hiflier

Sasquatch- How Far Does It REALLY Travel

87 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

On 3/25/2017 at 5:20 PM, MikeZimmer said:

That culture existed 17,000 to 21,000 years ago in France.   Did they beat the migration from Asia

Clovis is older in North America, so the theory would have to be that Native Americans discovered Europe.

But they got bored and came back home...

Not before introducing primitive Europeans to modern technology though.

And the rest is history.

The problem is archaeology still does not have the timeline even near accurate for human occupation of the Americas.

Clovis first still is having influence by making academics too timid to challenge a recent discovery as opposed to a much older one that is evident at this point and was pre Clovis 

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

MIB,  relative to your mountainous area I think the BF picture taken several years ago on Silverstar Mountain in Skamania County WA might be pointing to something.      At the time it was taken the mountain was covered with snow.   Highly doubtful humans could have even gotten up there.   The road up there is difficult in the summer.   But in the winter here, the snow levels move up and down and are between 2000 and 3000 feet.    BF may, for reasons of its own, cross snow crested ridges,  to move from one snowless and relatively warm valley to the next.      The ridges in that area go North South and have fingers that head East West.    If I were a giant adaptive creature with great climbing abilities,   I would head for those bare ridge lines and avoid the wooded clutter along the river beds down at or below the snow line.      From the air,   those ridge lines are topped with trails, that simply reflect more travel than I can attribute to humans.    Especially less used the East West segments.     While I have seen humans often on the Silverstar trail,   I have only seen one East of there on one of the ridge trails on the very ridge that the BF picture was taken. .    

 

   I think the problem with trail cameras is that we simply understand the routes taken by BF when it travels.    We assume that like lazy humans, it takes the easy way.     The one that nearly ran over me when it was traveling, was not using the easy way, which was a human trail about 500 yards parallel to its direction of travel on the other side of the creek.       I just happened to be on a human trail that crossed its path of travel.      I know there were no humans on the parallel trail.    I had been there earlier.    So if BF were human, or thought like one,  it would have been using that trail.   I think their avoidance protocol is so strong, they avoid the temptation to take the easy way, and take difficult routes and terrain because they know they will not encounter humans doing that.    That makes camera placement very difficult to predict.   

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2017 at 4:24 PM, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Clovis is older in North America, so the theory would have to be that Native Americans discovered Europe.

But they got bored and came back home...

Not before introducing primitive Europeans to modern technology though.

And the rest is history.

The problem is archaeology still does not have the timeline even near accurate for human occupation of the Americas.

Clovis first still is having influence by making academics too timid to challenge a recent discovery as opposed to a much older one that is evident at this point and was pre Clovis 

While there is some controversy about the dating of the Clovis Culture but it is commonly thought to have entered  North America about 13500 years ago, having spread up from South America from much earlier times.    Point making is a technology so it is evident when something is earlier and cruder and later more refined.        So Solutrean is much older as dated in France at 17000 to 21000 years ago.    It is entirely possible that the Solutrean points found in North America were brought here by later migrations out of Europe as ancient relics or artifacts rather than tools in use.   The beautiful workmanship might have been regarded as a holy relic.    There is not enough data to know for sure.      I agree that the North American timeline of human occupation is incomplete and missing much.     We constantly find things that push that and other timelines further back.      If camels and horses originated about 44 million years ago in North America,   then migrated to Eurasia, the real origins of bigfoot or humans for that matter,   can always be suspect.      Science has put all of their eggs in one basket as to the origins of mankind.    Since primitive man was found in Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania,   that basket is considered the cradle of mankind.      But who knows what yet will wash out of some stream bank someplace else in the world and turn that theory on it's head.    It happens all the time.    

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2017 at 10:29 AM, SWWASAS said:

We assume that like lazy humans, it takes the easy way.   

 

I suspect that is true for them, too, we simply fail to adequately account for anatomical differences that affect what is easy and what is not.   We also fail to consider differences in visibility because of height. 

 

One of my very good friends is 10.  We've been buds since she was 4.   Think about size .. as I am to her, bigfoot is to me.   Just as there are places I stepped up easily without much thought which she struggled greatly with, there must be places bigfoot steps up easily that I would struggle with.    Things that are obstacles to me that I might assume would squeeze a bigfoot into a camera trap might actually be things they'd step over without ever knowing there was a trap to avoid.   At the same time, there may be things they'd have to stoop to go under, and so might go around because it's easier, that I'd just walk under ... same as I find true of things my friend walks under than I struggle with.

 

In other words, so far as placement of cameras, we may be missing the boat in both directions.   First, we may inadvertently assume they have to go around the same things we do but they do not, second, we may be walking around things that are not obstacles to us that are obstacles to them which we could otherwise use.

 

And then there's visibility because of eye height ... which could work out the same way.    Certainly I approach areas that might conceal something in such a way as to minimize my disadvantages and maximize my advantages.

 

It's hard to mentally walk in their shoes but we must if we are to count on anything but luck.  

 

I don't know about you, but I ponder the possibility there's some bigfoot out there having the mirror image of the same thoughts about me, figuring out what I'm up to, figuring out how my limits might be different than theirs and how the differences might affect my behavior differently than theirs, and so on.

 

MIB

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

While there is some controversy about the dating of the Clovis Culture but it is commonly thought to have entered  North America about 13500 years ago, having spread up from South America from much earlier times.    Point making is a technology so it is evident when something is earlier and cruder and later more refined.        So Solutrean is much older as dated in France at 17000 to 21000 years ago.    It is entirely possible that the Solutrean points found in North America were brought here by later migrations out of Europe as ancient relics or artifacts rather than tools in use.   The beautiful workmanship might have been regarded as a holy relic.    There is not enough data to know for sure.      I agree that the North American timeline of human occupation is incomplete and missing much.     We constantly find things that push that and other timelines further back.      If camels and horses originated about 44 million years ago in North America,   then migrated to Eurasia, the real origins of bigfoot or humans for that matter,   can always be suspect.      Science has put all of their eggs in one basket as to the origins of mankind.    Since primitive man was found in Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania,   that basket is considered the cradle of mankind.      But who knows what yet will wash out of some stream bank someplace else in the world and turn that theory on it's head.    It happens all the time.    

So the 4000 year gap in your thinking isn't bothering you, think about it a bit. There is a theory that the technology evolved in Siberia and that step nomads spread to Europe and North America carrying the culture after the end of the Ice Age made that easier.

 

     There are sites in the Americas going back to 35000 years and a site that hasn't been excavated yet where it is expected that there is a 200,000 YPB date.

The discoverer of the oldest site also discovered the accepted oldest site as well. The problem with accepted sites is you need three that have survived rigorous challenge of the same age to enter accepted wisdom. Even with that the Clovis firsters who have been completely discredited still make statements of an entry of 13500 years an acceptable statement to make when it is patently false. If the people. The reason that the 200,000 site was not excavated was because it would not be accepted, I'm guessing the Archaeologist already did some dating but is waiting for an era where advances in Archaeology and the discovery of similar sites will allow for the data for a new dig to be accepted.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2017 at 4:24 PM, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Clovis is older in North America, so the theory would have to be that Native Americans discovered Europe.

But they got bored and came back home...

Not before introducing primitive Europeans to modern technology though.

And the rest is history.

The problem is archaeology still does not have the timeline even near accurate for human occupation of the Americas.

Clovis first still is having influence by making academics too timid to challenge a recent discovery as opposed to a much older one that is evident at this point and was pre Clovis 

 

1 hour ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

So the 4000 year gap in your thinking isn't bothering you, think about it a bit. There is a theory that the technology evolved in Siberia and that step nomads spread to Europe and North America carrying the culture after the end of the Ice Age made that easier.

 

     There are sites in the Americas going back to 35000 years and a site that hasn't been excavated yet where it is expected that there is a 200,000 YPB date.

The discoverer of the oldest site also discovered the accepted oldest site as well. The problem with accepted sites is you need three that have survived rigorous challenge of the same age to enter accepted wisdom. Even with that the Clovis firsters who have been completely discredited still make statements of an entry of 13500 years an acceptable statement to make when it is patently false. If the people. The reason that the 200,000 site was not excavated was because it would not be accepted, I'm guessing the Archaeologist already did some dating but is waiting for an era where advances in Archaeology and the discovery of similar sites will allow for the data for a new dig to be accepted.

 

 

This thread is and my discussion was about Bigfoot in North America.     Anything related to human habitation older than 15000 years in North America  has yet to be found.    Your 35000 year old site is in South America isn't it?   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Anything related to human habitation older than 15000 years in North America  has yet to be found

I thought everyone had heard of the Meadowcroft rock shelter in Pennsylvania.

And, of course those pesky south Americans had to come form somewhere in North America,

inconvenient for "your" thread. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2017 at 4:24 PM, Cryptic Megafauna said:

 

Interesting about Meadowcroft.    But the dating for that is controversial with scientists having split opinions on the carbon date potential for contamination.   .      With non controversial dates in South America going back 40,000 years or more, one would think any migrations were South to North in the Americas.     Our conversation has gone well off topic.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

35 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Interesting about Meadowcroft.    But the dating for that is controversial with scientists having split opinions on the carbon date potential for contamination.   .      With non controversial dates in South America going back 40,000 years or more, one would think any migrations were South to North in the Americas.     Our conversation has gone well off topic.   

 

No, not even that.   The dates for S. America appear to be equally controversial.    The older dates appear to be a result of contamination.    Someone posted a link a recording of a lecture / presentation explaining how / why on youtube here not too long back.   It addressed a lot of my long-standing concerns very well ... well enough for me to, at least for now, accept their findings because they do work, they do make better sense from a science standpoint than the alternatives.   (I looked ... I couldn't find the link.  I have an idea it was norseman who posted it though that may be wrong.)

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2017 at 11:14 PM, Cryptic Megafauna said:

I thought everyone had heard of the Meadowcroft rock shelter in Pennsylvania.

 

 

This Guy kills me lol.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swaying back to Hiflier's topic (not that the other stuff isn't interesting), how far does Bigfoot travel?

 

First observation – there have been possible encounters in the northeast United States and eastern Canada since at least 1650.  However, when broken out by the time frames I use and map (pre-1900, 1900-1959, and then by decades) , the encounters always peter out going into New Hampshire, Maine, and eastern Canada.  In other words, no matter how many encounters there are in that area, they are tailing off from the rest of New England and Pennsylvania to the south.  Obviously, some of this has to do with the lower number of humans in this area.  However, I would also suggest that the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes provide a significant barrier to travel that affects the number of encounters.  (NOTE f/those newcomers - in addition to my database, I independently plot each encounter on Google Earth.) 

 

Second observation, while agreeing w/Bobby O’s thoughts on the folly of trying to track “individual” Bigfoot based on reported height/hair color/etc., I believe (and I know Bobby does) that value remains in looking at this information.  For example, out of 163 Bigfoot encounters reported from New Hampshire north into eastern Canada, nine (9) were described as gray, or with some gray.  To me, the temporal distribution of these are interesting. It is: 


1930s – 1951 – 1979 – 1987 – 1997 – 2004 – 2006 x2 – 2007 

 

Is this indicative of older and weaker individuals being forced from the better feeding grounds? 

 

Last observation for now.  While I haven’t started vetting the New Hampshire-Maine-eastern Canada data for patterns, I’ve noted in other threads that, at least in the northeast, there is a pattern of encounters in one area followed by a lull followed by a new group years later in a new, distant area.  This is suggestive of checkerboard sustenance farming practice that I understand is used by aboriginal groups in the South American rain-forest and other areas.  This would make sense if a family group used up an area, relocated outside of the northeast, and then moved back years later.  Not sure if its instinct or planned at a rudimentary level, but I believe two things.  First, it makes biological sense.  Second, it is arguably not logical that hoaxers fabricating encounters or random miss-identifications of bear, elk, and moose would magically fall outside of a normal random distribution.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites