Guest Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 ^^ Yep, and here's a great documentary I just watched the other night, that was filmed in that exact area.... While being "arctic" its not all just ice and snow...... A bit of a derail possibly, but as you watch this- you'll see there's plenty of places for animals (even large ones) to hide out....... How is a BF going to survive winter temps of -30F? This is a Primate..not a Polar Bear or a Caribou...both of which have special thick hollow fur.
Guest Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 How do the caribou, moose, bear, martins, rabbits, and all the other critters survive? Did you check out the documentary? I realize its 50 mins long, but well worth watching... its an area chock full of natural game, and in no way shape or form devoid of wildlife- and this is within the ANWR region- the extreme north east corner of Alaska..... if they can survive there, without fire, and without dwelling inside with a roof over their heads, then I see no reason why a Sasquatch with fur and a layer of body fat couldnt do the same.... and whose to say they dont have some kind of crude shelter or den that they've fashioned ? I'm not saying they're there for sure Ronn... just saying they "could be"..... -A-
Guest DWA Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 And still the problems with paragraphing, that edits aren't fixing. Sorry 'bout that. How is a BF going to survive winter temps of -30F? This is a Primate..not a Polar Bear or a Caribou...both of which have special thick hollow fur. The polar bear has adaptations the sun bear doesn't.The caribou has adaptations the red brocket deer and the chital don't.It stands to reason that primates living in cold climates have adaptations those in the tropics don't.Oh look....THEY DO...and you're the one who pointed them out elsewhere. OK, you pointed out one. I had to point out others for you.Come on now, let's use some logic here. We've gone over this on another thread. That there are known primates that have such adaptations makes it logical to predict that another one, reported in such places, has similar adaptations.One cannot invalidate evidence by saying that something can't have adaptations that it well could, were it ever confirmed, which the evidence says it would be were science to devote the required attention to looking.Just telling you how a scientist would think of this, if a scientist bothered to. Whch a few have.
Guest Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 ronn1 asks a good question; " how they can *outsmart* humans..when all they can do is essentially try to hide from us." My response would be that intelligently hiding, hiding while knowing what those seeking for you are most likely to be seeing or doing to find you, is about as good as it gets, and the technologies mentioned don't seem to me to be a very good match for what I think a surviving remnant of an elusive species of very smart ambush hunters...trail cams for instance are great for animals that use trails...what does an 8 foot tall creature need a trail for? Now, I think occasionally even a poorly thought out application of technology can on occasion snag a pic of some sort...but not likely to do it in a dependable and predictable way, like setting a wolverine trap will, if applied by an experienced wolverine tracker will inevitably trap every last wolverine, but wolverines have a brain the size of small lime in contrast to a brain the size of a grapefruit for ancestral humans like erectus..it made our ancestors, and consequently us, a bit different from the rest of the beasts when it comes to the power to analyze, imagine what others are seeing, and being able to create a strategy unique to the circumstances faced. I do think, in a thought experiment sort of way, that there is a way for technology to overcome the superior wild skills and stealthy instincts of these intelligent hominins might have if they exist. Technology is about to reach a stage where an entire landscape covering miles and miles could be covered by powerful optics connected to powerful image processors to watch every single large (50 lbs and greater) animal in an area where these intelligent hunters are strongly felt to be living and preying upon elk,deer,sheep...then watch, patiently...if no BF at the very least the researcher would come away with a more exacting understanding of how megafauna predators and prey interact. Within the area observed have some researchers camping and when they suspect there is a BF they could call to the observation points and turn the spotting scopes onto those areas to record for any activity.I'm only a few hundred thousand dollars short. Cheers
Guest Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 ronn1 asks a good question; " how they can *outsmart* humans..when all they can do is essentially try to hide from us." My response would be that intelligently hiding, hiding while knowing what those seeking for you are most likely to be seeing or doing to find you, is about as good as it gets, and the technologies mentioned don't seem to me to be a very good match for what I think a surviving remnant of an elusive species of very smart ambush hunters...trail cams for instance are great for animals that use trails...what does an 8 foot tall creature need a trail for? Now, I think occasionally even a poorly thought out application of technology can on occasion snag a pic of some sort...but not likely to do it in a dependable and predictable way, like setting a wolverine trap will, if applied by an experienced wolverine tracker will inevitably trap every last wolverine, but wolverines have a brain the size of small lime in contrast to a brain the size of a grapefruit for ancestral humans like erectus..it made our ancestors, and consequently us, a bit different from the rest of the beasts when it comes to the power to analyze, imagine what others are seeing, and being able to create a strategy unique to the circumstances faced. I do think, in a thought experiment sort of way, that there is a way for technology to overcome the superior wild skills and stealthy instincts of these intelligent hominins might have if they exist. Technology is about to reach a stage where an entire landscape covering miles and miles could be covered by powerful optics connected to powerful image processors to watch every single large (50 lbs and greater) animal in an area where these intelligent hunters are strongly felt to be living and preying upon elk,deer,sheep...then watch, patiently...if no BF at the very least the researcher would come away with a more exacting understanding of how megafauna predators and prey interact. Within the area observed have some researchers camping and when they suspect there is a BF they could call to the observation points and turn the spotting scopes onto those areas to record for any activity.I'm only a few hundred thousand dollars short. Cheers " what I think a surviving remnant of an elusive species of very smart ambush hunters"
Guest Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) " what I think a surviving remnant of an elusive species of very smart ambush hunters" ( I could not edit this incomplete post, so this is the rest of it...LOL) So, do you think humans living 10,000 yrs ago and hunting Wooly Mammoths were as good at *ambush* as a BF living then? Do you think it's possible that in the history of man, humans did in fact kill a BF? If so, then why haven't we caught one over the last 50 yrs? What I'm saying here is that I find it highly unlikely that, given humans are supreme hunters, BF has managed to avoid being caught by them at somepoint over the last 10000 years. If BF was killed by humans at some point..then surely we would see a kill/capture in modern times. Edited January 15, 2013 by ronn1
Guest Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 (edited) ronn1...well, it is a mystery after all, but yeah, I think that the taking of one of these over the last few hundred years in a scientifically documentable way has not happened, and I don't find that entirely implausible because so it is with a few animals that we know to exist and yet have not had a recent collection, and barely a sighting, or even a sign. If we accept that BF have near human intelligence and are physically endowed with the equipment to endure, and even thrive in a wild landscape, as we believe that early humans did, evading their lethal enemies (likely other hominins) while hiding in wait for their prey would be an instinctual proclivity that one would think would be conserved in their natural behaviors, and so a mystery without the need for superstition. Imagine modern humans, at any time in our past history, having acquired one of these elusive hominins, would for the vast majority of our history, seen it as a curious sport of nature, or a cursed individual or maybe evil incarnate depending on the experiences they had and their cultural bias, but no matter what they would have described it as it would not have been seen as a modern people with modern education would see it, and modern people with modern understanding have only been systemizing the known world of animals in the wild for a few hundred years...and in what for the most part have been rather rudimentary ways: shotguns and snares. Edited January 15, 2013 by dogu4
Guest Posted January 15, 2013 Posted January 15, 2013 Mankind hasn't lost its stealth. We utilize it quite well when trained properly. An army vet and I stalked some illegal Hunters trying to take turkey on our ranch in Kentucky. They later claimed they didn't know they were on our land, but we heard them talking about us, thinking we weren't on site, and maybe they could bag a big tom one of them had seen without us knowing any better. Took me only a couple months to learn the discipline it takes to remain hidden from human eyes. It takes a bit of training to learn what to look for. Most people don't have that kind of training. IMO, we aren't dealing with a dumb animal. Sure they make mistakes, and get seen once in a while, but for the most part, their discipline is excellent. I have come to understand that they are as curious about us as we are of them. Their curiosity overcomes their good sense sometimes, same as we. I think that once we get over the notion that we are intellectually superior as a species, and start realizing that this other species of homonids is just as cunning as we, but in their own environs, then we might begin to solve this mystery. So, what we likely have, IMO, is an intelligent being with generations of woodcraft training walking circles around most of us while we blunder about in forests that we have long forgotten how to walk in.
Sasfooty Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Do you think it's possible that in the history of man, humans did in fact kill a BF? If so, then why haven't we caught one over the last 50 yrs? Assuming that this is true, perhaps we have forgotten how to use a few "talents" that they have remembered.
david75090 Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 If they're like my little terrier dog, who is brindle colored, when she's still, around the edge of the yard, she disappears. Her fur is sort of a red-tan-brown, scattering of black, blend. I was watching her one day and noticed that when she's in the shadows and doesn't move, you can't see her. I see her when I see the motion.
Guest Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Assuming that this is true, perhaps we have forgotten how to use a few "talents" that they have remembered. Well, I see it as an *exchange of talents* for man, ie, we may have lost some of the basic hunting skills, but I think that is more than offset by technological advances...Cameras..optical devices (everything from basic binoculars and advanced thermal imagers)...powerful firearms...even satellite images. Also keep in mind the sheer NUMBER of humans in relation to BFs has increased a thousand fold as well as the territory occupied by humans. This would make it INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT, if not IMPOSSIBLE for BF to avoid detection which it enjoyed (should it exist) in the distant past.
Sasfooty Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 In our defense, we do seem to have detected them.....
Rockape Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Yep. We can see 'em, hear 'em and smell 'em. Just can't catch 'em,.
Guest Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) I think that a pair trained as a Scout/Sniper could do something. Hunters are well and good, but Hunters are not trained to look for hidden bipedal forms. Better yet, send people like Nathan, from a generation who were brought up looking for bipedal forms as part of their entertainment. First person shooter games. Those are awesome trainers. I've seen one up close, and that shaggy fur would make a nice Ghillie suit. My point being is they are successful at evasion because most of them are gone before we know it. I think fb/fb isn't too far off the mark in how he says their security is. Edited January 16, 2013 by PsyShroom
Guest Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 I think that a pair trained as a Scout/Sniper could do something. Hunters are well and good, but Hunters are not trained to look for hidden bipedal forms. Better yet, send people like Nathan, from a generation who were brought up looking for bipedal forms as part of their entertainment. First person shooter games. Those are awesome trainers. I've seen one up close, and that shaggy fur would make a nice Ghillie suit. My point being is they are successful at evasion because most of them are gone before we know it. I think fb/fb isn't too far off the mark in how he says their security is. Yes, but we do have purported *sightings*..photos...and vids..as well as trail cams. So apparently they are *detectable* none the less. The mantra of skeptics>>>that we have NO physical evidence (that is actual proof) nor can we point to one in *real time* (dead or alive) looms very large indeed. You said: "I've seen one up close". Could you elaborate?
Recommended Posts