>>40283583
>>40285934

>"brought wolves back"
that's a huge, 0-100 unnatural change though, which would be easy to notice as a delta. it's not really comparable to sasquatch already being attuned to and integrated in the eco system. consider that it easily supports large fauna like bear and elk, and that sasquatch would be dinstinctly advantaged in acquiring enough calories to sustain themselves for several reasons also.

resource share, group hunting, wider foraging patterns/diet (lychen, roots, nuts et c) compared to the bear (which might accrue as much as 50% of its calory intake from berries), caching, stealth, autistic intelligence, and being able to operate in proximity to human settlement/resources.

so, a naturalist explanation would probably raise less complications than a supernatural one even. but obviously, there will be a lack of ecological studies on the matter as it's not really a topic that's ever been seriously addressed.

the fossil record of the taxonomic family of the primate order is notoriously scarce (>5% catalogued). the first fossil record of the chimp was unearthed in 2005.

if they tend to their own remains and live in groups, the window becomes really, really narrow. and if they end up geographically inaccessible to even bigfoot himself, how is man going to fare better?

the natives certainly 'know' of their existence, and are quite consistent in their accounts. as for european man, the reports are interesting. before the discovery of the african mountain gorilla (which is an interesting comparison in its own as a 'myth' hominid cryptid) all the newspaper clips and reports mention 'wildmen', and after that point, people begin to sight 'escaped gorillas' in the american wilds. our paradigm really shapes our perception of this topic a lot. europeans only discovered the gorilla in 1847.

just a few considerations.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/x/

Thread:

Do you believe in Bigfoot? I think he's kinda neat. Kinda spooky.