Trogluddite Posted August 16, 2015 Posted August 16, 2015 Add another delinquent to the 1986-2000 group; just added this report from the BFRO.
Guest Posted August 16, 2015 Posted August 16, 2015 Fishing, Multiple Animals 3 1982 Minnesota Primal woman with twins: Another separate incident was while night fishing. I’m not sure of what lake this was, but it was at a large Minnesota Lake. I saw what appeared to be a mother bear and twin cubs coming down to the water’s edge…but at the time I was thinking to myself those cubs look different…they looked like monkeys. Thinking back this was a primal mother with twins. She seemed to have very dark hair as well as her kids. She thought nothing of us being out there in the boat fishing. She just looked around and was in a squatting posture while her kids played around her. She made no noise. She had a white face no facial hair. N.A.B.S. Report # 45 MN. http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/Bigfootsightings.html
hiflier Posted August 16, 2015 Author Posted August 16, 2015 Hello Gumshoeye, Thank you for the input. The numbers on the surface do appear impressive. I won't belabor an obvious point regarding being able to couple a year or date to the sightings as being rather critical as far as the topic of this thread though. I'm sure you understand the value of a good chronology when trying to establish any trend whether it be movement or other factors impacting population dynamics such as fires, logging activities, drought, regional development or other such factors. The subject of what constitutes a sustainable population is rather diverse actually but taken overall. It's difficult to find indicators of how robust a population might be and even reports of juveniles over time may not be an adequate means to use as a barometer in how any species is doing. Even Habituators who talk of juveniles being present are speaking of very localized situations. Even so if reports of juvenile activity or presence in down even though large creatures are still being seen it could indicate a reduced female population which may then translate into fewer juveniles.
Guest Posted August 16, 2015 Posted August 16, 2015 Hello Gumshoeye, Thank you for the input. The numbers on the surface do appear impressive. I won't belabor an obvious point regarding being able to couple a year or date to the sightings as being rather critical as far as the topic of this thread though. I'm sure you understand the value of a good chronology when trying to establish any trend whether it be movement or other factors impacting population dynamics such as fires, logging activities, drought, regional development or other such factors. The subject of what constitutes a sustainable population is rather diverse actually but taken overall. It's difficult to find indicators of how robust a population might be and even reports of juveniles over time may not be an adequate means to use as a barometer in how any species is doing. Even Habituators who talk of juveniles being present are speaking of very localized situations. Even so if reports of juvenile activity or presence in down even though large creatures are still being seen it could indicate a reduced female population which may then translate into fewer juveniles. Could very well be the case but how many juveniles or infants do we outside of the security of their home not many I bet, but I do understand gest of your point. We have to remember these primal people go out of their way to remain out of sight but the chance peek at them I suppose is all we need to keep us guessing. On the flip side if there is any truth in accuracy that female numbers are down doesn’t that make for a more unpredictable primal male or males? Aggression being what it is you need not look any further than elephants or lions when raging hormones dictate. Hormones being what they are and all which must indicate we would hear or see more competition among the male population for females and or an uptick of assaults on humans wouldn’t it? - Just a thought. Not that I believe it or seen enough to convince me but what if the female population is down, what do you think the cause of this culling could be?
hiflier Posted August 16, 2015 Author Posted August 16, 2015 Hello Trogluddite, Add another delinquent to the 1986-2000 group; just added this report from the BFRO. I read the report and did what I do with all reports I read- verify the witness's description of the weather if possible. The nearest airport to Elkwater, WV is 23 miles away to the North in Elkins, WV which is the only source for any archived weather in the area: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KEKN/1989/11/23/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Mill+Creek&req_state=WV&req_statename=West+Virginia&reqdb.zip=26280&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999 Now granted 23 miles can mean a big difference in actual weather but not so much temperature. It looks as if it was in the low twenties at 9:00am, overcast with fog and snow showers at the airport in Elkin. The witness in Elkwater said the morning sun felt good and that and he had a morning nap in the woods. These are the things that to me become questions WRT reports. IDK am I just splitting hairs here?
hiflier Posted August 16, 2015 Author Posted August 16, 2015 Hello Gumshoeye, Could very well be the case but how many juveniles or infants do we outside of the security of their home not many I bet, but I do understand gest of your point. We have to remember these primal people go out of their way to remain out of sight but the chance peek at them I suppose is all we need to keep us guessing. On the flip side if there is any truth in accuracy that female numbers are down doesn’t that make for a more unpredictable primal male or males? Aggression being what it is you need not look any further than elephants or lions when raging hormones dictate. Hormones being what they are and all which must indicate we would hear or see more competition among the male population for females and or an uptick of assaults on humans wouldn’t it? - Just a thought. Not that I believe it or seen enough to convince me but what if the female population is down, what do you think the cause of this culling could be? IF the female population is down I would have a clue as to why. It may be that relatively speaking the male population could be simply up meaning over the past couple of decades more male offspring were produced as opposed to female offspring. And yes, I certainly WOULD expect more aggressive behavior and a general acting out amongst males of reproductive age looking for mates in a shortage of likely candidates. It may present itself in more territorial disputes, woodknocking wars, and howling to establish turf. Kicking young males arriving at maturity out of a region in anticipation of competition, although normally natural, may become a heightened necessity.
Trogluddite Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 Hello Trogluddite, I read the report and did what I do with all reports I read- verify the witness's description of the weather if possible. .... IDK am I just splitting hairs here? Not on newer reports, certainly. But the older the report, the more likely that a witness is off by a week, perhaps even a month (or an hour or two as to the time of day). I'd also guess that in West Virginia, 23 miles can have a significant impact on the local weather, absent a large, regional weather system. Als to taking outside naps in the winter, so long as you're dressed properly (and preferably in the sun), it's doable.
Old Dog Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 I suppose one could also include in the juvenile category any reports of Sasquatch that were reported as being thin or not having a bulky build. If they followed human type development, they would probably be of lighter frame until they reached adulthood.
hiflier Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) Hello Old Dog, This could also be true. But let's take it to a perhaps more scientific level- environmental. There are studies that suggest than if the ph balance in a Human female leans toward being acidic it appears that it is a better environment for the Human "Y" chromosome. Therefore one could correlate that stress being a factor in creating a more acidic ph may result in more males being born. I find this interesting and have been wondering how it may apply to animals across the board WRT Human's forest industry activities. If a Sasquatch population's females react to environmental pressures and intrusions by stress it could be a factor in producing more males. I can see this being part of the aggression cycle in males looking for mates which may further stress females. Edited August 17, 2015 by hiflier
Guest Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 Sorry I don’t believe I can agree with that Hilflier, but let’s kick it around for minute and see where it goes. A well-worn phrase around here is that primate DNA and human DNA are very close am I correct? If your theory is correct, and if stress is somehow responsible for or may have some connection with lower female birth rates among Sasquatch why would there not be identical indicators among human females residing in some of America’s big inner cities? Stress? Just take a short glimpse at demographics for the U.S. and it shows on average that females live longer than males and there are more females than males … In China they don’t want females they want males … There has to be some other reason but I don’t believe its stress.
Faenor Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 To estimate the population numbers of Sasquatch juveniles age demographics of both hunter gather humans and the great apes could be compared. http://www.eva.mpg.de/primat/staff/boesch/pdf/jour_hum_evo_mort_rate.pdf http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0789e/a0789e07.htm Probably should be a greater number of juveniles reported and prints cast. It could be argued that juveniles remain in a confined area but based on estimated caloric requirements of mammals that large Sasquatch would need to be somewhat nomadic. Other issues could be a decrease in fertility due to pollution or a lack of a robust genetic stock or other unknown variable. A skeptical view would be that juvenile sightings or casts don't make for provocative images or stories and so are rejected by the hoaxer/lier in favor of giant bigfoot and large prints.
Guest Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 I agree and subscribe to the notion that juveniles aren’t seen as much because we’re not supposed to see them. It may be they are under close supervision of their parents. Lastly, there are so few in numbers overall in comparison to human population that to see one adult is a modern marvel and to see multiple animals in a family unit is simply the trifecta of Bigfooting.
hiflier Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 Hello All, I wish to thank you for your input here. One thing it has done is that after a year and a half off it has inspired me to get back to work on John Green's database I've know for the past year and a half that once the chronology was done that I was only half way to getting the data into a more fully sortable condition. The combining of the three different data sets, Incident, Creature, and Footprints, into a master set has been a long time goal of mine for over two years now. Ant of you wishing to see or download a revised version of these three data sets may do so here: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/48732-john-greens-sasquatch-database/ Just know that it's still a work in progress and new revisions will be forthcoming. Also know that no data is being added in the process but adding new data is something John Green was hoping someone would undertake which is why he left the database open with the invitation to do so. Once this is in better shape perhaps I will just make it my lifetime endeavor from here on out. Can't think of a better way to pass the time and keep active and up to date on the subject. At least it sounds good right now anyway
Guest DWA Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 It is going to be hard to use information on hand to make judgments on any of this. No one in a position to change the status of this animal from imaginary to real takes any report seriously, and there is no way to be certain about any of them. (Even those who think it points clearly to an animal don't think any *single* report can be taken more seriously than any other.) But I have read *many* reports in recent years describing what sound like young sasquatch. Habitat destruction never makes it easier on a species; but black bears and wolves are expanding range, and no reason an animal like this could not do the same.
hiflier Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 Hello DWA, Agreed, but there are 400,000 black bears estimated to be in the wild; deer 30,000,000; Moose 500,000 to 1,000,000 in Canada and another 300,000 in the U.S.; Grey Wolf estimated at around 65,000 between the U.S. and Canada. Sasquatch is an unknown quantity. Some though have put the estimate at a mere 2-6,000. Barely sustainable numbers by most standards.
Recommended Posts