Guest Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 If bigfoot exist and they live in the woods, then it isn't exactly a stretch to posit that they knock on trees to perform some basic communication. One of the most intelligent sentences of the thread, so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I forgot to add this a while back in this thread on the difference between a gun shot and a wood on wood knock. In another area { not Area D } I had wood knocks so loud and close I heard the wood break and fly off into the leaf duff. The first knock was crisp. the second there was dull tone and crack sound and the third was crack and snap followed by the impact in the leaf litter. This was early in my time as a researcher, I was more of an observer and I did not yet understand that data collection was so vital so of course I did not have an audio recorder with me all the time. It is frustrating to know that my closest interactions took place when I did not have the brain enough to record what was going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Your closest interactions probably took place when you didn't record what was going on BECAUSE you weren't recording what was going on. Think about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 ....................wood knocks so loud and close I heard the wood break and fly off into the leaf duff.............. This brings to mind another knock hypothesis. Are knocks simply a show of BF's power, which warns intruders to go back? If they don't go back, then the heavy club will make the point more clear. The clubs BFs uses are probably so heavy, that a human would not be able to use it. Basic cave man language. The knock also informs the BF clan of intruders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbone Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Nathan, may I suggest that 'recording vs not-recording' be part of your data collection? Keep track of interactions to see if there is a measurable difference. It may be difficult to prove anything as it may just be a matter of luck, but I would find it interesting anyway. Edited December 9, 2013 by Redbone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 ....................wood knocks so loud and close I heard the wood break and fly off into the leaf duff.............. This brings to mind another knock hypothesis. Are knocks simply a show of BF's power, which warns intruders to go back? If they don't go back, then the heavy club will make the point more clear. The clubs BFs uses are probably so heavy, that a human would not be able to use it. Basic cave man language. The knock also informs the BF clan of intruders. Evidence tells us that - unlike humans - animals only use tools for the intended purpose. No screwdriver-as-hammer here. He ain't smashing you with his talktool. It's likely that one purpose of wood knocks is just what it appears to be when woodpeckers do it: I'm here. Whoever you are, be advised and act accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Your closest interactions probably took place when you didn't record what was going on BECAUSE you weren't recording what was going on. Think about it! I have to disagree, I was simply in a unique situation. There was dampening in interaction and activity for a few years in the other areas I had been operating, the groups where still there it was just that I was not respectful and I acted like a hunter so I was treated as such. I simply was not worth the risk or the time and I certainly was not something positive to them. In Area D I record consistently even in my absence many times I am still recording audio, and I am very glad to report that the interactions are getting to be very close at this site like the one mentioned before. I believe this is because I changed my image from a camo wearing sneaky hunter to a casual hiker who does strange activities all the while being respectful and considerate of how they may view me. Almost every experience with a human is a bad one and so I have to be contrasted to be viewed differently. I am trying to cast my self in a whole new light to them. Trust must be earned before it is given I believe. I believe through this ongoing process this group is becoming more comfortable with me and may enjoy watching and interacting with the strangely kind and considerate human in their presence. Since I have been operating in Area D I have had some the most non aggressive experiences to date and they are getting closer it seems with every event. Edited December 9, 2013 by NathanFooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Sounds like you have a good thing going. It seems that they usually don't mind audio recording much. Although cameras can cause problems, if they like you, they'll work around them, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Nathan, may I suggest that 'recording vs not-recording' be part of your data collection? Keep track of interactions to see if there is a measurable difference. It may be difficult to prove anything as it may just be a matter of luck, but I would find it interesting anyway. Everything is noted and recorded, I am not even going to consider doing that. The reason being, information not recorded is not really worth anything for advancing the understanding of the subject in a scientific sense. It would defeat the purpose and goals I have set. Edited December 9, 2013 by NathanFooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 If this animal is like other animals - and evidence suggests it is - it seems to make sense to record everything, for just the reasons you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Evidence tells us that - unlike humans - animals only use tools for the intended purpose. No screwdriver-as-hammer here. He ain't smashing you with his talktool. It's likely that one purpose of wood knocks is just what it appears to be when woodpeckers do it: I'm here. You are assuming that bigfoot is an animal and not human like. This is a big assumption. Can you expand on his statement more? Whoever you are, be advised and act accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Actually, I think the vast bulk of the evidence indicates that whatever they are, 'human' isn't it. Nothing else to expand on in that statement. A woodpecker announces its presence. Mates and competitors - and potential mates and potential competitlors - take their own messages from that, and I'd suspect with sasquatch it's the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I used to think they are humans, but have recently changed theories. We seem to have share enough genes to have many of the same traits, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 My thoughts are BF is close to the human side when it comes to communication but not in tool making, clothing, home making and other areas. This is based on vidoes focusing on the Sierra Sounds BF chatter. A linguist states that BF speaks a primitive language and not simply animal noises. See the short video below: If this is so, then maybe the wood knocks communicate simple messages. We simply can't prove these theories since we can't study BF in the wild yet. Maybe in time with a Jane Goodall type..................Jane where are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) My thoughts are BF is close to the human side when it comes to communication but not in tool making, clothing, home making and other areas. This is based on vidoes focusing on the Sierra Sounds BF chatter. A linguist states that BF speaks a primitive language and not simply animal noises. See the short video below: *Removed video If this is so, then maybe the wood knocks communicate simple messages. We simply can't prove these theories since we can't study BF in the wild yet. Maybe in time with a Jane Goodall type..................Jane where are you? Georgerm , that is what I am trying to go for, to gain the trust of the group is the goal that I may document them. This is what Goodall did and it was very successful. I believe I have already had some positive indication that I am of interest to at least one of the individuals. Edited December 9, 2013 by chelefoot Removed video from quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts