The Realistic Bigfoot

SmokingMan · 08-14-2008, 11:31 PM

If there truly is a large, hairy, upright-walking, ape-like creature that has gone undiscovered by the efforts of wildife biology in North America or indeed worldwide, based on the alleged sightings, and/or lack thereof, we can come to the conclusion that this creature, when proven to exist would be classified under the animal kingdom in the order primates, however there would be much and lengthy debate over whether or not the species should be classified under the genus Homo.
We should be able to conclude that this creature is not territorial, but among such a species, individuals cover vast ranges of ground, traveling perhaps many miles per day, possibly living a nomadic lifestyle, or simply trying to find mates in a very sparsely populated existance as seen in animal species like the wolverine. We should note that they do not live in nests, trees, caves, burrows, etc. but find shelter at random in their travels, possibly using vegetation to construct makeshift beds or coverings.
Logically, the species is vegitarian, feeding mainly on the fruits, roots, bark and leaves of certain non-poisonous plants, but may also be omnivorous, feeding on carrion. However, if omnivorous behavior is true to the species, we should be able to observe sharpened canine teeth in the animals. The ecological niche of the species would be the maintenance of forest overgrowth and perhaps the cleanup of carrion to limit the spread of disease cause by decaying flesh.
Behaviorally, the animals indicate an extremely keen sense of smell and hearing, and are generally very elusive, avoiding contact with humans in most cases, but showing certain signs of curiosity and even objection to human presence at times. These instances may be due to nearby young, or females in pregnancy.
The intelligence of these creatures is closer to a gorilla than to that of a human, based on the fact that no tools, artifacts or artwork has been found. The animals may use sticks and rocks to aid in their daily activities. This animal should not be a canidate for a "missing link" in evolution because it does not display the intelligence of the genus Homo, though it evolved alongside humans, it is much larger and much more hairy, and did not evolve in geographical isolation from humans. To suggest that this creature is related to man as an ancestor, in view of these facts would be contradictory to the theory of evolution.
Individuals probably do not "mate for life" and the female must raise the young by herself. Gestation lasts approximately 10-11 months and females give birth to a single offspring, feeding the young breastmilk until such a time that the young can digest solid food. The young go off on their own in their adolescence and they do not live in groups as gorillas do.
The problem is that we don't know if they actually exist. Actually I made all this up. Incidentally, however, if they do exist most of this is probably true based on the details of past sightings and what we know of wildlife biology.
-Hope you enjoyed this!

Truthed · 08-15-2008, 03:36 AM

Very interesting post, I really enjoyed it. Well written!

Lissy · 08-31-2008, 03:36 PM

I, too, think that if Bigfoot exists, it is an animal and not the "missing link" evolutionists would love to find - something in between ape and human. There is no such thing.

ken7700 · 09-08-2008, 07:07 AM

Yes great post. No matter if one exist or not we will still have sightings as people always are not truly sure what they see from a distance.

lilbit · 09-08-2008, 10:33 AM

Very interesting smoking man. You write very well. It makes you believe that they really do exist. Who knows? I don`t know of anyone personally that has seen one but ya never know. So if you enjoy camping in the wilderness take a camera just in case they are for real and let us know.

flowerhorn · 09-09-2008, 06:38 PM

I am relieved to find out that the Homo is a vegetarian. That means I don't have to run if I ever meet one.

kidflash2008 · 09-27-2008, 09:21 AM

Every Native American culture has legends about them and many draw them along side real animals. Legends are based on fact, and it is possible sasquatch is real. They may bury their dead like the Neanderthals did, which may account for no bones being found.

Truthed · 09-29-2008, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidflash2008

Every Native American culture has legends about them and many draw them along side real animals. Legends are based on fact, and it is possible sasquatch is real. They may bury their dead like the Neanderthals did, which may account for no bones being found.

Ya IF bigfoot does exist then they have to bury their dead or do SOMETHING with them that would account for no dead bigfoots being found.

kidflash2008 · 09-29-2008, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthed

Ya IF bigfoot does exist then they have to bury their dead or do SOMETHING with them that would account for no dead bigfoots being found.

It is hard to find dead animals in the woods because nature gets rid of them in a week. If reports of the sasquatch are true, then they are intelligent hominid type creatures. Many of the early hominids are discovered to have buried their dead, so that custom is millions of years old.

SmokingMan · 10-01-2008, 12:43 PM

Well, I would have to say that with all of the "bigfoot trackers" out there, someone by now would have noticed burial sites of some sort and dug them up, whether they be heaps of dirt in the ground or areas where leaf cover has been significantly disturbed. We can say that if these creatures were intelligent enough to bury bodies without leaving obvious traces, then they can probably create artwork or tools and the like, which we have no evidence of. Let us remember also that the hominids in the earth's past history that buried their dead also used tools and in some cases drew art, but there is no evidence that they buried their dead in a completely unnoticeable fashion. Furthermore, the lack of evidence and infrequency between sighting times and places implies a solitary, unsocial and rare species. Hence, if one were to die in the wilderness, the flesh would probably be consumed by insects, and the bones would then be scattered and dispersed by coyotes, wolves, foxes, bears, etc. by the end of a couple of weeks, and before one of its own kind could locate and bury it. However, we find skulls of deer, elk, coyote and for that matter, all of the species we have in the woods all the time. Why don't we have any sasquatch skulls? I'm not trying to discourage belief in the big guy, I just think we should look at it from all angels and not buy so quickly into a fad. That's what science thinks we're doing, and why it's not taken seriously. Do I believe in bigfoot? I don't have the evidence to confirm a belief in bigfoot, as a matter of fact, the lack of evidence for such a large mammal having existed among us for such a long time makes me think no. But, I'm not willing to write off the sightings and collective evidence for it. For now, I'll stay home and watch the Discovery Channel. But if someone can show me something good enough, you can bet your sweet tiny ass I'll be camping in the woods with cameras and binoculars.

08-14-2008, 11:31 PM	#1
SmokingMan Junior Investigator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 48	The Realistic Bigfoot If there truly is a large, hairy, upright-walking, ape-like creature that has gone undiscovered by the efforts of wildife biology in North America or indeed worldwide, based on the alleged sightings, and/or lack thereof, we can come to the conclusion that this creature, when proven to exist would be classified under the animal kingdom in the order primates, however there would be much and lengthy debate over whether or not the species should be classified under the genus Homo. We should be able to conclude that this creature is not territorial, but among such a species, individuals cover vast ranges of ground, traveling perhaps many miles per day, possibly living a nomadic lifestyle, or simply trying to find mates in a very sparsely populated existance as seen in animal species like the wolverine. We should note that they do not live in nests, trees, caves, burrows, etc. but find shelter at random in their travels, possibly using vegetation to construct makeshift beds or coverings. Logically, the species is vegitarian, feeding mainly on the fruits, roots, bark and leaves of certain non-poisonous plants, but may also be omnivorous, feeding on carrion. However, if omnivorous behavior is true to the species, we should be able to observe sharpened canine teeth in the animals. The ecological niche of the species would be the maintenance of forest overgrowth and perhaps the cleanup of carrion to limit the spread of disease cause by decaying flesh. Behaviorally, the animals indicate an extremely keen sense of smell and hearing, and are generally very elusive, avoiding contact with humans in most cases, but showing certain signs of curiosity and even objection to human presence at times. These instances may be due to nearby young, or females in pregnancy. The intelligence of these creatures is closer to a gorilla than to that of a human, based on the fact that no tools, artifacts or artwork has been found. The animals may use sticks and rocks to aid in their daily activities. This animal should not be a canidate for a "missing link" in evolution because it does not display the intelligence of the genus Homo, though it evolved alongside humans, it is much larger and much more hairy, and did not evolve in geographical isolation from humans. To suggest that this creature is related to man as an ancestor, in view of these facts would be contradictory to the theory of evolution. Individuals probably do not "mate for life" and the female must raise the young by herself. Gestation lasts approximately 10-11 months and females give birth to a single offspring, feeding the young breastmilk until such a time that the young can digest solid food. The young go off on their own in their adolescence and they do not live in groups as gorillas do. The problem is that we don't know if they actually exist. Actually I made all this up. Incidentally, however, if they do exist most of this is probably true based on the details of past sightings and what we know of wildlife biology. -Hope you enjoyed this!

08-15-2008, 03:36 AM	#2
Truthed Administrator Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,079	Very interesting post, I really enjoyed it. Well written! __________________ "You Want To Believe" http://www.truthed.com truthed@truthed.com

09-09-2008, 06:38 PM	#6
flowerhorn Junior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 73	I am relieved to find out that the Homo is a vegetarian. That means I don't have to run if I ever meet one. __________________ Happy Hours,A Richer Life,Acne Tips,Teeth Whitening Systems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-31-2008, 03:36 PM	#3
Lissy Junior Investigator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 35	I, too, think that if Bigfoot exists, it is an animal and not the "missing link" evolutionists would love to find - something in between ape and human. There is no such thing.

09-08-2008, 07:07 AM	#4
ken7700 Junior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 22	Yes great post. No matter if one exist or not we will still have sightings as people always are not truly sure what they see from a distance.

09-08-2008, 10:33 AM	#5
lilbit Junior Investigator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 54	Very interesting smoking man. You write very well. It makes you believe that they really do exist. Who knows? I don`t know of anyone personally that has seen one but ya never know. So if you enjoy camping in the wilderness take a camera just in case they are for real and let us know.

09-27-2008, 09:21 AM	#7
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,699	Every Native American culture has legends about them and many draw them along side real animals. Legends are based on fact, and it is possible sasquatch is real. They may bury their dead like the Neanderthals did, which may account for no bones being found.

10-01-2008, 12:43 PM	#10
SmokingMan Junior Investigator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 48	Well, I would have to say that with all of the "bigfoot trackers" out there, someone by now would have noticed burial sites of some sort and dug them up, whether they be heaps of dirt in the ground or areas where leaf cover has been significantly disturbed. We can say that if these creatures were intelligent enough to bury bodies without leaving obvious traces, then they can probably create artwork or tools and the like, which we have no evidence of. Let us remember also that the hominids in the earth's past history that buried their dead also used tools and in some cases drew art, but there is no evidence that they buried their dead in a completely unnoticeable fashion. Furthermore, the lack of evidence and infrequency between sighting times and places implies a solitary, unsocial and rare species. Hence, if one were to die in the wilderness, the flesh would probably be consumed by insects, and the bones would then be scattered and dispersed by coyotes, wolves, foxes, bears, etc. by the end of a couple of weeks, and before one of its own kind could locate and bury it. However, we find skulls of deer, elk, coyote and for that matter, all of the species we have in the woods all the time. Why don't we have any sasquatch skulls? I'm not trying to discourage belief in the big guy, I just think we should look at it from all angels and not buy so quickly into a fad. That's what science thinks we're doing, and why it's not taken seriously. Do I believe in bigfoot? I don't have the evidence to confirm a belief in bigfoot, as a matter of fact, the lack of evidence for such a large mammal having existed among us for such a long time makes me think no. But, I'm not willing to write off the sightings and collective evidence for it. For now, I'll stay home and watch the Discovery Channel. But if someone can show me something good enough, you can bet your sweet tiny ass I'll be camping in the woods with cameras and binoculars.