MIB Posted June 22, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2015 I suppose one method would be to find a group of harmless humans and practice approach, exploration and silent retreat. Certainly the same sort of thing might not be a good idea if the humans are deer hunters. The most reasonable explanation for certain things I've experienced is exactly this ... being the practice idiot for woods ninja shadow-the-human class. However, contrary to what you suggest, I've had two very close "encounters", accidentally, including a sighting at 30-35 feet in broad daylight, when I was deer hunting very visibly and obviously carrying a rifle. This points to a couple of possibilities, one being that they know individual humans, study us, and only do things that have life or death consequences with people they judge will not choose death, but even with such people, they are extremely cautious. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I remember when I was first shown that little video Randy. My reaction to the instructions was "Hmmm....don't think I'm going to waste my time doing this silly exercise counting passes just because somebody wants me to. I'll watch it though to see what else is going on." That attitude will also allow you to see things others do not. Contrarianism has its benefits as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Finishing up a stretch of working 21 days in a row, about 75-80 hours per week also commuting about 2 1/2 hours per day, all in the life of a Golf Pro in season, uuuuugggggghhhhhh.... I am restricted to listening to podcasts and hoping I hear an odd vocalization at night or in the morning hours, too exhausted to stay up late or to investigate. I should be on high alert as this is my 2 year anniversary of my vocal encounter on 7/4/2013. I am excited for the fall to come as well as for the golf season to come to an end come November, not many people wish for winter, but when your at the mercy of a demanding membership at a private golf club well forget your summer. It is a pleasant aside to ponder my urbanish bigfoot oddities, they never cease to amaze me and I hope to better understand their movements, as I drive down the 294 interstate corridor I am amazed at the useful areas they can penetrate and I am sure stay hidden! Edited June 28, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 30, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted June 30, 2015 The most reasonable explanation for certain things I've experienced is exactly this ... being the practice idiot for woods ninja shadow-the-human class. However, contrary to what you suggest, I've had two very close "encounters", accidentally, including a sighting at 30-35 feet in broad daylight, when I was deer hunting very visibly and obviously carrying a rifle. This points to a couple of possibilities, one being that they know individual humans, study us, and only do things that have life or death consequences with people they judge will not choose death, but even with such people, they are extremely cautious. MIB Certainly reading human intent would explain that sort of thing. But also not knowing what guns really are might be an explanation too. It could be as simple as BF think of guns as some kind of magic thing that humans point at deer that go bang and the deer fall dead and dying. I have wondered if the reason they avoid cameras is that a camera and a deer rifle with scope both have a lens, and are both pointed at a subject by humans. Could it be they don't know the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted June 30, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 30, 2015 I think that depends on the level of sophistication we are willing to credit them with. That question ... points back to the mirror. We humans draw our battle lines often not so much to separate what is true from what is false as to protect our personal comfort zones. That is really what ape vs human, F&B vs paranormal, etc disputes all come down to. We are all exposed to roughly the same data, same ideas. The difference is in what we are willing to see ... or, in the case of scoftics, whether we are willing to see at all. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 30, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted June 30, 2015 Well the sum total of my experience does not answer the question of ape vs human variant. I don't know and it could be either from what I have experienced. Either way they are pretty smart or at least very capable of avoiding human contact. I guess I give them the benefit of the doubt because I talk to them vocally when I know they are around and they know I am there. I figure it does not hurt if they have no idea what I am saying, but if they do, they might appreciate that I am trying to communicate. When I just talk I figure it is not a threatening behavior like some sort of war cry on my part. If I ever get an answer back then they will have answered the question for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) I am equally on the fence over what these creatures are, Sykes book and the discussion of Zana gives a perspective, though she was humanish in many characteristics outwardly, she possessed a nature more like a wild animal that had been tamed. She never spoke a word of language either her own or the one spoken to her. If she represents a primitive human of some type then we must acknowledge that Sasquatch might be something along that line, and that is a far cry from an ape regardless of language or tool use, or maybe that is what makes us uncomfortable, the fact that what seperates us from the apes is very little. Edited July 1, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted July 1, 2015 Moderator Share Posted July 1, 2015 I think we're going to have to deal with shades of gray, we're not going to get clarification that puts them with "familiar ape" or "familiar human." I suspect we might find attributes we think of as less than ape, others we think of as beyond human, and some in between, all rolled into one hairy bipedal package. As long as we're trying to force any single, familiar paradigm onto a new, unknown entity, at least part of our assumptions that come with that paradigm, whichever we chose, will prove to be wrong. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 It's not difficult, seeing what we do, to speculate that a new branch on the primate family tree is gonna grow when these guys are confirmed (maybe extending an "extinct" branch into the present). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted July 1, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) MIB is probably more likely to be right that BF are somewhere in between human and what we call ape. Us bigfooters want to put them on one camp or another but reality maybe they something entirely different. It is not entirely impossible the they could be an entirely different family tree than any known species. So many gaps exist in the human fossil record that we cannot rule out BF may be from an entirely different family tree that has no known fossil record. Perhaps the BF line has been so successful in its natural range , that it has not been forced to evolve to adapt to changing conditions like the human line has done. If you think about it, other than natural disasters like volcanic erruptions, die out due to changing climate and lack of adaptation, probably produces more fossil record than anything else. Massive starvation would leave bodies laying around in clusters. An adaptive species with less environmental die off would leave less fossil record, especially if BF bury their dead. We find so many dinosaur fossils because their die off happened with a massive extinction event that concentrated them all in the same geological strata. . Edited July 1, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 One of the big mistakes one can make in speculative taxonomy is believing that current taxa are written in stone. They aren't; taxonomy only categorizes the things we know about so far. The Tree of Life has changed so much since I was a kid, it's like they chopped that one down and planted a new tree. I'm almost certain that the hairy hominoids waiting to be discovered are gonna bushy up that tree more than a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I dont for one minute buy there are between 30,000 to 100,000 Bigfoot and nobody knows that to be a fact so I wouldn't ask anyone. Accepting such creatures exist, then common logic says they can't be in such high numbers and still remain uncatalogued. I wonder if this is a plausible number as well. If we consider the number of potential Big Foot habitats, and calculate all the square footage divide by the estimated number of 30,000. Will the resulting square mileage per individual be able to support the creature? I am new at this so I was wondering if anyone had any data or knew where to get it, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curious Cat Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Looking at predator habitat of similar size: General square mileage to support: Grizzly/Brown/Kodiak Bear: Female @ ~ 400+ lbs: 50-300 sq. miles Male @ ~ 700-800+ lbs: 200-500 sq. miles Siberian Tiger: Female @ 400-600 lbs, Male @ 600-800 lbs: 60-400 sq. miles The upper square mileage limits will exist in areas of difficult climate or poor food availability. Also, a female with cubs is going to require a greater range area. Included the Siberian tiger to show the similarity in range area for an animal of that size, even though one is a true carnivore vs. an omnivore (bear). So a similar range size could be used in conjecture for a BF. Does anyone have the general square mileage of the known BF areas in North America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted July 2, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted July 2, 2015 If anywhere in that range of 30 to 100 thousand nationwide I would think it would be the low end or below that. They avoid humans very well but so do deer. We see more deer than BF because there are simply more deer and they are not as adept at human avoidance. My guess and it is a guess, is that the Gifford Pinchot forest cannot have more than 200. More than that and sightings would increase. Too few and the breeding population crashes. While they may be very good at avoiding humans, they do make mistakes that cause them to be seen. My contacts have been mistakes on their part and unpredictable behavior on my part. Increase their numbers, and mistakes that result in human/BF contact increase. I suppose that someone could write a computer simulation that would give some idea of the numbers required to produce the present level of sighting reports in a certain area. That would be an interesting experiment.. Establish a test area. 5 by 5 miles. Have one hunted human in the test area with skills to avoid human contact. Send in a searcher and establish an average time until detection. Increase the hunted humans to two, then three, and keep increasing it until the sightings start an upward tread. At that point you would have established some level of population saturation where contact is more likely. It would take a great deal of time and lots of data sets but eventually the data would start paying off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnathon Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 We see more deer than BF because there are simply more deer and they are not as adept at human avoidance. My guess and it is a guess, is that the Gifford Pinchot forest cannot have more than 200. More than that and sightings would increase. Too few and the breeding population crashes. While they may be very good at avoiding humans, they do make mistakes that cause them to be seen. My contacts have been mistakes on their part and unpredictable behavior on my part. Increase their numbers, and mistakes that result in human/BF contact increase. I suppose that someone could write a computer simulation that would give some idea of the numbers required to produce the present level of sighting reports in a certain area. That would be an interesting experiment.. Establish a test area. 5 by 5 miles. Have one hunted human in the test area with skills to avoid human contact. Send in a searcher and establish an average time until detection. Increase the hunted humans to two, then three, and keep increasing it until the sightings start an upward tread. At that point you would have established some level of population saturation where contact is more likely. It would take a great deal of time and lots of data sets but eventually the data would start paying off. I think that though it would be quite the undertaking to do such, but the rewards could be invaluable in such an ambitous project. Big thumbs up by me and I hope some day we see some fruition to your data collection idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts