guyzonthropus Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 And also, many of we humans aren't as smart as we think. Our ability to transfer knowledge, information ,and, god help us, wisdom, through technological means and devices has pushed us forward to this point, and will soon take us further, perhaps, but there is the flip side for if/when the lights go out not only will we be diurnal, but we'll be hating the fact that the kids burned all the books for heat not realizing what they were, and now we have only what's in our heads to keep us alive, and what we might write down, which could, assuming enough of the next generation can read, begin the information accumulation again. 1
MIB Posted August 2, 2016 Moderator Posted August 2, 2016 I agree with most of what you said. This seems like an opening for tossing out a followup thought .. 7 hours ago, FarArcher said: One being - avoiding the highly intelligent humans hunting them. As though human field skills and capabilities are anywhere near theirs. Especially at night. This part has interesting implications. Unless the behavior is rooted in their DNA, this presents a puzzle. It's not just one bigfoot, or bigfoot in one area, that avoid us, it's ALL of them ... at least avoiding us to the degree they manage not to have good pictures taken or verifiable physical remains retrieved. If it's not hard-wired in the DNA it implies group planning and, to facilitate that, a symbolic language, not just grunts and hoots, as well as a communication means. Otherwise some remote bigfoot wouldn't get the message about avoiding us and would just walk into a hiker's camp to share a granola bar. Yeah, there are habituators who claim to have contact, frequent sightings, etc, but the details of those situations suggest a situation of **unlearned** behavior ... inherent conditioning being overcome, not avoidance conditioning that didn't happen. We can't answer the question, we simply don't know, but whichever the answers is, it could well play into why we can't get that evidence. Again .. tactics. You seldom win a battle of wits with an opponent you underestimate. We keep losing. I think that says something. MIB 1
hiflier Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 We often look at Sasquatch as a complete animal- the sum of it's parts. There are also threads that discuss individual aspects of the body to but I am curious how in depth those discussions are in the area of adaptation. Why is the thumb apparently further back toward the wrist for instance. What would be the point of that? How, other than what has been discussed as fox walking, is stealth accomplished when travelling? How does the foot articulate when navigating steep slopes? Why even choose slopes? If the location of an ambush is in some truly dense area how does that change what the creature does to be successful? If it-s experience is that it's not successful in such habitat then would that determine where they are? Do they struggle walking on tip-toe because of their weight? Might when they are hungry do they slip on wet logs and foliage when foraging? Most animals that break a leg are doomed in the wild. Is that true for this animal? I have also been turning over a long range look at their survival prospects. Where they were and where they are now. Since they are not proved though it can only be speculation derived from the bigger picture of what seems to be evident today as opposed to what seemed to be evident decades back. Still working out the discussion on that but hope to post a thread soon about it. It has been said that I am somewhat of an inquisitive sort. I am definitely that. But I think that's what it takes to solve any problem or mystery. It is the details that sum up the best avenue to pursue- barring a specimen n of course.
WSA Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 I believe the inability to comprehend the extent of the Sasquatch's avoidance capabilities is a failure to comprehend how extensive the changes wrought by adaptive pressures can be. In this case, I would say the adaptive pressure has always been "us." As paleontologists increasingly become aware of the numerous species of hominoids that have lived on this earth before us, the awareness of what it would take to adapt to our dominance also increases. Sasquatch may have succeeded as a species where so many others had failed. Namely, to avoid the murderous intent of the little pink monkeys with the projectiles and complex social and language structures that make us such efficient killing machines. It is not yet known how many other hominoid species took the alternate tack of going toe-to-toe with us and getting completely extinguished. Sasquatch may just be the one who hit on the lone adaptive strategy that allowed it to survive, and that was to just avoid us at all costs, by all methods possible. It may now be hard-wired through natural selection of those genetic tendencies, and would have been this way for millennia. 2
hiflier Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 WSA, well said and that post would easily dovetail into the tread I'm working up.
MIB Posted August 2, 2016 Moderator Posted August 2, 2016 WSA ... well, sort of, but seemingly missing the crux of the matter. There are two ways for that to happen, biological adaptation or behavioral learning. Questions to ask might be how long have they been here? Has there been enough time pass for this to be strictly biological adaptation ... survival of the adaptable, dirt naps for the rest, AND for us to have, as a species, forgotten our contribution to that? I'm skeptical of that. On the other hand, behavioral learning, producing a near 100% "compliance" among them, requires communication and a mechanism for communicating a relatively complex idea, including the necessity of absolute compliance, among minds capable of comprehending this. I don't have a lot of issue with that given my current assumption about what they are ... more people than ape, even if non-technological. So, what I was trying to get at is whether this is biological adaptation / instinctive behavior separate from "learning" via mimicry, etc, or is it a learned behavior with all its seemingly universal application requires? (I probably didn't explain it very well ... yet again. Hopefully your reading comprehension compensates for me stumbling over words this morning.) MIB
WSA Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 MIB...not sure you could separate the behavioral from the biologic adaptation...at least I'm not in the theory I've proposed. I would also make the observation that something as consistent as the furtive nature of the Sasquatch almost has to be biologic. No socialized behavior is likely to be as consistent. As for cultural memory... What memory do we have of visiting similar genocides on other hominoids? (And smart money says we are going to keep turning up examples of those events the deeper we are able to dig into the past) We like to observe what a murderous little tribe we are, and we are, but I think those species similar to us who could best give us a perspective on just how red we are in tooth and claw are not ever going to get the chance. If we have always been as efficient a killer of our competitors as we are now, only a biologic adaptation like the one Sasquatch chanced on is going to preserve those in our cross-hairs.
FarArcher Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 I note a lot of folks concentrate on analysis of, or trying to determine why certain behavior patterns are exhibited. Rather than thinking about how one can use or overcome these characteristics. A kitty cat covers his own ****. Why? I don't know. I don't care. Any casual observer of kitty cats should only reach the conclusion that if you're wanting to find kitty cats in the wild, you don't go looking for their scat scattered on the ground surface. It won't be there. One may look for their cup latrines, but you don't go into the wild expecting to find little brown poop bits on the surface. I track a small group of men, and note that all other things being equal, when they come upon an obstacle, they'll tend to go around it to the same side. Why? Why do they go around on the same side consistently? I don't know, and I don't care. What I do know is that if I want to get ahead of them and hit them, I need to be a bit off to the habitual go around from their current heading. And if there's another obstacle up ahead, I know which side they'll be using to go around - and they're mine. Habits. Characteristics. Tendencies. Customs. Routines. Quirks. Why? To a huntsman, the 'why' is irrelevant.
MIB Posted August 2, 2016 Moderator Posted August 2, 2016 WSA - I'm not sure. Why have they approached me on 3 separate occasions (that I know of) when I had a rifle in my hand? The intent wasn't predatory or I wouldn't be here. Whatever fear or caution they had was, at least in those moments, partially absent. Why? Triggered by ... ? Purpose ... ? FarArcher - For your purposes, "why" may not matter. For mine, it's the crux of what matters. MIB
WSA Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Boy, isn't that a great question MIB? I guess a hint of an answer may lie in the recognition that there are drives greater than self-preservation in mammals. If your DNA is hardwired for self-preservation (and every "normal" human's is), it has to be something that trumps that in order to deliberately expose yourself to harm. As a parent, I know what it is. You might also. People often talk about how they would sacrifice their life for some other unrelated individual or important cause, and I suppose they believe it. I guess I did too, before I had children. But, when you see your offspring for the first time a switch gets flipped and there is no going back. Only then are you truly able to understand an urge greater than avoidance of death. That might be what was going on in the encounters you describe, but who knows?
hiflier Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 FarArcher, most people have the right side as the dominant side and going to the right means their most defensive tactics will be in place. Hold the rifle to the right then it gets swung into the fray while most of the vulnerable parts of a Human remain safe. In other words, the gun leads. and can be poked around the corner. If right handed and going left then it's too awkward to point the gun toward anything behind the obstacle. A severe if not lethal disadvantage. So.....right handedness in BF? Think about your own encounter when considering the question. I doubt they are ambidextrous. If that's is the case then the knowledge could translate into an advantage for a Human. 2
FarArcher Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 48 minutes ago, MIB said: WSA - I'm not sure. Why have they approached me on 3 separate occasions (that I know of) when I had a rifle in my hand? The intent wasn't predatory or I wouldn't be here. Whatever fear or caution they had was, at least in those moments, partially absent. Why? Triggered by ... ? Purpose ... ? FarArcher - For your purposes, "why" may not matter. For mine, it's the crux of what matters. MIB Why were you approached with a rifle in your hand? What were you hunting? Anything? What was your task? What was your intent? What time of day? How long were you out there? What was the terrain? Open, partially open, forested, swampy? I've actually answered that in detail previously - probably a couple times. Why some can never seem to get near them, and others can, or at least appeal to their curiosity. Of course, anything I say can be readily discounted - and has been discounted very often here. For whatever reason, we seem to keep going in circles - and everyone keeps ending up in the same original, starting position, asking the same questions over and over. I never really got anything done if I had to understand things that meant nothing. Anyone that knows basic, human nature, can easily figure out why these things have certain patterns. They act exactly like the guys I used to hunt. Exactly. But they're much, much better, with exponentially greater skills, and much greater capabilities that appear to more than meet their needs and lifestyles. They had the same purpose and behaved in the same manner. No mystery to me. If folks can't get past the basics, there is no hope for grand schemes. If one cannot allow for certain patterns and just accept them, then no one will ever get out of the starting block. We're never going to have the information that explains the nuances. That's not going to happen. So why waste the time?
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 Science is about asking why is why. I think you're saying FarArcher is we need a type specimen and your volunteering to go get a body. Those that do identify a new genus and then name it after themselves sometimes find they regret the faustian bargain, however. If the species is extremely rare there is also a very good chance that collectors will then drive it to extinction very quickly. There are many very very rich people, museums, zoos, breeders, that engage in a kind of one upmanship. The rarer the breed the more intense the game and the need for fame, the more double dealing and deception. If you ever get close to collecting a Bigfoot your real problems are only beginning I think. What you need to watch for then is the person at your elbow, the ambushes of Homo Sapiens are far more complex and devastating. I'm reading The Dragon Behind the Glass: A True Story of Power, Obsession, and the World's Most Coveted Fish about what the world at that level is like when dealing with a coveted species.
MIB Posted August 3, 2016 Moderator Posted August 3, 2016 (edited) I don't really know why I was approached. My interpretations are just guesses. Deer hunting each time. The first time I was still-hunting very seriously ... very VERY seriously. Focus was deer but I had bear and cougar tags as well. The second day, when I had two separate close passes about 45 minutes apart by different individuals, was perhaps more of a walk-about. In each case it was deer season but I also had bear and cougar tags. Each was along a ridge line in mixed brush and timber. Very, very dry. Quote So why waste the time? Regarding bigfoot, it's not a waste of my time. I got a little sidetracked for a while but once I refocused on my original question I realized I had found the answer I came for. Even if I hadn't, for me, proper pursuit of answers is at least as important as the answers themselves. But I have. I have also found a second question and that's why I'm still here. MIB Edited August 3, 2016 by MIB
Recommended Posts