|
Post by toddstanding on Aug 13, 2007 1:54:53 GMT -5
I have a question. My biggest problem is Tracks, hair, Blood, Feces, Video... Will never be enough evidence. I need a body or a piece of one. When i find a new domicile, ideally i would like to find a body first and foremost. That would put an end to any arguments period. I know these animals have no tolerance for human habitation and it is likely that these animals have a lifespan of at least 30 years( very arguably). So a group of lets say 40 ( which i would say would be the very maximum size of a Troop) would have 1 animal die every nine months. Now i am not here to argue these numbers but lets just say for arguments sake i would have to take at least 6 months of my time out in the middle of no where, while i remain out of sight and scent free before i would be able to even hope to see what happens to one of these animals when they die. This is not something i can do. So what is the most statistically probable event that happens when one of these animals die. That is my focus right now. I have a few working theories. But what do you think? Here is some other info that is important before any other information can be deduced. These animals live in troops or groups that are devoted to each other. The groups i have knowledge of live in mountainous regions. They are nocturnal. They are gatherers. They are bipedal primates that have the ability to survive in a group 3 class c climate. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by darrenbonk on Aug 13, 2007 6:15:13 GMT -5
Personally I think we are all being taken for fools. We have been told that the Bigfoot video #2 was shot "accidentally" when the camera was being moved from one area to another. If this is true I must say that it is a hell of a coincidence that the camera actually pans past the creature, then returns to the creature with the creature dead in the centre of the screen,in focus, for several seconds. Then the creature suddendly ducks out of sight and the camera immediatly pans away. This does not sound "accidental" to me. Watch the video and you will see.
|
|
Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Aug 13, 2007 9:37:41 GMT -5
From another post here is my opinion: I would guess no, but I have no idea. I would think that like most animals they would go to a secluded/protected place to die. If they happened to have an unexpected death (from a heart attack, lead poisoning, etc), I think they would just lay where they died. I can't imagine any animal carrying another dead animal to a specific place as that would require them to expend valuable energy and in the wild, animals don't waste energy. The bottom line is I can't see an animal expending valuable energy to bury one of it's dead. If they did that would mean that they are much more confident in their ability to find food to replace the lost energy exerted by burying a dead body....Could they really be that much different from other animals?
|
|
|
Post by buddharat on Aug 13, 2007 14:47:08 GMT -5
I agree with Paul. I doubt they bury their dead. More then likely, they'd live the body and scavengers would dispose of it. I believe that's what happens with bear, elk and other large game animals.
My suggestion for Todd is to head to the library and look up books on primates. Now, I'm not saying that BF is a gorilla or an ape for sure, but reading about their relationship with their dead my be a step in the right direction. It definately wouldn't hurt.
I've heard that some of the more famous primate researchers (Jane Goodall comes to mind but don't quote me for sure) have actually stated that they believe in bigfoot.
|
|
|
Post by taffy341 on Aug 16, 2007 18:56:12 GMT -5
We already know that you Todd have studied Primates in your research. Here is a "seed thought": Mother monkeys, apes, chimpanzees, gorillas, etc. have been videoed carrying their dead babies for several days after their baby's death. If the size of the BF's head denotes a larger brain and if it is a primate, then it too may mourn and carry its' dead young. Should these suppositions be valid factors relating to a primate known as Bigfoot, then , the more intelligent larger brain and the same primate factors of mourning its' dead young by keeping the lifeless body with the mother could possibly extend to mourning its' adult dead beings. BF is known to be illusive to humans but if BF's normal habitat is far from normal human contact being BF lives in remote areas among other wild animals, then BF has no reason to be concerned with having its' burial practice watched by humans. As posed as a question in another post, elephants have burial grounds and go to burial grounds.
Paul's' issue of energy consumption of being an important factor in a wild animals choice of actions is an interesting theory. Conserving energy is an issue that I'm not sure that I understand as either a motivating or non-motivating factor in an animals life style. Please explain that further Paul.
Todd I'm sure you have read the question posed in the post questioning whether or not BF buries its' dead. There was a report by a lady in the southern U.S.A. of when she was young and viewed the burial of a baby BF. I believe she even reported the account in a book... [glow=red,2,300]as to whether it is accurate, I do not know. [/glow]
|
|
Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Aug 16, 2007 19:55:21 GMT -5
Paul's' issue of energy consumption of being an important factor in a wild animals choice of actions is an interesting theory. Conserving energy is an issue that I'm not sure that I understand as either a motivating or non-motivating factor in an animals life style. Please explain that further Paul.
Well, I don't have anything to link to and I'm not a biologist or anything, but.... Adult animals in the wild generally do things very precisely. Their movements are directly related to their food sources and they stay very near them as "I think" they realize that in order to survive they must eat to generate the energy to remain alive. If they overexert themselves they run the risk of not being able to replenish the lost energy and they could die. An exception to this is breeding season. A male deer as an example, will run all over the place looking for does so much so they can get very run down as breeding takes the precedence. Outside of breeding season the deer's activity is absolutely centralized around eating to maintain life. They eat, they move back into cover, they rest and then they eat again. Overexertion can quickly bring death if they cannot replace the lost energy. IMHO, every animal land and water follows these same principals. So if BF would spend valuable energy moving another adult animal, digging, etc it would show that they are much more confident in their ability to replace the lost energy expended burying their dead. It would seem that an animal as large as BF, that eating would take up the majority of their time as I would think that it would take a great deal of food to generate the amount of energy required to move those huge bodies around. Take everything I said with a grain of salt as I am not expert, just a guy that likes to spend time in the woods (AWAY from BF, LOL).
|
|
|
Post by taffy341 on Aug 16, 2007 20:48:51 GMT -5
Paul thanks, your reasoning makes sense with deer and like animals.
Now some thoughts for you to apply your knowledge and guess at a few possibilities........
Just consider for a moment, deer are not predators and predators exert energy on the hunt. Deer eat the greenery around them but predators have to travel for their prey. If BF eats meat (Indian reports of taking fish and removing liver from deer) and vegetables, doesn't that give BF a different scenario for the use of it's expenditure of energy? Meat protein gives more energy than vegetation protein; so could a combination diet give a different use of energy in a predator animal? Also, if food is plentiful in a remote area, would the necessity to conserve energy be an issue? Some say BF travels the water ways in some areas (access to high protein fish and water vegetation).... Others have said that BF and bears do not share the same areas ........ Now thinking about predators that eat both meat and vegetables..... wolves, bears, etc. And add to that thought characteristics of a primate...... Paul, since you are a hunter, I'm sure you have thought about the possibility of predators while you are out in the woods hunting deer. You probably even check foot prints to be aware of what animals have been traveling in the same area. I'm curious on your thoughts if you combine different characteristics,,,, some animals can afford to waste energy playing...... Now, what possibilities in nature have you seen that reflect actions of animals beyond mating that expend energy that is not in the search for food?
There is a theory about humans and animals that when food is plentiful, those humans and animals are more prone to develop advanced capabilities because they do not have to spend all their time hunting for survival food....
|
|
Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Aug 16, 2007 22:03:14 GMT -5
I used deer as an example but if you look at behavior of bears, lions, wolves, etc you will see that their life revolves around their food (prey) as well.
I dunno....I hear what you are saying, but for me to speculate any further seems like such a reach since I know virtually nothing about these beasts. I may as well say that they are transported to another dimension when they die rather than going too much further down this path. My background and knowledge just don't seem sufficient enough for me offer any more than I already have in the way of theories.
|
|
|
Post by malyss on Aug 17, 2007 1:10:53 GMT -5
Perhaps BF is so oriented around hiding itself that it actually incorporated cannibalistic behavior into it's tradition? There are ancient tribes that eat their dead so they can live on within the soul of the closest relative. Aren't there records of ancient man burying the dead? Why not modern Gigantopithicus? Interesting thoughts to ponder...
|
|
|
Post by malyss on Aug 17, 2007 1:16:43 GMT -5
Paul thanks, your reasoning makes sense with deer and like animals.
Now some thoughts for you to apply your knowledge and guess at a few possibilities........
Just consider for a moment, deer are not predators and predators exert energy on the hunt. Deer eat the greenery around them but predators have to travel for their prey. If BF eats meat (Indian reports of taking fish and removing liver from deer) and vegetables, doesn't that give BF a different scenario for the use of it's expenditure of energy? Meat protein gives more energy than vegetation protein; so could a combination diet give a different use of energy in a predator animal? Also, if food is plentiful in a remote area, would the necessity to conserve energy be an issue? Some say BF travels the water ways in some areas (access to high protein fish and water vegetation).... Others have said that BF and bears do not share the same areas ........ Now thinking about predators that eat both meat and vegetables..... wolves, bears, etc. And add to that thought characteristics of a primate...... Paul, since you are a hunter, I'm sure you have thought about the possibility of predators while you are out in the woods hunting deer. You probably even check foot prints to be aware of what animals have been traveling in the same area. I'm curious on your thoughts if you combine different characteristics,,,, some animals can afford to waste energy playing...... Now, what possibilities in nature have you seen that reflect actions of animals beyond mating that expend energy that is not in the search for food?
There is a theory about humans and animals that when food is plentiful, those humans and animals are more prone to develop advanced capabilities because they do not have to spend all their time hunting for survival food.... youtube.com/watch?v=I49K_9pcIn8I believe I read an entire issue of National Geographic once all about the social lives of animals and how much time they do spend playing and nuzzling and such.
|
|
|
Post by toddstanding on Aug 17, 2007 14:45:36 GMT -5
what about the obvious advantages and disadvantages of what a species does with their dead. An example would be an old male dies in the groups cave of old age. The body cannot be left their to rot. If you simply took the body away from the cave the smell of dead and rotting body would attract attention and create a breeding ground for sickness and disease. A theory most anthropologist support is the burial of a groups dead evolved not only for sentimental reasons but more importantly was simply the most logical way of ensuring a species survival. Gorilas and chimps travel regularly so leaving behind a body is of no consequence to their survival. But to a species that has a regular habitat proper disposal of their dead would become critical to their survival. Especially when you consider their place in the food chain. Most animals that exist in any ecosystem should never die of old age unless of course they are at the top of the food chain, like grizzly bears for example often die from old age where as moose are far less likely. Furthermore if you consider that when a bear or a moose dies it's body is consumed obviously because their is no defensive mechanism in place. With a primate that survives in a group the group would still be there to defend the body and therefore would be soley responsible for the proper disposal of that body. likely the reason neandrathals and hominids began to bury their dead hundreds of thousand of years ago. I am just throwing a theory out there. Please dispute it.
|
|
Paul
Full Member
Posts: 111
|
Post by Paul on Aug 17, 2007 15:23:42 GMT -5
what about the obvious advantages and disadvantages of what a species does with their dead. An example would be an old male dies in the groups cave of old age. The body cannot be left their to rot. If you simply took the body away from the cave the smell of dead and rotting body would attract attention and create a breeding ground for sickness and disease. A theory most anthropologist support is the burial of a groups dead evolved not only for sentimental reasons but more importantly was simply the most logical way of ensuring a species survival. Gorilas and chimps travel regularly so leaving behind a body is of no consequence to their survival. But to a species that has a regular habitat proper disposal of their dead would become critical to their survival. Especially when you consider their place in the food chain. Most animals that exist in any ecosystem should never die of old age unless of course they are at the top of the food chain, like grizzly bears for example often die from old age where as moose are far less likely. Furthermore if you consider that when a bear or a moose dies it's body is consumed obviously because their is no defensive mechanism in place. With a primate that survives in a group the group would still be there to defend the body and therefore would be soley responsible for the proper disposal of that body. likely the reason neandrathals and hominids began to bury their dead hundreds of thousand of years ago. I am just throwing a theory out there. Please dispute it. OK Todd if you had to guess (or do you have better than a guess), how big is the home range of BF? I am thinking that if an animal knew that it was going to die it could wander off to a secluded place and die. If an animal dropped dead in the "sleeping" area, maybe they would carry it off somewhere. If they could get the dead body away from their main living space do they care if it attracts scavengers as they are no threat to BF. Todd, do you think that they have a very specific sleeping or living space? Or would do you think that they roam over a several mile area? Maybe if one died they would just move off because within a couple of weeks the body would be gone?
|
|
|
Post by darrenbonk on Aug 17, 2007 15:36:49 GMT -5
Either way, if these creatures have lived in BC for thousands of years the place would be full of signs. Obviously for the population to sustain itself there would have to be dozens of them, in several groups. This is because the gene pool would be too thin if there were only one group. Ok, now there are 2 groups of 10 foot, 600lb mammals roaming BC for 10,000 years and not one skull or skelton has been found? Not one creature has been shot? No real decent video has been secured? This leads me to believe that the creature exists only in our minds. And what about winter. Todd has said the groups have up to 40 members. Where the hell would 40 six hundred pound animals sleep? And if they don't hibernate imagine how many footprints they would leave. I still think the whole thing is a load of crap. Scientists can find an ant in a piece of amber that is 10,000 years old and yet not one person in BC can find a BF skull that would probably weigh upwards of 50lbs.
|
|
|
Post by jasocal on Aug 17, 2007 17:58:59 GMT -5
Dear Todd:
I don't know why you dismiss the evidenciary power of hair, blood and feces. If you find non-human primate DNA in hair, blood or feces naturally occuring in the North American Rocky Mountains, I'm sure the serious scientific community will sit up and take notice.
In your City News (City TV) interview from October of 2006, you say "With what's happening and the way these animals are losing their habitat". What do you mean by "what's happening" and what evidence do you have that these animals are losing their habitat?
Further, how do you think developing a repeatable methodology for finding these creatures and disclosing it to Parliament or Congress would serve to protect them better than their current state where even the most ambitious and methodical among the small percentage of the population that believe in them are incapable of finding hair, blood, feces or a clear image of them?
|
|
|
Post by buddharat on Aug 17, 2007 18:45:39 GMT -5
I have heard from other researchers that the biggest problem with hair, blood, & feces is that while they may be able to be tested, all that they can come up with (if it truly is BF) is that it's unknown and then leave it at that. A lot of researchers have tried to get it tested and sadly the people testing it will only say "it's not from anything cataloged so that's all we can say". It doesn't seem right, but that's what the science community says.
|
|