If Bigfoot was Real He Would Attack Humans More Often
Posted by: Guy Edwards on May 28th, 2014
 |
| 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
A man that goes by the moniker, Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods, knows why Bigfoot is NOT real. 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 full argument against Bigfoot being real at Bigfoot Lunch Club Your Bigfoot News Source.
About Guy Edwards
Psychology reduces to biology, all biology to chemistry, chemistry to physics, and finally physics to mathematical logic.
Guy Edwards is host of the Portland, OR event HopsSquatch.com.
There are accounts of attacks as well as the strangeness of the Missing 411 books.
Lord Bearclaw…is making a huge assumption that Bigfoot (if it exists) is strictly carnivorous.
Given the probable primate ancestry, Bigfoot would be omnivorous and much like apes and bears living in similar habitats, feed on anything they can get. In fact, there are no fully bipedal mammalian (strictly) carnivores in existence today or at any other time for that matter.
I find Lord Bearclaw-whatever’s reasoning for Bigfoot’s existence or not based on human predation and lack thereof somewhat inane since bears share habitat with humans and fatal attacks are few and more often about territory than feeding and if we accept that there are reported attacks on humans by Bigfoot well, there you are.
It seems this person is determining what evidence must be present in order to support his own conjecture and then stating that he is correct when such evidence does not exist.
If Sasquatch does exist, it is not required to currently have a sufficient breeding population, and we really do not have a way to predict what that population size would need to be for any given species. The closest term we have is the minimal viable population and most studies suggest that it is perhaps a few to several thousands.
He should remind the moose, elk, and bears that they should be freezing and starving, even though they number in around a million in population each.
If I were able to meet him, I would probably ask him what research he has done, such as videos, personal observations he has made, and proof from human cadavers that show this has occurred. I am sure he would come back with the same question for me about bigfoot in general. I would reply there is a lot of conjecture and opinion on both sides of the issue, but I do not go around making bold statements I cannot prove. Then I would duck.
“Lord Bearclaw” is a blow-hard and a complete phony who votes for his own answers (under various account names) so that he gets a disproportionate amount of “Best Answers” on Yahoo. I first ran across this bozo when he posted his usual pathetic argument against the existence of mermaids – all of his posts are identical cut-and-paste answers. I easily debunked his little argument and my post was voted as “Best Answer” by the person who asked the question. That’s when the threats started. He sent me several messages threatening to report me and have me permanently removed from Yahoo if I ever “attacked”, i.e., debunked, any of his posts ever again.
He claims to be a nurse, and says that that gives him the credentials to speak with authority about the existence of bigfoot, mermaids, the Loch Ness Monster, etc. – pathetic …
It’s more likely an omnivore as people have said.
But of course if predators were good predators there would not be living people to report such incidences very often either.
And that is the grey area that eliminates this kind of thinking even though for some reason a lot of tenured history majors and “urban legend researchers” don’t really seem to get the memo. Finding little or no evidence is a good finding where you SHOULD find something.
You can’t apply the same metric when if your subject was good at what he/she/it was doing, they would have been eliminating the proof the whole way along. In this case it’s all the same a good predator kills it’s prey and wouldn’t leave anyone left to tell the tale. So therefore it could be unreported and happen more often than we would have to believe. Or it could be omnivorous and eat mostly plants. Or it may not even exist at all. But lack of attacks isn’t the reason to jump to any of those conclusions