Incorrigible1 Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Don't dare question "reports!" And you don't know the circumstances of the hunter's bag, IE using decoys or what. The point is, crows are said to be able to determine between humans carrying sticks and those carrying guns.
Guest DWA Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 There will be no progress made on this topic, count on it, until it is treated according to what the evidence says it is...and the evidence says: animal. There is way too much discussion of things for which there is no evidence a scientist would take seriously...and way too little about things, e.g., eyewitness consistency and footprints, that to be taken seriously as a scientist...one must take seriously.
WSA Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 As animals, subject to adaptation, it may well be the contest between prehistoric BF's and early hominids was for control/use of rock shelters and caves. If so, we won. The losers had to adapt or die. This is Darwin 101.
norseman Posted October 20, 2015 Admin Posted October 20, 2015 DWA, Its been awhile since I addressed this but, what your saying is true in the natural course of science. A new form of shrew or chickadee is no big deal, and a couple of biologists making a sighting report would probably be enough to get the ball rolling. Sasquatch? Not so much. For one, people hoax things concerning Squatch, no one hoaxes Shrews. So scientists being scientists are scared to throw their hat in the ring. Scientists are not Astronauts, they dont like taken chances especially ones with long odds. So for two? Yah odds...... I think they are getting better every day, but not good enough for most scientists. We have no fossil evidence of a Ape of any ilk besides us residing in North America ever. If we found fossils especially recent ones along the lines of the hobbit? Then I think the shift starts to take place...... 1
Guest DWA Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 (edited) The eyewitness consistency - and the continuance of reports showing consistency to those filed over almost two centuries - and the similar consistency of footprints are enough, by themselves. Period. Actually, each by itself is enough. Period. The problem is that 'scientists' by and large really aren't, something I have said here over and over and over. This is a Taboo Topic, something that should not exist in science, particularly when forensic evidence, which is what footprints are, absolutely demands attention by anyone of scientific bent. And I've also said, many times over here, that the fossil record means nothing ...except that no one should be surprised by this, because numerous animals like this exist in the fossil record, and there is absolutely no reason one shouldn't now. The fakes can be easily set apart from the live evidence. "Scared" means that we are operating in a science-free zone. Period. Edited October 20, 2015 by DWA
Incorrigible1 Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Eureka! Why have I never heard the question before? What an original, never-before-mentioned idea. Will have to reassess everything. 1
norseman Posted October 20, 2015 Admin Posted October 20, 2015 The eyewitness consistency - and the continuance of reports showing consistency to those filed over almost two centuries - and the similar consistency of footprints are enough, by themselves. Period. Actually, each by itself is enough. Period. The problem is that 'scientists' by and large really aren't, something I have said here over and over and over. This is a Taboo Topic, something that should not exist in science, particularly when forensic evidence, which is what footprints are, absolutely demands attention by anyone of scientific bent. And I've also said, many times over here, that the fossil record means nothing ...except that no one should be surprised by this, because numerous animals like this exist in the fossil record, and there is absolutely no reason one shouldn't now. The fakes can be easily set apart from the live evidence. "Scared" means that we are operating in a science-free zone. Period. This is how science has always worked. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus Crusty old scientist in a dingy lab proclaims a hoax until a great white hunter drags in a full corpse to beat him with. Same as it ever was......
hiflier Posted October 20, 2015 Author Posted October 20, 2015 Hello JDL, I've said many times that they are opportunistic carnivores- the buzz word being "opportunistic". That means they will primarily seek other foods unless something walks in close by. AND unless those other foods are no longer available- then they will actively hunt as a primary means of survival. They are omnivores but are efficient omnivores. And for the record, it doesn't matter how far away you and your friends were from each that creature could have done ALL of you in and quickly. I think you know that already though. @ Incorrigible1, A true story to back up your post on animals recognizing differences. I had two cats- they were sisters. One day one of them who had dark grey splashes of fur mixed with a little white killed a young Bluejay. The other with more of a solid grey tiger striped coat didn't. For two days the "killer" couldn't go into the yard without being molested with chatter and was dive bombed constantly. The "non-killer could come and go as it pleased unmolested. So yes, animals know differences. As far as I'm concerned your story stands. I've said it before a long time back on the NAWAC thread, if someone wants to hunt BF then disguise the gun by draping a cloth or something over it to break up it's form and mask the gun grease. There are ways to fool an intelligent animal.
Guest DWA Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 The eyewitness consistency - and the continuance of reports showing consistency to those filed over almost two centuries - and the similar consistency of footprints are enough, by themselves. Period. Actually, each by itself is enough. Period. The problem is that 'scientists' by and large really aren't, something I have said here over and over and over. This is a Taboo Topic, something that should not exist in science, particularly when forensic evidence, which is what footprints are, absolutely demands attention by anyone of scientific bent. And I've also said, many times over here, that the fossil record means nothing ...except that no one should be surprised by this, because numerous animals like this exist in the fossil record, and there is absolutely no reason one shouldn't now. The fakes can be easily set apart from the live evidence. "Scared" means that we are operating in a science-free zone. Period. This is how science has always worked. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus Crusty old scientist in a dingy lab proclaims a hoax until a great white hunter drags in a full corpse to beat him with. Same as it ever was...... No argument on that, Norse. It's just that it needs to be pointed out that the way science frequently operates in the face of the unknown...ain't science!!
SWWASAS Posted October 20, 2015 BFF Patron Posted October 20, 2015 The first and perhaps most friendly BF encounter I have had, my weapon was in my pack because I was in an area that had a state park and it was posted no weapons. So I put the gun in my pack to hike through the no gun area. The rest of the encounters I was prominently wearing the weapon and they were less friendly. Things thrown a me a couple of times and the last time I was zapped. I have not figured that out because the BF could just have let me walk past. For some reason it decided to zap me rather than just let me pass unawares. So perhaps the presence of weapons does play into how BF treats you. I do not know. Certainly when I am in the woods alone, and encounter an armed hunter, I change my behavior. If I can, I avoid being seen. If seen I keep my distance. With the weapon, and roughly $1000 of cameras and recording gear, I would be a tempting target for someone that wanted to rob me. So if I change my behavior around someone that is armed, one can expect BF or any other reasonably sentient creature to do the same thing. I was thinking about BF and mankind in ancient times. They probably came into North America at about the same time during the last ice age. . When mankind got here, they had weapons and hunted mastodons. Spear points are often found in mastodon skeletons. Man had probably done that before in Eurasia and had acquired the skills. Probably nothing was more dangerous to man, than to take on a huge mastodon. BF, that is not known for using spears and weapons, would never have taken on that large an animal because it could hot kill it with bare hands or a rock. So perhaps, BF seeing that process, decided that humans were very dangerous and should be avoided. And since mankind is known for killing anything that moves to eat, perhaps BF has been human prey too. Another reason for BF to avoid humans. Certainly BF probably has been an opportunist and a mastodon kill would be a good thing to find since it is unlikely a human tribe could carry off all the meat on something that large. Modern day reports of BF picking up and hauling off deer and elk kills are fairly common. It could be that they recognize that the opportunity to do that is better than risking confrontation with armed humans. Who knows?. All conjecture.
JDL Posted October 20, 2015 Posted October 20, 2015 Hello JDL, I've said many times that they are opportunistic carnivores- the buzz word being "opportunistic". That means they will primarily seek other foods unless something walks in close by. AND unless those other foods are no longer available- then they will actively hunt as a primary means of survival. They are omnivores but are efficient omnivores. And for the record, it doesn't matter how far away you and your friends were from each that creature could have done ALL of you in and quickly. I think you know that already though. Well, hiflier, I guess if you say so, I shouldn't dispute it. If you were to walk through the woods with a garden rake instead of a rifle over your shoulder, they would likely be as wary. http://blog.nwf.org/2009/07/the-american-crow-is-one-smart-bird/ Reports exist that crows can distinguish between a man carrying a gun and a man carrying a stick. Such an incident is related by the late Ernest Thompson Seton, who, in his popular book “Wild Animals I Have Known,†wrote about “Silverspot, the Story of a Crow.†In the story, Seton relates how Silverspot would fly above him and vocalize to his flock. To test Silverspot’s intelligence, Seton, during separate times while standing on a bridge that spanned a ravine, stood alone one day, took with him a stick on another day, and stood on the bridge holding a gun on the third day. When he held the gun, Seton wrote, “… at once (Silverspot) cried out, ‘Great danger — a gun.’ ‘ca-ca-ca-ca Caw!’ His lieutenant repeated the cry, and every crow in the troop began to tower and scatter from the rest.†I gotta start listening to the crows around here.
hiflier Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 Hello JDL, Dispute it all you want and I'd do the same. The flip side of it that Sasquatch is a carnivore and only eats berries, nuts, and other herbaceous material only when prey is scarce. So I think we must agree on the opportunistic part at least? If Sasquatch exists then it's size determines it caloric intake to be around 7,000 calories a day. Depending on location and time of year it will eat what it's forced to eat. It's not me saying so JDL, it's Nature saying so. It makes sense that meat is supplemental to a diet for a couple of reasons- it isn't always around if heavily hunted, and it takes a lot of energy to procure, especially if one is talking about the total energy expended by a group effort. So yes, opportunity is a factor but to make a shift to mostly meat for an omnivore in the wild requires easier food sources to dry up. Nature is efficient so I wouldn't expect Sasquatch to be any different.
norseman Posted October 21, 2015 Admin Posted October 21, 2015 The eyewitness consistency - and the continuance of reports showing consistency to those filed over almost two centuries - and the similar consistency of footprints are enough, by themselves. Period. Actually, each by itself is enough. Period. The problem is that 'scientists' by and large really aren't, something I have said here over and over and over. This is a Taboo Topic, something that should not exist in science, particularly when forensic evidence, which is what footprints are, absolutely demands attention by anyone of scientific bent. And I've also said, many times over here, that the fossil record means nothing ...except that no one should be surprised by this, because numerous animals like this exist in the fossil record, and there is absolutely no reason one shouldn't now. The fakes can be easily set apart from the live evidence. "Scared" means that we are operating in a science-free zone. Period. This is how science has always worked.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus Crusty old scientist in a dingy lab proclaims a hoax until a great white hunter drags in a full corpse to beat him with. Same as it ever was...... No argument on that, Norse. It's just that it needs to be pointed out that the way science frequently operates in the face of the unknown...ain't science!! Yah but your not going to change it! And sometimes our head hurts when you point it out for the umptenth time! We cannot change the rules, we can only keep throwing for the endzone and belittle those that keep calling dive plays. The defense will always be there and we cannot control that either. Not to change the subject but are you a NAWAC member now?
JDL Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Hello JDL, Dispute it all you want and I'd do the same. The flip side of it that Sasquatch is a carnivore and only eats berries, nuts, and other herbaceous material only when prey is scarce. So I think we must agree on the opportunistic part at least? If Sasquatch exists then it's size determines it caloric intake to be around 7,000 calories a day. Depending on location and time of year it will eat what it's forced to eat. It's not me saying so JDL, it's Nature saying so. It makes sense that meat is supplemental to a diet for a couple of reasons- it isn't always around if heavily hunted, and it takes a lot of energy to procure, especially if one is talking about the total energy expended by a group effort. So yes, opportunity is a factor but to make a shift to mostly meat for an omnivore in the wild requires easier food sources to dry up. Nature is efficient so I wouldn't expect Sasquatch to be any different. hiflier, I don't know if you've had any encounters of your own, but I've had several. We agree that they are omnivores and we agree that they need a lot to eat every day, but your ASSumption that they are universally benign creatures is faulty. I perceive them as continuously hungry, continuously in search of immediate, or future, food sources. I perceive the primary reason that they lurk around us as food related, not curiosity. Yes, they are curious, but food will always be a prime consideration in their minds. As I've stated, they think, reason, and choose courses of action based on the situation. They do eat as much meat as they can get their hands on. They have to in order to support their muscle mass and cranial development. They need high protein intake and would not be what they are without it. THIS is also nature. They are top predators. Their lurking behavior is no different than that of a tiger, a wolf, a bear, or child molester. I have on two occasions been in situations where they have attempted TO DRIVE PEOPLE AWAY from food that they were cooking. Food that was not harvested from the environment, food that they had brought with them and were preparing. In another encounter, one had its arm in our tent trying to take a dog from us when it woke me up. I also believe that if my brother and I had run as the male that confronted us expected, it may well have taken Dave. I don't know if "zapping" is something they actually do, but I do know that from a biomechanical standpoint it is possible. The adult male that fully exposed itself in broad daylight had no need to do so if all it wanted to do was avoid us. It, and any others with it, could have slipped away to the South without any of us ever knowing that they were there. Instead, it presented itself and it sure didn't act curious. It seemed stern and annoyed when my brother and I didn't run, then briefly cautious, then disinterested. It was as if it were thinking, "are you really going to stand up to me?", then "do they have some ability to injure me that I can't see?", then "don't bother, I really don't want him anyway." I could go on about food related encounters and being stalked while fishing. WE ARE A SOURCE OF FOOD. We make kills, fish for, gather, collect and store food that they steal, we plant, grow, breed, husband, and harvest food that they pilfer. We provide in plenty food sources with vital nutrients that they cannot easily find in large quantities, and we cook it, creating aromas that apparently inspire them to attempt to drive us away from the food at times. And in a pinch, it would not surprise me in the least if they grab a wandering child from inattentive parents or an isolated cross-country skier during a harsh winter. If a bigfoot wants something and feels that it can take it with impunity, then it likely will. Who's going to stop it if we aren't paying attention, don't see it, or no one else is around to stand up to it? You are entitled to your platitudes, but you're wasting your time if you believe you can sway me from my own experiences. Edited October 21, 2015 by JDL 3
Recommended Posts