Guest MikeG Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Now research is done in an office in some University somewhere, on a theoretical level. It seems that field research is limited to weekend trips and very short term observations in areas that are easy to get to. Shelly, there are plenty of long term field studies going on all over the world all the time, some of which have been in small camps in the field for 20 years or more. My daughter regularly joins such studies, and many of the secret little places I know in Africa have a small tented encampment with half a dozen field researches. Many of them have been there for decades. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Good points, Julio. It seems from some of the sighting reports I've read that sometimes folks interrupt things they want to do simply by us being there. For example, lets say there is a mountain meadow that is the only meadow around for miles up and down a valley, full of lush grass, a prime grazing area with a watering hole. Then a couple of backpackers come in and decide to camp RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of where BF is looking forward to hunting tonight. Backpackers stay up with a campfire, making noise, deer are nervous and not coming to the meadow, BF are getting pissed because their hunt is being interrupted, BF start trying to chase away the ignorant little interlopers,... all because as you noted we aren't in tune with what they want. Instead of camping in the middle of their hunting kill zone, why not camp up and away so you can observe the meadow without disturbing the hunt? If you were thinking with consideration of what BF wants, you would be thinking in terms of where and what you would be doing right now if you were actively foraging and hunting. Where are the deer? Are the berries ripe? Are the salmon running? Pay attention to where and when they want to be, and let them be. Observe from a distance, or at least be more quiet and respectful of their space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) FUN FACT: Humans are apes. WE are apes. So when the "researchers" claim that they're not apes, then they really don't know what they're talking about Edited March 23, 2012 by grayjay 1A, 2A forum rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 23, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 23, 2012 Great apes you mean.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I guess basically they just are not on the same "wavelength" in many ways. Just my opinion, but, to me, the screaming and roaring and their threat display behaviors in general just put them out of the human parameter. This isn't an uncommon behavior among humans in my opinion. I've certainly observed it more than a few times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rosenkrantz Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Vey interesting thread and as a newbie I too am intrigued. The posts that discuss the native Americans interactions with BF fascinate me and get me thinking. Specifically, Bigfoot is in their folklore and religion. If BF was more human than ape would he too have a religion? When one of them sees a helicopter or an airplane is he not curious? Do they assign god-like qualities to these objects? It seems to me, down through history, when primitive cultures meet more advanced ones it doesn't end well for the indigenous ones. But they always make contact. The fact that BF makes no attempt puts me in the “animal†camp. Edited March 23, 2012 by Rosenkrantz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Welcome to the forum, RK. Plenty of so-called lost (uncontacted) tribes have done their utmost to avoid meeting outsiders, for the last 200 years or more. Indeed, I would say that was the default reaction. Your logic would put them in the "animal" camp. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Some of these tendencies may be their norm and express in different ways not totally dictated by their genetics, possibly not as abherent as it would appear in a human considering the difference in environment. The ones that habituate humans and are more social are probably the ones with a handicap in their society as Apehuman alluded to through her experiences. When I was doing some reading a few months back, I ran across this article. Until then I had primarily read the theories regarding autism and Neandertal. This, and something that one of those involved in the DNA research told me, led me in this direction. Hopefully one day we will get to see if I have guessed right. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP09207238.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 BFF members- Depending on the intelligence displayed by the Sasquatch WILL play alot in how they are to be treated judicially. For instance, if the Sas is determined to be more Ape, like a gorilla say they the laws and regulations will reflect upon them as animal and will be handled in like manner. However..... if the Sasquatch is proven to be very close to Homo Sapiens, sapiens and display a greater deal of cognitive powers close to or even greater thann us then the degree of those cognitive powers will need to be studied and the legal rights of the Sasquatch will be applied according to their/ those abilities to understand their rights. Rights which may seem unnessesary to them. So for one thing the legal rights or personage will be one area of focus if and when things like DNA and/ or any successfull field studies have conclueded. Also as far as protection. OK protection just doesn't mean that you can'y shoot a Sasquatch, but what sort of rights withih their determined classification places them. Not to mention that they could be very close to Homo sapiens sapiens but because they choose to live in the wilds and in the same elements as wild animals-- well do we make the same mistake we made with the First Nation tribes when America was developed or have we learned from those mistakes? What about free roam? What about honoring the culture they and their families have lived by for centuries. I am just saying this, that there will be a full multitude of issues that will confront the Sasquatch and that they will need researchers and advocates to be aware of the full gambit of the research that needs to go on . ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 But they always make contact. The fact that BF makes no attempt puts me in the “animal†camp. Who said they make no attempt to contact us? That statement assumes a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Slicktrick, You make some very good points, and agree with most everything, but when you say 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. oh no, i didn't necessarily mean you could sneak up on a BF, at least not consistently. but perhaps by going into an area they're supposed to be in & making a serious effort to remain unseen,unheard & unscented, the chances of being able to observe &/or photo them may go up. works for me on "regular" game. & if BF isnt just another animal , perhaps more human as some say, i suspect plenty of folks in wars have been ambushed by similar tactics. maybe the "build trust" thing has some merit. & being persistent there may yield results. i honestly dont know. im not a BF researcher beyond whatever happens while im out after my normal hunting & fishing pursuits. but ive been blessed to be fairly successful in those & one thing ive learned, if youre not getting results it could be time to change tactics. as your OP asks, are we going about this all wrong? perhaps, & imo, the tendency of some researchers to dismiss the theories of others is one place the ball gets dropped. Edited March 23, 2012 by slicktrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelly Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Shelly, there are plenty of long term field studies going on all over the world all the time, some of which have been in small camps in the field for 20 years or more. My daughter regularly joins such studies, and many of the secret little places I know in Africa have a small tented encampment with half a dozen field researches. Many of them have been there for decades. Mike Yes but thats not the same as what I am referring to. I'm talking Lewis and Clark stuff, Stanley and Livingston... People trekking thousands of miles on foot through the wilderness looking for whatever. Jane Goodall has been carrying on work for decades but thats not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Vey interesting thread and as a newbie I too am intrigued. The posts that discuss the native Americans interactions with BF fascinate me and get me thinking. Specifically, Bigfoot is in their folklore and religion. If BF was more human than ape would he too have a religion? When one of them sees a helicopter or an airplane is he not curious? Do they assign god-like qualities to these objects? It seems to me, down through history, when primitive cultures meet more advanced ones it doesn't end well for the indigenous ones. But they always make contact. The fact that BF makes no attempt puts me in the “animal†camp. Hmmmmm......... Perhaps they view us as edible dieties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 NO ONE can make any judgement on the topic of the Sasquatch being human or non-human before we have one thing: a body. Before this event occurs (IF it occurs), all claims of the Sasquatch being human or non-human is completely speculatory! They're primates, every researcher agrees on that. But are there any researchers who think they're monkeys or prosimians? Didn't think so. You see, the main problem here is the age-old feud of Human v.s. Non-Human. It has seperated researchers since the 1970s. You had guys like Robert W. Morgan and Peter Byrne who thought they were more on the human side, then you have guys like Grover Krantz and John Green who though they were more on the animal side. It's just one big argument that is completely unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Perhaps we need to look at the problem from the perspective of trying to catch a human who happens to have unparalleled bushcraft skills, is exceedingly wary, and who only chooses to interact with other people on their own terms. Should we be looking to law enforcement, man-tracking, and human intelligence gathering methods instead of driving on with the old wildlife model? You are so right and have often thought along the same lines. We are being outsmarted by a monster with human intelligence with tremendous bush master skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts