Midnight Owl

Native American understandings

95 posts in this topic

On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 3:44 PM, TritonTr196 said:

I've stated on here several times in the past and have known this for years now that it's fully apparent that they don't know we can't see them in the dark. The crouching and hiding/concealment behaviors in the darkness fully shows this. I've observed this behavior with both infrared and thermal cameras. They like to stay hidden with both mediums. I used to think that since it's widely believed they can detect infrared light, that they stay hidden because they saw the infrared light beaming at them from the night vision. But since thermal gives off absolutely no light at all, they still exhibit this behavior when observed with a thermal camera. So they simply don't know we can't see them in the dark and they stay hidden because they think we can see them

 

It brings up a question then. NV gets whited out with bright light shining on the lens. If BF has night vision capability that means it is very sensitive to light so campfires and other light sources at night may create a light disparity that blinds them? In other words in order to see what is around a campfire their eyes may have to adjust to daytime mode which may only happen if exposed to a brighter light source. It may be the same mechanism that causes Humans to lose their minor level of night vision and so use red light around campsites to reduce that loss. For a nocturnal creature a campfire may act as a blindness factor until they are themselves exposed to the great amount of light in order to distinguish object detail. And then there's simply the curiosity factor of fire and Humans together. Or they've learned that campfires MEAN Humans- and possible food sources..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about all that.    There are two kinds of "night vision": thermal imaging and light enhancement.    I got to play with a high end therm a while back .. vehicle mounted, not hand held.   For giggles one of the peeps went out about 20 feet and shined a flashlight at it.   The flashlight was visible to our eyes, of course, but through the therm, we saw only his shape, no light from the flashlight at all.   A little uncanny IMHO.  

 

Working from their avoidance of trail cams, I'm fairly sure bigfoot see in I.R. at least a little farther than we do.    Thinking about that, I wonder what the heat of a campfire or gas lantern looks like to them compared to how it looks to us?   Could be pretty wild, huh?

 

I'm not sure they see better in the visible spectrum than we do at night.   I was really surprised at the level of detail visible through the thermal imager at short to medium distance.    I could see enough to identify specific people.  I could see the cracks in the pine tree bark by the road.    Pine cones hanging from the trees.     Up close, I.R. may be enough, no need for more sensitivity than we have in the visible spectrum.    They MAY have it, but I just got "schooled" on whether it was necessary or not and I thought I'd share that lesson.

 

At the same time, yeah, they are sensitive to bright light at night.   So are we.  How do we measure how much more or less so?   What responses of theirs are conditioned that we might misunderstand?    What responses of our own are "taught" vs how much is truly instinctive?     (Do Russian kids cuss in English like I do when I stub my toe?  No.  So ... some of response IS taught, not pure instinct.   Flinching, hands to the face rather than just squinting, etc.)    There's a cultural / learned relativity we don't have sufficient basis to measure .. yet.   (Tangentially, by the time we do, they may have learned / changed responses just from watching us ... or even vice versa, the old quesiton about who is habituating whom?)

 

Interesting stuff! 

 

MIB

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MIB said:

Interesting stuff! 

 

Indeed it is. I've also wondered about BF and farsightedness. I read about a guy who was growled aty by a BF that was going up a slope about 300 yards away and turned to face the witness. But then there's the act of swaying when in close proximity which I assume may help in distinguishing foreground objects better from background objects. Makes me thing night vision and foresightedness may go hand in hand? Of course anything that is moving is easier to discern but something remaining still not so much. And at 300 yards one would think discernment to be near impossible unless the physiology of the eye is built for it. Whether or not any of this is true is an absolute unknown but it would be interesting to see if Humans who CAN see somewhat into the infrared are also farsighted. It is said that a bear's daytime eyesight isn't all that good or sharp but for distant objects in the daytime they may have very good resolution. It would be kind of cool to find out if nocturnal animals are farsighted as well.  Just my thoughts meandering as usual as I lob my two rocks into the camp.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and then you add in Robert Kryder's mention of having bigfoots apparently notice him at a distance of a mile or something like that and flee.  

 

I don't know what to make of it all.   The combinations of optical abilities don't seem like they should mix in a single pair of eyes.    Obviously something is just not cooperating with my foregone conclusions.   Da nerve of it all ... :)

 

MIB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, MIB said:

Da nerve of it all ... :)

 

LOL, yes indeed! And I agree, it seems incongruous that one set of eyes can be nocturnal, see at great distances in the daytime- even if someone is somewhat concealed, reflect light, glow, and everything else. Owls see extremely well at night AND are farsighted- they do not see well at all in close. Bats are the same way. So far since yesterday that's all in the way of definite blending of both eye features. A lot of myopic traits and a lot of info on eye size, focal depth, eye shape, corneal flatness (farsightedness) vs. myopia ( acute corneal curvature). It's OK though. As usual when I get into these kinds of mini-rabbit holes I end up learning quite a bit. Which is to say possible knowledge that may help fill in more pieces of the puzzle.    

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that most so-called BF researchers view them (as inferior beings) in much the same light as Europeans viewed the NA's, when they arrived here is so telling, especially when all the "results" of ~50 years of research currently amount to somewhat less than a hill of beans.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2017 at 7:55 PM, MIB said:

Yeah, and then you add in Robert Kryder's mention of having bigfoots apparently notice him at a distance of a mile or something like that and flee.  

 

I don't know what to make of it all.   The combinations of optical abilities don't seem like they should mix in a single pair of eyes.    Obviously something is just not cooperating with my foregone conclusions.   Da nerve of it all ... :)

 

MIB

 

But there are more senses than sight that a creature could utilize to detect humans. At a mile away? Sounds like a good sense of smell.

 

 

On 8/5/2017 at 9:49 AM, Yuchi1 said:

The fact that most so-called BF researchers view them (as inferior beings) in much the same light as Europeans viewed the NA's, when they arrived here is so telling, especially when all the "results" of ~50 years of research currently amount to somewhat less than a hill of beans.

 

Define "inferior".

 

Just because I can beat a cougar in a spelling bee doesn't mean that he isn't a ghost in the woods.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Europeans largely considered NA's as an "uncivilized" primitive people and did so up until just a few years before the date of the PG film when they were sent off to boarding schools and coerced into urban settings in an attempt to further assimilate them into the white man's world. What you personally know about cougars is probably a mountain of knowledge over what most know about BF and IMO, it's more to do with underestimating them than using knowledge of the fact they own the woods and especially the night. In history, how many British army units have been annihilated simply because of the arrogance of the officers in charge and their woeful underestimation of a "primitive" (i.e., Zulu's) adversary. IMO, same is applicable in Sasquatchery when the "researchers" go in with a mindset they are after something that cannot outthink them, in the woods.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points.  

 

I can smell cigarrete smoke at over 100 yards.  Who knows how far away a Bigfoot can.  

0

Share this post


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

IMO, same is applicable in Sasquatchery when the "researchers" go in with a mindset they are after something that cannot outthink them, in the woods.

 

I agree with you that many consider them "apes" or "wood apes", and thus attribute a diminished amount of cerebral horsepower when compared to humans. I've always thought there is a only sliver of difference between sasquatch and humans, genetically speaking.

 

There is no question, at least in my mind, that the dumbest BF couldn't out think the smartest human when it comes to matters of the woods.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, norseman said:
On 7/27/2017 at 10:55 PM, MIB said:

Yeah, and then you add in Robert Kryder's mention of having bigfoots apparently notice him at a distance of a mile or something like that and flee.  

 

I don't know what to make of it all.   The combinations of optical abilities don't seem like they should mix in a single pair of eyes.    Obviously something is just not cooperating with my foregone conclusions.   Da nerve of it all ... :)

 

MIB

 

But there are more senses than sight that a creature could utilize to detect humans. At a mile away? Sounds like a good sense of smell.

 

Or maybe another Bigfoot alerted the far off Bigfoot of the humans presence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yuchi1 said:
  1. The Europeans largely considered NA's as an "uncivilized" primitive people and did so up until just a few years before the date of the PG film when they were sent off to boarding schools and coerced intoj urban settings in an attempt to further assimilate them into the white man's world. What you personally know about cougars is probably a mountain of knowledge over what most know about BF and IMO, it's more to do with underestimating them than using knowledge of the fact they own the woods and especially the night. In history, how many British army units have been annihilated simply because of the arrogance of the officers in charge and their woeful underestimation of a "primitive" (i.e., Zulu's) adversary. IMO, same is applicable in Sasquatchery when the "researchers" go in with a mindset they are after something that cannot outthink them, in the woods.

 

Inferior in the fact the Indians could not manufacture a Winchester 73 or a steam locomotive......absolutely.

 

But other than liver eating Johnson and a few others? Most whites were not on par with Indian bushcraft, tracking skills, ambushes, etc.

 

Being a more inferior human civilization gave Indians the leg up in low intensity conflicts especially on their own turf. But on an open battlefield with modern rapid fire weapons? It became a charge of the light brigade real fast. Western Indians did not stand a chance in open conflict. Chief Joseph tried it, and almost succeeded in escaping, but was defeated and never allowed to enter the Wallowa ever again.

 

What does this have to do with Bigfoot? I think Bigfoot is not smart enough to invent the longer lasting light bulb. I often think about the California miner story, in which something kept disturbing his camp and campfire each time he left camp to prospect. He finally doubled back on camp and observed a Bigfoot who was playing as if child like in the fire. Lighting twigs on fire, twirling them like sparklers, burning fingers, dropping butts and doing it all over again. Curiosity is an ape like trait which includes humans. With that said Bigfoot is not on par with the Stone Age Indians 200 years ago even technology wise. Where are they on the Ape scale? They are bipedal so they must range somewhere between a Chimp, Gorilla, Orangutan and a Human. They don't seem to have mastered fire, stone tools, or Mayan pyramids. 

 

What they are or how smart they are I think is Something that we will never really know unless one is found or brought in.

1 hour ago, TritonTr196 said:

 

Or maybe another Bigfoot alerted the far off Bigfoot of the humans presence.

 

Anything is possible, I suppose.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winchester 1873 repeating rifles appeared ~380 years after the European invasion. Apples to oranges except the Cheyenne and Lakota used them to great effect upon the barbarian, George Armstrong Custer.

 

Many have seen the PBS documentary, Guns, Germs & Steel and are fully aware of the biological warfare engaged upon the First Americans. All I will say about that part of our history is....karma will be a real bitch.

 

IMO, Sasquatch probably observed this interaction between FA's & the European invaders and likely decided discretion was the best course of action.  Face it, white people have a history of belligerent behavior toward any others they encounter especially if they look, act  and live different from themselves. This is therefore a predictable reaction toward all things Sasquatch. It therefore, begs the question of WHO is really the savage as technology alone does not make one a real human being. It's something far more salient and requires something inside a person that some are sorely lacking thereof.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it, Indian tribes were slaughtering each other long before Europeans ever set foot on this continent. The notion of Indians being a peaceful, caring group who lived in harmony with nature, and loved everyone, is absolutely wrong.

 

During tribal wars, they raided villages, killed, took other Indians as slaves, or would kill everyone including women and children. They would behead, cut out tongues, cut off limbs, and more. Gentle and sweet folks.

 

Read about  the Crow Creek massacre. It will curl your hair.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if they had horses and gunpowder? They would have shoved the Europeans right back into the Atlantic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites