Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Hasn't Autumn already proposed this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 23, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 23, 2012 Approaching the subject taking into account that Sasquatch is a thinking, rationale being that simply can turn circles around you unless you present something of interest to satisfy their curiosity..... it could be a style or modality of communication, it could be an outdoor ethic or special empathy for animals, it could be your daily routine that tramps through 'their' area. Short of the habituation visits with gifting and food caches, it is these avenues which tend to produce results. I say you can't kill that which you can't pin down. If there have been so-called "lucky" kills.... that would be one thing.... to think that somebody outthought and hunted down Sasquatch is another altogether. Just my humble opinion, no new revelations here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Presuming this is a real species (my disclaimer): By far the way to go...and, already being done for sure. I hope in the near future, an organization/organizations (?) will move forward with just that - habituation and interaction. The screaming, banging and howling in the middle of the night will go to the wayside...hopefully before someone gets hurt too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Hasn't Autumn already proposed this? Yes, along with Thom Powell. It's mostly earned them laughs and ridicule, mostly from other bigfooters. I've found many posse stories from the past...they all seem to get nothing. tirademan TM, Look at the title of the article: "Hunt for Mysterious Animal" (italics mine). I doubt the search was conducted with the mindset, and in the manner I'm proposing, even with that posse of highly trained and recently (~10 minutes prior) deputized law enforcement professionals. Edited March 23, 2012 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) My take on it is that it is superior in some ways, but not in others, it actually seems to be closest to a human with autism. I don't have enough activity to say for certain, but the things that have gotten a response here are the things that would intrigue a severely autistic child. Edited March 23, 2012 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 That is an interesting comparison, Jodie. I agree they are neither quite human nor quite ape. While it's hard as heck to say what makes one human, from what I have heard and read, often bf behavior is not what you'd expect of humans, even the most rudimentary kinds or cultures. I am no expert on such cultures but my impression is no groups of humans roar, hoot, or growl much, for example, and all have music of some kind and art of some kind. I am not sure bigfoot have music or art, per se. Maybe, but I can't tell that they do from here. Autistic humans lack social skills, but bf seem very social. IMO. And they don't seem like they learn poorly. Maybe more some kind of idiot savants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 .............this approach has produced very little in the way of hard data........ Could it be that we'll be chasing our own tails until we acknowledge that we are up against a comparable intelligence and modify our research methods accordingly? *Edited to add that all of this takes for granted that sasquatch does indeed exist! agreed, very little hard data has been produced , at least publicly anyways. & yes, imo, as far as BF is concerned the world is going about it all wrong......but in some other ways than just the ones you mention, imo . human or ape, anything that lives by its wits, instinct & strength in nature is going to be " tuned in" to normal sights,sounds & smells of the forest. id say its a safe bet that anything out of the ordinary would be noticed. so the "animal hunting" approach makes some sense in that you'd have to get by their senses if you wish to be undetected. however, if closer to human, higher reasoning would need to be considered, but the basic life needs of feed,breed & shelter still would exist,so that could possibly be exploited. i think the main part where researchers "chase their tails" is when some apparently think they have that "superior Knoweldge" us mere mortals lack. ive been into this a long time, & in conversations,chats, & forums ive brought up common sense strategy ideas from a hunters perspective that usually get dismissed by the "pros". ( sometimes i get a "good idea" praise but usually not). i even had one dude reprimand me for suggesting a camera strategy..said trying to get a pic was wrong & i should show "reverence" to BF....reverence? really? my point is, not all, but many of these "dedicated researchers" seem so convinced they know best & tend to ignore other possibilities........sound familiar? whether ape, human, or giant prarie dog, a lot of the BF crowd would do well to change that attitude & admit apparently we really dont know much, since despite those theories everyone has proven about the same amount , 0. instead of bumping heads over theories & egos, maybe put those heads together, compare notes & finally solve this thing publicly............ if thats the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Slicktrick, You make some very good points, and agree with most everything, but when you say so the "animal hunting" approach makes some sense in that you'd have to get by their senses if you wish to be undetected. I believe that sneaking up on a sasquatch is nigh upon impossible in a practical sense, although I am aware of a few sightings where the witness stated that the bigfoot seemed surprised to see the person. If it really has happened that way, I'm content to chalk it up to happenstance unless many more reports like that come to light. In my opinion, when a person sees a bigfoot, the creature either intended to be, or was ambivalent about being seen. Edited March 23, 2012 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Everyone has tried all these different ways to attract these creatures with no luck. Are you sure about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Jodie, I'm intrigued by your observation that BF most closely resembles an autistic human. I have experience working with autistic children. One thing that struck me about your statement is the affinity of autistic children to music or drums. The louder the better! This also brings to mind reports of First Nations People that talk about how BF would come to listen when they drummed and danced. Several sighting reports of playing music around a campfire also crossed my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Bait a squatch to a forest opening that can be viewed miles away from a higher point via a scope/sniper. That takes the scent out of it as no humans will be within miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Hey BFSleuth, I must be autistic too then cuz I LOVE loud music! lol Seriously, that's an interesting concept tho about the comparison. There's a lot of research that supports the contention that autism is caused by early vaccines, doubt BF had his immunizations, hmmmmm very very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 When I read about the stick signs, the extreme caution in being seen, leaving a token of something when they take food, hitting the sides of houses and running off, it reminds me of human autistic behaviors. Trust is a big issue with autistic children because they can't read into sarcasm or innuendo. Those that habituate say it is a huge commitment because once trust is breached, they get angry or leave, no second chances. Boo Radley from "To Kill A Mockingbird" comes to mind. What is abnormal in us is their norm, so to speak, and doesn't impinge upon their ability to learn certain things. Most autistic children/adults have very high IQ's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) There's a lot of research that supports the contention that autism is caused by early vaccines, No there isn't! Not credible research, anyway. The study that led to all this nonsense was so poorly done and so over-hyped that the guy who did it has been struck off the medical register and can no longer practice. I have a daughter on the autistic spectrum, so take a keen interest in these things. That blind alley set back our understanding of autism by a decade, and with the drop-off in immunisation rates has led to a re-emergence of all sorts of nasty diseases such as whooping cough, measles etc which should be part of history by now. Please, please don't repeat this assertion anywhere near young parents or soon-to-be parents. It's just dangerous. Mike Edited March 23, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Yes! We definitely need to change the M.O., cuz what has been done for decades hasn't produced anything but blurry controversial photos, ambiguous "evidence", and hoards of he said/she said quality eye witness accounts. But, it's not surprising given our track record in other areas of "science"; still trying to cure cancer with poison, for instance...But then the next question is: How should we go about finding Bigfoot? Howling through the woods with a FLIR cam and whacking a tree with a stick make for great armchair entertainment, but how should we approach the subject? As opposed to what ? As a cancer survivor, I'm extremely thankful that modern medical science exists, or rather that I was born in an era of time when archaic medical practices like blood-letting, ingesting mercury, or trepanation (drilling holes in your head) dont exist anymore. In a different era, hands would be thrown in the air, and I'd be in the ground by now, instead of passing my ten year anniversary last month. It's unfair to lump "science" (your quotation marks), and thus all scientists into one group, as there are plenty of them who do not operate on purely reductionism alone, and are more than willing to allow for a sense of "wonder" in the World around them, or to at least allow for the possibility of a conclusion that isnt based on breaking things down to the most basic and simplistic possible answer. As far as Bigfoot goes ? I've had an idea for several years now, that instead of the hit and run (and miss) techniques that so many seem to enjoy watching on "Finding Bigfoot", that a different approach is needed. My idea ? Start out with a small group of researchers, a mix of men and women. Choose an area with a combination of documented evidence (tracks, structures, hair, etc etc) and reports of sightings. From there, I would supply those researchers with everything they need, to encamp in that area- prepared to spend anywhere from one to three months in that area. I would structure it so that they establish themselves within the area, keep a fairly low profile, and depend on a comfort level being built over time, combined with the seeming natural curiousity that is present in so many accounts of night-time camp visits, peeking in windows of cabins, and them initiating contact at their speed and comfort level. Would it make a difference ? Who knows... but its got to be more effective than spending a few hours, or one night in a given area, and charging through the woods and brush like a bull-moose at every sound or shadow that you see.... I think an established, and enduring low key presence in a "high activity" area, would be a good way to start. What techniques or tactics are employed from there- can be implemented on a trial basis, and their efficacy measured on whether a desired result is achieved. That's how I'd approach it anyway.... Your mileage may vary. Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts