DNA Proves Bigfoot Is real

[Q-C]

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 April 11, 2013 by QuiteContrary

[Insanity]

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.

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 April 11, 2013 by Insanity

[Q-C]

deleted

Edited April 11, 2013 by QuiteContrary

[S2F]

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.

[Insanity]

Bigfoot seems to be a solitary rather than a pack animal

His nose is 6+ feet up in the air. He doesn't run his nose past vegetation at shall we say 'scent marker height', like other 4-legged animals do for their species.

He would need to be picking at the right blueberry bush at the right time? over possibly a very large area.

These creatures could just be incredibly sensitive to a potential mate's scent (in the air), but there seems to be so few out there it seems like a crap shoot with unusually bad odds to me.

I am not sure on the sensitivity of primates or apes, but bloodhounds, under optimal conditions can detect a single cell or two with their nose. The olfactory sensitivity is directly related to the number of olfactory receptor cells.

Animals that use scent place the scent where they can easily detect it, and how tall are trees usually?

[Insanity]

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.

I am sure terrain does have an influence, but even though the Arctic ice is largely open spaces, near the shore it may not be the case. Even if the terrain is easier, the climate certainly is not with temperatures often well below freezing. Interestingly enough, polar bears are are nearly invisible under infrared photography.

Terrain, climate, food sources, even the size of the animal influences its range.

[Q-C]

I am not sure on the sensitivity of primates or apes, but bloodhounds, under optimal conditions can detect a single cell or two with their nose. The olfactory sensitivity is directly related to the number of olfactory receptor cells.

Animals that use scent place the scent where they can easily detect it, and how tall are trees usually?

Yes, I agree the female could place her scent anywhere, but the timing and location (not height but geographic location) would be so critical when talking wandering solitary animals in limited numbers over a large area.

If they are so intelligent why not live in clans? That are keenly aware of other clans' whereabouts?

Edited April 11, 2013 by QuiteContrary

[+DieChecker]

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.

Traveling the same region continually need not mean making a trail. Supposedly bigfoot can walk right through berry patches and bushes that would stop you or I dead stop. They would have to actually do that opposite, I guess. Purposefully not making trails. Especially if they are really intellegent.

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!"

Well the, "What body?" arguement obviously has no defence and thus it is used over and over again. It really is the only good defense. Even if every single report was excellently written and documented with pictures, the Skeptics will repeatedly just keep saying there is no body.

Isn't that what happened with every single (large) creature "discovered" in modern times? Okapi? Mountain Gorillas? Platipus? The rumors were all called lies till the body was brought in. And even then many chose to call them a hoax.

I'm not saying bigfoot is real, just that the situation is the same, just on a larger scale and apparently with bigfoot being very much harder to find.

[Q-C]

It's a subject with more rabbit trails than...

Traveling the same region continually need not mean making a trail. Supposedly bigfoot can walk right through berry patches and bushes that would stop you or I dead stop. They would have to actually do that opposite, I guess. Purposefully not making trails. Especially if they are really intellegent.

Well the, "What body?" arguement obviously has no defence and thus it is used over and over again. It really is the only good defense. Even if every single report was excellently written and documented with pictures, the Skeptics will repeatedly just keep saying there is no body.

Isn't that what happened with every single (large) creature "discovered" in modern times? Okapi? Mountain Gorillas? Platipus? The rumors were all called lies till the body was brought in. And even then many chose to call them a hoax.

I'm not saying bigfoot is real, just that the situation is the same, just on a larger scale and apparently with bigfoot being very much harder to find.

I personally don't find them the same but, it is proving harder to capture a body, for sure. Even those who can easily find them, can't provide proof. But it keeps the subject controversial, interesting, frustrating, and a dozen other things.

Edited April 11, 2013 by QuiteContrary

[Dragonwind]

Had an ancient hominid, adapted to northern hemisphere glacial mountainous environments, survived into present day it's highly likely its diet would be primarily meat. There is this idea bigfoot shyly wonders around the forest, in solitude, hiding and snacking on berries and small prey. I dont think it would be a very successful survival strategy for a large bipedal ape in a cold environment.

Im open to the idea archaic species lingered on in many parts of the world (particularly eurasia as we have some evidence of erectus or other archaic species like the red deer cave people), were at least observed by anatomically modern humans, may have adapted excessive hairiness due to cold environment like other glacial animals and their existence passed down in story telling. However if such a hominid did linger on its far more probable it survived by 1) being part of a social group like any other hominid and 2) by being an expert hunter and big game meat eater. To fuel a body as big as bigfoot is suggested to be would require enormous amounts of energy. To capture the prey needed and to continue a breeding population/social group would additionally require fairly high intelligence and technology like spears, stone axes. Going around picking berries aint going to cut it.

Giganticapithecus has minimal fossil evidence even in asia and none in north america. There is evidence for late lingering hominids in eurasia however including neanderthal, denisova, floreseinesis etc. It's possible these hominids were quite hairy, quite formiddable and encountered by modern humans at some stage in our past (well we know for sure about neanderthal and denisova). Hence the legacy of bigfoot stories. But could they be so hairy as to not need clothing or animal furs and survive in such mountainous environments? Probably not. It appears hominids lost much of their hair long ago from aquatic environments. For an ancient hominid to exist as a 'completely' hairy creature, like shown on the famous Patterson film, would mean it would have to be part of an evolutionary branch before hominids lost the majority of hair. None the less there are quite hairy people today in some parts of the world (almost always glacially adapted people from eurasia) and archaic hominids that didn't shave would likely have appeared very hairy compared to an african anatomically modern human.

It may be that 'bigfoot' did indeed exist - just not in modern times - but in our past as other more robust, hairy, primarily northern climate adapted now extinct hominids. While it can't be proven, I suspect contact with ancient hominids in our past left an indelible impact on our pysche.

Wild hairy men, Sasquatch, trolls, goblins, giants etc - they may not have been entirely mythical but stories abstracted from contact with archaic hominids. There was a time when we shared the planet with others. Now they walk amongst us only in small percentages of DNA admixture.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Dragonwind

[Q-C]

Had an ancient hominid, adapted to northern hemisphere glacial mountainous environments, survived into present day it's highly likely its diet would be primarily meat. There is this idea bigfoot shyly wonders around the forest, in solitude, hiding and snacking on berries and small prey. I dont think it would be a very successful survival strategy for a large bipedal ape in a cold environment.

Im open to the idea archaic species lingered on in many parts of the world (particularly eurasia as we have some evidence of erectus or other archaic species like the red deer cave people), were at least observed by anatomically modern humans, may have adapted excessive hairiness due to cold environment like other glacial animals and their existence passed down in story telling. However if such a hominid did linger on its far more probable it survived by 1) being part of a social group like any other hominid and 2) by being an expert hunter and big game meat eater. To fuel a body as big as bigfoot is suggested to be would require enormous amounts of energy. To capture the prey needed and to continue a breeding population/social group would additionally require fairly high intelligence and technology like spears, stone axes. Going around picking berries aint going to cut it.

Which is why I speculate hunting+group living+ propagating = a noisy, messy, impact & "artifact" leaving, competitive/aggressive (with humans and other animals for food and territory), easily tracked and located creatures. (Wearing patchwork fur coats, lol).

Hiding 5-8-10 of these giant social creatures during sleeping, everyday living activities, hunting, moving to follow food sources or water and a lack of conclusive proof, both seem impossible to me

They have opposable thumbs. What marvels could these highly intelligent creatures be using them for by now?

Where are the notable giant pelts (or body parts) from these creatures in NA or European (trappers) history or art or writings or a European's attic somewhere? Thinking P&G like pelt for survival and man will skin/collect anything. After death, waste not want not. Someone will buy it!

Unless we rewrite everything many seem to assume about bigfoot...isolated from humans, with extremely rare encounters blah blah blah

Edited April 11, 2013 by QuiteContrary

[thebritsandbigfoot]

http://www.kickstart...its-and-bigfoot

Hi guys I hope you don't mind me posting this on your site.

I am a British Filmmaker looking for backers and people with experiences or video, pictures etc with Bigfoot in the UK or Brits with experiences with Bigfoot in Abroad.

If anyone can help me get this film funded I will be eternally grateful.

love the forum by the way.

Please check the project out on Kickstarter and I am updating on @britishbigfoot on twitter

forgot my email is thebritsandbigfoot@mail.com

Edited April 11, 2013 by thebritsandbigfoot

[+DieChecker]

http://www.kickstart...its-and-bigfoot

Hi guys I hope you don't mind me posting this on your site.

I am a British Filmmaker looking for backers and people with experiences or video, pictures etc with Bigfoot in the UK or Brits with experiences with Bigfoot in Abroad.

If anyone can help me get this film funded I will be eternally grateful.

love the forum by the way.

Please check the project out on Kickstarter and I am updating on @britishbigfoot on twitter

forgot my email is thebritsandbigfoot@mail.com

There are lots of encounters in Canada. Not sure about the UK islands. I think there are some "wild man" reports historically in the UK, but I can't remember any modern ones. Sorry...

[Sparkcool]

Hi DieChecker, I do believe there is a fb page on Bigfoot think they are called British & Europe Bigfoot Research try that out, although I have never heard of bigfoot in the UK, I could be wrong.Good luck.

[Sparkcool]

Ooops! Sorry DieChecker was meant for thebritsandbigfoot.

[Timothy]

Beast In Great Fraction Of Observed Thickheadedness.

[RebelInsanity]

One of the MANY reasons I love David Paulides...

[Myles]

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.

The problem is that there are very few places in the US where you can travel 200 miles without running into an interstate.