Winter - Where Do They Go

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Homework is not what's lacking, concrete examples are.

[FarArcher]

I have heard no evidence of social organization larger than nuclear family units.

Sightings of more than 3 at once time are vanishingly small.

So where do you get your information that they associate in larger groups, if any?

Audio recordings?

 

You mean like when Nocona Comanche Shaman described the Bluff Creek logger encounter?  With 10-12 BF's?  Ran the loggers off?

 

Or the miners at Ape Canyon?

 

Or the multiples at one time at Honobia?

 

Or the Howland, Ohio man who says he ran up against four he could see which was posted on Cryptozoology News on June 2, 2015?

 

Or, the Texas Bigfoot Research Center, who studied the reports, and found 253 sightings of two or more out of 3,684 reports, or about 7% of the sightings?

 

Or, some of the members here, who have had their own sightings/interactions with multiples at a time?

[JDL]

I've seen two adults and two young in a single sighting in Lemmon Valley, Nevada and after I encountered the pregnant female I was stalked by three based on the positions of the wood knocking from two scouts and the third one that circled the lake to approach me.  I have always assumed that these three were different individuals from the pregnant female.

 

I'm sure that there are itinerant males moving about from group to group and seeking to establish their own groups, but I think one seriously underestimates them if they contend that they do not form family groups.

 

Name one other primate that does not form social groups.

[SWWASAS]

The Tarzan Springs Oregon report mentions several living in the same area with the prospector. Just guessing but a sure way to see several is to kill one. Then again it might be the last thing you see. All of this begs the question as to where Meldrum gets his solitary individual theory which started this discussion.

[branded]

Some possibly connected points.  The speculation is all theory.

...

 

JDL,

thanks for that info, that could explain a lot of the problems of a primitive hominid living in a frozen wilderness without fire.

[norseman]

I've seen two adults and two young in a single sighting in Lemmon Valley, Nevada and after I encountered the pregnant female I was stalked by three based on the positions of the wood knocking from two scouts and the third one that circled the lake to approach me.  I have always assumed that these three were different individuals from the pregnant female.

 

I'm sure that there are itinerant males moving about from group to group and seeking to establish their own groups, but I think one seriously underestimates them if they contend that they do not form family groups.

 

Name one other primate that does not form social groups.

Orangutans

[Terry]

 

I've seen two adults and two young in a single sighting in Lemmon Valley, Nevada and after I encountered the pregnant female I was stalked by three based on the positions of the wood knocking from two scouts and the third one that circled the lake to approach me.  I have always assumed that these three were different individuals from the pregnant female.

 

I'm sure that there are itinerant males moving about from group to group and seeking to establish their own groups, but I think one seriously underestimates them if they contend that they do not form family groups.

 

Name one other primate that does not form social groups.

Orangutans

 

Mouse lemurs

[norseman]

If they lived in large family groups you would be able to track them like a herd of Elephants.

[BobbyO]

I don't think they'd all have to be completely on top of each other all of the time to be considered to live in large family groups.

My interpretation of family groups anyway would never really be above 4/5 animals either.

There's more than enough reports out there that will lead you to believe that they are not just all nomads for the majority of the time, these things communicate and I'd dare say at times, work together, probably to get food.

I'm completely at ease with suggesting that that's a reasonable possibility of how they live.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

For me a complex social group is something more than uncle bob and a couple of cousins and throw in the girlfriend.

So I guess it's how you define it.

Sightly more social than bears, a bit less social than wolves.

Maybe about as social as Foxes or mice.

Nowhere near as social as humans, which is why Dr. Meldrum was making the distinction, has to do with hominid brain development.

Indicates a lineage in anthropological archaeology.

Note the logical in the Anthro 

[SWWASAS]

Meldrum and I have had a discussion about culture of lack of it in his mind about BF.     We disagree.    He is using an outdated definition of culture he probably picked up in undergraduate days.     Which ties objects, tools, weapons etc as the defining things in a culture and in his mind makes BF down a few pegs from humans.     But modern definitions of culture put physical objects in a  subcategory  and are more about social interactions.     ( Banks, Banks and McGee)   While we do not know much about BF culture, it could be every much as complex as human culture in remote primitive human tribes.  http://carla.umn.edu/culture/definitions.html

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

You need to have an evolved frontal cortex for modern type forms of social culture (unlikely in Sasquatch because the receding forehead, sagital crest, classic pinhead, indicates otherwise).

 

I'm not sure (non human) animal culture has been defined, unless you consider grooming, mating, eating, threat displays, social hierarchy to be cultural.

 

I would define culture as requiring human type language and communication skills (which only Homo Sapiens Sapiens  posses, being only 40,000-200,000 years old; the ability being that recent)

 

Human type language is indicated by human type breath control which you can see in fossils and is represented by a larger spinal canal in the thoracic spinal region that does not occur in Homo Erectus, our nearest more primitive ancestor before the archaic humans. Homo Erectus and back including apes, monkeys, Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, etc. all have the smaller proportional spinal canal in that area.

 

With language you get art and bedtime stories (including the Bigfoot variety.) culture!

 

Unlikely BFcan sit around a campfire telling human stories to scare each other although if you buy mind-speak they might just do a mind meld instead. 

Edited February 22, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[FarArcher]

I'm not anthropologist, sociologist, or field biologist.  I think the "experts" tend to try to bracket, define, include, exclude, eliminate, classify, allocate, arrange, and group certain attributes to these things that I think is way premature.

 

To suggest that language would define a social behavior necessary to classify these things in a certain bracket is likewise premature.  We don't know how or how much the communicate.  I see the deaf and those without the ability to speak words communicate quite well every day.  They can say just about anything we can, but with sign language.  Whales, killer whales, and porpoises communicate very effectively, without a spoken language.  Their communications oddly, meets their needs.

 

Tool and development engagements compensate for weaknesses or address needs.  Our needs may not be the same, exact needs of Critters.  But we're going to try to assume things about them, but based on human needs - not theirs.

 

I see a young man in a low rider, and shake my head, noting lack of ground clearance, limited suspension travel, two-wheel-drive, etc., while noting with satisfaction that my truck will do so many things his "tool package" won't.  Maybe he doesn't go where I do - need what I need - and looks at my truck as foolish excess.

 

"Dumb animals" instinctively do things that part of them - migration, reproduction, etc., - and their species survives year after year.  Some keep relatively together, some separate and later come back together.  

 

These Critters don't walk single file.  To the contrary - they seem very much aware of what's around them - and if I were to guess, travel in what Ghengis and Sherman called "flying fingers."  They can cover a lot of terrain, and if one "finger" comes upon a threat, or food source, the others can assemble with a minimum of communication.  

 

I just think they do have clans/famillies and they work together for purposes of finding food and common defense.  I'm not saying they have an alphabet, can recite "The Road Not Taken" by Robert Frost, nor sing the chorus of "Messiah."   I don't think they feel any need to paint like Cezanne, sculpt like Donatello, and don't feel our measures of "culture" should be held up to their set of parameters that meet their needs.

 

As long as they can track, gather, or kill to meet their needs, with size, speed, strength, cunning, instinct, and an ability to navigate through harsh terrain at night. then I'd say our attempts at classifications are a real reach.

 

Who knows?   The typical clan/family may have a number of "way stations," consisting of any combination of caves, ravines, undercuts, and even hastily constructed shelters along a winter game migration route, and are smart enough to KNOW they'll possibly be tracked - just as they are able to track animals.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I'm not anthropologist, sociologist, or field biologist.  I think the "experts" tend to try to bracket, define, include, exclude, eliminate, classify, allocate, arrange, and group certain attributes to these things that I think is way premature.

 

To suggest that language would define a social behavior necessary to classify these things in a certain bracket is likewise premature.  We don't know how or how much the communicate.  I see the deaf and those without the ability to speak words communicate quite well every day.  They can say just about anything we can, but with sign language.  Whales, killer whales, and porpoises communicate very effectively, without a spoken language.  Their communications oddly, meets their needs.

 

Tool and development engagements compensate for weaknesses or address needs.  Our needs may not be the same, exact needs of Critters.  But we're going to try to assume things about them, but based on human needs - not theirs.

 

I see a young man in a low rider, and shake my head, noting lack of ground clearance, limited suspension travel, two-wheel-drive, etc., while noting with satisfaction that my truck will do so many things his "tool package" won't.  Maybe he doesn't go where I do - need what I need - and looks at my truck as foolish excess.

 

"Dumb animals" instinctively do things that part of them - migration, reproduction, etc., - and their species survives year after year.  Some keep relatively together, some separate and later come back together.  

 

These Critters don't walk single file.  To the contrary - they seem very much aware of what's around them - and if I were to guess, travel in what Ghengis and Sherman called "flying fingers."  They can cover a lot of terrain, and if one "finger" comes upon a threat, or food source, the others can assemble with a minimum of communication.  

 

I just think they do have clans/famillies and they work together for purposes of finding food and common defense.  I'm not saying they have an alphabet, can recite "The Road Not Taken" by Robert Frost, nor sing the chorus of "Messiah."   I don't think they feel any need to paint like Cezanne, sculpt like Donatello, and don't feel our measures of "culture" should be held up to their set of parameters that meet their needs.

 

As long as they can track, gather, or kill to meet their needs, with size, speed, strength, cunning, instinct, and an ability to navigate through harsh terrain at night. then I'd say our attempts at classifications are a real reach.

 

Who knows?   The typical clan/family may have a number of "way stations," consisting of any combination of caves, ravines, undercuts, and even hastily constructed shelters along a winter game migration route, and are smart enough to KNOW they'll possibly be tracked - just as they are able to track animals.

Without experts you don't have science.

Without knowledge you don't have wisdom.

Without facts you have speculation.

If you have speculation that is opposed to facts then you have deception.

 

I'm not anthropologist, sociologist, or field biologist.  I think the "experts" tend to try to bracket, define, include, exclude, eliminate, classify, allocate, arrange, and group certain attributes to these things that I think is way premature.

 

To suggest that language would define a social behavior necessary to classify these things in a certain bracket is likewise premature.  We don't know how or how much the communicate.  I see the deaf and those without the ability to speak words communicate quite well every day.  They can say just about anything we can, but with sign language.  Whales, killer whales, and porpoises communicate very effectively, without a spoken language.  Their communications oddly, meets their needs.

 

Tool and development engagements compensate for weaknesses or address needs.  Our needs may not be the same, exact needs of Critters.  But we're going to try to assume things about them, but based on human needs - not theirs.

 

I see a young man in a low rider, and shake my head, noting lack of ground clearance, limited suspension travel, two-wheel-drive, etc., while noting with satisfaction that my truck will do so many things his "tool package" won't.  Maybe he doesn't go where I do - need what I need - and looks at my truck as foolish excess.

 

"Dumb animals" instinctively do things that part of them - migration, reproduction, etc., - and their species survives year after year.  Some keep relatively together, some separate and later come back together.  

 

These Critters don't walk single file.  To the contrary - they seem very much aware of what's around them - and if I were to guess, travel in what Ghengis and Sherman called "flying fingers."  They can cover a lot of terrain, and if one "finger" comes upon a threat, or food source, the others can assemble with a minimum of communication.  

 

I just think they do have clans/famillies and they work together for purposes of finding food and common defense.  I'm not saying they have an alphabet, can recite "The Road Not Taken" by Robert Frost, nor sing the chorus of "Messiah."   I don't think they feel any need to paint like Cezanne, sculpt like Donatello, and don't feel our measures of "culture" should be held up to their set of parameters that meet their needs.

 

As long as they can track, gather, or kill to meet their needs, with size, speed, strength, cunning, instinct, and an ability to navigate through harsh terrain at night. then I'd say our attempts at classifications are a real reach.

 

Who knows?   The typical clan/family may have a number of "way stations," consisting of any combination of caves, ravines, undercuts, and even hastily constructed shelters along a winter game migration route, and are smart enough to KNOW they'll possibly be tracked - just as they are able to track animals.

Without experts you don't have science.

Without knowledge you don't have wisdom.

Without facts you have speculation.

If you have speculation that is opposed to facts then you have deception.

 

So you have a spectrum to choose from.

I come down with the experts, at least ones I respect.

They don;t define the whole spectrum of my beliefs but are invaluable

in the development of my fact based beliefs (theories).

[BC witness]

Great post, FarArcher, you've obviously put a lot of thought into this reply. This is the kind of post that furthers the discussion in a manner that I like to see.

 

I agree that deciding a classification at this point is premature, and a type specimen is desperately needed to further the understanding of our elusive creature. I spend as much time (and money) as I can in the field hoping to further that objective, but do greatly appreciate those on this forum who put their efforts into other approaches to the problem, in theoretical and statistical studies, and even those skeptics that help to keep us grounded in reality.  Between those in the field, and those at the keyboard, I think we can eventually crack this case.