Winter - Where Do They Go

[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.

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).

 

 

Now I'm about to get into a bit of trouble here.  

 

1.  Without experts you don't have science.  The problem I see with many "experts" is that they learn by rote, and repeat the same.  I think the greatest job in the world is a physics theorist.  You get to postulate - and never actually have to prove anything.

 

I have been fortunate to have been included in a small circle of folks who violate classical physics on a regular basis.  I've seen them call in forensic engineering firms to perform tests to verify their results, stay on site and replicate the process several times, even special engineering firms called in from Germany, and they all pack up their stuff in frustration and walk out the door.  When asked about the results - "We cannot release these test data.  They are impossible.  We'd be out of business in a week."  So much for the science part.  Testable, verifiable, conclusive, repeatable test results - and no way, no how, are those to be released.

 

Multiple discoveries - but they're sitting on a shelf and it will be decades before more traditional science finally catches up, and then, "Oh.  We knew it all the time."

 

The Conquistadors in their many travels to areas adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and South and Central America, traveled with priests who documented many things they witnessed or participated in.  They document multiples of meetings with Giants whom they may come up to their waist.  Now the Spanish also brought diseases that wiped out entire populations - but their recordings of these many Giants in many areas - just don't matter.  Not to science.  Because to consider this would violate their carefully crafted story of mankind on the North American/Central American/South American territories, especially their wild migration theories which they keep having to push back and alter every few years.

 

2.  Without knowledge, you don't have wisdom.  Do we ever agree on that!  Problem is, the only knowledge allowed is highly selective, and must conform to prevalent theories.  If it falls outside the theory, the knowledge - right there for the taking - is discarded.  Sometimes they say "that's just narrative," or they'll say, "this is anomalyous evidence."  Science will only allow evidence (knowledge) that falls within a very narrow subset of knowledge they have arbitrarily defined.

 

3.  Without facts, you have speculation.  Ain't it the truth.  The speculation is present in many current models and postulations as they disallow facts to speak for themselves - they feel they must interject themselves into the process - and speak for the facts.  Seriously?  So my contention is that much "science" by ignoring facts, is in of itself - speculation.

 

4.  If you have speculation that is opposed to facts, then you have deception.  I think in several areas, even historical claims of giants, even hairy giants from every culture all over the world, over millennia, we are truly victims of deception.

 

They won't see - because they don't want to see.  It's much easier to craft an entire species from a tooth than to re-locate scores and scores of giant skeletons which have been turned in to the "experts", but have mysteriously disappeared.

 

Like spending a dollar to pursue a nickel.

 

Makes no sense whatsoever, unless you're an "expert" with credentials running out of your fourth point of contact - and the facts will render all your expertise, all your study, all your knowledge - obsolete.

[BigTreeWalker]

Fararcher,

Plussed your post #133. I can tell you are speaking from experience. Science needs to categorize, it's what science does. However, observations must be interpreted. It is interpretation without the insight of experience that leads to faulty reasoning. Without experience correct interpretation of any evidence can't happen. Without experience knowledge will lag. Experience leads to knowledge then because of learned experiences leads to wisdom... Hopefully.

Fararcher thanks for your insights from your experiences and observations.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Good post.

 

However, I'm going obsolete fast,

carnivore Bigfoots flying in UFO are getting me there.

 

If I wanted to argue that premise, although unproveable.

 

1) No testable hypothosis, same with giants. Conspiracy hypothesis equally unprovable as you can not prove a negative (hiding giant evidence). 

 

2) If they can fly in UFO the don;t need to eat meat, just calling down manna from heaven will suffice. Since they are more advanced than us in this rarefied subtle etheric body , they don't need much of a brain cause God just tells them what he want's and they can manifest whatever they want by merely thinking it.

 

3) Reality is a conspiracy. 

 

I'd ramble on some more but you get the drift.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[BigTreeWalker]

I know your being sarcastic there, but if that's the way you want to look at bigfoot, be my guest.

Experience ≠ experiences

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I know your being sarcastic there, but if that's the way you want to look at bigfoot, be my guest.

Experience ≠ experiences

More ironic, than not as I was responding to another poster.

As far as being your guest, well... I'll guess I'll just leave that lie.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest]

I’m not expert Bigfoot Researcher, but as a data miner I know I read and studied over 15,000 reports of Bigfoot / Sasquatch related accounts specifically where multiple animals sightings were involved. So, while it (multiple animal sighting reports) doesn’t appear to be a common occurrence there were 332 separate individual accounts out 15,000 reports describing the number, size, color of creatures observed together at one time. They are typically observed in pairs or three’s but are also reported in a groups of 4, 5, 6, 7 and one report claimed 15, and another single account reported 20. - Just Saying

Edited February 23, 2016 by Gumshoeye

[Incorrigible1]

DWA had to excuse himself for a few minutes after reading the previous posting.

[FarArcher]

I’m not expert Bigfoot Researcher, but as a data miner I know I read and studied over 15,000 reports of Bigfoot / Sasquatch related accounts specifically where multiple animals sightings were involved. So, while it (multiple animal sighting reports) doesn’t appear to be a common occurrence there were 332 separate individual accounts out 15,000 reports describing the number, size, color of creatures observed together at one time. They are typically observed in pairs or three’s but are also reported in a groups of 4, 5, 6, 7 and one report claimed 15, and another single account reported 20. - Just Saying

 

 

Aye, and yet the "experts" like Meldrum will disagree.  Disagree with folks who've seen these instances, and yet he's never even seen one.

 

But because he has "credentials," his word is given much more weight than the accumulation of reports to the contrary.

 

That's why Meldrum I think, is breaking the First Rule of BS'ting.  Never start believing your own BS.

[SWWASAS]

I believe Meldrum claims to have seen one now.     Unfortunately Todd Standing was in camp that night so he will never know if he saw the real deal.  

[norseman]

^^^^^^

By your logic then? The hobbit should have failed the sniff test as well. They were completely unexpected. And the west had known about the legends as long as we have known about Sasquatch roughly.

Bring in a bigfoot bone and then we'll talk. Right now, legends is all there are.

I've never advocated anything to the contrary. But I'm willing to bet that nature is not done pitching curve balls to science. And our understanding of our past will change again.

[BigTreeWalker]

This is a boots on the ground observation. Relates to the winter question. Around Mt St Helens I have been spending some time in areas at or below 2000' elevation. In the area where I was last week there has been lots of audio recorded. Also in another lower elevation area west of there. This is the average lower snow level for this time of year. Currently the snow level is above this area. As the snow comes down so do the elk. Whether bigfoot is feeding on the elk, which we have found evidence of, or feeding on whatever the elk are eating; this is where the food sources are available. There are areas of this elevation all around the mountain. Most of them heavily forested. There are also many swampy areas at this elevation before the creeks drop into the river valleys. My son and I were on the south side of the mountain a couple weeks ago. There was fresh elk sign in this area as well (also a very large swamp just to the east of us) and just at the snow level. The area that SWWSP researches is to the south of this area, most of which is also at or below this elevation. Whether they are feeding on or with the elk, this appears to be the elevations to be in at this time of year.

[BobbyO]

Have you seen any Sasquatch sign at all this winter BigTree in that area and were this recordings you mention from this winter ?

I look at the SSR that now has close to 570 WA State reports in it and I find a real low % of winter reports from the general area you talk about compared to the Olympic Peninsula and other parts of WA.

[norseman]

I found on the north slope of the ranch has held a group of moose all winter. scat and tracks everywhere as well as brush that has been nuked which pleases me. Still about a foot or two of snow in there now.

[SWWASAS]

The difference would seem to me to be number of people in the woods in the winter.      Winter field work I rarely see another human.   Especially near the snow line.     The Olympic Peninsula is a travel destination and likely has lots of year round human presence. 

 

 Bobby have you looked at the human density factor at all related to WA sightings?    Would be a tough project but there must be a way to weight areas related to human visitation or lack of it to determine if sighting reports are more likely because of presence of more humans as well as resident  BF.     Seems like county population would be a good starting point.    If there is a correlation between the more populous rural  counties and sightings then that would point to human in the equation.    I would probably throw out truly urban counties in some sort of study like that.    Anyway seems like you could establish some sort of null point where humans, because of county population are not as large a factor as the number of BF.    Most sightings are likely people in the woods from that county or a nearby one.    The Seattle area would throw everything out of making sense.     But if you could produce some sort of human density factor for each county,   perhaps that would point to counties that truly have more BF to see.    I don't know,  maybe you have already done this?  

[BobbyO]

I've been asked the question yeah and I've thought about it a lot but it's not something I'd take a great deal of interest in as of yet as the numbers would get corrupted badly for all sorts of reasons, some of which you've mentioned already.

There are ways around it though that we maybe could look in to in the future though so never say never.

Just to note, the Olympic Peninsula visitor figures weigh very heavily on summer visitors with winter visitors numbers extremely low and down to 90% lower than what they would be in the summer months (as per NPS), which is generally the same kind of decrease in visitor figures as what Mount Rainier NP would have too on average so I'm not sure if that's the reason why, especially when I can add that there are small clusters of reports in the winter on the Olympic Peninsula in areas where there most certainly aren't too many people around.

% wise where WA is concerned, the Southern WA Cascades from the I-90 down to the Columbia has 9% of reports from Winter, the North Cascades north of the I-90 up to the border is at 8% whilst the Olympic Peninsula is at 17%, that's a pretty big jump.

That North Cascades Zone sees very little in the way of visitors to which is unreal but true, there was more people turned up to a single Mariners game last year than visited that National Park which is insane as it's so beautiful.

By the way I'm using NP visitor figures as that's the easiest way and one of the biggest reasons that these Sasquatch habitats do actually get visitors.