2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Terry]

first of all I don't even know if they're telling me the truth;

I suspect they aren't.  Those that claim habituation, imho, are either delusional or they have an agenda, whatever that might be.  I'm shooting from the hip though because I don't know any of them nor am I aware of the integrity of the ones who post here with their stories of their forest friends in the front yard or visiting them in the forest.  I think most would agree it's pretty far fetched.  One day, technology will be advanced enough to prove one way or the other if there IS such a thing as sasquatch and we'll either have a mass exodus of frauds and liars from this community or guys like me will be eating crow...huge flocks of them!  :-)

 

t.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Terry

[Lake County Bigfooot]

No offense Terry, but you seem to admit you don't know what your talking about,  Habituation is a term that is used for the most part of a pattern of behavior

that may not best describe the situation.  Sasquatch are not habituated, they will simply choose to eat something you might put out, but that is not taming or

bringing them to the point of interaction or observation, that is where the situation seems misrepresented. I think you can draw them in with food, but that is

because they feel they can risk taking it with little chance of being captured or observed for any length of time.  In fact they seem to pride themselves on their

stealth, or at least like to employ it to allude our attempts at observation.  If habituation really allowed for long term observation we would have film and video

equal to that claim. Probably the best opportunity to observe one would be from a tree, but not an open tree stand, somewhere hidden in the foliage, and covering

up your scent, or allowing for the wind to disperse it, that might work, or if you could create a blind of sorts that they were comfortable with, to me it seems that

hunter encounters while sitting in tree stands allowed them to see the creature coming, but being exposed were discovered quickly.  The fact that Sasquatch 

seem to expect us on the ground is interesting to me, and possibly reveals an opportunity.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Yuchi1]

^^^ Or, using professional quality photographic equipment to snap pics from ~1/4 mile away.  When one of those photographs was shown to my (then) 7YO daughter, she commented, "Daddy, what's that hairy looking man doing in the tree?"  The innate honesty of children.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I like the remote camera idea as well, we cannot expect them to wander into camp asking for some quality time. I think they could give a r*ts *ss about 

us excepting that we pose a danger and opportunity to them. They might at times be curious about our behavior, or amused by our stupidity, but in the end

we are either something to be avoided, possibly eaten, or something that has something they want, like whatever is in our coolers.  I suppose a raccoon might

best be the analogy, they know we are an opportunity and with the proper ingenuity we can be taken advantage of.  Maybe our best approach is to appear

entirely stupid to them and simply present ourselves and our goods as easy victims of their craftiness, but they seem to read between the lines pretty well

so that is no easy task.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Terry]

No offense Terry, but you seem to admit you don't know what your talking about,  Habituation is a term that is used for the most part of a pattern of behavior

that may not best describe the situation.  Sasquatch are not habituated, they will simply choose to eat something you might put out, but that is not taming or

bringing them to the point of interaction or observation, that is where the situation seems misrepresented. I think you can draw them in with food, but that is

because they feel they can risk taking it with little chance of being captured or observed for any length of time.  In fact they seem to pride themselves on their

stealth, or at least like to employ it to allude our attempts at observation.  If habituation really allowed for long term observation we would have film and video

equal to that claim. Probably the best opportunity to observe one would be from a tree, but not an open tree stand, somewhere hidden in the foliage, and covering

up your scent, or allowing for the wind to disperse it, that might work, or if you could create a blind of sorts that they were comfortable with, to me it seems that

hunter encounters while sitting in tree stands allowed them to see the creature coming, but being exposed were discovered quickly.  The fact that Sasquatch 

seem to expect us on the ground is interesting to me, and possibly reveals an opportunity.

No offense taken.  No, I admit I don't know the integrity of those who make such claims.  I've been around awhile and have heard it all.  Probably longer than most who tell us about their new found hairy friends these days.  I know what habituated is as well but thanks for your definition anyway.  Your recitation of what you have read or been told is duly noted.

Your thoughts on how to best observe one makes sense.

 

t.

[norseman]

Looks like the Sasquatch Genome Project has added more data.I find this interesting. In parsing out more of the nuDNA of Homo sapiens cognatus, human DNA is included with a mosaic of other primate DNA. Couldn't find the haplogroup/s for it though.

It's all GARBAGE, including the wookie mask right there on the front page.

[Guest diana swampbooger]

@ norseman.

I speak snark also.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Good enough Terry, we both agree what habituation is not. Now where I may differ from you is I believe there are some who have had some experiences

that they view as personal interaction. The desire of humans to interact with Sasquatch is not surprising, nor is it wrong. I think it is primal to human nature to want interaction with animals and nature, that is clear from our history on the planet. I think we want to believe that a connection exists between us and other animals

that share much of our physical make up, our thinking. I guess if you simply looked at intelligent primates you would see that a relationship can be

developed in captivity, and Jane Goodall might have a good argument that it can occur in the wild as well, so for someone to think a Sasquatch would be

capable of interaction is not at all far fetched, in fact it would fit what is already known of any intelligent primate, and Sasquatch are at the very least

an extremely intelligent primate. It is that intelligence that prevents them from contact with us, and has allowed for their survival, but there are always

exceptions, my conclusion is that while Sasquatch are indeed curious about us, and at times interested in what we are doing, they mostly are concerned

about their daily survival, food being on the top of the list, and steering clear of humans is right up there. Zana was supposedly wild by most accounts and

while being held captive became more open to human interactions, that is how I would generally view the creatures.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[SWWASAS]

People have pet chimpanzees too and everything goes along OK for years.   Then one day it flies off the handle and bites their face off or something like that.   I don't think it a good idea to take that chance with BF having a bad fur day.        Sure if the thing lives on your property it much the same as having a bear around.  Just keep your distance and realize if you feed it,  then stop feeding it, it might not like that and come and tear your wall off your house looking for food like a bear does.      If they can believed, some claim to have had BF roaming around in their house and raiding their pantry.    From a pathological standpoint, that sounds like a sure way to get something like Ecoli to me.    That kind of stuff can kill you too, but it is a little slower than BF ripping your head off.      

Edited April 29, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[norseman]

@ norseman.I speak snark also.

Evidently I do not........come again?

People have pet chimpanzees too and everything goes along OK for years.   Then one day it flies off the handle and bites their face off or something like that.   I don't think it a good idea to take that chance with BF having a bad fur day.        Sure if the thing lives on your property it much the same as having a bear around.  Just keep your distance and realize if you feed it,  then stop feeding it, it might not like that and come and tear your wall off your house looking for food like a bear does.      If they can believed, some claim to have had BF roaming around in their house and raiding their pantry.    From a pathological standpoint, that sounds like a sure way to get something like Ecoli to me.    That kind of stuff can kill you too, but it is a little slower than BF ripping your head off.

These are the same people who claim taking a saliva sample without the creature's consent would be rude. Far from tearing off the side of the house, these people would have you believe Sasquatch knows the difference between a teaspoon and a tablespoon!!!!!! And always uses the salad fork first!!!! Ya right.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Well I think we all draw the line at a different point then calling them cultured and refined, Sykes conclusion of Zana was that she was a subspecies of human, and that she fit very well descriptions of the Almasty. His original search was to find a relic Neanderthal, but it led him to discover a novel human specie just the same, this a strain of an ancient west african, but no human today matches Zana's ancestry. The story of her strength, her ability to outrun horses, swim raging rivers, go naked in even the coldest time of year, preferring to be outside sleeping in a hole she dug, never once uttering or copying a known syllable, she was indeed a different breed, just as her son Quits skull fell outside the range of homo sapian.  It is indeed a discovery that relic species of humans can exist, and that certainly is by all indications what we are talking about with Sasquatch here. That being said, we must treat the matter with an open mind, wild as they might be, they very well might be considered part human, though I feel that descriptions of the Almasty always pointed to a more modern relic than Sasquatch, and that Sasquatch descriptions seem to fall between human and ape, and sometime more one than the other. Which should give us all pause in thinking we know what we are talking about.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Perhaps one of these days, science can invent the machine that can capture Homo erectus DNA. Seems like Homo sapiens bumps uglies with just about anything.

[Bonehead74]

Well...
I've seen a rabbit doing things to vacuum cleaner. What's the point you are trying to make?

Edited May 8, 2015 by chelefoot
Removing placeholders

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Also be interesting to see the DNA of Homo heidelbergensis. Those people were tall.

lol, actually, I'm trying to get out of the boo-boo corner(less than 25 posts).

[Lake County Bigfooot]

My continued reading of Sykes book, while working 80 hours a week has been sparse, only several chapters on my day off.  He actually goes into the history of the Yeti and Sasquatch research, touching on Shiptons expedition, Peter Burne and Tom Slicks endeavors, and more modern attempts at locating the Yeti of Nepal, with a general conclusion that something was there. Shiptons discovery pointed toward a novel creature leaving real footprints, as Meldrum's comments on the veracity of that print were brought into the conversation, and the discovery of footprints by an early 1970's expedition found lurking around their camp in various substrates.  The contemplation of the Yeti existing today is treated as a respectable notion, and not at all ruled out by Sykes, as supported by the fact that when shown pictures of a gorrilla, a relic human ancestor, or common animals such as the local bear, all of the eyewitnesses chose the gorilla picture or the relic human as the closest resemblance to the Yeti, and easily identified the bear as only a bear, no confusion whatsoever for those 15 eyewitnesses..  A little blurb appears later in the book pointing to the lack of scientific integrity of the Ketchum Dna research, he considered it sloppy and not well founded and subject to human contamination, despite her claims to the contrary. He points her toward attempting to clarify one of the genomes, and bringing a more detailed level out of that data, which suggest he does not rule out the possibility of something actually there to discover. I leave you with this, if someone of Sykes knowledge and scientific expertise can have an open mind to this possibility, then you lesser in the know skeptics ought to reconsider your dogmatic stance against such creatures, however I know that until you see it with your own eyes and put your finger in its wounds you will not believe.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot