WSA

The Nekkid Sasquatch Witness

55 posts in this topic

I think you hit on a good point SWWASAS.  It may very greatly with what BF believes our intention to be.  Casual visitor / Hunter.  Who better to recognize the actions and demeanor of a "predator" than one that's presumably near the top.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This theory should be easy enough to test out.  Aren't there supposed to be people here on the forums who have habituated families of Sasquatch?  They could just go out to their backyard where the Sasquatch hang out and shuck off their clothes and see what happens.  Then we would have our answer.  Seems simple enough.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They might be already, for all we know Old Dog:o. (I'm sure we'll hear about it if so)

 

One thing I have wondered too, on this subject, is to what extent our use of laundry detergent "brighteners" will enhance our clothes' UV visibility. My working presumption is the Sasquatch has the ability to see in the UV spectrum, based on accounts of their ability to negotiate terrain in darkness. It is believed ungulates like N.A. deer can see in this spectrum. Are UV-canceling sprays still sold for hunters who want to avoid visibility in the UV wavelengths? At one time, I remember they were the latest "thing."  Could be snake oil though, but I knew stalk hunters who swore by them. Proof is in the pot, I suppose.

 

Here's a good discussion of various UV perception levels in animals:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_animals_can_see_the_most_extreme_wavelengths_of_electromagnetic_radiation-ie_whose_eyes_are_sensitive_furthest_into_the_UV_or_IR_spectrum

And this discussion of optical brighteners might be useful:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_brightener

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Twist said:

^^ I don't think he likes the idea because  it wasn't his or in his book !! Lol. :lol:

 

DANG! You figured that out fast, Twist ;) 

 

@WSA You read my mind on that point. Yes the UV sprays DO cut own or totally cut out the "bluing" of detergent additives which some animals can see as blue even if we are wearing camo. The real trick is use about 1/2 what the detergent instructions say to use. If one wishes to attract animals better and is worried about the UV brightness on clothing then simply switch to washing hunting clothes in bacon grease.

 

And then just hope you brought enough ammo :rock: 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Dog said:

This theory should be easy enough to test out.  Aren't there supposed to be people here on the forums who have habituated families of Sasquatch?  They could just go out to their backyard where the Sasquatch hang out and shuck off their clothes and see what happens.  Then we would have our answer.  Seems simple enough.

 

Old Dog, I live on the coast here in Florida.

 

I see men and women - that wear very little - and some of the older, fatter ones would scare the enamel off teeth.  That getting nekked may be an interesting experiment - but depending on who does the getting nekked - may run off the local BF population across three state lines.

 

And it has nothing to do with UV.  Never go to the beach with a weak stomach.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiflier...or just switch to soap. One effect of detergents that is contrary to what you want in an outdoor garment is that they make fabrics hydrophilic. This enhanced ability to absorb water is obviously not a desirable outcome.  Woolite and some proprietary cleansers made for outdoor gear will prevent that. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am guessing that laundry detergent scents are a more important factor than ultraviolet in the detection of humans.     Laundry detergent manufacturers seem to have a contest going to produce stronger scents in their products.    Nice smell is supposedly equivalent to clean.     We probably smell like a perfume counter to animals in the woods.    Once a human is exposed to a strong scent you sort of ignore it and cannot smell it any more.    But you still reek to something that has not been exposed to the scent for long duration.         The problem with UV is that the only natural producers of UV also produce visible light.     Sun,  moon, stars, and normal artificial lights.    UV brighteners in detergents are chemicals that fluoresce in the presence of UV light sources like sunlight. That makes them look bright.    Unless they have a strong source of illumination like sunlight they would be no brighter than normal clothing dyes.    Natural processes like plant decay or retrained heat in rocks or trees do not produce or store UV like happens with IR.  Certainly there are a lot of things that fluoresce but that still requires a source of UV light to make it do that.      Nothing I can think of other than UV Led's produces UV without also producing visible light too.      If BF uses either end of the human visible spectrum,   I would think it would be the IR spectrum.    Where as most of human eye cells are the less sensitive color kind,  and our most light sensitive vision cells are in our peripheral vision;   perhaps the reason BF can see so well in the dark is a combination of larger eyes and more that are sensitive to low light levels without color sensitivity.    For all we know it is totally color blind and sees black and white.        I keep trying to get habituators to test BF for color vision.     Put the treat in the red can etc.    Or if you can believe what they say,   ask BF to pick out the red flower.   No such luck.       We will probably not know any of this until one is on a lab dissection table.   

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

DANG! You figured that out fast, Twist ;) 

 

......

 

Im a quick study :lol:

 

on in the point of washing with bacon grease .....I'm just going to wear a bacon suit!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Right Randy...nothing is going to be able to see in the complete absence of light, but what I'm referring to is low-light, or almost complete absence of light....like starlight or reflected city lights glowing off of clouds, crescent moon glow, etc.

 

The point about perfume applies to some detergents. Not saying a sensitive animal wouldn't be able to detect it, but I buy only scent-free detergents because I positively HATE smelling like industrial perfume. Used to ride mountain bikes with a guy who loved Bounce dryer sheets. I told him he'd have to find another exercise partner because I was getting nauseated being in his slipstream!

 

Edited by WSA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least many of those (upon seeing a BF for the first time) wouldn't have a pair of shorts soiled.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yuchi1 said:

At least many of those (upon seeing a BF for the first time) wouldn't have a pair of shorts soiled.

 

BF hunter enters wood with long sleeves on, comes out with short sleeves - he saw one;.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a Charmin commercial somewhere in there....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BF hunter enters woods in guillie suit, comes out nekkid- it saw him first.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My best friend and I used to hunt up in the gypsy meadow area in the Salmo Priest wilderness as young men on horse back.

 

My buddy while riding one day declared loudly that I needed to hold his horse. He dropped his reins and threw me the lead rope and took off in behind some alpine fir. When he went into the woods he was wearing a very nice wool plaid shirt. When he came out of the woods it looked like he got into a wrestling match with a grizzly bear.... 

 

His collar was gone.....both pockets....and each sleeve was raggedly cut off at the bicep. I shook my head at him. He told me he had no TP and what was he expected to do? I asked him why he hadn't pulled his tighty whiteys off and used and discarded them. And simply gone Commando until we got back to camp that night? He gave me a blank expression....evidently the idea of sacrificing the .99 cent fruit of looms at the altar of the outdoor nature call had not occurred to him. And instead had cannibalized a 50 dollar wool shirt to the point of looking like an oil rag instead.

 

Each fall for over 25 years after a six pack or so in......I say "Remember that time you cut yer shirt to ribbons to wipe your %^*".

 

Response is always grumbling :)

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Branco said:

WSA: In David's "Missing 411-Eastern," book some of the very disturbing and sad accounts of young children being kidnapped and carried off into inaccessible locations had their clothing removed at some time during their ordeal. I don't think it was ever stated or implied that the removal of the clothing was related to sexual assault. After reading the book, I began to wonder if BF - if BF was the actual abductor - kidnapped the children with the thought of caring for them as we care for young birds and/or small animals we find abandoned in the wild. If so, Bigfoot may have thought the clothing would have been unnecessary and a detriment to their survival since the animals lived the “good life” without them.

 

Interesting perspective.Not sure which case you are referring to.At least two i recall in Eastern 411 like this.

 

My take on story.Small child approx 5yrs old.Found miles away.In the middle of a large 3'-4'+ deep swamp.

Boy was found on a very small raised piece of soil.Undressed.No shoes.Thick briars & deep water making access for adult rescuers difficult.

More importantly making escape unlikely for a child.

 

Appears to me this unfortunate child might be considered a prisoner among other things.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites