Sasquatch Adaptability and Survival

[JDL]

Hiflier, if you ever get the chance to interact with one, not simply see one, you'll sing a different tune. Until then enjoy your second and third hand perceptions.

[hiflier]

Oh good. Then everyone else who haven't t seen one but have opinions can do the same and we'll all smile. Maybe shut down the Forum and only have members who are knowers allowed in or to speak. Yeah, that's the ticket. Thanks for steering me straight.

[MIB]

Not at all.   Most people, whether they've see one or not, temper their opinions with healthy doubt and questions.  You show no capacity for self-doubt.   Your mirror is broken.  For the most part, theirs are not.

 

MIB

Edited December 14, 2016 by MIB

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Many of the people on forums who claim to have had encounters are simply fabricating their stories for attention and also so that they can feel they have authority on the subject. They act as if their experience somehow gave them incredible insight, when in reality, real eyewitnesses are often left totally confused by their experience. A lot of the so-called researchers on this forum are constantly contradicting the experiences of legitimate witnesses.

 

Anyway, I think it’s important to understand that visual encounters, although they are first hand experiences, are actually very limited data compared to what a person can get through investigating reports. Just carefully analyzing reports and evidence such as the Patterson film is enough to give an investigator more insight into the subject than any single real life encounter.

[SWWASAS]

On 12/12/2016 at 10:25 PM, BigTreeWalker said:

I've often thought that the reasons they do what the do at times is to see our reaction. 

Could not agree with you more.    While they may be very reclusive,  they spend a great deal of their time observing us when we blunder into their territory.     Several reasons possible for that.    Threat assessment being the primary one.    I suspect their thought process is:    Is this human armed?   If so is he/she a hunter?   Are they hunting for me?   Is the human male or female?     Why does the human seem to be here?    Is the human activity benign?    Have I encountered them before?   Was their reaction dangerous?     If not,  do I dare stay close to observe them or should I move away?    

 

  Analyzing my first encounter even I changed my mind as to what happened.     At first I thought they were tracking or hunting me since one was headed right towards me.      But their reaction at contact did not support that.    They kept what separation they had and quietly withdrew.    That is hardly hunting behavior.    I was armed but the weapon was hidden in my pack so they could not have known I was armed.    So I doubt that I was perceived as much of a threat because I backed away from them.      They likely kept me under observation for some time, perhaps up to an hour.      Half of that time I was in close proximity to them.     Beyond the first couple of encounters with the same humans some choose to mess with you.      As I experienced,  that is when you might have pine cones or pebbles thrown at you or they make some sort of stick glyph for you to find.  You might hear a 600 lb owl.     At that point they want you to know they are there.     It could be that some want to interact and others do not.   Just guessing, younger adults or older teens might be more likely to want to interact, even at the cost of disapproval from elders that know no good is likely to be gained from it.   That supposition seems to be coo-berated by many contact reports in where a young adult or large juvenile is interacting with playful behavior.         

 

Does that mean you are buddies from that point on?    I figured at some point one would step out and let me have a good look.   I thought so at the time but I was wrong.    External factors,  in my case clear cutting of their local area,  and too much presence in my part, changed  our relationship to adversarial.    They made it plainly clear that they did not want me hanging around.     Growls and zapping pretty much had that effect.    Following the zapping,  I never knowingly had contact.   They either had left the area completely or chose to not let me know they were present if they were.       That I had no footprint finds for about 2 years suggests  their presence in the area was pretty limited.   Even that was some distance from contact locations.     That is understandable because of the lack of cover resulting from the extensive  clear cutting in the area.    Any daylight movement in the area would subject them to being seen.       

 

 

[MIB]

18 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Many of the people on forums who claim to have had encounters are simply fabricating their stories for attention and also so that they can feel they have authority on the subject.

 

Can you prove that?  If you can't document it via specific cases, it's just an assumption, an ... opinion.  It's worth exactly what you suggest others opinions and fabrications for attention are worth.   Hoist by your own petard as it were. 

 

MIB

[Twist]

Seems to be a lot of holier than thou in this thread.  At this point in BF research we cannot make any definitive statements about BF in regards to origin, intelligence, or habits etc.  All discussion about these types of characteristics should be open to many different possibilities.  

[schwacky]

52 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Many of the people on forums who claim to have had encounters are simply fabricating their stories for attention and also so that they can feel they have authority on the subject. They act as if their experience somehow gave them incredible insight, when in reality, real eyewitnesses are often left totally confused by their experience. A lot of the so-called researchers on this forum are constantly contradicting the experiences of legitimate witnesses.

 

I would love to see your proof backing this statement. Without any evidence showing some sort of truth to your claim, your statement falls into the category of fabrication so feel you can have authority on the subject. If your are going to make a statement like this, you better have some really big guns to pull out and back you up.

[hiflier]

Hi Twist, I agree to an extent. Most discussions however are cyclic and so kinda get locked into a loop of repetitious opinion. Let some time go by and those ideas seen new but in reality they are not. There needs to be a narrowing of what to zero in on as that will be the only wy to rule out what isn't. I am adamant about doing just that. My push for the "animal" thing is at that for that reason- to get deeper I into that aspect of the subject.

 

As you can see I'm drawing a lot of flak for it which tells me the basic concept of Sasquatch being an animal is touching some nerves. And that's a good thing as long as the messenger (me) isn't attacked in the process. Sadly I am, but until the idea of Sasquatch being simply an animal is taken to it full end then I will continue to bring it up. Most are looking at Sasquatch as an creature plus something. The creature needs to be thoroughly looked at as the animal first. It is the logical to pursue before anything "other than".

 

I just do not think that a creature that shape needs para-para things to operate as reported. That it is perfectly capable to do the things that it does because of its shape and what hat allows. Period. Physically it is superior and so can do superior maneuvers; Flesh and blood but without our specialized brain though so those maneuvers will and do follow animal lines. Why folks don't want to face this is beyond me. I would be just as leery of a Sasquatch in the vicinity as I would a bear. Other than what Sasquatch can do physically there is little difference between the two. My opinion after much research. 

[bipedalist]

On 12/13/2016 at 1:25 AM, BigTreeWalker said:

I've often thought that the reasons they do what the do at times is to see our reaction. 

 

This ^, I had an intense six to eighteen months of this back in the 2006-2008 realm.  Some lesser form of knowledge of a more distant interaction for years after that.  The test phase of interaction, the obstacle course and the mind-blowing phase do occur for those at the closest edges of this science.  I'm sure there may be other phases and I'm not really sure I want to go through them at this point from what I know.   Not posting or talking like a "knower", just as an informant, take what you want, leave the rest, or file it all in a round basket really, I personally don't post up for attention.  Came here to let others know what I know--it's called sharing---, and learn more about what I don't; simply that and nothing more. This is the intelligence gathering role that Thom Powell refers to in some of his work, nothing more nothing less. 

1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Many of the people on forums who claim to have had encounters are simply fabricating their stories for attention and also so that they can feel they have authority on the subject. They act as if their experience somehow gave them incredible insight, when in reality, real eyewitnesses are often left totally confused by their experience. A lot of the so-called researchers on this forum are constantly contradicting the experiences of legitimate witnesses.

 

Anyway, I think it’s important to understand that visual encounters, although they are first hand experiences, are actually very limited data compared to what a person can get through investigating reports. Just carefully analyzing reports and evidence such as the Patterson film is enough to give an investigator more insight into the subject than any single real life encounter.

 

Maybe the reports analyzed become a living thing after some witnesses report back too, perhaps!  I analyzed a ton of reports before, during and after my encounter.  Many call this tainted reporting and research that I see mentioned in many circles. I realized I was on a trail and I followed it as far as I could and it led to a sighting. I'm sure I butt heads with many researchers in what I saw and report about.  At this stage of reporting I am true to self and the chips can fall as they may.  Can you tell flesh and blood juxtaposes against paranormality but in a happy comfortable medium in my world view of Sasquatch? If, as a witness I am contradicting so-called "researchers" then maybe the so-called researchers have not had the opportunity or circumstances to witness what has befallen me or just maybe they fail to report or fail to analyze what they have seen in the same way. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by bipedalist

[bipedalist]

On 12/13/2016 at 1:19 PM, hiflier said:

........

Could a Sasquatch become another KOKO? Perhaps. It would certainly appear to have that capacity. But like KOKO it cannot and will not think for itself when it comes to Human cognitive skill levels. It's not in its nature to go beyond its brain/body type abilities on its own. It can be taught things because it is smart but it won't conceive Human ideas and capabilities without outside influence. The current Sasquatch condition says that this is true. It is adaptable but cannot go beyond the minimum of what an animal needs to survive.

 

I think preplanning a 3am vocal outburst toward a human residence where a noctural sighting occurred months in the past from a recordable distance that exhibits their talents in phonation and animal emulation (even emulating some of the researchers animal emulations used in the course of research) is pretty good evidence that they "think" through what they are doing.  Remembering and drumming a drummed sequence from three months earlier used one time in a course of research and them having the ability to reproduce that in the wee hours so that it could be recorded, tells me they have preplanning ability. Of course you could say a squirrel has preplanning ability to do nut-gathering but this is different, not an instinct.  These are learned behaviors. Of course rats can learn to bar press in a Skinner box and pigeons to peck light sequences in same.  Still, I think you know where I am going with this. Do they express intelligence to form higher level communications within their own groups?  Do we really have enough intelligence gathering yet to say how that might work? Simply because they may not use fire, may not use tools other than rudimentary clubs, etc., doesn't really tell the full story at this point to me. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by bipedalist

[hiflier]

And I agree with that to the level that they learn from creatures outside themselves. That do seem to have that capacity. If there were no Humans though I sincerely doubt they would rise much above what it would take for them to manage themselves withing a given habitat. They may have a limit to the tool box they develop for survival and unless outside influences and ideas enter their realm I truly doubt they would advance much. I've watched seagulls maneuver in to a bag of goodies nd even tip themselves upside down getting into that bag once Humans have left to go swimming or for a walk. Seagulls have that kind of capacity for learning such skills.

 

Plug that idea into a seven foot tall bipedal creature thet has lived with us for  couple of our more advanced centuries and there would be a lot to learn and mimic. Memory in the animal kingdom is everything beyond instinct that gives them the edge but it takes stimuli to initiate that memory whether it's being shot or habituated. Humans do not differ all that much in that regard BTW and so transferring that kind of behavior in the animal kingdom to Sasquatch is not a stretch by any means. It addresses many things about what folks witness. Nothing paranormal required really, just a sensitivity to its surroundings- which is normal- and a sensitivity to us....its hairless mirror image. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by hiflier

[JDL]

hiflier, I have no problem with opinions.  Had you presented your second or third hand conclusions as opinions, I wouldn't have bothered to comment.  But you, in my opinion, presented your opinions, which I found to be contrary to the exhibited intelligence of the bigfoot I have encountered, as fact.

 

I don't participate on this forum as much as I used to.  I try to reserve my comments for things that substantively contribute to the discussion.  Occasionally, though, I see speculation presented as fact with such unwarranted certitude that it rouses me to response.

 

MIB, thanks for your response to OntarioSasquatch.  I might not have been as diplomatic.

[Mendoza]

On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 0:22 PM, JDL said:

Ok, Mendoza.

 

First, they are smart.  As smart as we are, just applied differently.  And there's no question that they have complete mastery of whatever environment they choose to occupy.  If you're thinking of them as simple animals, or applying models to them that are designed for simple animals, I would re-think your approach.

 

Second, a data point for you:  I have seen a family group of four with two pre-adolescent juveniles (shorter than waist high on the adults).

 

Perhaps the "strategist" in "K-strategist" is misleading.  To be clear, the K-strategist label is not speculation on Bigfoot "survival strategies" as if these were part of the animal's psychology.  The term K-strategist refers to one of the most basic characteristics of an organism's biology, namely its life cycle.

 

You are speaking of intelligence as if it can override this basic fact of biology or its consequences, but it can't.  Even humans are K-strategists whether they like it or not.  No matter how intelligent a human woman is, she cannot have a three-month pregnancy that ends with her giving birth to octuplets who can fend for themselves and leave the house after six months.  This is simply not an option, regardless of brainpower.  The same is true for Bigfoot, if it has the K-strategist life cycle.

 

What you say about Bigfoot having complete mastery of its environment actually heightens the consequences of its K-strategist biology.  The better an organism is able to utilize its environment, the more equipped it will be to populate that environment.  A highly intelligent K-strategist is going to max out the carrying capacity of its environment.  As (relatively) highly intelligent K-strategists, humans are doing just that.  Since the origin of Homo sapiens, we have been moving inexorably towards the point where every part of the planet capable of supporting human life will have a human living there.  Again, intelligence has not liberated us from the K-strategist biology; instead, it has just made us more efficient K-strategists.

 

This is where habitat-related pressure comes in.  Suppose the ice caps melt and the sea levels rise, and most of Florida ends up underwater as a result.  The human population of Florida is going to drop because our population of Florida is close enough to the carrying capacity of our environment that we are not just going to be able to cram all of the Floridians into the panhandle if we lose our "habitat" down here.  Again, our intelligence has increased the consequences of our K-strategist biology.  If we had been less intelligent, we would not have been able to populate the panhandle as aggressively as we have, and the panhandle would still have enough remaining carrying capacity to support our refugees.

 

I hope I have made it evident that species do not overcome their K strategist biology by way of intelligence.  If anything, intelligence and mastery of the environment allow a species to max out all of the ecological consequences of the K-strategist biology, to its advantage in the case of populating an environment all the way up to carrying capacity, but to its disadvantage when loss of range or habitat occurs.

 

Finally, regarding your observation:  Family units are what happens when extreme K-strategists hold to non-solitary behavior patterns.  They still fit into the K-strategist life cycle of one offspring at a time (twins and so forth being the exception and not the rule) and a significant duration of direct parental involvement in the offspring's wellbeing.  In fact, if you hadn't been observing a K-strategist species, you would have seen something very different.

[hiflier]

JDL, there are facts regarding animal behavior. I see nothing in Sasquatch that warrants more than what an large bipedal animal in a primate body can do. It's the body shape that gives it its abilities. Not a particularly difficult thing to comprehend really. Unless someone starts with woo and works backwards from there which I highly do not recommend. Billions of Human beings running around without any woo. But it's fine to project woo onto an animal? I think not. And that's all I'm saying. Tough crowd. So worried that this creature is in danger of being reduced to the level of the lowly bear? Well, bears aren't lowly IMO and are equally as intelligent and smart as Sasquatch or we Humans. The difference? A bear's physiology will only allow it to do so much. Same with Sasquatch. Same with us. But we have cognitive skills and abilities that Sasquatch will never have.

 

Some proof you say?

 

Look at what our bodies are capable of with the kind of brain we have. What we build, what we create. Hadron colliders, self driving cars and all else. Look at what Sasquatch creates with essentially the same body type. ZILCH. Sorry JDL and everyone else but my "opinion" stands well grounded in logic. The creature we call Sasquatch is simply no better than a bear in a better body. Ambushes, bludgeons, and then eats deer raw. Animal.

 

Crows talk, communicate all kinds of chatter, steal shiny trinkets left out. and are very smart and intelligent. Sasquatch is no different. This isn't hard. Dolphin intelligence if you insist but their body types allow much less in the way of versatility than a Sasquatch.

Edited December 15, 2016 by hiflier