2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[SWWASAS]

Call me simple but I think alot of stick art or so-called glyphs are just repetitive expressions of free-forms available in their environment and they are simply expressing a desire to create, design and enthrall (the latter when one of their designs or assemblages is discovered either accidentally by a human or by their placement and placement in such a way as to be found by those they desire to impress.  

You certainly may be correct.   For all we know stick constructs and rock stacks may just be their art  forms and have nothing to do with language or writing.      Although in the case of rock stacks on stumps there seems to be some connection with game trails next to them.    What I do not know.     I have theorized that rock stacks on stumps may be a way for them to find some obscure game trail in the dark.     The silhouette of the rock stack on a stump may be visible in star or moonlight where the trail itself may not be in the dark colored ground cover vegetation.   

 

Because some humans seem inclined to do things like tree knocks, make whoops and howls,  and do rock stacks, we can never be sure what is done by whom.   I have internally debated what I should do when I find something in a very remote location.    Close to campgrounds and well used trails,  or streams,  I assume it is human made.   Leave it alone has been my policy but perhaps that was not the intent of the placement.   If some marker allows night navigation I would hate to disturb it.   Even if it their form of art, then most artists would be angry if you defaced their masterpiece.    Last thing I want is an angry BF. 

Edited February 5, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[MIB]

I have a discussion of glyphs ongoing with 2 people, one a member here, one not.   It's ambiguous.   Even a "signature" glyph could be merely a specific individual likes to construct, muscle memory, etc, and be recognizable as that individual's work by those that know them without having symbolic meaning.    On the other hand, the symbolism could be much more sophisticated than we realize if we are only noticing part of it.

 

This is another one of those things where I think we have to be very wary of going off the deep end but at the same time, we cannot learn without getting our toes wet.  (Metaphorically speaking anyway.)   We simply cannot move forward if we only consider what is "proven" rather than speculate, then investigate to test the validity of the speculation.

 

I use glyphs of my own to draw my attention later if I'm passing through a new place and for some reason (like caching gear I'll return for) need to identify it later.   It doesn't represent the serial number of the specific camera or anything like that, just "hey me, pay attention."   THAT there is a message IS the message. 

 

If that makes sense.

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

There is another possibility that I just thought about related to glyphs.     Like has been mentioned they could be an abstract construct, just to draw attention to something.     A crossed stick could be something formed naturally.  You see them all the time placed there by gravity.      So some attention getting construct has to be something not likely found in nature.     So sticks and rocks together on a stump in some geometric arrangement that makes it unlikely to be a natural would be noticed.    We, because modern humans are very visually overstimulated by technology, assume it has to have some visual meaning.    Writing, art, designation of a specific individual,  trail marker,  territorial boundaries etc.     But it could be as simple as "hey there,  here are some sticks I left that you will notice."     The next BF along sees it, picks up a stick or rock in the construct, gives it a sniff, and recognizes the unique smell of some BF they know, or the smell of one they do not know,  and probably has some idea of how long ago it was left.      Living out in nature, their sense of smell has to be hundreds or thousand of times better than ours.     As I recall a dogs sense of smell is 1000 times better than a human.    Good enough they can identify someone they know or track a stranger.   A dogs nose is near the ground so they can pick up smells left behind easily.    But like us,  BF walks on two feet, and would have to pick up an object to detect a faint smell.    I don't know just thinking out of the box here. 

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Congratulations SWWASP on 1000 posts if you say, "Thank You Very Much"  That is allot of time and energy, trust me I know.

[WSA]

I think you can't overlook the symmetry of the construction. We have a natural affinity for it, and it seems maybe BF do too...the actual meaning aside. 

[SWWASAS]

Congratulations SWWASP on 1000 posts if you say, "Thank You Very Much"  That is allot of time and energy, trust me I know.

Thanks!    All it takes is interest in the topic and time to do it.    In my own way I hope I can contribute something that turns on a light in someone and puts some pieces of this BF puzzle together.    If BF was easy, existence would be recognized.    I was really huffing and puffing climbing a hill yesterday doing field work so I don't know how much longer I can do hard core field work at my age.   At some point others need to carry the torch so rather than keep stuff close to my chest I like to throw out ideas as I have them.    There is entirely too much secrecy, jealousy,  and in fighting among researchers.     

 

I was watching a round table on video the other day that I am sure most of us have seen.   Several PHDs including Meldrum and some primate expert that has a lot of field time.     I do not know any of them by name other than Meldrum.     It amused me the look that Meldrum had on his face when the primate expert wondered out loud if BF might bury or hide their dead and that is why bodies are not found.   I had suggested that very thing one time to Meldrum and he said he had never seen reports of that being observed.   Well I had seen a couple of such reports in the literature about infants who died being seen to be buried.  You never know how reliable a witness is in case like that.   But reports like that exist.     I know scientists like Meldrum like data to come to conclusions.     But every possible explanation for a phenomena like lack of bodies should be examined for merit.   I am sure BF have many customs that have not been observed by humans.  We know so little about them we are hardly in the position to be dismissive about much of anything.   It is a matter of researchers whittling away at the unknowns, one thing at a time.  

Edited February 5, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I have little doubt they are intelligent enough to bury their dead, some people suggest they might even eat their dead, whatever the case it would explain 

why some have been shot and apparently dragged off by their kind. If survival requires not leaving any traces of evidence for humans then this would make

sense. I would not even put it past a lesser intelligent animal to do something similar.

[WSA]

Reasonable minds can differ at this stage of knowledge about their habits, but I for one keep putting tic marks in the "likely more human than ape" column on my scorecard.  Burial (with or without ritual...and let's face it, the habit of interment IS a ritual) has always been a possibility on the table for any thinking individual grappling with the lack of (confirmed by science) remains. Most of our prejudices against BF having certain abilities, when you really get down to it, is no more than humans saying, "Oh no, no, no....WE are the only ones capable of  ______!  Umm, no. We probably aren't and if it explains the evidence, it is even more probable. As DWA would say, "That is how science works"....as you guys know.

[SWWASAS]

Once when I was out on the lahar on the East side of Mt St Helens I found a suspicious mound that did not look natural.   It looked like rocks had been placed in a 4 by 10 foot rectangular mound.    On one end a rock stack that looked very much like a bird was there.   That was definitely not natural because the rocks were stacked vertically.   Nature would not do that.         The mound seemed too rectangular looking to be natural too.     Since BF does not have shovels and an adult is pretty large to bury, I wonder if they do what people in some primitive cultures do and simply bury their dead under rocks to keep scavengers from getting to them.    The last time I was out there I looked and could not find the mound.   Spring runoff really changes things year to year.    I was hoping to find the mound and see bones sticking out.   I wish I had gotten the GPS coordinates so I would know better where it was.   

[norseman]

Your presentation was good. Excavating with earth moving equipment in ND, no doubt? Bring your bone shovel, homemade rock picks, axes (and whatever other tool you can make with rock, wood, bone, and twine) and have at it on the frozen soil. Go as deep as you want. Not once have I've ever heard or read about Eskimos doing subterranean tunnelling into permafrost. Shallow fox holes or concave dishes into the frozen soil, yes. Any tunnelling had to have been done in thawed soil conditions where weather conditions warranted it, not in permafrost.

It doesn't matter, the principal is the same. Heat the earth, and you can dig it with a excavator or 1000 Eskimos with shovels. Without heating the earth either way your out of the digging business.

[WSA]

Seems I recall an account from GA, from someone with a Cherokee ancestry who related sleeping out as a kid on a mountain slope with lots of "mounds" on it believed to be a native burial site. They had visitors that night and that is as much as I can recall, but the implication was some connection between the mounds and the BF, possibly even that the mounds disappeared afterwards (although I may be pulling a Brian Williams on that part....) If I have some time later, I'll see if I can lay my hands on it.  

[Catmandoo]

Norseman,

I have wondered about torching the permafrost with whale/other marine mammal oil. Excavation occurred in the summer. Torch the whale oil and scrape/dig like a burrowing animal. There would be no archaeological traces of a pit burn. The risk would be a tundra fire. Beach zones have a lower risk of smoldering tundra fires.

BTW, when whale oil was removed from automatic transmission fluid, the transmission failures went exponential.

It' all about that blubber.

[Guest thermalman]

It doesn't matter, the principal is the same. Heat the earth, and you can dig it with a excavator or 1000 Eskimos with shovels. Without heating the earth either way your out of the digging business.

Eskimos had no shovels for hundreds of years. Heating the ground is one plausible option. Although, permanent residency would go against their nomadic lifestyle.

[norseman]

Eskimos had no shovels for hundreds of years. Heating the ground is one plausible option. Although, permanent residency would go against their nomadic lifestyle.

Not at all..........

Many cultures have distinct camps with permanent structures depending on the season, that they rotate too.

I visited here and did not see one igloo;

http://www.alaskanative.net/en/main-nav/plan-your-visit/the-experience/

Click on the video, all cultures in Alaska are represented by a structure.

[Catmandoo]

Eskimo's did not have shovels for thousands and thousands of years. They stayed put, and are still there.

I do not want to banter back and forth on the history of excavation. What has been demonstrated is nature-mediated technology. Previously posted in this thread was a comment about an alleged discovery of some den or cave. I see no discovery in dens, hollows or root ball cavities. Utilizing previously used caves, dens, mine shafts and hollow logs is common with many animals.

Sasquatch excavations have not been shown. A guess for a hiding location--underground.

The underground Sasquatch theorists have not shown multiple entrances/exits--escape routes.

My comment for the 'den' seekers to take under advisory is to look up in the trees when they believe they are in a special location.