If You Were A Sasquatch How Would You Do It ?

[Guest]

From Apes Among Us by Green.. a reference to another collision:

Unknown City, Hwy 101 location

January 1973. A truck driver hits a 7 foot BF on US 101. The front of the logging truck is badly damaged, no report on the condition of the BF.

Plenty of emotion and details in the chapter on this. Also just retrieved this from a series of CA reports

which are a bit more acceptable than Iowa http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sightings.htm

[Guest]

I've often tried to parallel my own behavior with that of the Sasquatch. How would I do something compared to how they would do it, such as finding food. Thing is, trying to think like a Sasquatch is tough for mainly one reason. We know how humans think because we are human.

I could think "Well, the best place to hide out would be heavy brush in spots that are tough going. Alot of people dont like to get dirty and banged up when out in the woods. So, that's where I'll go, the most god-forsaken places I can find."

That's all well and good, but I only know that because I know how people are. Perhaps over time these creatures have learned some of our habits and traits, but you can't really put yourself in the place of a Sasquatch.

Think of it this way.

Right now, somewhere, anywhere, there is an adult male Sasquatch. He's just spent the night chasing game with no luck. It's started to rain and it's cold. All his muscles ache and he's soaked to the bone. All he wants it's a place to get in out of the wet and the driving wind. To just dry off a little, to be not so uncomfortable. While trying to decide what to do next, a hunter comes along. He knows he's got to get moving, and fast. People mean trouble. Big trouble.

Not a pleasant existence is it?

Can you really put yourself in his place?

[Guest]

Actually, I really think I can. I'ld get away first, then decide where to hole up.

[Guest]

Preferably with the family and see one of the sons got the deer .. from the hunter !

[Guest]

An earlier post .. I suggested that predator populations were increasing in number and their distribution in some areas, including Iowa.. here is an url: http://homepages.dordt.edu/~mahaffy/mtlion/mtlionshort_history.html

and if you google up, there are plenty more references to validate this point.

I know of at least one deer a hunter had left behind because of being nervous... due to being followed. Upon coming back the next day expecting no deer, it was there, a young buck. Missing internal organs. My friend did mention he saw what was following him.

Success rates for the big fellas are interesting to ponder.. like you said DBV, if the weather was bad, a guy was a loner, deer were scarce and there were people around.. not a good day.

Edited December 9, 2010 by treeknocker

[Guest]

I should point out that at altitude, the atmosphere is thinner, and so it removes less heat from the body. Said another way, in order to remove the same amount of heat from the skin, the air temperature needs to be colder than the body temperature, in the same proportion as the decrease in pressure. At 10,000 feet, there is 2/3 as much atmosphere as at sea level. The body core temp is 37 C, so if 10 C (50 F) is tolerable at sea level, then at 10,000 feet, -3.5 C (26 F) should be tolerable. So to a first approximation, 26 F at 10,000 feet feels like 50 F at sea level.

Judging from experience, and lots of it, at plus 10,000 ft. altitude in sub freezing weather doing heavy exertion (climbing) my impressions have been just the opposite. But maybe there are other factors that I don't know or think about.

[BobZenor]

The heat release being less at altitude isn't something I ever considered or noticed. It does only talk about conductive heat loss or the loss of heat due to the contact with the air. That sounds plausible. At altitude, the loss of heat from evaporation should be greater since the water is more volatile. That should make it seem cooler. The loss from radiation or the body radiating should be the same assuming the same external temperature. Convection might be increased if you assume that the thinner air is actually thinner and able to penetrate the hair better. It seems to be usually windier when I go high in the mountains. I just don't know how all those add up but I have never noticed it seeming to be warmer at altitude either.

[Guest ajciani]

Increased losses via evaporation at altitude is certainly possible, as the boiling point is reduced to 90 C, but it also depends on relative humidity.

I was recently in CO at about 10,500 ft, and I went for some evening walks on a few low 40's nights. I had no compulsion to wear a jacket or pants at all (just out in my short sleeve shirt, shorts and sandals). It felt a little cool, but I would compare it more to the mid 50's at sea level.

Have you ever seen the snow bunnies that go on day trips up to Tahoe, and ski all day wearing shorts and bikini tops? Those hills are only up about 8,000 ft. They do it when it's about 30 F. I have never seen a person in Wisconsin skiing in a getup like that. Even at 30 F, you still need to wear at least a jacket. If the temp gets down to 25 F, the hills down low are almost empty.

[Guest]

I pity those that use a thermometer to judge how comfortable they are. More than temp, or even humidity or air pressure, I've found that wind and sun is most critical. I've cross country skied while naked at sub zero temps on a couple of rare occasion, but the conditions required sunny blue skies and winds that are no more than light and variable. It was a lot of fun and interesting how one's little envelope of humidity would create a coat of white frost on the body's shady side. As soon as the sun was blocked by ice fog, or a tendril of blowing snow, the true killing capacity of the cold became quite evident and required immediate attention as well as our stopping to put on a layer of clothing.

[Guest]

I pity those that use a thermometer to judge how comfortable they are. More than temp, or even humidity or air pressure, I've found that wind and sun is most critical. I've cross country skied while naked at sub zero temps on a couple of rare occasion, but the conditions required sunny blue skies and winds that are no more than light and variable. It was a lot of fun and interesting how one's little envelope of humidity would create a coat of white frost on the body's shady side. As soon as the sun was blocked by ice fog, or a tendril of blowing snow, the true killing capacity of the cold became quite evident and required immediate attention as well as our stopping to put on a layer of clothing.

Oh the visual flash I just got from that........ If a Sasquatch was watching, I wonder what went through it's mind seeing people with no clothes on in the snow?

[Guest]

Haha...maybe "the pink monkeys are at it again".

[Guest]

This is an interesting scenario On a serious note, makes me wonder how much activity there really is in snow. After the northwoods gets 18 inches 24 inches or more where are they? I was a sas, I know I would have a place I felt comfortable that had access to food and water. Where are those places ?

[norseman]

A couple of thoughts,

1) There are still to this day tribes of primitive people's out there that have no contact with the outside world. And there are still many species of animals that have yet to be discovered by science.

This is where the bulk of humans habitat the earth, it really spells it out:

http://www.green-blog.org/media/images/uploads/2010/02/electric-lightening-at-night-around-the-world-earth-at-night1.jpg

Most of Russia and Canada are dark, so is most of Africa and Australia. What nocturnal animals are still out there that have not been seen by man? What animals have been able to escape the steady bulldozing of the earth, so that man can habitat it in the modern sense?

2) Population density is key, if the density is low? It's pretty tough to see the animal. I'm a woodsman and I've never seen a wolverine for example. Nor have I ever seen a Lynx. The problem with Sasquatch is that it's so fantastical and incredible that people simply cannot believe that something like that exists in the forest........a two legged ape. It has to be either misidentification or a hoax, even though we have evidence of such a creature in the fossil record (Asia), as well as many myths and legends of the native Americans. The "hobbits" were a native myth until they found skeletal remains on the island of Flores. Many "crypto" species have been proven as either real, or once real creatures that roamed the earth.

Which means that we need to keep an open mind and keep searching. Maybe Sasquatch doesn't exist now.....maybe he never existed at all and was the product of Indian hyper imagination (and ours). But we will never know unless we look. Because I feel there is still some evidence out there that cannot be explained away.

[norseman]

How hard could it be for them to approach another animal that doesn't see, smell or move very well and makes lots of noise . We need to constantly rest and stay warm & dry or we grow weak and sick. It would be like hunting a lost blind person yelling for aid in a city park, easy, pathetic even. Only our tech keeps us alive. Otherwise were just smart game animals when in the woods.

You are describing humans in a very modern sense.

We were the two legged wolves of the Pleistocene. And I would NOT want a pack of Cro Magnon hunting me in the dense forests of Europe 25,000 years ago........I'd take a solo big ape to contend with any day of the week. I can imagine our ancestors were just freakin stealthy and lethal. They had to be in order to survive.

Which is possibly another reason as to why Sasquatch may shy away from humans......they know better. Co habituation with us for the last 25-40,000 years in North America has taught them to stay far far away from us. Even though now we are a pathetic bunch that cannot survive a day with out our cell phones and automobiles.

We tend to think in very short periods of time, but evolution works by a very large clock.

[Guest vilnoori]

This is an interesting scenario On a serious note, makes me wonder how much activity there really is in snow. After the northwoods gets 18 inches 24 inches or more where are they? I was a sas, I know I would have a place I felt comfortable that had access to food and water. Where are those places ?

There would be certain requirements. 1. Not likely to be frequented by people. 2. close to food and open water sources that don't freeze in the winter. 3. Southern exposure and sheltered location

I think caves in south-facing bluffs or cliffs would be a logical place, especially if they are on forested, steep slopes. People don't much go to steep slopes in winter because of limitations of their vehicles and also avalanche danger.

Caves would provide shelter and if they had water, a place where the water doesn't freeze since deep caves do not drop below freezing temperatures even in winter.

All the same, lots of animals lick snow for water, so maybe its not such a necessity if they have a good fur coat.