Monday, May 26, 2014

Yahoo Answers: If Bigfoot was Real He Would Attack Humans More Often

How come bigfoots don't attack humans more?
"The reason for [bigfoot not being real] is because there are no attacks. A carnivorous community would doubtless find it much easier to raid a human dwelling and carry off the inhabitants for food..." --Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods

The man pictured to the left goes by the moniker, Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods. Mr. Bearclaw has been providing Yahoo! Answers since November 20th 2006. 61% of his 7180 were considered best answers. About a year ago someone asked, "is Bigfoot real, or just fake?" and par for the course Mr. Bearclaw's extensive answered got voted up as best answer. While our editorial "bigfoot news" committee at Bigfoot Lunch Club categorically disagrees with Mr. Bearclaw, we find his answer more novel than most and worth the read. The best part of his argument is if Bigfoot was real, the creature would attack humans more often. How would argue against Mr. Bearclaw?

Read his answer to the question, "Is big foot real? Or just a fake?"

Bigfoot is not real. For any species of that size to actually exist requires shelter, food, and warmth.

A community of primates has to breed to continue their existence, and the numbers necessary for species viability preclude any single small community of Sasquatch. Such a species would need to breed in order to maintain population levels and to offset the death rate from age, sickness, accidental death, and even homicide.

Such a large community would require massive amounts of food to sustain, and even if they were strictly vegetarian they would strain the resources of any given area within weeks and would be constantly on the move, foraging and gathering. Yet there is no forensic evidence of any kind of a nomadic primate tribe anywhere. Instead of finding one or two isolated “footprints” we would have come across whole trails of Sasquatch prints, and such trails would be stripped completely bare of any edibles, and would also contain piles of droppings and fur samples caught on the trees and bushes.

No such evidence has ever been found. Supposed hair samples of “unknown origin” have been long held up as “evidence”, yet I cannot find one actual report from any scientific lab about such hair samples.

As for warmth, even a Sasquatch would find it difficult to stay warm in the Pacific Northwest during the rainy seasons. Even a core temperature drop of just three to four degrees can result in hypothermia and death. This would mean that any sizeable [sic] community would invariably seek shelter of some type during inclement weather, and any member of the community that died would have one of two things happen to their corpse: one, they would be left behind where they died, or two, if the community was carnivorous the corpse would simply be eaten. However, all stories indicate that such creatures would be vegetarian or omnivorous at best, and not aggressively carnivorous.

The reason for this is because there are no attacks. A carnivorous community would doubtless find it much easier to raid a human dwelling and carry off the inhabitants for food, especially during winter. Such behavior would be on par with bear learning that it is easier to raid villages and garbage cans than to hunt for themselves. After all, it would be much easier to attack an isolated home than to run down deer through snow.

The fact that there are absolutely no corpses found means only one thing: there are no such things as Sasquatch. We have already ruled out carnivorous disposal of deceased members, and such creatures would likely not “bury” their dead, as they could only dig with their hands and any such “grave” would be shallow at best. Such creatures would not be intelligent by any stretch of the imagination, at least not by human definitions, because even Cro-Magnon man made and used tools. Yet not one sample of a Stone Age tool has been found in the woods that isn't an actual relic from the Stone Age, certainly nothing made in the last two hundred years that wasn't easily identifiable as having Native American origins. No shovels, no hammers, no axes, no spears. So if they are not intelligent enough to use tools, then they are certainly not intelligent enough to completely conceal their existence or to dispose of their dead in such a manner as to preclude discovery of the corpse.

With the numbers needed to maintain genetic viability of such a community, nutritional requirements, and the need for shelter as well as forensic evidence, it is flat-out impossible that we would not have found or captured a living Sasquatch by this time, especially with the sheer number of hikers, campers, hunters, ATV enthusiasts, forest rangers, Bigfoot “hunters”, people who live in homes deep in the woods, scientists, etc. etc. etc.

There is only the flimsiest “evidence”, consisting mainly of easily faked photos and video footage, usually blurry and at a distance, and isolated “prints” again easily faked, that are never part of an actual trail. Any outdoorsman worth his salt would find it easy to track such a large creature, especially considering that in order to have survived all these millennia it would require a large community to maintain species viability. SRC: Yahoo Answers
Does Mr. Bearclaw have a good argument, do you have a counter-argument? 


  1. This guy does not sound to bright. Thousands of people go missing every year in the woods. Bigfoot is not killing all of them, I hope. But some people wander into their territory and may pay a high price for that. Bigfoot will attack if one gets to close to their home or children.

  2. This learned scholar hasent got a clue.... just as generations of these same people think...nothing more than Mith or Legend can't possibly exist, because he said so.

    none of the other large animals decimate the forest such as bear, moose, deer, wolf, yack or gorilla.

    There is lots of evidence out there only its not recognized for what it is ....its funny how the evidence is always contaminated by professional people.

    I could go on and on with this mans opinion of the Sasquatch that doesn't exist....but I'm sure he will scoff at any evidence put forth as do most people of his mind set......" they will only believe....when they see one"....every one else is delusional and miss identified what they seen.....naturally....must be...right.

  3. The current amount of wild animals living in any given state's forest's would have wiped out the total vegetation and probably most other species, as well as turned it into a rather large pile of shit, according to this guy. And he's only talking about one "animal". Hundreds of people go missing in the woods never to be seen again. Maybe that's the reason Bigfoot seems to be so partial to pork. I've heard (don't ask) that human flesh tastes similar (Ewww, I know, right?) Maybe Bigfoot eats whatever the hell Bigfoot freaking wants! As far as movement, some animals travel in packs and herds, some are solitary hunters. Some animals travel great distances for food. This guy really needs to research his info before trying to sound off and sound like he's some big ass expert of whatever he thinks he's an expert of. I have a lot of Best Answer ratings on Yahoo too. It certainly does not make me an expert on any subject. Apparently pastry boy of the woods, (irony) has never stepped into them. There are literally thousands of deer, but you only see a small portion at any given time. Bear, moose, wolves, coyotes, wild hogs, mountain lions, etc? How many times do you walk in the woods and see them? See any trace of them? Unless you know what to look for, you'll overlook every piece of evidence staring you in the face. Our forests are vast and some have yet to be fully explored. Who knows for certain what's still in there.

  4. I've read 'proofs' like this before and often they do not have any research to support the conclusions being made or are conjectures in themselves.

    There is no clear method to determine what the breeding population must be for any given species, and when someone wants to say there must be a breeding population for it to exist, I often think they assume that it must be tens of thousands. The closest term to this is minimal viable population (MVP), which for most terrestrial vertebrates is a population around 5,000. The average among five primate species, including the baboon and gorilla is around 9,400.

    Additionally, if it exists, it is not required to have a sufficient MVP, as it may very well be in a state of species decline towards extinction and those currently living may be the dwindling remnants of once larger population. If the current population were to be around 10,000, they'd be rarer than the cougar. Death rates differ from species as well, adult primates having among the lowest. Adult gorillas have a mortality rate around 5%, while cougars are around 30% I believe. Thus, if they exist, and have a low population, and die off much like gorillas, than the number of deaths each year would average around 500. By comparison, with a population around 30,000, the cougars have a death rate of 9,000 per year. How many cougar remains are found each year?

    The idea that Sasquatch would suffer from hypothermia is silly, as there are already several large-bodied species in the same region that seem to live just fine; elk, moose, and bears. He seems to ignore or be unaware that larger-bodied species tend to be live in the cooler regions that are further from the equator, which is described by Bergman's Law. From what research I've seen, it is suggested that primates follow that law.

    As for food requirements, again he seems to ignore or be unaware that most of the large-bodied species previously mentioned would have the same or even greater daily caloric requirement as it is dependent on body mass. An adult bull moose would on average be heavier than Sasquatch, if we are to go by the reported weights, and thus would have a higher metabolic requirement. There are over a million moose and elk each, plus a million bears or so and 30-45 million white-tailed deer. There seems to be enough food for them.

    I find it difficult to accept than a human would be an easier prey than a white-tailed deer and is another silly point of this person.

    I wonder if this person has any facts for how many people are outdoors and how much time they spend outdoors. It is probably not as much as he seems to think it is to support his conjecture.


Let's keep the language clean, keep in mind we have younger fans and we want to make this the best bigfoot website for bigfoot news and bigfoot research.

Please read our terms of use policy.