Drew Posted September 20, 2012 Posted September 20, 2012 Drew: My take: a technologically superior but diminutive species will be able to rout and kill larger species using technology and tactics. Combined with agriculture and food distribution systems, Hss was able to dedicate members of its species to specialize in warfare (i.e. soldiers) without having to invest time in other pursuits e.g. hunting, farming, gathering. I think that BF's elusiveness was selected FOR and those that remain are those who wisely decided to avoid contact with humans. Poignant- I would say that makes sense, I understand what you are saying, but we know that Bigfoot is not avoiding contact with humans. BF is showing up (according to sighting reports) in places that do not ring true for a beast that is supposedly elusive and cunning.
Cotter Posted September 20, 2012 Author Posted September 20, 2012 I agree Drew. But today's Hss haven't avidly hunted/eradicated BF's for decades (arguably centuries). Could be that the curious ones are starting to re-materialize through genetic/instinctual variation. Meaning, there hasn't been a serious need in BF culture to remain AS elusive as they once needed to. Furthermore, perhaps they have a bit more cognitive ability and can determine threats more readily and choose to approach non-threatening situations. Total unverifiable theories.
Guest Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 My take: a technologically superior but diminutive species will be able to rout and kill larger species using technology and tactics. Unless of course the terrain is vast and the larger species can outrun and/or out-strategize the smaller species! This is half tongue-in-cheek, Mr P, but it does occur to me that we have the technologically superior Operation Persistence team in the field at the moment and so far they haven't killed too many of the big fellas.
Guest poignant Posted September 21, 2012 Posted September 21, 2012 You helped make my point, in that the remnant BF population are INDEED those who have successfully passed on the importance of eluding humans. I can't comment on what Op Persistence is employing for tactics. For all we know they already have one in the bag. Using them for comparison is not a complete analogy. I have no doubt that our odds will increase and we will beat BF in their game if we truly poured the latest tech and gear into it a la Manhunt. You just got get past those pesky funding and permit issues.
Guest Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 Bump for this thread because it's a great discussion.
Guest DWA Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Poignant- I would say that makes sense, I understand what you are saying, but we know that Bigfoot is not avoiding contact with humans. BF is showing up (according to sighting reports) in places that do not ring true for a beast that is supposedly elusive and cunning. Well, this 'elusiveness' thing comes up way too much. Bighorn sheep are as elusive if not more. Yet I have seen wild ones, close up, on several occasions. Once a band of rams in Grand Teton NP crossed the Schoolroom Glacier headwall, and grazed up to about twenty or so yards of me. (I later asked a ranger: um, excuse me, are there bighorn in Grand Teton? She said: no.) White-tailed deer? Regular ninjas. If you see one, that's prima facie evidence that the area is beyond saturation. So why do we eat so much venison? Simple. When people see them, we believe them. When people tell us things about them, we believe them. We are pretty **** smart, when we want to be, and information accumulates. And we use it. And yet deer hunters will still tell you how tough the big bucks are. And this is with high-powered firearms. Imagine if you couldn't just sit on a stand, in camo, with a gun that pretty much is the only thing that can make you dangerous to a deer. The sasquatch invisibility shield is our denial and our resultant ignorance. Once they're confirmed it is going to get a whole lot easier to find out more, and more, about them. Edited March 7, 2013 by DWA
Guest njjohn Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 The panda was yesterdays Bigfoot. They heard stories and looked. Just a myth they said. Someone comes back with skin. They go look again... 30 years later, must be extinct. A few still look, and 30 years later they actually find it. And this is an animal that isn't trying to be elusive.
Cotter Posted March 7, 2013 Author Posted March 7, 2013 If BF has the cognitive ability comparable to a young human, it wouldn't be too awfully difficulte for it to determine when a human or group of humans is a potential threat and perhaps choose NOT to hide, but rather simply stroll away. DWA - I think it is a blend of both to be honest. If one isn't looking for something, how do you find it?
Guest DWA Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 ^^^Well exactly. We aren't looking for sasquatch in any concerted way. Even the truly committed folks, like the TBRC, are real people with surreal jobs. Operations Persistence and Endurance were made possible by a dedicated effort of numerous people, working in shifts. For about a month each. Serious search = serious commitment by mainstream institutions with expertise and money.
Guest Posted March 7, 2013 Posted March 7, 2013 So, where is BobZenor, anyway these days? Have I just missed him? Did he leave?
xspider1 Posted March 8, 2013 Posted March 8, 2013 It doesn't make sense to me that the most highly developed genus on the planet would be so nonviable as to have only one surviving species. I just found this thread and I totally agree with the above. This is good stuff, I got some readin' to do. : B thx!
Cotter Posted March 8, 2013 Author Posted March 8, 2013 ^Especially with the hundreds of thousands of years of co-existence prior..... Today, HSS would be the exception, not the rule.
Guest Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 The panda was yesterdays Bigfoot. They heard stories and looked. Just a myth they said. Someone comes back with skin. They go look again... 30 years later, must be extinct. A few still look, and 30 years later they actually find it. And this is an animal that isn't trying to be elusive. So all we have to do is find the "skin?" The problem with that idea BZ, is that Bigfoot would have been vastly dominant over any of the hominins that we have found evidence of. Why would he need to elude those little fellas? Teeny weeny little wolves manage to bring down gigundo bison and moose even without superior technology which itty, bitty humans have in abundance.
Recommended Posts