DNA study suggests Bigfoot exists?
View Single Post
12-06-2012, 12:42 PM
No Fun Shogun
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Originally Posted by
Anyway your post ain't half bad, I think you got the population right, but I also think this:
- you seem to have an issue with them staying hidden, well people are seeing them, by the tens of thousands, so I don't know if I would say they are exactly staying hidden. If you mean capture then I would say you have to consider these creatures travel mostly at night, they smart enough to know that's the best time for it, and they are willing to go places that we don't go and can't.
- you also seem to underestimate how many reported sightings there have been,
its probably in the tens of thousands
, and then we got the unreported sightings. Has to be more unreported than reported. And easily.
- food shouldn't be an issue, they have been seen eating just about anything and they probably do, from plants and fruits to fish to meat. Bears have no problem surviving and they vastly out number them. The only issue I can see being is winter time.
- no offense but I have seen you're from Chicago, have you spent time in the outdoors and I'm no talking about camping parks with pop up tents, I mean roughing it, full backpacks and misery? I have, three and a half weeks in Oregon by the Three Sisters. No technology of ANY kind, no showers or baths, no clean clothes and not even toilet paper and our water from the creeks and rivers. And I can tell you unless you have done the same you can't appreciate not only the vast wilderness of North America but how terribly lonely it really is.
And its where you will never find school field trips or boy scouts.
But the thing is this.... if there were really tens of thousands of sightings, then we would have more then just those eyewitness accounts and occassional footprint. The numbers of views might be in line, but we'd also have greater varieties in the sightings, almost assured clearer photos and videos, hunters would've come across at least one and bagged it, scientists would've at least captured one for study, we'd have Bigfoot trails out the wazoo, and plenty of dung samples. Those aren't the case.
When you take something as supposedly common as the Bigfoot sightings you're crediting but the corresponding corroborating evidence is essentially nil, it points to likely not being accurate, either through hoaxing or irl trolling or simple misinterpretation. Plus, probably more than a few might see a bear from a very long distance, and honestly truly hope that it's a Bigfoot and believe it, just as UFO junkies are usually quick to identify any UFO (unidentified flying object) as an alien spacecraft.
As for the food, yes.... the Pacific Northwest is assuredly more than bountiful enough to sustain another large species, but the point is that the ecological impact would still be noticeable enough for scientists to realize that the current species' that they're aware of wouldn't account for everything that they're seeing, and the other secondary evidence that would come from a species existing that I mentioned above would be telltale signs of a new species.
And you are correct, I am not an experienced outdoorsman and my only real experience with that was in New Zealand. That being said, the Pacific Northwest is still a heavily populated area with plenty of opportunities for casual, moderate, and intense outdoors activity, and for that very reason it's very frequented by hikers, photographers, hunters, scientists, geologists, you name it. People with almost nothing and people with huge amounts of equipment, and everything in between. The notion that the sightings are all essentially either just eyewitness or low-quality video/photo in spite of the fact that plenty have guns, plenty have better cameras, and plenty of the supposed sightings are relatively close to populated areas just isn't a logical assumption to make.
Originally Posted by
In terms of conservation biology, the rule of thumb is 50/500. For the short term, an
(basically the number of breeding individuals expressed as a proportional average of male and females of (at least) 50 individuals is required to stave off the effects of inbreeding. In the long run, an effective population of 500 is required for mutation to create alleles at a rate that can counteract genetic drift.
Pulled from the space colonization page, but its the same model that you use in conservation biology/endangered species management. I have a final in my endangered species class in about 20 mins, trust me on this.
This means that there needs to be at least 500 Sasquatch within an area small enough for all 500 to be able to interact/breed. At the very least, a fragmented group of sub-populations close enough to allow for migration between groups. Anything less than that and the population doesn't have enough individuals to maintain genetic diversity over time.
.... in line with this, a very good point, that number of such a large species would have to be noticeable. And, as he said, 500 is probably the minimum for a compact enough area for them to all possibly interact, so if the species was over an even larger area, say a significant portion of the Pacific Northwest, then likely they'd need many times that amount. Their impact on the local environment would be obvious and their numbers would be sufficient enough that they would've been widely seen, identified, categorized, captured, hunted, you name it.
No Fun Shogun
View Public Profile
No Fun Shogun's albums
Find More Posts by No Fun Shogun