Guest DWA Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 I know that this exercise has been conducted for known animals; Meldrum talks about it being done for chimps in his book. SPOILER ALERT: they found virtually nothing. I think that given the extremely short amount of time - none really, against what would be needed to confirm - searchers tend to look for living ones walking around. Any remains they might find are gravy.
Guest Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 For what it is worth.. I have also been told of a young one that was white. Not albino and there seems to be a few reports of those out there also. It would make sense regarding genetics and if these guys are fairly closely related to ea other in clan situations. First post in awhile... like to think I am back.
hiflier Posted January 18, 2014 Author Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) Hello Sasfooty, "ANOTHER ONE" ??!!?? By no means are you cluttering this thread so perish that thought. John Green was a collector and recorder of reports as well as an investigator in the field as we all know. It doesn't make him an expert but did allow him to summariz things in many regards. Nobody likes finding a dead anything but there is an extremely LARGE elephant in the room here. And that is the proof issue. One of my endeavors here, actually my only endeavor, is coming up with ways to attack the proof problem. To that end this is an approach I've not seen discussed. That being concentrating on known areas of activity in the effort to find a body. If there were a definite no kill agenda involved would any of the habituators be open to helping out in the hunt? Edited January 18, 2014 by hiflier
Guest DWA Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Just like eye color, coat color sounds as if it varies. It might not be age-related and might not be something on which I'd make presumptions given current knowledge.
hiflier Posted January 18, 2014 Author Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) Hello DWA, I know that this exercise has been conducted for known animals; Meldrum talks about it being done for chimps in his book. SPOILER ALERT: they found virtually nothing. I think that given the extremely short amount of time - none really, against what would be needed to confirm - searchers tend to look for living ones walking around. Any remains they might find are gravy. Well isn't that the issue? If they're "walking around" it makes the going tougher by default. I think that by looking for the dead ones the live ones that show up would be the gravy. Looking for dead ones requires none of the special prep needed as when looking for the live ones. Edited January 18, 2014 by hiflier
Guest DWA Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Well that may be, but I think most people aren't going to have the patience and attention to detail required to really look hard for remains. I know I wouldn't. To go that route, you'd want to have people doing it who have done it for known animals and know all the ins and outs. I think NAWAC would tell you that if you settle in long enough, they'll come to you. If any of the habituator stories are the truth, well, them too. I guess.
hiflier Posted January 18, 2014 Author Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) Hello All, It would be a good thing not to divert this topic into a color vs age debate. Sure there are variations and some of those could be age. The issue is if they exist that there are dead ones out there. THAT is the topic. And the idea of going out to specifically look for the carcasses or whatever remains.....um.....remain as an angle for finding proof of existence. Hello DWA, I hate to say this but you're not helping as in do you know of any individuals that do this sort of thing? Sitting long enough to have them come to you? Have you been reading anything here? What is it that you're not getting? Edited January 18, 2014 by hiflier
Doc Holliday Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Let me tell you though, pulling that trigger, it's a tough ordeal. ....... so this tough ordeal, is that regarding BF or just in general?
Guest DWA Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Just relating it as I see it. I wouldn't try to stop anyone who is interested in doing it. To all appearances, somebody is having lots of encounters: NAWAC. I suspect asking them about this would get the response: Um, we're kinda busy with the live ones. They seem on pace to produce proof sooner rather than later. This is what one expects from folks working with their own money and vacation time, which remember, one is using looking for remains too. What one does with time one isn't being paid to spend is up to what fulfills one. And for most, the live animal is what they're after.
hiflier Posted January 18, 2014 Author Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) They seem on pace to produce proof. It's been over 5 years so who's pace are you talking about? What one does with time one isn't being paid to spend is up to what fulfills one. An obvious point. And for most, the live animal is what they're after. That is not what this thread is about and is a point on which I differ regarding the approach. We have tracks, we have sightings, reports up the wazoo, videos, photos, shootings and yet...........? Maybe it's time for a different tack. People DO spend time in the field, they DO spend tens of thousands on guns and equipment. There is something amiss in this search. Edited January 18, 2014 by hiflier
hiflier Posted January 18, 2014 Author Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) Hello Norseman, I certainly investigate any kill sites I come across yes.I do not know every bone though and if I find a piece of a rib or something I usually surmise its a deer by the odds of sheer volume.Sometimes it's just that way no kill site, just a odd bone that was packed off by a scavenger and discarded.I pack my rifle where ever I go, in the hopes of collecting a type specimen but if I stumbled upon an obvious squatch carcass and I knew what I was looking at? It would be just as good as killing one, better even because iam not sacrificing one for the species. This is why I have a great respect for you. That and the fact that I'm confident in that you would know what you would be looking at if you ran across the remains of a Sasquatch Edited January 18, 2014 by hiflier
Guest DWA Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Actually, NAWAC has been practicing field primatology - as opposed to three-day or so field trips - for about two years now. (Operation Endurance was spring 2011; and given the time they've actually spent in field, I'm not going "three years" in January 2014.) And they aren't practicing it for nearly enough time, as they would be the first to tell you. If there is one thing they could change, it would be the time they could spend. So the "obvious point" is just what is "amiss" here: no one has the time - that they are not being paid to spend - to spend on this. I'm all for anything that is tried. Meldrum's blimp; NAWAC; if you actually are habituating then good on you; three-day field trips (or the occasional day) are better than zero. Shoot, even saskeptic admitted to searching streambeds for remains whenever he got the time. If he'd found something....well, I'm all ears.
hiflier Posted January 18, 2014 Author Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) Hello DWA, All good points so thanks for hanging in there. Anyone gets credit for bring good things to the table as far as I'm concerned. So then, in your opinion, after going after live ones for the past fifty years or so without much in the way of proof, even though lots of evidence, do you think that the lesser expense of looking for cadavers: .....If they are afraid of the presence of guns who cares; all the better for the investigators IMO. No need for stealth, deer urine, guillie suits, being stealthy, placing trail cams, looking for hair in hair traps, thermal imaging costs........NONE of that.... has merit? I mean if all someone has to do is hike in with a minimum of gear, no hunting acoutrements, and a pocket full of money 'cause they didn't spend $6,000 on a thermal imager, or $1,500 on a gun with a sight and ammo, etc. but maybe has a bone-lovin' dog or something then I think more might get involved. As you know already perhaps, one of my points is always to figure a way that more folks can EASILY and CHEAPLY become part of the solution. Bushwacking isn't easy but there are other avenues that are. Finding a dead creature's chances are slim but if more are active in the pursuit of proof the odds go up if Sasquatch exists; which many, including myself, think it does. Edited January 18, 2014 by hiflier
Guest Cervelo Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 People have been bushwhacking in North America for centuries.....and so far nothing This is not a "new" quest folks show me one undoucumented mammal over 200 lbs discovered in the contential US in the past 100 years or so, much less a primate. If they are there one would think it would have been found and documented long ago.
salubrious Posted January 18, 2014 Moderator Posted January 18, 2014 Unless someone mistook the remains for a human. However most of the prime environment also has a fairly acidic soil so even the bones won't last long- a few weeks at the most. Chimps have been in Africa for about 7 million years, but so far only 4 teeth have shown in the fossil record of anything considered an ancestor to the chimp. It takes well over 100,000 years for a fossil to form. Almost any bones newer than that are likely just that- bones, not fossils. Elk, moose, elephants, chimps, even birds will acknowledge their dead. It thus is not far fetched for me thinking that BF would do something other than just let a body rot.
Recommended Posts