If You Were A Sasquatch How Would You Do It ?

[Guest Maggie]

I was thinking about the whole water thing...there are stories about them coming up out of the water, are they fishing?Just swimming? Or as some people say, coming out of caves under the bank? So besides using rivers for the usual(travel, consumption etc.), maybe they also make their homes there.

[Guest UPs]

UPs, my cousin saw (what I think) was one & thought it was a Rottweiler, too. He was staying on my uncle's place about two miles from here when it happened. The property is almost a half mile long, & kind of narrow, & the house is at the lower end of it. He liked to sit out in the evening with binoculars, & watch for hogs, coyotes, deer, etc, going across the side of the hill on the other end of the place. It was mostly open, but had a few scattered cedar trees, & clumps of tall grass.

One day, I told him about a pack of wild dogs that had been around, & he said he thought he had seen one of them. I asked what it looked like & he said he thought it was a Rottweiler, but it was so far away that he couldn't tell for sure. He said it acted really strange for a dog but it couldn't have been anything else.

What surprised me was why my first reaction was Rottie. I do not remember seeing anything from the front shoulder forward but did have a quite clear view from just behind the front shoulder to the rear. It was moving the whole time but at a steady pace and no tail. Wild dogs will not survive in this area as the predators will hunt and kill them quickly. Most likely, this was a deer trying to sneak past me with its tail tucked. The animal never did run and had a lot of cover for concealment. It sure did not look like a deer or any type of primate, but the color was an exact match for deer in winter gray.

When I was building my log cabin, I looked out a window as I walked by it and saw what my mind told be was a bull dog based on the rear part of the animal. When I got to the next window, I saw it just standing broadside staring at me. This was in broad daylight and it was 30 yards away in the middle of my new dirt road. Solid light brown with short hair, cropped tail and a definite cat-like face. I estimated it at 40-50 lbs. This had to be a bobcat, but the color was a match for a cougar and had no white on it at all, just solid light brown and the head looked very large. We stared at each other for about 15 seconds and then it walked off the road and onto a trail. This trail parallels a river and I built my cabin right next to it. A neighbor up there has a very large Bobcat stuffed and mounted in his cabin and the animal I saw did not look like this, but there is no other animal it could have been (cropped tail eliminates cougar). If that animal would have run off before I got a second look at it, I would have thought it was a bull dog to this day. Its possible that this was a Lynx, but again the color was not right and I do not remember seeing the tufts on the ear, but the shape was very similar.

I did not mean to get so far off topic here, but these are 2 examples of my mind playing tricks on what I am actually seeing (after a quick glimpse). If I had the same thing happen to me but it was an actual bf that I glimpsed, I would probably think human right away and I wonder how often that has happened.

[Guest]

ajciani: Bullfrogs words not mine(the initial work you responded to) & much appreciated Comments by me below to comments by you via BFs..

If you consider the validity of most sightings nationwide, then it becomes quite clear that bigfoots are really not all that elusive.

I think you are really discussing several separate questions:

1.Why is there little scientific acceptance?

2.Why is it so hard to get consistent interaction?

3.Why is it so hard to collect convincing physical evidence?

4.Where is the body on the slab?

Question 1 is primarily answered by the lack of publications pertaining to numbers 2, 3 and 4. If biologists don't know that you can call or bait the things in and collect some reasonably good physical evidence, then the scientific acceptance will be as absent as the publications. There is also something else at work though, and I would describe it as a lack of scientific appetite. When the Patterson-Gimlin film was first shot, several biology departments at leading universities and well known primatologists were contacted, and almost universally, they had no interest in seeing the film of the brand spanking newly discovered North American ape species.

My response*: Scientific appetite. GREAT point & coin. Well ? The current status of the Patty film continues to be challenged.. and there are strong components on both sides of it. IF you take the time to compare the threads on BFF it is interesting. So I can see why so many professionals sit back on it and do not get involved. I have been told flat out that THEY ADMITTED THAT IT WAS FAKE and THEN THEY PROVED IT.. by at least one biologist friend.. so that seems to be all some need to end the mystery. The wait for the body seems to eliminate most from involvement of any kind or so it may appear on the surface. I suspect that as ea generation of scientists march through, a higher percentage of them take it more seriously than those before them. I cannot prove that, I assume that. And we all know what that verb breaks down into. It does make sense though since there are more and more people associated with universities and wildlife departments not only taking the time to observe footprints and wonder about vocalizations, but sometimes even file the reports of something they saw. Documented example ? James A. Hewkins (active then retired from Fish and Game Dept. in Oregon) from the late 80s and 90s for example.. note this good read. Scroll down to see the Hewkins field reports.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/hewkin93.htm

There also exists preexisting and contrary "knowledge", that all large animals in N.A. have been discovered, except for large black cats, bigfoots, and brown-polar bear hybrids. Actually, the natural cross breeding of brown and polar bears was only recently "discovered", but just like all naturalist know-it-alls, they seem to think the cross breeding is a brand new activity that just started because of human impact, completely ignoring the fact that brown and polar bears have had overlapping territories for as long as there have been brown and polar bears. So why do they think cross breeding is brand new? Because a hybrid offspring didn't end up on a slab until 2006, at least, one that the naturalists are definitely aware of.

*Great point. How easy it is to sweep that stuff under the rug until there is a body. Since there is none, just imagine how reports that come into agencies are USUALLY treated.. depending on WHO gets them. I have seen numerous statements regarding who NOT to send any potential report of a squatch to which sometimes also includes fish and wildlife agencies or dept of nat. resources, etc.

---------

Question 2 is complicated to answer. In simplest terms, you might say that researchers are really just starting to figure out where to find them, and what kind of things bring them to us, because it seems that trying to approach them on their turf is completely futile. That said, I have heard of some very successful expeditions, where some thermal footage was actually obtained, and the bigfoots did come near or even enter the camp. The problem is the reproducibility.

*Agreed and another great point. Once in awhile circumstances allow someone with equipment that can record the incident and the subject to join.. but how often that is repeated ? In many or probably most cases another lifetime is required. Hopefully less than another year Bart I think that as more electronics get handed out into more expeditions that more cases of potential significant captures will occur. Some of these might be deemed as approaches.. but perhaps another way to look at it is hopeful invitation ? If the chemistry is right and there is presence, perhaps something happens. Lots of people around who have written on this. But the documention is the rarity since squatch utilize that first tier of vegetation as Dr. Bindernagel writes about in his comparison of defensive strategies comparing sasquatch reports with known great apes.. g,b,c, & orangutan.

---

Collecting physical evidence seems to be another problem. What kind of evidence is a terrestrial animal going to leave? Foot prints. We have those, lots and lots of those. There have even been footprints found near expedition campsites. Imagine that, we call them in, they come in, and they leave footprints. That is pretty solid evidence. What else is there? Impact on nature. Animals have to eat, they need shelter, and so they leave behind physical traces of their presence. Feeding activity can be hard to identify, and even harder to link to a specific species. Bedding sights can be identified. Breaking small trees at right angles, forming tee-pees by pushing over mature trees, and bending young trees into arches are all things that have been observed in areas with activity, and are very difficult to attribute to "natural" causes or other animals.

*I think different people have different takes on this and there is plenty of gray area. So many different variables. But I also think that people totally accustomed to seeing species performance characters in the field know when they see something else. Note the above mentioned url for biologist Jim Hewkins. I know some people are very aware of things on their property when there are changes, even some subtle ones. There might be a degree of wonder where they start investigating OR it might be something right under their eyes they didnt even note because of all the pressures on us from schedules, timing, interactional responsibilities, etc. (LIFE). IF the field sign is comparable to lets say a trail that a bear or people can make then its done. That IS the answer for most. AND regarding the treetwists, there are natural things that can accomodate that but if there is a turd or large footprint (single or series) then its an eye opener. But its certainly more clues that point to something more than interesting.. Another point I and others have mentioned: So there are big tracks.. who is really going to do anything about it? Some photography.. and some of it is workable to actually learn something about the track itself.. but if the resolution in the image is lacking.. it is not always very helpful. How many actually make a cast? Of those how many are going to be properly done for analysis ? Goes to field techniques.. for more on that.

--------

The holy grail of all evidence seems to be a very clear video or photograph of the animals. Problem is, approaching them on their turf is completely futile. So we are left with game camera traps set in active areas, and night vision and thermal imaging used on expeditions after calling them in. Have game camera traps obtained pictures? Maybe. Have they obtained good pictures? No. Can a game camera trap get a good picture? It depends on the camera.

*IF there was a sharp (with resolutional quality) video that depicted activity that could not be copied by an actor..

but we are all waiting for that ...

-----

Any thermal camera that costs less than $50,000 is horrible for getting good images of wild animals (or even human activity). Night vision has some severe limitations, and so do near IR video cameras (which can usually only illuminate out to about 30 feet). Fact of the matter is, the night time imaging options available to the civilian consumer market are barely up to the task.

*I do not know much about the details here.. but it seems that things continue to be inconclusive.. at least to the public and some individuals who have access to things..

----------

As for getting one on a slab, there have been some claims of people shooting them, but the bodies where either never collected, or they were hidden away. Trying to put one on a slab seems rather difficult because approaching them on their turf is completely futile. Also, there seem to be several issues surrounding shooting them, in law and principle. Happening upon a body in the woods would be the lucky find of the millennium. Bodies don't last long in the forest, and it would likely be nowhere near a trail, so the temporal and spatial window for finding a body is extremely small, and makes for a very low probability.

*IS IT NOT INTERESTING how many reports continue to relay how human the face is ????? I know people have pulled the trigger. I also know what it is like to help follow a little 200# buck that has taken a decent shot and still moved out miles ahead of the hunters. If that deer with that mass handled a wound from a significant weapon..what is something with friends and about 200-600# or more mass going to be able to cover in distance ? If it was easy to do as so many claim (shoot one).. I doubt there would be a forum on them since the mystery would have been ended decades ago. Add the principle and psychology and the likelihood of that happening decreases more, but you never know. That fact alone ends it (the possibility of a real species) for a lot of people. Appreciate your take aj there is mine.

[Guest]

Maggie, Jody: On the water thing.. seems many of the reports talk about their association. Even Raincoast Sasquatch by Dr. Robert Alley covers some reports of them apparently at sea.. and they are reported on the islands by hunters and people fishing. The under the bank thing is interesting too.. made me wonder about that on the cripplefoot situation up in Washington that G Kranz and J Green and so many more described.. lots of tracks there too. Ivan Marx was on the scene too so I do not know what to make of it. But holes busted in ice with squatch tracks around suggest something.. I do not quite know what though. Read somewhere that if they were really digging out underbanks someone somewhere would fall through and end up in the den.. Anyone got any reference to that ??

[Guest ajciani]

If bigfoot hair is anything like human hair (and all the claims surrounding morphology suggest it is nearly identical), then I would find it highly likely that bigfoots would avoid cold water. Dry, human hair insulates rather well. Believe me, I can feel it when I get it clipped from 2.5 inches long down to 1.5. At 2.5 inches, I generally forgo wearing a hat until it's about 15 F. At 1.5 inches, it feels cold at 25 F. Dry, bigfoots are probably quite comfy in winter. Wet, I think even 50 F would be uncomfortable.

Then again, body oils might also play some role in this.

[Guest]

If bigfoot hair is anything like human hair (and all the claims surrounding morphology suggest it is nearly identical), then I would find it highly likely that bigfoots would avoid cold water. Dry, human hair insulates rather well. Believe me, I can feel it when I get it clipped from 2.5 inches long down to 1.5. At 2.5 inches, I generally forgo wearing a hat until it's about 15 F. At 1.5 inches, it feels cold at 25 F. Dry, bigfoots are probably quite comfy in winter. Wet, I think even 50 F would be uncomfortable.

Then again, body oils might also play some role in this.

The body oil is probably a big factor, the hair might also have an oily component that helps insulate the creature in cold weather or water.

Another thing I thought about, and I realize this is truly just conjecture on my part, is the myoglobin content in their blood. Water dwelling mammals, such as whales and seals, tend to have a higher myoglobin content that enables them to stay under water longer than other mammals.

Their is also the possibility that bigfoot's tissues contain AFP (antifreeze proteins)that allow it to tolerate the ice and snow in more northern climates regardless of it being dry land or water. This characteristic is found across the board in the animal kingdom and in some plants and fungi. Here is a little excerpt from Wikipedia that explains the theory for how this characteristic evolved:

The remarkable diversity and distribution of AFPs suggests that the different types evolved recently in response to sea level glaciation occurring 1-2 million years ago in the Northern hemisphere and 10-30 million years ago in Antarctica. This independent development of similar adaptations is referred to as convergent evolution.[2] There are two reasons why many types of AFPs are able to carry out the same function despite their diversity: 1. Although ice is uniformly composed of oxygen and hydrogen, it has many different surfaces exposed for binding. Different types of AFPs may interact with different surfaces. 2. Although the five types of AFPs differ in their primary sequence of amino acids, when each folds into a functioning protein they may share similarities in their 3D or tertiary structure that facilitates the same interactions with ice.[2][16]

[Guest Knuck]

You know, there's something to be said for being extremely dirty too. Don't get me wrong, I bathe daily lol. Many reports state seeing matted hair, filled with dirt and leaf debris, among other things. This may facilitate to some degree shedding water in say, a light rain, or nightly dew settling. Plus, it would help them blend into thier surroundings better too. In summer, a dip in the cool water may be a welcome thing, but winter,I doubt they would want to wade or swim much. Maybe they take dirt baths like birds, and some larger mammals.-Knuck

[Guest]

Speaking of dirt baths, how do they handle itchy skin? Either way you look at it, whether they are extremely oily, or just dirt encrusted, it's bound to itch, wouldn't you think? So does anyone ever look for signs of hair caught on pine bark where tracks and other sign are found, assuming they would do like bears and use the trees for a back scratcher? In all these hair samples, has anyone found lice nits? I can't recall reading about it if so.......

[Guest Knuck]

I would imagine that being social animals, and primates, that they would "groom" each other. You know, picking ticks and other annoying bugs out of each other's coat. I imagine there is a little reciprocal back scratching as well. They may also break off branches to use as back scratchers. Some animals like a layer of dirt next to their skin to ward off bug bites._Knuck

[Guest]

Pretty darn remarkable stuff. Good one Jody. I would expect some tick pickin.. I do it.

[Guest]

While thinking of how cold might effect BF, it is worth keeping in mind that modern humans' capacity to withstand and function in cold is far greater than most of us ever need or even imagine, and part of it has to do with a kind of mental control over our responses to cold; we have, though most of us never use, the ability to direct our so-called 'autonomous' systems and metabolic processes to function appropriately and to endure cold with a kind of mental toughness. Anyone who has lived and worked in and around really cold water will know that despite what the official charts on survivability for who fall into the cold water, the presence of mind and a sense of purpose, avoiding panic and taking the right action, can help a victim survive well beyond where the official charts say we can.

If BF exists as a lingering archaic expression of our ancestral predecessors, I can easily imagine that they might have retained a kind of metabolic,psychologic capacity that we know from both experimentation and true accounts of human endurance, that humans can on occasion express but from which we have become so seperated that we will frequently die of the cold before being able to marshall those latent abilities. There's more to humans that we give ourselves credit for having when it comes to enduring hardship.

Edited December 5, 2010 by dogu4

[Guest]

You know you are right, I hadn't thought about that. There are examples of modern day folks that can force their physiology to accommodate the cold. The example that comes to mind are people who run long distance races on ice barefooted.

http://www.runbare.com/464/boldly-barefoot-boulder-runners-hit-the-snow-sans-shoes/

[Guest]

Very nice add Jodie.. all of them. ajciani.. how about body mass ?? would they sweat easier ? Think about when you are hot when you are outside in the cold.. and I do not know where others live but we got 6 in of snow this weekend. Temps tonight go down to minus 7. All I know is I have had to deal with stuff like this my whole life and when its 32 degrees its like a heatwave if we go weeks at say 0 or worse. If we work in it, shovel snow, have fun with sleds, etc. or other physical labor stuff, you sweat. Sometimes to the point where you get hot. Watch the NFL players on those cold days.. some of them go bare armed.. What are we dealing with here ? Something 500 or 700 or even more in weight? The heat they generate when running or walking might be pretty significant. I have had discussions with people regarding their footprints going right through the snow and literally just compressing it into ice... or going right down to the substrate. So compression and heat ? Also the article Jodie laid out was interesting with more runners going barefoot.. probably good to get familiar with ratios between alledged SasQ footprints and the variations in H sapiens.. Questions abound there too because if their foot is soooo pliable what percentage of the time are laying the full foot down for the print ? If they are as athletic as some reports suggest (certainly variation like us) perhaps their speed and power allows them to do some crazy stuff.. like walk on the side of the foot and broadjump out of a pathway onto a pile of vegetation, and then work through stuff like rocks and logs walking sideways so there are impressions with no details and obscured like some blobsquatch photos LOL This stuff can drive you crazy Recently saw a vid that had some pretty darn cool athletes leaping and doing backflips off tall buildings. My technical capabilities are limited but I would like peoples opinions on that .. if people can do some crazy stuff what can these guys do ? I will seek help on getting that vid on here. Pretty amazing but maybe its somewhere else that is common knowledge. Knuck, Dogu4 good ones. The epidermal thing with cold and heat is interesting. I have heard reports saying skin can be like sunburned skin, gray or even black. Apparently wide range.. ??

[BobZenor]

There is a woman named Lynne Cox that has many records swimming in the cold. It is hard to pick the most impressive but I suppose a 25 minutes swim in the waters off Antarctica is hard to beat.

[Guest vilnoori]

If they are as athletic as some reports suggest (certainly variation like us) perhaps their speed and power allows them to do some crazy stuff.. like walk on the side of the foot and broadjump out of a pathway onto a pile of vegetation, and then work through stuff like rocks and logs walking sideways so there are impressions with no details and obscured like some blobsquatch photos LOL This stuff can drive you crazy Recently saw a vid that had some pretty darn cool athletes leaping and doing backflips off tall buildings. My technical capabilities are limited but I would like peoples opinions on that .. if people can do some crazy stuff what can these guys do ?

Here ya go, treeknocker:

Regarding their cold tolerance, in addition to their build which is said to be more barrel-like (we are essentially a heat/desert-adapted endurance hunter species) and heavy they are just bigger. Bigger animals are able to withstand cold much easier than small ones, especially if their metabolism is pretty high and their diet is high in fat. Think of bears. Brown fat ratios have much to do with it too. But I expect they still have to protect their young ones from cold, and might incorporate some kind of denning practice such as keeping their little ones holed up in caves or hollow logs such as the NA described.

Edited December 6, 2010 by vilnoori