

A population in the millions or even hundreds of thousands is not needed, a few thousand is enough and maybe more than enough.



And yet pandas are hardly unknown animals.  Neither are some of the even more endangered mammals on the planet.

So let's run with your point and for the sake of argument, let's say a breeding population of Bigfoot is 1,000 creatures.  That's not 1,000 creatures spread over North America.  That's 1,000 in South Florida, 1,000 in the Texas hill country, 1,000 in Upstate New York, 1,000 in Manitoba, 1,000 in Ontario, 1,000 in Northern California, 1,000 in Oregon, 1,000 in Washington, 1,000 in Pennsylvania, etc. etc.  You need a breeding population in every area where Bigfoot is sighted for the species to be viable.  That's a lot of Bigfoot.

Arguing against these kinds of realities, it's no wonder you'd rather focus on camera equipment.

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#95    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,900 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:38 PM

View PostRafterman, on 10 April 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:


So let's run with your point and for the sake of argument, let's say a breeding population of Bigfoot is 1,000 creatures.  That's not 1,000 creatures spread over North America.  That's 1,000 in South Florida, 1,000 in the Texas hill country, 1,000 in Upstate New York, 1,000 in Manitoba, 1,000 in Ontario, 1,000 in Northern California, 1,000 in Oregon, 1,000 in Washington, 1,000 in Pennsylvania, etc. etc.  You need a breeding population in every area where Bigfoot is sighted for the species to be viable.  That's a lot of Bigfoot.

Great point. It's an entire  large continent we're talking about.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 10 April 2013 - 06:39 PM.


#96    Insanity

Insanity

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 575 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2012
  • Location:Tau Ceti

  • "Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal..." - H.P. Lovecraft, "The Tomb", Published 1922

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:07 PM

View PostRafterman, on 10 April 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

And yet pandas are hardly unknown animals.  Neither are some of the even more endangered mammals on the planet.

True, but the panda's distribution range covers 29,500 sq km, of which probably only 5,900 sq km is actual habitat.  

North America is about 800 times the area.  So we can find animals that have a density, i.e. of pandas, 1,600 within 29,500 sq km =~ 0.05 individuals per sq km.  Let's compare with the a little over the median of 4,000 individuals for MVP, say 8,000 (twice actually) over the 24,709,000 sq km of North America =~ a density of 0.0003 individuals per sq km.  Two magnitudes difference from the panda and ~170x lower density.

Quote

So let's run with your point and for the sake of argument, let's say a breeding population of Bigfoot is 1,000 creatures.  That's not 1,000 creatures spread over North America.  That's 1,000 in South Florida, 1,000 in the Texas hill country, 1,000 in Upstate New York, 1,000 in Manitoba, 1,000 in Ontario, 1,000 in Northern California, 1,000 in Oregon, 1,000 in Washington, 1,000 in Pennsylvania, etc. etc.  You need a breeding population in every area where Bigfoot is sighted for the species to be viable.  That's a lot of Bigfoot.

It doesn't mean that that population has to be present in every conceivable division of the entire distribution range.  That is your conception of it, and with due respect, it's probably inaccurate.

Habitat wise, North America has roughly 7 areas, and I could agree with a separate population in each, excluding the far north of Canada.

If you do want to think that means there needs to be a 1,000 in every state and province/territory, 62,000 across 24,709,000 sq km is a density =~ 0.0025 per sq km.  One magnitude difference from the panda, ~20x lower density.

Maybe we should research what species we are aware of that has the lowest population density?

"We see things only as we are constructed to see them, and can gain no idea of their absolute nature. With five feeble senses we pretend to comprehend the boundlessly complex cosmos, yet other beings with wider, stronger, or different range of senses might not only see very differently the things we see, but might see and study whole worlds of matter, energy, and life which lie close at hand yet can never be detected with the senses we have." - H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond" Published 1934

#97    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,733 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:12 PM

I think it goes without saying (or at least it should) that the lower the population the smaller the area that a species needs to occupy to ensure that breeding pairs 'hook up'. Unless Biff has a harem which bring up a whole new set of questions regarding 'packs' of Bigfeet roaming around.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave


#98    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,694 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:45 AM

View PostRafterman, on 10 April 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

So let's run with your point and for the sake of argument, let's say a breeding population of Bigfoot is 1,000 creatures.  That's not 1,000 creatures spread over North America.  That's 1,000 in South Florida, 1,000 in the Texas hill country, 1,000 in Upstate New York, 1,000 in Manitoba, 1,000 in Ontario, 1,000 in Northern California, 1,000 in Oregon, 1,000 in Washington, 1,000 in Pennsylvania, etc. etc.  You need a breeding population in every area where Bigfoot is sighted for the species to be viable.  That's a lot of Bigfoot.
I think the minimum population would depend greatly on the communication and traveling abilities of a bigfoot. If they can cover 200 miles in 3 days, then they could be very far apart, as long as they have some way of communicating to locate each other.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#99    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,694 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:54 AM

I don't think that we MUST consider the whole continent. Bigfoot is like a wolf. people will report seeing wolves in places where they don't exist, and are known not to exist. Because some people have a preconcieved idea of what they think they saw, or heard. So even if Bobo is in the woods of Burmuda, he's going to think he saw and heard a bigfoot, and it will go down in the "Official" reports as a sighting. Just because bigfoot is reported everywhere does not mean that everywhere Must be considered habitat. I think each case needs to be considered individually with those involved and the situation being taken into consideration.

I really think there is something to the Bigfoot Phenomena, even if there is not some kind of giant ape.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#100    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,900 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:56 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 11 April 2013 - 01:45 AM, said:

I think the minimum population would depend greatly on the communication and traveling abilities of a bigfoot. If they can cover 200 miles in 3 days, then they could be very far apart, as long as they have some way of communicating to locate each other.

What would these hominids use to locate each other over long distances of hundreds of miles?
Or is that what the humans are for?
Thus, hybrids are born.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 11 April 2013 - 02:00 AM.


#101    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,694 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:01 AM

View PostQuiteContrary, on 11 April 2013 - 01:56 AM, said:

What do hominids use to locate each other over long distances of hundreds of miles?
Scent marks maybe... Habitual gathering sites... Trail signs of some kind...

Some speculate Ultra sonic frequency communications, but I don't think that would work.

Some say wood knocks. But those really only cover a couple miles at best, and only if they are REALLY LOUD...

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#102    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,900 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:29 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 11 April 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:

Scent marks maybe... Habitual gathering sites... Trail signs of some kind...

Would that have created some well-worn trails and migration patterns and sightings over x years?
I'm trying to get an idea of how trouble finding a mate due to limited numbers, isolation, distance, etc., might play out for these creatures.

And again, going back to the databases, I agree we could possibly easily weed out who knows how many "sightings". Which if reports were done properly in the first place *waving magic wand* we could have a better picture of numbers and where these creatures actually live.
But with that you get arguments from both sides from "What creatures?" to "They are everywhere!"

Edited by QuiteContrary, 11 April 2013 - 02:33 AM.


#103    Insanity

Insanity

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 575 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2012
  • Location:Tau Ceti

  • "Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal..." - H.P. Lovecraft, "The Tomb", Published 1922

Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:51 AM

View PostSlave2Fate, on 10 April 2013 - 09:12 PM, said:

I think it goes without saying (or at least it should) that the lower the population the smaller the area that a species needs to occupy to ensure that breeding pairs 'hook up'. Unless Biff has a harem which bring up a whole new set of questions regarding 'packs' of Bigfeet roaming around.

I haven't done a lot of research into this yet, but considering the range that some individual animals can cover or consider their territory, this will vary a lot.  The home range for an individual species varies depending on its food source.

Polar bears are on the extreme end, for a male, their home range can exceed 300,000 sq km, while the female often is around 50,000 sq km.  It makes sense that the male has a larger area as a male can mate with several females to produce offspring.  His territory is likely just looking for food as much as looking for mates.  The habitat range for polar bears is typically limited to the extent of the ice sheet in the Arctic region, and in March this year that was some 15 million sq km.  If you simply divide the average male's home range into the habitat range, you come to 50 individuals, for females 300, yet the polar bear population is estimated to be around 25,000.  Obviously there is an overlap between individual's home ranges.  Even this is not an entirely accurate picture as while the home range may be quite large, they tend to gather around the shallow water and ice floe areas, but are quite capable of traveling long distances when it suits them.  One polar bear was tracked covering 80 km in a single day, and another traveled over 1,100 km in a year.  If they have the desire to, they will travel long distances.

Looking at grizzly bears in the Yellowstone park.  A male grizzly bear's home range can be from a couple hundred sq km upwards to 2,000 sq km or more.  Female's are usually have a much smaller home range, from 50 sq km upwards to a 1,000 sq km.  Yellowstone is about 37,300 sq km, and again if you divide the home ranges into the area, for males it is 19 individuals and for females 95.  The estimated grizzly population in Yellowstone is around 600.  The home ranges are likely smaller in comparison to the polar bear as there are more readily available food sources.

I may try to find info on the larger primates, particularly the orangutang as it is a solitary species, but I already know that home ranges for the males are not documented and not well understood.

View PostDieChecker, on 11 April 2013 - 02:01 AM, said:

Scent marks maybe... Habitual gathering sites... Trail signs of some kind...
Some speculate Ultra sonic frequency communications, but I don't think that would work.
Some say wood knocks. But those really only cover a couple miles at best, and only if they are REALLY LOUD...

Scent marks is quite possible and many primate species utilize this; lemurs have scent glands on their wrists, marmosets use scented urine, even humans use scent.  We do not mark our territories by scent, but we are aware of the body odors of others and we do produce pheromones which do have some influence on us whether we're aware of it or not.  It is likely all primates produce pheromones.

Scent markers also provide a time stamp too, in that the longer the odor sits around, the weaker it gets.  Not only can this let another individual of the same species know another was there, it can also let them know when, and possibly even who.  They may not see each at the time, but they are still letting each other know where they were and when that was.

Edited by Insanity, 11 April 2013 - 02:52 AM.

"We see things only as we are constructed to see them, and can gain no idea of their absolute nature. With five feeble senses we pretend to comprehend the boundlessly complex cosmos, yet other beings with wider, stronger, or different range of senses might not only see very differently the things we see, but might see and study whole worlds of matter, energy, and life which lie close at hand yet can never be detected with the senses we have." - H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond" Published 1934

#104    QuiteContrary

QuiteContrary

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 4,900 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 11 April 2013 - 03:23 AM

deleted

Edited by QuiteContrary, 11 April 2013 - 03:34 AM.


#105    S2F

S2F

    Bloodstained Hurricane

  • Member
  • 6,733 posts
  • Joined:22 May 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Right behind you!

  • If you don't believe the sun will rise
    Stand alone and greet the coming night
    In the last remaining light -Audioslave

Posted 11 April 2013 - 03:31 AM

View PostInsanity, on 11 April 2013 - 02:51 AM, said:

I haven't done a lot of research into this yet, but considering the range that some individual animals can cover or consider their territory, this will vary a lot.  The home range for an individual species varies depending on its food source.

Polar bears are on the extreme end, for a male, their home range can exceed 300,000 sq km, while the female often is around 50,000 sq km.  It makes sense that the male has a larger area as a male can mate with several females to produce offspring.  His territory is likely just looking for food as much as looking for mates.  The habitat range for polar bears is typically limited to the extent of the ice sheet in the Arctic region, and in March this year that was some 15 million sq km.  If you simply divide the average male's home range into the habitat range, you come to 50 individuals, for females 300, yet the polar bear population is estimated to be around 25,000.  Obviously there is an overlap between individual's home ranges.  Even this is not an entirely accurate picture as while the home range may be quite large, they tend to gather around the shallow water and ice floe areas, but are quite capable of traveling long distances when it suits them.  One polar bear was tracked covering 80 km in a single day, and another traveled over 1,100 km in a year.  If they have the desire to, they will travel long distances.

Looking at grizzly bears in the Yellowstone park.  A male grizzly bear's home range can be from a couple hundred sq km upwards to 2,000 sq km or more.  Female's are usually have a much smaller home range, from 50 sq km upwards to a 1,000 sq km.  Yellowstone is about 37,300 sq km, and again if you divide the home ranges into the area, for males it is 19 individuals and for females 95.  The estimated grizzly population in Yellowstone is around 600.  The home ranges are likely smaller in comparison to the polar bear as there are more readily available food sources.

I may try to find info on the larger primates, particularly the orangutang as it is a solitary species, but I already know that home ranges for the males are not documented and not well understood.

Terrain would be factor to determine range as well. Polar bears have wide open expanses to roam as opposed to the forests and mountains that Grizzlies like to call home. Food supply is a good point however depending on Biff's diet that could work for or against an extended range.

"You want to discuss plausibility then you have to accept reality." -Mattshark

"Don't argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience." -Obviousman

You know... the plural of ``anecdote'' is not ``data''. Similarly, the plural of ``random fact'' is not ``mystical symbolism''. -sepulchrave





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users