Leaderboard

I had the chairman of my experimental psychology department tell me, when I was an undergrad, that all evidence came though men's perceptions, and in a very clear sense was both subjective and anecdotal. That observation has stuck with me for over 4 decades. Call it the myth of objectivity. Ponder it, don't dismiss it out of hand.

I was up last week camping on Hood Canal. I watched a raven come into the area, he seemed to come in just to antagonize the crows. The chase was on, I've watched this many times. Check this video out on crow intelligence

But your post was very flawed. That cast held by Ivan Sanderson is a known hoax, it is not a myth. Nessie has only one known mention other than the late 1800's when sighting started being reported, no myth among the locals there either. UFO's are not a myth, they are very real. It is a term coined by the US military to describes objects in the sky that are unknown. Just because it turns out to be a weather balloon instead of an aircraft piloted by little green men doesn't make it a myth. Talking ghosts gets into the afterlife and religion which cannot be discussed in this section of the forum. All those plus dragons, fairies, whatever are not part of the Native American folklore pertaining to sasquatch/bigfoot. They should only be brought up in direct relation to NA folklore regarding sas/bf. Whether dragons, faires, etc. exist has nothing to do with the topic at hand and trying to use them to dismiss sas/bf in NA folklore is the same as trying to dismiss Nessie because some NA tribes believe there was an actual creature we call bigfoot. If you read my posts in this thread you will see I am very dismissive of many NA stories actually pertaining to BF. But being NA myself this is a subject I would like to see discussed without the usual jref type debate. I'd rather stick to the subject at hand in hopes more comes out in direct relation to NA stories regarding BF, so I will once again ask both you and jayjeti to not derail this topic with debate that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Thanks.

Have you ever seen one 'running' while crouched? It is amazing the speeds they can acheive while their bellies are pretty much scraping the ground.

Haven't been closely following this thread, but should have. I totally agree with Gumshoeye and Norseman about the cartoon, Totally silly. BF does talk, no question in my mind about that. If you hear one talking just as it passes a sound dish, 50 feet away, and your are listening to the amplified sounds with headphones at 2 AM in the boondocks, it's not something you will soon forget. When, a few seconds later, it's looking into the back window of a camper shell where you've been sleeping, and its about 3 feet from you, the sight and sounds are never forgotten. If you listen to the Sierra Sounds CD closely, you will hear one of the big males ask a question of the men, and repeat it when the men don't respond. The question to the reader is; what is the question the BF is asking? :-) They are a clan of humans, but not modern humans. They will live, forage and eat in a particular area until modern humans or natural disasters force them to leave. The will abide human presence as long as we do not interfere with their hunting/foraging, or try to ambush them - with gun or camera - at their cold water drinking sources in hot weather, or try to approach the family's bedding site day or night. Otherwise, they are simply having a little fun when they mess with folks, especially late at night. If anyone spends enough time in their territory, both day and night, and you show no fear of them, and show respect for their rules, one or more will eventually allow you to briefly and clearly see them. They realize that us humans are more advanced than they. In the back of my mind I believe that natural instincts urge them to capture and mate with Homo sapiens to improve their blood lines. It may be that they think that by kidnapping children, removing their clothing and carrying them into the boonies, they hope to raise them so that the children can then teach them the things that we know. They don't (or can't) understand that our children can't survive in the wilderness as their's do. (As mentioned, this paragraph is absolutely without a whit of evidence, and solely a thought that often enters my gourd.)

you have to break out of denial. It is shown again and again that many animals can detect game cams. It's only 'magic' if you don't understand it, or refuse to. As has been pointed out, trail cams can and are spotted and avoided by certain animals.

I'm not sure whether to reply or not. I don't want to be the wet blanket at the party. However ... maybe someone should. I don't think the measures have any value. They might if we were only talking about dumb wildlife. We're not. We're talking about something deliberately, consciously adapting its behavior to changes in our behavior. Sometimes even anticipating them and beating us to the draw. The assumptions built into the question are false ... invalid ... making the connection assumed between the measure and the answer irrelevant. I don't believe you can do science in such a situation, I think it is as Thom Powell said, the best you can hope for is to gather intel. We are not gaining intel on an intelligent species while we chase the stupid monkey we imagine exists. MIB