My Perspective and questions for you all

[norseman]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

Not playing devil's advocate here but the are plenty of casts that do not exhibit an MTB. Not saying it isn't there in all Bigfoots, only that it is not in every cast. Many casts do not show the 'break' but instead show a fairly flat looking sole with some contouring at the ball and heel.  

 

Absolutely!

 

What I should have said is how many Bigfoot tracks exhibit a longitudinal arch?

[hiflier]

Bingo! That's the ticket. As far as I can see, NONE display a longitudinal arch. Thank you for clarifying  

[MIB]

11 hours ago, hiflier said:

Bingo! That's the ticket. As far as I can see, NONE display a longitudinal arch. Thank you for clarifying  

 

I'm not sure of that as an absolute.   

 

1) You should check into the tracks Jaime Avalos has cast.  

 

2) I've found some that are "funny".    They're underwater in deep thick mud over rock substrate.   Can't really see in them because a fine silt ooze has built up obscuring details, but they seem to have a very deep heel pocket, very deep pocket at what seems to be the ball of the foot, and a huge high side-to-side arch between .. smooth, curved front and back.    I can't reach bottom in both front and back pockets at once, I have to slide my foot up and over that arch.       I suppose if the tracks are even bigger than I think (putting my foot into them is like putting my foot down a post hole that opens up at the bottom ... creepy but necessary), maybe that apparent arch is part of a mid-tarsal break.  

 

I don't know, but I know I'm being careful not to draw premature conclusions that inadvertently lead to removing correct answers from consideration.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

You raise a good point in that is really is not good to try and create absolutes and I was wrong to do so. Who is to say that before Sasquatches get bigger and heavier that infants and the very young do not have a more longitudinal foot morphology or should I say a less pronounced mid-tarsal break? Weight may be a factor in the characteristic being more prominent in the larger tracks. Anyone ever get tired of all the speculations that surround this phenomenon? Reasoning things out from whatever evidence we have, anecdotal or otherwise, can realistically only get us so far. So pushing for ways to arrive at the truth is always a good endeavor whether it be in the field or in developing a local group of like minded individuals. I am a firm believer that there are also people outside this Forum who may have new ideas to contribute though finding them and hooking up seems to be the hard part.

[James33]

I've been thinking about how intelligent these creatures seem to be based on encounters (the ones I've read - obviously I haven't read all of them). It seems to me that:

 

• They don't use tools - no spears to hunt with, no physical structures to live in, they don't use fire to keep warm or cook, etc. Those spotted hunting or fishing use their hands.
• They MAY have a primitive form of communication - wood knocks, grunts, howls.  Great apes do this as well - Chimps use sticks to crack open nests to get to honey, or rocks to crack nuts. This doesn't seem to be communicating but rather food gathering. 
• They don't seem to be afraid of humans. Does this imply they are accustomed to our presence? 

Someone had mentioned even a tribe of Albert Einsteins in the woods couldn't escape detection forever. I agree. So how is it that these creatures do?  They are not that smart.  Someone else mentioned the total number of creatures MUST be very very small in order for them to be seen so rarely. I also agree with this - it seems more logical that due to the sheer small number of animals there just aren't many sightings.  The ones that do occur are just luck or coincidence.  If the animal was THAT intelligent it wouldn't be caught walking across a road or investigating a camp sight at night or leaving footprints everywhere. 

 

James

 

[MIB]

Just now, James33 said:

They MAY have a primitive form of communication - wood knocks, grunts, howls.  Great apes do this as well - Chimps use sticks to crack open nests to get to honey, or rocks to crack nuts. This doesn't seem to be communicating but rather food gathering. 

 

Review the Sierra Sounds.    A retired Navy crypto-linguist says he hears language even if he can't translate it.    He's got professional expertise,  perhaps the equal of any human on earth.   What do you have to counter it with?

 

3 minutes ago, James33 said:

They are not that smart.

 

You base that on ... what?  

 

5 minutes ago, James33 said:

If the animal was THAT intelligent it wouldn't be caught walking across a road or investigating a camp sight at night or leaving footprints everywhere. 

 

1) Don't bet on "it" being JUST an animal.   It may be as much a person, and more intelligent, than you are, whether it is human in the sense of being Homo sapiens sapiens or not.   You will never win if you insist on underestimating your opponent.

2)  Have you ever heard of a thing called curiosity?   Have you ever seen adolescent or young adult humans do foolish things to attract mates, etc?   Do not assume all of those chance encounters are chance from their side, could be very deliberate indeed.

 

MIB

 

[James33]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

Review the Sierra Sounds.    A retired Navy crypto-linguist says he hears language even if he can't translate it.    He's got professional expertise,  perhaps the equal of any human on earth.   What do you have to counter it with?

I never said it wasn't communication.  I said it MAY be.  It may just be a means they use to locate others. No one knows for sure. 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

You base that on ... what?  

I base my assumption on that they don't use tools, or fire and they live in the woods and forage for food. I'm not saying that they don't have instincts or they lack any intelligence - just that I "believe" they are not smart.  For example, I don't think they are so smart that they can detect trail cams and avoid being photographed or that they  know to not eat too many pigs from a farm so the farmer doesn't suspect something. 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

1) Don't bet on "it" being JUST an animal.   It may be as much a person, and more intelligent, than you are, whether it is human in the sense of being Homo sapiens sapiens or not.   You will never win if you insist on underestimating your opponent.

I highly doubt this and the burden of proof for this would fall on you. I would DEFINITELY bet on it just being an animal. 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

2)  Have you ever heard of a thing called curiosity?   Have you ever seen adolescent or young adult humans do foolish things to attract mates, etc?   Do not assume all of those chance encounters are chance from their side, could be very deliberate indeed.

I agree - they are probably very curious, but I'd still say that most encounters are just random chance simply because I believe there are so few of these creatures. The fact that they visit camp sights in the middle of the night may be looking for food (smelling it) or it could be curiosity. 

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

MIB

 

 

[Cotter]

"I don't think they are so smart that they can detect trail cams and avoid being photographed"

 

This is documented in other wild animals already.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4212972/

 



[James33]

8 minutes ago, Cotter said:

"I don't think they are so smart that they can detect trail cams and avoid being photographed"

 

This is documented in other wild animals already.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4212972/

 



 

Cool - thanks for the link.  However it talks about animals being able to hear the sound of the camera and see the infrared when it snaps a photo.  This noise and light causes the animal to flee as it startles them. It doesn't see the camera and avoid it because it knows what it is. Which is why we get trail cam pics of bears, deer, etc. Of course if the animal comes back to the same area where the camera is over and over eventually, it seems to me, it would permanently leave the area or habituate to it once it realizes it poses no threat.  

 

[ShadowBorn]

James I am not so sure about your assessment on how we encounter these creatures. Sure we can say that some of these encounters are by accident but there are still others that are not and are done on purpose. Same can go with their prints that we find. Some of these prints are some times left on purpose  as though they wanted us to find them. I have personally experience this on a lot of field trips out in the field. Some of these encounters are not just random and are done with long time observation by these creatures. They observe us when you think they do not and they have great restraint. This just shows that we are the invaders and that they are the observers. I am not sure that there few of them but think that they have dug them selves deeper into the wilderness where it is harder for us to follow. You have to remember that they have the advantage on us. That they can live in the wild and can live on raw meet and drink water that does not need to be boiled. They do not need shelter like we need a shelter since they are wild like the animal of the forest. It is only us as Humans that need these things to survive not them. They have already over come the wilderness It is us that have need of all the tech that we have created. My question is what is their need to understand us as Humans? Why do they have to prove them selves to us? Why do they come out of their isolation only so that they might be seen by us? 

[MIB]

32 minutes ago, James33 said:

 

Cool - thanks for the link.  However it talks about animals being able to hear the sound of the camera and see the infrared when it snaps a photo.  This noise and light causes the animal to flee as it startles them. It doesn't see the camera and avoid it because it knows what it is. Which is why we get trail cam pics of bears, deer, etc. Of course if the animal comes back to the same area where the camera is over and over eventually, it seems to me, it would permanently leave the area or habituate to it once it realizes it poses no threat.  

 

 

How do you "know" this?   I understand you assume it, but what have you done to validate or invalidate it?   

 

Have you read up on trail cam avoidance by alpha coyotes yet?    They don't habituate to cameras, they're observed continuing to use the area and avoid the camera.   "Hmmmm."  

 

MIB

[Huntster]

25 minutes ago, MIB said:

........Have you read up on trail cam avoidance by alpha coyotes yet?    They don't habituate to cameras, they're observed continuing to use the area and avoid the camera.........

 

The Natural Resources branch of the organization I worked with was charged with live trapping wolves in order to afix satellite tracking devices on them. That particular pack of wolves had gotten themselves in trouble eating dogs off the ends of leashes as people (trespassers, actually) walked them on post. The wolves also ate all the dogs in peoples yards in a neighborhood adjoining the post boundary in Eagle River. This Natural Resources group is an organization well experienced live trapping both black and brown bears as well as wolverines and numerous other species for various studies. They even caught beluga whales.

 

In three winters they managed to catch........0 wolves. None. Moreover, they got no cam pics, either. Think, now; these wolves had treed numerous people who watched them kill their dogs. 

 

I have no problem believing that sasquatches can avoid game cams as well as other traps.

[Arvedis]

50 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

Some of these prints are some times left on purpose  as though they wanted us to find them. 

 

They have a lot of fun with trackways. Plenty of strong examples of obvious misdirection, knowing full well they are confusing the searchers.  I recall reading how Meldrum was coaxed into going all the way to Russia for a guided tour of a cave that supposedly had a well preserved trackway. He should have asked for photos up front. The entire set of either the left or right footprints were entirely absent.

 

[James33]

56 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

How do you "know" this?   I understand you assume it, but what have you done to validate or invalidate it?   

I assume - it makes the most logical sense. 

 

Quote

Have you read up on trail cam avoidance by alpha coyotes yet?    They don't habituate to cameras, they're observed continuing to use the area and avoid the camera.   "Hmmmm."  

 

MIB

Oops - mis-read your reply.  I'll read up on this!
 

Edited November 14, 2018 by James33
mis-read the reply - sorry!

[SWWASAS]

18 hours ago, hiflier said:

Bingo! That's the ticket. As far as I can see, NONE display a longitudinal arch. Thank you for clarifying  

Below is a picture of a footprint find I made in Washington.     I had a long discussion with Meldrum about the morphology of the footprint.     Missing not only a MTB but it seemed strangely narrow for a BF footprint.      It was however pretty flat footed.    The footprint was 17.4 inches long.    Well outside the human norm.   The small print above and left of the larger one was 8 inches and dwarfed by the larger one.  When I expressed my concerns about the differences from the normal large BF print,   he looked at me,  smiled, and wryly commented,  "You know of course that female BF prints are much narrower than male prints."     Continuing that males carry so much more weight than females their feet spread out to carry the load.    Perhaps the foot morphology including MTB development is different between males and females.    I know as I aged and got heavier my foot size and width has increased.