Avoiding Human Contact? Or Not?

[LeafTalker]

Hello LeafTalker,

 

T would nt see them as something that would consider a Human a "friend". I see them as something that got used to a Human as a non-threat and is therefore tolerated. A situation that could change unannounced at anytime. A current tolerated situation mistakenly viewed as "friendship" does not take into account the history of reports that say otherwise which has the potential dangerous effect of letting one's guard down. A more realistic approach would be to treat Sasquatch as if living next door to a bear that someone has been feeding. And I would hazard a guess that when it comes to a Human "friend" Sasquatch NEVER let's it's guard down regardless of the situation.

If you ever have an encounter, Hiflier, please, by all means, take a realistic approach to it. Don't take the approach that your actual experience dictates you take. Always defer to the opinions of people who have never been in your situation. They are much freer to imagine all kinds of things that you, being the experiencer, and having real information, don't have the freedom to imagine.  

[Rockape]

 

 

............As for the question in the OP, I'd say obviously BF would try to avoid us at all costs, else we'd have one by now.

 

There is another dimension to consider, one of time. Perhaps they existed in substantial numbers, were curious and didn't particularly avoid humans at all costs. Now they are essentially deceased and so rare (if at all) they seem to 'avoid at all costs'.

 

 

Well, that pretty well matches my belief, that if BF does exist they are extremely rare and probably at the point of being functionally extinct or possible are already recently extinct.

[hiflier]

Hello LeafTalker,

 

Thank you for the advice, I appreciate it. But Sasquatch is not Human so I will maintain that it tolerates Humans and does not befriend them like any other animal would. Bears tolerate and for the most part fear us. I see Sasquatch as being no different in this respect. In the right (or wrong) situation therefore the potential for harm to Humans is present. Same thing that is true for any animal/Human or Human/Human contact that is interpreted as a threat. No one knows how things will play out in the wild when confronting creatures when one isn't aware of the circumstances such as being too close to young, dens, nests, or other factors. ALL animals including Humans will react according to perceived overt threats even if the threats are not real- only perceived that way. 

 

To not have this kind of common sense is living in a bubble.

 

@ Rockape,

 

I agree as well. As populations dwindle so doesn't the gene pool which results in more recessive traits being prominent. Truth be known I think that's actually what Humans are- beings with many recessive traits stemming from natural events in the past which wiped out most of the previous Human populations leaving only small remnant pockets. Looking at all of our supposed ancestors we are the only ones that turned out as the smart hairless ones. Everything else labeled as hominid or ape is mostly covered in hair.

Edited October 19, 2015 by hiflier

[LeafTalker]

Thank you for the advice, I appreciate it. 

 

 

Anytime, hiflier!

[Rockape]

Branco and WSA are dead on.

 

I will only add that, when you've become a "person of interest" to them -- that is, a friend -- you will encounter them at all times of day. 

Well, being a skeptic you know I don't buy into a lot of this stuff anyway, but I do try to keep an open mind and have started to be more receptive to what others in the BF community say about their own experience. Doesn't mean I'll believe it, but I'll listen and take it under consideration. I hope you appreciate that as I'm not trying to judge just gather information and I use that to form my own opinions.

 

Your own particular "habituation", as I'll call it, is a good example. I know we recently discussed it in another thread and while it's not something I see plausible under scientific terms it's not something I readily dismiss as BF is entirely an unknown when it comes to science. I can find explanations for your habituation account but from a skeptical view.

 

For instance I believe what some think of as being "spoken to" by BF could actually be ultrasound or infrasound of some sort and people misinterpret it as hearing someone speaking to them. And I do believe that if BF exists they are very intelligent creatures and very aware of their surroundings. Therefore they would see some people as less threatening. I have taken from our conversations you are a woman and I hope I'm correct about that and I mention it because I'm sure BF would see women as less threatening. They would know it is usually men who carry guns and are looking to kill something. I'm sure there are some men who they would learn to see as not a threat as well.

 

But then there are folks like myself, it's been very seldom if ever in my life I went into the woods unarmed. Even as a kid I would have a BB gun, so folks like me they would see as a threat or at least a concern and they would not show the same actions or reactions towards us. I would treat one the way it treated me most likely. I'm one who thinks we need a BF body for absolute proof, but even then, I don't think I could shoot one unless it seriously threatened me and got close. I quit hunting years ago because I lost the heart for killing animals so that alone would probably keep me from wanting to shoot it plus there's the old "they look so human" factor.

 

But if I see one I'm not going to wait to see if it wants to be friends, it better step the other way or I'm popping a cap in it's behind. I don't mean to sound cruel but understand I don't expect a warm reception from a BF.

[WSA]

It has been noted many times on these pages, by me and others, that in order for BF to survive the rise of H. sapiens, it had to evolve better strategies to meet the threat. We excel at killing stuff not "us." If BF did not adapt to use weapons as we did (and obviously they did not...why? Good question) they only had two choices: Go extinct or go covert. They obviously adapted and survived. Only a genetic predisposition to be furtive around humans would have allowed them to survive as long as they have. Presuming their existence, this observation seems irrefutable.

[ShadowBorn]

It has been noted many times on these pages, by me and others, that in order for BF to survive the rise of H. sapiens, it had to evolve better strategies to meet the threat. We excel at killing stuff not "us." If BF did not adapt to use weapons as we did (and obviously they did not...why? Good question) they only had two choices: Go extinct or go covert. They obviously adapted and survived. Only a genetic predisposition to be furtive around humans would have allowed them to survive as long as they have. Presuming their existence, this observation seems irrefutable.

What I have Blackened is what I plan on answering first and that is that they have adapted at using weapons. Rocks ! Why not rocks as weapons since they seem to throw those the most. They seem very accurate and seem to know distances so some how they know what force it takes to lob a solid object of a good size. I am not sure if there are creatures out there in the wild besides us that are capable of this type of thinking. 

 

They do seem to be a creature that has no idea of their importance, but understand that they must stay hidden in order to survive. Here is what I am assuming that I believe what might be going through their betties little brains of theirs.

 

Lets say that they are a lost tribe of people of different origin and that through out the years , their tribe has had stories past down like our own. Except that their stories was about us humans and that how we had the power to take life away. See here is where I am not clear on since I am not sure where this war ever started with us humans and them. If a war did start with them then who started this war first? and over what? and did this war start this shyness in this species? All these species must all be related and if there is DNA it will show this.

 

So here is my other assumption and that is that these creatures are self aware. They are avoiding us on purpose since they understand how important to stay hidden. Not just to stay hidden but their blood line and this is what I mean by self aware like that movie Sasquatch where they had that DNA sample. But for myself in my case any thing is possible. 

[JDL]

Hunter gatherer human and hunter gatherer bigfoot --> Direct competition for prime territory and food sources = conflict.

 

Early agricultural animal husbanding human and hunter gatherer bigfoot --> pilfering bigfoot = conflict.

 

Technological human capable of dispensing death individually at a safe distance and able to muster organized groups with more than pitchforks --> covert bigfoot = no conflict.

Edited October 19, 2015 by JDL

[FarArcher]

In my misspent youth, I was paid to go to remote areas, located a point where I could observe comings and goings along an anticipated line of approach.

 

You'll see some folks pretty relaxed, thinking about something else, more or less care free - and they maintain a relaxed, almost careless body posture and walk.

 

Then, you'd see others who concentrated a whole lot more on their surroundings, their heads on swivels, a faster or even a much slower pace, a more purposeful method of walking, and their body language told you quickly - they were trouble.  Which made you pay even MORE attention to what they were wearing, what side they were favoring, what they were carrying, and what lumps you couldn't readily identify.

 

Same thing in the forest.  You see someone peering, taking a few steps, looking around some more, stepping carefully around sticks and vines, you can tell in an instant that he's not just taking a casual walkabout.

 

Mannerisms, body language, posture, details of his tracking across the terrain, head and eyes always moving - all indicate he's hunting something.

 

It's no mean feat for these same critters to observe humans, take note of their behavior in the same manner I did, and decide whether this one is "trouble," or not. 

 

I'd suggest that they'd likely try to avoid detection from folks with an uneasy manner, while maintaining an eye on them.  After all, if anyone comes to the conclusion that this person may be "trouble," you don't want to lose sight of him and possibly be surprised.

 

On the other hand, someone that's casually walking or casually sitting around their camp, are relaxed and seemingly unaware of what's going on around them, especially if they have nothing in their hands that may be a weapon - they're not a bother.

 

For both types, they'll generate curiosity.  They're visitors, after all.  And for those casual, non-threatening folks, it's really not a big deal if they hear or see you or not.

[WSA]

I did think of that exception when I wrote that opinion about weapons Shadowborn.  Rocks vs. spears and arrows (+ controlled fire) might not be much of a contest though. You add superior numbers and better coordination of movement and tactics, and the outcome becomes pretty certain. BF doesn't seem to be wired for weapon or tool use, for whatever reason.

 

Why would we fight BF? Well, all our usual reasons. Food, territory and expanding populations needing both. Don't forget young males needing opportunities to gain status through war to assure mating opportunities. There is also just plain ol' xenophobia to motivate us. We don't do "others" very well. At some level too, we seem to need conflict like fire needs oxygen. We are very good at it too, sad to say.

Edited October 20, 2015 by WSA

[JDL]

Early agricultural human societies gave rise to Jack the Giant Killer stories.  Theme is usually similar.  Giant pilfers something, Jack pursues, kills giant, and recovers whatever.

 

In some of the gorier ones the giant does some serious damage tot he community.  In most the giant eats people.

 

There's even a Disney version from the Great Depression in which a prosperous kingdom suffers due to the predations of a giant.

The one with Mickey, Donald and Goofy.  There are other Disney versions of the Jack the Giant Killer stories.

[WSA]

Archetypes exist for reasons. Some of them are external.

[Guest DWA]

Those that profess to know more about sassy than most others claim the creature does everything possible to avoid human detection, thus the infrequency with which the creature is seen. In nearly the same breath, these creatures are said to shadow hikers, peep in windows, invade occupied campsites, and otherwise intentionally seek out relatively close human contact. Those behaviors don't sound like a creature that is avoids human detection at all costs. So, which is it? What's the true nature of sassy when it comes to interaction with us Homo sapiens?

MNSkeptic

Answer:  like most animals, it does everything possible to avoid human contact.

 

And doesn't always succeed, because animals are no more perfect than we are.  For one thing, they are curious; and the shadowing peeping invading etc. - every close brush with us reported for sasquatch - is reported for practically every other mammal we know about.

The biggest problem I see in all 'analysis' on this site is no effort to use as a template simple animal behavior observed in all the animals we know about.  When one does this, all one has to do is paste over it "human incredulity that anything like this could possibly be real" and presto!  Everything, explained, absolutely and totally.  The problem with many proponents is that they feel they must explain "why no one ever sees one" when plainly, people see them, all the time.

Edited October 20, 2015 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

Hey! I've been templating. "Sasquatch As The Animal" says so. But I have to admit seeing BF as an animal has only been a thought for a few months. Mainly because the hybrid thing wasn't working. And neither was the Ape or Human thing. WE are the only things we call Human. Sasquatch? Is something.....else.

[BigTreeWalker]

This is along the same train of thought that fararcher was talking about. Animals recognize stealth as opposed to nonchalance. With nonchalance animals can usually see you coming for a ways. They can then determine the threat level and decide whether to stay or leave. Many times us not being the wiser. However, when we are in stealth mode, as in hunting. This may trigger a predator/prey response of fight or flight. From my experience they do recognize the difference.